Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Amplituhedron]

Ok, so the math seems to be too much for anyone to decipher ...

 

Or maybe no one is reading your posts.

[ralfcis]

Ok back to some real science, it's going to get hairy so everyone put on your thinking caps, or not, it won't make any difference here.

 

So I left off saying time dilation and length contraction are illusions of perspective. I also showed length contraction has nothing to do with constant c from all perspectives. So what's real if nothing seems to be based on reality in relativity. Proper time is real. This is what I'll integrate into my last few STD's. We are going to take the following STD of a stationary train and show what happens when the train is moving at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/5rnTEqSRcXfPg5r69

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DzpJBhAuxdxxF9Av5

 

The blue lines are the platform's lines of perspective simultaneity, the red are the train's lines of perspective simultaneity and the green are proper simultaneity. 

 

While perspective simultaneity can be sync'd to any start value using the reverse of Einstein's clock sync method using light signals, proper simultaneity restricts all clock readings to be identical along its green line. It's like what uncle Al tried to do with his definition of simultaneity which failed miserably once it was seen that other frames couldn't be sync'd to it. That's why there's relativity of simultaneity.

 

Using the lines of proper simultaneity to set the time values on the velocity lines is supported by the fact that when clocks are co-located, they have the same time value. When the blue stationary axis intersects the red velocity lines, both clocks have the same value as it should be (constant velocity has the same clock values at co-location). Introducing proper time fixes the time labels to only one possibility. Relativity never understood that true clock sync can only be done with co-location of clocks, not with light signals between clocks. However, I will be looking into the ability to use light signals with proper time to sync clocks at a distance. Too bad uncle Al didn't see this and came up with a really faulty method to sync clocks which resulted in a really hopeless theory.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Amp I took a look at your post. I haven't read any other recent ones because I've given up thinking you may have something intelligent to offer. You really can't follow a logical discussion from one point to the next. I don't care if the dummies on this forum, who are unable to understand anyway, read my posts. The number of views contradicts your theory. There's only 1 smart person on here and he's not engaging with me. The other sometimes smart person told me to keep going but I would do so anyway because this is the only forum that allows me to speak without getting banned. I'm writing this for myself and any dummies that want to come along I'm willing to help because I myself need to understand and explain this subject matter right down to their level. I came to this forum with unanswered questions and I no longer have any. I appreciate honest dummies but not whatever you and your sick purpose are.

Edited May 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

. The number of views contradicts your theory. 

 

The number of views does not contradict my theory. The lack of responses to your crackpottery supports my theory.

 

The number of views is simply explained: Pure amusement for the viewers, or else utter astonishment -- people unable to quit watching you ramble pointlessly on, your viewers  like rubberneckers at a 30-car pileup.

 

Anyone like you who thinks Greene's video explanation of length contraction contradicts standard relativity is daft. 

[ralfcis]

Here's the STD for a train at .8c just to ensure the math is consistent. (DSR =3 at .8c and half-speed is .5c).

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FPsGSK1CZMeDDih69

[ralfcis]

I know when you guys look at my STD's, all you see are random brightly colored lines. It's like transitioning from learning the alphabet to learning to read, words on a page would look like random collections of letters before one could recognize them as words. Math illiteracy is the same thing so I'll explain what the math is telling me here and it's a lot.

 

I think the most important question in relativity is what time is it really when comparing watches. Uncle Al came up with a very complex theory with a lot of rules and regulations on how to answer that question. The Lorentz transforms should make it easy to convert time but unless they arrive at the same answers I have in my STD, those equations are faulty (I haven't checked).  Not realizing distance is invariant would probably invalidate Lorentz transform results. 

 

1. First thing you'll notice is Einstein's clock sync method taints the results. It's ridiculous to say all clocks on a blue horizontal line of perspective simultaneity should be forced by his method to have the same clock value at every point in space along the line because distance must naturally assume time difference between the clocks i.e. it takes time to traverse a distance. So what happens if you assume uncle Al was right in his assumption that's contrary to nature? A horizontal blue line at t=0 should imply the front and back train clocks should also be zero because they co-locate with the platform's end clocks which are zero. This would mean at t=1.25, both end train clocks should be 1. But by Einstein's reasoning, all the clocks on the train's line of perspective simultaneity are also sync'd to the same value but that can't happen if you've sync'd them to the initial platform clock. It's a contradiction, another one of Al's paradoxes which he emphatically states, through his parrot minions, don't exist.

 

The only lines that naturally have the same time on their clocks from end to end are the green lines of proper simultaneity. From these lines one can construct what the time values are on the blue and red velocity axes. This is the only clock sync method that works and it looks nothing like Einstein's.

 

2. So we've basically replaced the blue and red lines of perspective simultaneity with one size fits all green lines of proper simultaneity. The old horizontal blue lines are gone, there are no endpoints to set to the same value according to Al's broken down clock sync method that totally screwed up relativity. There are only point values of time where the green lines intersect red or blue velocity axes. If you try to draw the old red lines of the train's perspective simultaneity, the lines joining the two red velocity axes would not end with the same clock values as Einstein's method dictated. You can see this on the STD where the red line of the train's perspective simultaneity goes through t=0. The two ends do not have the same time just like New York and Paris don't have the same time on their line of distance separation.

 

I know none of you know what I'm saying because this is all new thinking even for me. You're reading my words, throwing them out and substituting your own that match Einstein's and then wonder why nothing makes any sense. 

 

3. Relativity only cares about endpoints to measure how long in distance or time something is. It used Al's clock sync method to try to artificially tie the endpoints and everything between them into some coherent commonality. This led to a complete mess that parrots were taught to recite led to complete order. As I said before, if you use stopwatches to measure the length of a drag racer, the length you measure is affected by how those watches are affected by outside influences (relativity's non-simultaneous synchronization). The introduction of lines of proper simultaneity now allows the proper sync of those watches that Einstein's method did not. The clocks at the end of the train are tied together by a different method other than setting their clocks to the same time readout. The end clocks can't be treated as independent of each other (as I had said a few posts back) but they do not require the same readout to tie them together.

 

4. I also said the train's end clocks could be set to zero when the light pulse hit them. With the introduction of the lines of proper simultaneity, this is also not true. Where the light pulses that emanate from the center of the train/platform co-location intersect the train's end clocks, now have very specific values that are derived from the mathematical interplay of DSR, Y and velocity through time and the velocity through space. The math behind this gets tedious so I'll leave it for the next post. Once that's done it will be easy to show  what a travelling horizontal or vertical light clock or interferometer looks like in an STD and how length contraction has no relevance.

 

Remember: Idiots dismiss what they don't understand, intelligent people wait until they do.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Sorry, I acidentally posted these notes to myself, just ignore.

 

spacetime path rules, Al came close to seeing proper time in co-location

at a distnce

half speed persective

v = .8c, v_t = .6c, Y = 5/3, Y_t = 4/3, DSR =3

v = .6c, v_t = .8c, Y = 4/3, Y_t = 5/3, DSR =2

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Since length contraction clearly happens, what is the actual explanation for it?

 

Lorentz Contraction and the Dimensionality of Reality

[ralfcis]

Here's what the train example as light clock at .6c looks like from the light clock's perspective of itself and the platform's perspective of the moving moving light clock:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/e6WiLV68xePo7Cc4A

 

Any questions? I'll fill in the details when I have time which may not be for a while.

 

PS. Do you see any length contraction?

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Popeye, if you're waiting for me to put numbers on the last STD, here they are.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m3PLG1ue3rHhvH9B8

 

So now are you going to answer my question or not. It seems the answer to interpreting what Greene said shouldn't even require me to do all this work since what he said was pretty straight forward for anyone who knows relativity. In case anyone else out there believes the light clock's orientation makes a difference as to whether it can only be explained by time dilation one way and length contraction another as Greene's videos show, you need to understand what 3 dimensions mean first. The distance between the two mirrors are distance and whether you align the mirrors with the z-axis or the x-axis makes no difference to the ct-axis. In one example the light clock would be horizontal passing through a train station and in the other it's a rocket passing through a space station. It makes no difference dummies. The light clock you seem to want would have mirrors vibrating from side to side at c hitting a stationary light ball. You got real problems understanding what "relative motion" actually means.

 

But then, duh, you'll ask why didn't Greene tell us this when he made 2 separate videos explaining the same thing in 2 different ways. This must, duh, mean one video is for length contraction only and the other for time dilation only. Well, then, the train through the station example matches Greene's horizontal light clock example and there's no length contraction to be seen anywhere. I don't have an x'-axis in my STD. Anyone out there understand what I'm saying or will I get another quantum physics explanation on SR from Sluggo before he slithers off back into the background. Yeah, I know it's tough for the brainwashed disciples to admit the Church of Relativity is a fraud and it's much safer to keep your faith in silence protected by the freedom of religion.

 

PS. If you also can't see how the train/platform example isn't identical to the MMX interferometer, I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding people that don't even want to put in the minimal thought effort required. The answer is just like the train doesn't length contract, neither does one arm of the interferometer so shove your wiki articles.

 

PPS. And Popeye, before you address my "cranky" mood, try addressing the science for a change.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

"Cranky" isn't quite the word you're looking for. Just lop off the letter "y" and you're all set. :)

[Amplituhedron]

Been down this road before with ralf, but just to raise the point again to make him even more cranky … ;-)

 

Ralf, you have asked repeatedly why time dilation is permanent but not length contraction. I should say that this misconception of yours shows you just don’t grasp what SR is actually saying. 

 

Grasping it conceptually requires no math, though of course the math serves as a descriptive tool. In fact, though, time dilation is NOT permanent, any more than length contraction is. So you raise a nonexistent problem.

 

Time dilation isn’t permanent. When the clocks meet up again, both are ticking at the same rate!

 

What IS permanent is the lag in one of the clocks. But this lag is a record, not an ongoing phenomenon.

 

What is it a record of? According to the ground observer, it is a record of the traveler’s clock running slow (time dilation). Nonsense, says the traveler. He insists (rightly!) that his clock has always been ticking at the same rate. According to the traveler, the reason his clock ticked less than the ground observer’s clock is because he covered less distance than the ground observer estimated. And he did! That is length contraction!

 

Who is right? They are both right, from the point of view of their own frame.

 

Thus, a slowed clock is a record of BOTH time dilation (according to ground observer) AND length contraction (according to traveler). Now, invoking your sainted math, it can easily be shown, with math, that if you had time dilation WITHOUT length contraction, then the traveler would find he had arrived at his destination faster than the speed of light. Of course, this is impossible.

 

This is so obvious, to everyone except you, it seems.

[ralfcis]

Here is my STD of a rubber ball clock using the train as clock example>

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8TP3USz7PudN4znW9

 

Rubber balls are bouncing from end to end at .8c in a train 2 ly long going at .6c. This is a very exciting diagram because it screams to me there is a new relativistic velocity combo law using Yv which looks more like traditional velocity combination because Yv and Yc are not limited like v and c are. The .8c balls are bouncing in a Yv time environment of 1.25 x .6c = .75c.  Yv of .8c in this environment = 1.25 x .8 = c. Now I just need to figure out what this new Yv velocity combination equation looks like. 

[ralfcis]

Important

 

I don't know when I'll have time anymore so I'll just post this and explain it later.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dnZc3aEAVgGQYyX68

 

This is not a 3D poster but if you stare at it long enough, a deeper picture of relativity will be revealed to you. Unfortunately, for most on this forum, that time will probably exceed their lifespan. It is the Rosetta stone of relativity. It is all the examples of relativity in one STD. SR is only a 2 trick pony and this diagram shows the relationship between time dilation and proper age difference tricks. Curiously the difference is the difference between when and where the journey begins. If Bob takes off a yr after Alice (as shown by the yellow triangle), the result will be permanent age difference.  If Alice takes off a light yr away from Bob taking off at the same proper time(as shown by the blue triangle), the result will be reciprocal time dilation which is an illusion of perspective resulting in no age difference. If both happen but they started together at the same proper time (as shown in the purple triangle), the result will be cumulative time dilation and not age difference. If both happen (in the pink triangle), the result is cumulative: the time dilation adds to the total age difference.  Now time dilation can't actually be converted into age difference so I suspect the result here may just be coincidence but we'll see in further examples.

 

In short, taking off 1 yr apart results in age difference but taking off 1 ly apart only results in the illusion of perspective time dilation. There's a lot to unpack here and it will take a while to do so. As I said, a deeper picture will result and I'm not yet sure what that will be.

Edited December 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

As I showed in the Waves and relative velocity thread, light that begins simultaneously in two relatively moving frames must end simultaneously. However, in the train in the station example, light travels further in a moving train than it does from a stationary perspective. So relativity fixes this paradox by ruling rulers must contract reciprocally in each relatively moving frame. Another way to fix this problem is ruling that time is dilated reciprocally in each frame and instead of using the formula c=x/t we can use the formula Yc=x/t' where Y is derived from the relative velocity, where Yc is the speed of light of invariant distance over dilated time. 

 

So here is an STD of Alice leaving Bob at .8c where she triggers two light signals when she is 4ly out.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/VcxM5F61asw8kRma9

 

This is similar to the train in the station example but instead of triggering the light signals from the same place and time, the signals are sent from both frames at the same perspective time  from the depicted moving perspective when the two are reciprocally 4ly apart. Alice is depicted as moving and her line of simultaneity from the 4 ly mark joins her time t'=3 to Bob's time t= 1.8. Her pink light signal takes 4 Bob yrs to reach Bob at t=9 so he knows it took 5 of his yrs to travel the 4ly but only 3 of her yrs to do it. Relativity says that makes her speed 4/3 c which everyone thinks is verboten in relativity so they make up the story that from Alice's perspective she made the 4ly of empty space contract to 2.4 ly of empty space. Hmmm, how do you physically contract a vacuum? Relativity's speed limit is on v=x/t but there is no limit on x/t'. The speed of Yc in Alice's dilated time frame is 5/3c so she did not go FTL. The 4 Bob yrs it took light to return to Bob took only 2.4 Alice yrs using the invariant distance between them divided by the dilated time of her moving frame. c is still the same value from Bob's perspective of his own frame and Alice's frame using his time but he has a window into her time and why she is able to seemingly traverse longer distances in less time to keep c constant.

 

From Alice's perspective, the signal sent from Bob at t=1.8 was simultaneous to the one she sent to Bob at t'=3. Since Alice is pulling away from Bob, the light signal takes 7.2 yrs to catch her according to this depiction of their relative velocity. The Doppler shift ratio for a depicted stationary frame like Bob's is DSR=1 but for a depicted frame moving at .8c, DSR=3. 7.2/3 =2.4. The depicted time of the yellow light signal is 2.4 Alice yrs and it reaches her at t'=5.4. 5.4-2.4 =3 which confirms that Alice had travelled 3 Alice yrs when she sent her signal to Bob which took 4 Bob yrs to reach him which confirms that from his perspective it took Alice 5 of his yrs to traverse the 4 ly between them.

 

Using relativity's method of length contraction, Alice traversed 2.4  of her ly from Bob's perspective while Bob traversed 1.44 ly from her perspective. Now if you think these numbers sound crazy then you don't understand how length contraction works in relativity. My method is much better. Distance is always invariant and frames being viewed from an outside perspective use dilated time and Yv which is not limited to c. I know none of you understood a word so any questions or will it just be ignorant remarks instead?

Edited May 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I have so many loose ends from former posts I haven't tied up yet that I now believe my goal of wrapping all this up within the year is far too ambitious. There's just too much math to do.

[ralfcis]

PS. As an added bonus to my last example, the 7.2 Bob yrs it takes Bob's light to reach Alice brings him to the same age as when Alice's light reaches Bob. The same is true from Alice's perspective of the 2.4 Alice yrs it takes to reach Bob is the 2.4 Alice yrs it takes Bob's light to reach Alice. From any perspective, the light starting from a simultaneous perspective must end simultaneously which is what the train through the platform example in the other thread illustrated. 

 

Yes Einstein's perspective simultaneity is all well and good mathematically but the way proper simultaneity behaves is far more meaningful and universal to what uncle Al came up with based on the illusion of perspective.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis