Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Amplituhedron]

My explanation of what, troll?

 

Also, why "never mind Norton"? Why don't you just admit you never emailed him, or, if you did, he never responded. You lied and said he emailed you back and admitted he couldn't explain the very thing he explained perfectly in his article!  :lol:

 

Hey, you know what, troll? I think I'll email Norton about this!

[marcospolo]

My explanation of what, troll?

 

Also, why "never mind Norton"? Why don't you just admit you never emailed him, or, if you did, he never responded. You lied and said he emailed you back and admitted he couldn't explain the very thing he explained perfectly in his article!  :lol:

 

Hey, you know what, troll? I think I'll email Norton about this!

Your an idiot, but i'll reply anyway, others are reading. Whats this endless troll talk? You guess something so its then a fact eh?

 

I want to hear your explanation of how a light clock could possibly function. That would be interesting to begin with.

Then you could go on to explain how in the one inertial frame of reference, two initially synchronized clocks could ever maintain synchronicity when they are both different lengths?

 

I'll not attach my correspondence between Mr Norton and myself, as it was not addressed to everyone.

 

But you are free to email him, and ask that same questions I did, see for yourself what caliber of reply you get. In fact why don't we all in the forum write to Norton about this?

Ill let you know if he responds to my last email, where I take more time to explain exactly what the issue is, as it seems he may have misunderstand first time.

[ralfcis]

Sorry to be taking so long but I need more time for my math proof. In the meantime here is a link from Brian Greene explaining how length contraction is not real, not due to any force compressing atomic spaces but is due to the relativity of simultaneity. It's all about time, length contraction has never been about space.

 

https://youtu.be/sk7e2euZ7uI

 

Most (probably all) of you will remain in denial even after seeing this because it pretty much goes against every popular article on length contraction. Math skills will enable you to determine for yourselves who to believe but even if you go through Greene's examples, he really downplays the non-existence of length contraction except for this one candid moment of confession. A long pole can't fit into a shorter barn because it shrinks. It fits because the barn doors open and close at different simultaneity allowing the front of the pole to be outside the barn when the barn says the front and back of the pole are inside the barn simultaneously. Relativity of simultaneity is a form of time dilation formula, not length contraction. Even when I prove every example can be solved using only time dilation, you'll still believe the theory of relativity can't exist without the reality of length contraction because Einstein and everybody says so. Such is the nature of brainwashing and blind beliefs.

Edited May 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

My post #701 is an open challenge to anyone who has an answer to the proposed problems. Not just to Amplituhedron.

Repeated here:

" I want to hear your explanation of how a light clock could possibly function. That would be interesting to begin with.

Then you could go on to explain how in the one inertial frame of reference, two initially synchronized clocks could ever maintain synchronicity when they are both different lengths?"

 

A light clock is an impossibility, cannot possibly function. but thats OK, its a thought experiment anyway.

 

But in the thought experiment, some logic needs to still be present.

 

So we have two light clocks in one moving frame, both are different lengths (one is horizontal, so has shrunk because length contraction) 

 

We are observing all this from the "stationary" frame.

 

We note Length Contraction and Time Dilation, but now the two differing length clocks MUST still maintain their synchronicity, as they are both is the same inertial frame, therefore experiencing the exact same time dilation. But if they get out of sync, (due to the different lengths, and given that light MUST always go at the same speed, the Einstein has a problem.

 

 Anyone care to solve this?

[marcospolo]

Sorry to be taking so long but I need more time for my math proof. In the meantime here is a link from Brian Greene explaining how length contraction is not real, not due to any force compressing atomic spaces but is due to the relativity of simultaneity. It's all about time, length contraction has never been about space.

 

https://youtu.be/sk7e2euZ7uI

 

Most (probably all) of you will remain in denial even after seeing this because it pretty much goes against every popular article on length contraction. Math skills will enable you to determine for yourselves who to believe but even if you go through Greene's examples, he really downplays the non-existence of length contraction except for this one candid moment of confession. A long pole can't fit into a shorter barn because it shrinks. It fits because the barn doors open and close at different simultaneity allowing the front of the pole to be outside the barn when the barn says the front and back of the pole are inside the barn simultaneously. Relativity of simultaneity is a form of time dilation formula, not length contraction. Even when I prove every example can be solved using only time dilation, you'll still believe the theory of relativity can't exist without the reality of length contraction because Einstein and everybody says so. Such is the nature of brainwashing and blind beliefs.

Talk about brainwashing!   A while back, anyone caught saying that Mass does not increase with speed was instantly labeled a quack, and kicked out of the Uni. Now its OK, cause Einstein when said "Mass Increase", he did not really mean "Mass", he meant "mass" of some other flavor. Like its weight in Energy, but he just forgot to mention it, ever.

 

Last week anyone caught saying that Length Contraction was not a real thing, was kicked out of the Uni and labeled a heretic and a quack.

But today, thanks to Brian Greene, it now cool.  Funny how these "set in stone" core fundamental principals of Relativity can morph when people outside the UNI start asking too many questions.....

 

No, Einstein did not really mean Length was going to "contract", like actually shrink!, no, that would be stupid, he really was just speaking metaphorically.

 

Now I'm just siting here waiting for the inevitable day when you Uni students realize that "Time Dilation" is also a just figment of an over worked Patent Office Clerk's mind. (or a clerk who had way too much time to kill)

 

Of the three, Time Dilation is the very most crazy concept, it should have been the first to go. Why? because Time is but a concept, and its not easy to shrink concepts.

 

Its also very hard to explain how a concept can be a fourth dimension. Impossible actually.

About as difficult as imagining how the nothingness between objects can be bent and curved.

 

Uni students have been sold a pup. and brainwashing rules there.

[ralfcis]

Marco I know you've responded to my post but I won't be reading your responses. I've put most of this forum on ignore. I'm not interested in debating the truth or converting anyone to the truth, just in presenting the truth. I've learned in my math exploration that every example of relativity boils down to just one example, does one arm of the inferometer physically shrink during the MMX to explain how the speed of light is kept constant by a combination of length contraction and time dilation. Since length contraction doesn't physically exist, the main support leg for the theory of relativity doesn't exist. 

 

Now, when I present the math for the MMX, the light clock in horizontal or vertical orientation, the muon experiment, the train in the station, the pole in the barn, any of these should be equally provable using bouncing rubber balls at any speed other than c. So far I'm having trouble working out the math for that and hence the delay in rolling out the math (not that it will make any difference to anyone here since no one seems to understand basic algebra).

[marcospolo]

Marco I know you've responded to my post but I won't be reading your responses. I've put most of this forum on ignore. I'm not interested in debating the truth or converting anyone to the truth, just in presenting the truth. I've learned in my math exploration that every example of relativity boils down to just one example, does one arm of the inferometer physically shrink during the MMX to explain how the speed of light is kept constant by a combination of length contraction and time dilation. Since length contraction doesn't physically exist, the main support leg for the theory of relativity doesn't exist. 

 

Now, when I present the math for the MMX, the light clock in horizontal or vertical orientation, the muon experiment, the train in the station, the pole in the barn, any of these should be equally provable using bouncing rubber balls at any speed other than c. So far I'm having trouble working out the math for that and hence the delay in rolling out the math (not that it will make any difference to anyone here since no one seems to understand basic algebra).

I distrust people who rely on Math to explain their ideas. Math is able to support any idea if you juggle it around for long enough. But a clear concise written description of what you have in mind will either be rational and logical or not. Good sound math has often been employed by proponents of totally conflicting theories, but they both cant be correct, but they both can be wrong.

 

So as length contraction is a no no in your book that means logically that time dilation is also dead, as the two go hand in hand, inseparable to the death.

 Forget the math, it will PROVE absolutely nothing, irrespective of  your fondness for it.

 

What did you want to prove with rubber balls? what is the theory you think is worth explaining that is not Special Relativity, as you don't believe in that in any way, right?

 

I'm game to listen to anyone's ideas, but I could care less about the Math, I'm interested in Physics, not numbers crunching.  There is no essential correlation.

 

Edit, I see you do believe in Time Dilation, so start with why? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? What has happened to make you think that such a thing could possibly exist?

Edited May 5, 2019 by marcospolo

[OceanBreeze]

Now, when I present the math for the MMX, the light clock in horizontal or vertical orientation, the muon experiment, the train in the station, the pole in the barn, any of these should be equally provable using bouncing rubber balls at any speed other than c. So far I'm having trouble working out the math for that and hence the delay in rolling out the math (not that it will make any difference to anyone here since no one seems to understand basic algebra).

 

 

Ralf, I haven't been participating much in this thread, but I am not ignoring it.

 

When you finally roll out your math showing there is no length contraction in the MMX, I will be interested in seeing that

 

I can handle the algebra (and calculus plus more advanced math) so I will understand it, but will most likely not agree since I have worked out why there is length contraction in MMX, a long time ago.

 

Anyway, keep on plugging away!

[ralfcis]

I'm now glad people forced me to do it because it really goes deep into the heart of relativity. But didn't Greene's video convince you? I mean this is one of the high priests of the religion renouncing the religion. I'd be interested in how someone could interpret it differently.

[OceanBreeze]

I will wait for your math and then respond.

[marcospolo]

I've just discovered exactly how the Scientific Method really works!

 

Some ignorant twit poses a question that presents a problem for the status quo,  no one can overcome the problem, so the correct course of action is to ignore and hope that the question gets lost in the paperwork.

 

Shiploads of Math will create enough paperwork, so shut-up and calculate!

This is science.

[Amplituhedron]

 But didn't Greene's video convince you? I mean this is one of the high priests of the religion renouncing the religion. I'd be interested in how someone could interpret it differently.

 

Greene’s short video is a precise statement of length contraction in relativity — not renouncing it at all, but explaining it!

 

If simultaneity is relative, as it must be if c is constant, then different observers in constant uniform motion must disagree on duration and length. As Greene succinctly notes, agreeing on the length of an object depends on universal agreement on simultaneity, which does not exist under relativity!

 

Your persistent confusion seems to be in imagining that space and time are universal after all -- that proper time and length are the real times and lengths, independent of frame. Of course this is exactly what relativity shows is impossible. 

[ralfcis]

Ok here is the framework on which the math will be based. Back in post #185 I showed the STD of the train in the station problem as a relativist would solve it using length contraction for the train speeding through a station of the same length once the train was contracted from the station's perspective. As a joke, let's assume length contraction is real so it should be easy for those on this forum to tell me the length of the train at rest wrt the platform it will pass through. Remember the train at .6c  will length contract to the same length as the platform (2 ly). Y=1.25 at .6c. If you said the rest length of the train is 2.5 ly you'd be dead wrong like most of the relativists on this planet who have no idea what length contraction means. The correct answer is the train at rest is 3.125 ly long according to this STD:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/geBxcDaTyKaScCAf7

 

From the platform's perspective of a train 3.125 ly long at rest is 2.5 ly long at .6c. This is length dilation (the blue line), not length contraction (the red line). There is no such term as length dilation in relativity but it is similar to time dilation.  Length contraction is dilated train's length at speed of the dilated train's rest length. This is explained nowhere else and you'll only see it implied when solving length contraction problems. It's not important to the rest of the discussion if you agree or not.

 

Here is how a relativist who believes in length contraction would solve this problem:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TRECMsxuUfLAg4z27

 

 

Reading the diagram from the bottom up, the front of the train makes first contact when the platform time in blue is -3.33 and the train's clock is -3.43. How do we know this? We don't. We fill in this time from post processing when the middle of the train hit's the middle of the platform and releases a sphere of light. that syncs the train's clock to the platform's clock. Now uncle Al has decreed his clock sync method has set the same time from one end of the train to the other and all along the platform. There is absolutely no need to do this to arrive at the correct answer but let's assume Al is right and make an *** of you and he as Amp once drearily pointed out.

 

As the diagram shows, both ends of the length contracted train must fit simultaneously, from the train's perspective into the platform.  at t=0. This is not what length contraction is supposed to mean but let's assume it does mean that. The light travels .625 yrs from the platform's perspective to hit the rear of the train when the train's clock hits 1.268. .625 platform years equals .5 train years, 1.268 - .5 = .768 so according to the pink light signal, when the platform time was 0, the train time was .768.

 

The yellow light signal has to chase the front of the train that is speeding away from it so it takes longer to catch up. It'll take 2.5 platform yrs to catch up which is 2 train yrs. The front clock's 0 was already set and the light hits it at 1.232 train time. The light signal started at -.768 train time for a total of 2 yrs train time for the light to travel. Everything checks out

 

Relativity uses stop watches to measure length. It depends on accurate clocks, time dilation affecting the tick rate and proper syncing of the clocks.Relativistic effects on time will desync the clocks and make them run slower and we can simulate this with defective timepieces. If we used relativity's method to determine the length of a dragster on a quarter mile track with defective timepieces, we could measure the length of the dragster from front to back as anything from a quarter mile long to inches long depending on how we  affected the time pieces. Relativity only cares about measuring the distance between the endpoints and anyone who claims the physical length of the dragster changes due to GR space contraction (006) or electron orbit time dilation (Sluggo) or pancaking quarks within a proton (Feynman) completely misses the point that length contraction is only about relativity of simultaneity which is an effect on time only.

 

Here is how I would solve the problem without using any length contraction. Notice the train and the platform are drawn the same 2ly length.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/REPLCmQW5MFSijeV6

 

I don't require the entire platform or the entire train to have the same time from one end to the other. The lines of simultaneity require no physical correlation to the length of the train in order to keep the ends of the train synced to the same time. The pink light will hit the backend of the train at the same time as before  and so will the yellow signal hit the front of the train as before without any physical connection between the front and back. This is the exact same idea as measuring the length of a moving dragster with defective clocks.Only the times at the end of the dragster change, not its physical length.

 

Hell, I don't even need to follow any of uncle Al's rules to solve this problem. I can just sync the clocks on the fly and put any numbers I want. I can set the train clocks to 0 when they get the light signal and everything still works out the same without any length contraction.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9AEgysphf1v4ziLGA

 

This is the math framework I'll base my further disproofs of length contraction for subsequent examples.

 

PS. In case anyone is confused, these STD's show that from the train's perspective, the light hits both ends of the train simultaneously (i.e. the clocks at both ends have the same reading). But from the platform's perspective, the light hits the back end of the train first (at train time t'=.5) and the front of the train 1.5 train time yrs later. If you want the answer in platform yrs from the platform's perspective multiply the train time by 1.25 (t=.625 to t = 2.5).

Edited May 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Just as I had drawn the STD for what defines length contraction, I have a similar one for time contraction:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/5KBbkH6izGnDk69Q7

 

Of course there is no term for time contraction in relativity. Time contraction comes under many different names. It is time dilation from the train's depicted moving perspective. It is the dilated time of the train's dilated time from the platform's perspective. It is the line of simultaneity which is also the train's length dilation line from the platform's perspective or, in other words, the x' axis. 

 

Yes, all this is confusing but what's even more confusing is all of it is illusion due to perspective. Uncle Al based his entire theory on illusion and called it reality and everyone just nodded their heads in agreement. Time dilation and length contraction are just mathematical constructs, they can't be measured in real time like the Doppler shift ratio can. Time dilation at least has some real world applications while length contraction has none.

 

More later

[ralfcis]

As a side note, I hope you guys are finally able to understand why the speed of light is able to remain constant from all perspectives without the need for length contraction to counterbalance time dilation. The light hits simultaneously the ends of the train from the train's perspective but not from the platform's perspective. The light speed remains constant because it travels a further distance, therefore takes more time from the platform's perspective to reach the front end of the train than it does the back end; the ratio of distance/time is maintained.  The train's time is dilated from the platform's perspective but that doesn't require the train's length to be contracted in order to maintain c. From the train's perspective, light travels an equal distance over an equal time from the middle to both ends. From the platform's perspective of the train's time, light hits the ends of the train at the same train time. So from any perspective c is c and it has nothing to do with a requirement for length contraction to make it so.

Edited May 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok, so the math seems to be too much for anyone to decipher so let's go off road a bit. If a 4yr old was looking at my STD, she'd ask why is the yellow line longer than the pink line. The people in the choo-choo see the light travel from the center at 1ly per yr in both directions so how can the people on the platform see the light travel 2.5ly per 2.5 yrs from the center to the front of the train and only .625 ly per .625 yr to the back of the train. (Please notice c is constant from all perspectives without any of Einstein's wizardry.) The answer, little girl, is the time on the train is dilated from the platform's perspective. Just like the train's velocity can be expressed in v=x/t or v'=Yv=x/t' if t' is the train's dilated time, so can the light's velocity be expressed within the train's frame from the platform's perspective as c'=Yc where Y=1.25 at .6c. Within the train's frame from the train's perspective Y=1 so c'=c and v'=v=0 because the train is stationary from its own perspective.

 

But the youngster would respond, "but time dilation is the same for both perspectives so there's still an inequality in light travel time and distance travelled between the two halves from the platform's perspective that the people in the train don't experience." Wow, I'd say, you're much smarter than anyone I've met on a physics forum. The answer is incomprehensible to anyone else listening in. Relative velocity has 3 problems:

 

1. it can't be depicted on an STD,

2. the doppler shift ratio, not time dilation, is directly related to relative velocity and

3. relative velocity depends on direction and a change in sign results in an inverse of DSR. So the pink line going backward would have a DSR =2 while the one going forward would have a DSR= .5.

 

The depicted length of the yellow line =2.5 but it's relative velocity length, if that could be drawn, is multiplied by the DSR to equal 1.25 and dividing by Y would equal 1 from the platform's perspective. The depicted length of the pink line is .625 but multiplied by its DSR=2  is also 1.25 or 1 when divided by Y. So you see, with a little math and STD understanding, both lengths are the same from the platform's perspective and the train's. Of course I've spent a lot of time previously proving why this is so and since no one understood that, they won't understand this.

 

PS. If you're having trouble with the concept of Yv and Yc, it is the distance travelled (invariant from any perspective) in perspective time. So if Alice takes off from Earth at .8c and travels 1 ly, using earth's perspective of her dilated time where Y = 5/3 at .8c, her Yv = 4/3 c. But she is not covering that distance faster than light would because light's Yc using earth's perspective of that frame's dilated time is 5/3c. Yv or Yc can't be seen from any perspective but can be calculated when Alice sees she has travelled 1 ly in only 3/4 yr of her time from earth's perspective. Light has travelled that same distance in 3/5 yr of her time from earth's perspective. Length contraction was brought in to try to explain why Alice isn't really travelling faster than c but there's no need for that as Yv is not the same thing as v. Only v is required to remain below c. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok, try this, no confusing numbers this time. Time dilation from the train's perspective is the same as lines of simultaneity from the train's perspective which are also the same as the train's length contracted x' axis from the platform's perspective. So why would anyone think there is some magical physical significance to one name where that magic doesn't exist in the other names of the exact same mathematical construct. Why can no one here see that all those Wiki articles claiming certain physical phenomena can have no other possible explanation to them other than length contraction are all frauds? Why can no one here see that when wiki uses the phrase, "no other possible explanation" that the article is science fraud (like everything not understood can be explained by dark matter, climate change or the many world's theory). Really, I think Victor is right, you should all get MAGA baseball caps because nothing signals intelligence to everyone like a baseball cap.

Edited May 10, 2019 by ralfcis