Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Like I said, if we can't agree on this, there is nothing further to discuss. 

[marcospolo]

Like I said, if we can't agree on this, there is nothing further to discuss. 

My discussion is aimed at getting you to justify your beliefs about relativity.  

 

I think you can't provide any rational explanation for your beliefs.

 

Not talking about it is kinda agreeing with me and verifying my claim that there is no rational basis for SR or GR, Time Dilation etc.

 

Trying to prove your case by simply applying your beliefs invarious  examples,  is not able to EXPLAIN why anyone should agree with your beliefs.

[ralfcis]

I gave it my best shot.

[marcospolo]

I gave it my best shot.

And your best shot was not useful I'm afraid. 

You framed every statement in terms that were components of the subject being challenged.

A valid explanation for your theory can't contain elements of the same theory, It's begging the question of a circular argument or whatever its called.

"Einstein is correct because Einstein says right here that he is correct". That sort of thing.

[ralfcis]

No your arguments are circular. You're saying relativity is not correct so you can't use it to prove its correct. I'm showing if you use it correctly, your get the correct answer. You must take relativity of simultaneity into account for a spacetime path that does not start co-located, show reciprocal time dilation exists for both ship to ship and ship to earth and as the ships get closer together to the earth, the spread in the reciprocal time dilation approaches the same time value for ship to ship and ship to earth. Co-location is the point where there is no reciprocal time dilation which depends on both velocity and distance separation. When the distance goes to zero, the velocity doesn't figure in anymore. You are concluding that by not following the rules relativity stakes out to get the right answer that relativity must be wrong instead of assuming you don't know the rules and therefore your calculation is wrong. I showed assuming earth and ship times all start out at zero according to the earth line of simultaneity, it causes a problem in the reciprocal time dilation of each ship to earth. This breaks the rules of relativity and you conclude therefore relativity must be wrong.

[marcospolo]

No your arguments are circular. You're saying relativity is not correct so you can't use it to prove its correct. I'm showing if you use it correctly, your get the correct answer. You must take relativity of simultaneity into account for a spacetime path that does not start co-located, show reciprocal time dilation exists for both ship to ship and ship to earth and as the ships get closer together to the earth, the spread in the reciprocal time dilation approaches the same time value for ship to ship and ship to earth. Co-location is the point where there is no reciprocal time dilation which depends on both velocity and distance separation. When the distance goes to zero, the velocity doesn't figure in anymore. You are concluding that by not following the rules relativity stakes out to get the right answer that relativity must be wrong instead of assuming you don't know the rules and therefore your calculation is wrong. I showed assuming earth and ship times all start out at zero according to the earth line of simultaneity, it causes a problem in the reciprocal time dilation of each ship to earth. This breaks the rules of relativity and you conclude therefore relativity must be wrong.

I'm saying that Relativity is not correct because the theory is nonsensical.

You are trying to show me that if you use it "correctly" you get the answer you wanted, but its, unfortunately, a nonsensical result.

Who said that the velocity doesn't count anymore when the distances are zero?

The two ships pass close by near the position E, but are and always have been moving at the same high velocity, without accelerating or decelerating.

Point E you are taking as if its the Earth, the origin of the ships, but it's not.  Point E is only the place where the initial signal originated to start the two ships off towards each other...and must, therefore, be the location where the two chips meet, (pass close by).

 

And using Minkowski's really moronic graph chart thing is not helping one bit.

 

So, either you can explain why there is a discrepancy between the two claims of relativity for the time difference between ship A and B and the other difference in time between ship A and position E.,   using the scenario as I have described, or you just say that you have no explanation unless you are allowed to change the scenario

 

What possible reason can you come up with to justify the abortion of geometry called the Minkowski Spacetime diagram?

What rational explanation is there to use a vector that is a velocity, and pretend that its a "world line"?

What is a world line anyway? Where else do you use them outside of the Minkowski imaginary world?

Ok, so rotate the "world line" to match the moving guy's velocity vector if you want, BUT then you should also rotate his velocity of Light vector to match!

Then also rotate his distance axis so that it's at right angles to his Time/worldline vector and I can sort of see what you are doing, but it's still wrong.

 

The light vector for the stationary guy can ONLY be the same vector for the moving guy if they are both located at point zero on the Z axis.  Otherwise, the light vector for the moving guy will be located somewhere along the x-axis according to where the moving guy is located.

\Minkowski does not know the difference between a grid map of positions, and a graph showing velocity along a single distance axis, plotted over time.

 

Minkowski is a deceptive bugger.

[ralfcis]

I've noticed a lot of really ignorant people have been leaving these forums. Do you keep in contact with them? Do you know where they went? Are you planning to follow suit? Because I'd gladly go there to answer all your questions as a group so I don't endlessly repeat myself.

[marcospolo]

I've noticed a lot of really ignorant people have been leaving these forums. Do you keep in contact with them? Do you know where they went? Are you planning to follow suit? Because I'd gladly go there to answer all your questions as a group so I don't endlessly repeat myself.

I like the way that relativists suddenly stop talking about Physics, and start talking about unrelated issues when they no longer have any sensible replies.

You just decide all of a sudden to not address the issues.

Because you have no repliy that is going to seem reasonable.

There is exacly no way in hell you can justify Minkowski's irrational plot/graph messes.

And there is equally no way to explain time dilation that stands up to reason.

[sluggo]

Marcos#746;
 

In any case here are MY workings using Einstein’s Time Dilation, to show why it’s stupid.
A and B have a velocity relative to E which is 0.4 c. This means a reduction of 91.65% of moving time, for E’s time. i.e  100 minutes on A or B’s clocks will be only 91.65 minutes on E’s clock.
Relative to E, both A and B say that there is an 8.35-minute loss for the E clock compared to theirs.
BUT as we are mostly interested in looking at the relative time dilation between A and B, we can forget about E for the moment.
The relative velocity between A and B is exactly 0.8c which will result in a time dilation of 60%.
Meaning that for A who measures 100 minutes on his clock, he will claim that B’s clock only recorded 60 minutes!
So now that’s a difference of 40 minutes of lost time on B’s clock, compared to A’s clock.
BUT when we actually compared all clocks when all three players were at the same place in space and in time, (at location E) there was a calculated difference of 8.35 minutes between A and B’s clocks compared to E’s clock!  Meaning that A’s clock was IDENTICAL to B’s clock at that exact moment.
So what is it? If both A and B agree that the E’s clock has lost 8.35 minutes, then that MUST mean that A’s clock is identical to B’s at that moment. And that’s exactly what rationality indicates.
So how can it be possible that at that exact same moment, there can be a 40-minute difference between A and B clocks?
Of course, smart people will know that the 8.35-minute loss was just as much an error as the 40-minute error.
This whole scenario only works out rationally, logically and mathematically if you use classical rules of Physics and Math.
Then you get the logical result where A=E=C. As any sane person would expect.
If you are going to reply to this with some other weird logic, I ask that to keep the problem simple, by restricting the whole situation to the point of view of just ONE observer, say observer A.

 

[in the following the B path is a mirror image of the A path.
If E is a common rest frame, then the A-clock will run slower than the E-clock by a factor of .92. If the A=clock shows 100 then the E-clock shows 109.
(you have the relation of frames reversed)
The speed of B relative to A is .80/1.16 = .69c giving a clock rate of .52.*
They simply add in Newtonian physics but not in SR.
Why would you mix Newtonian and SR methods?]

*[in the graphic while A and B approach E, A sends a signal (123) to B for a distance measurement. Event 3 is horizontally transferred to the vertical At time scale. The distance is d. The 2nd distance is 0 when A and B meet. The speed of B relative to A is line (1-5)/ line (1-4) = .69c. This geometric method is in agreement with the SR composition of velocities.]

[Your example shows you don't understand SR, and want to remain in the Newtonian/Galilean world of absolute concepts. Good luck with that.]

[marcospolo]

Marcos#746;

 

[in the following the B path is a mirror image of the A path.

If E is a common rest frame, then the A-clock will run slower than the E-clock by a factor of .92. If the A=clock shows 100 then the E-clock shows 109.

(you have the relation of frames reversed)

The speed of B relative to A is .80/1.16 = .69c giving a clock rate of .52.*

They simply add in Newtonian physics but not in SR.

Why would you mix Newtonian and SR methods?]

 

*[in the graphic while A and B approach E, A sends a signal (123) to B for a distance measurement. Event 3 is horizontally transferred to the vertical At time scale. The distance is d. The 2nd distance is 0 when A and B meet. The speed of B relative to A is line (1-5)/ line (1-4) = .69c. This geometric method is in agreement with the SR composition of velocities.]

 

[Your example shows you don't understand SR, and want to remain in the Newtonian/Galilean world of absolute concepts. Good luck with that.]

marcos tringl.jpg

I know how you can get this result.  I see what you are doing.   But its rubbish.

Before you can use Minkowski diagrams, you have to prove that they mean something related to physics.  They are just foolish abortions of geometry, nothing more. You cant explain WHY anyone in their right mind should change a velocity vector into a "world line" and then you have no rational excuse to claim that this new Time axis should be mirrored about the 45-degree velocity vector of light.

 

And since the Minkowski diagram is based on SR, it can't be used to prove SR.  It may be used once one accepts the hypothesis of SR as a way to explain the twisted logic.

 

So I repeat, its no point in using math of geometry to derive your results, before you can explain how he concept can be anything but irrational posturings.

 

What is the reason for having two calculations for the velocity of the one spaceship relative to the other one?  

Rational logical thought says that once you know the speed of A and B then there can be no further knowledge to be had about this scenario.

 

What you are saying is a direct contradiction, one object has two velocities.  It CANT.

Explain the logic behind your claim, then if its sound, we can look at how you come up with the exact numbers. Using Minkowski diagram if you want, but only after you explain why that horrible crap could be possible.

 

Or use your Lorentz contraction equations, but once again you need to demonstrate that the equation is based on sound logic. It isn't.

 

So first up, before you say anything else, explain how it's possible for one object to possess two different speeds.

 

We only have 3 objects here. 2 ships, and one tree (E)  we know the locations of all three objects, and the speeds of the two ships relative to the tree, therefore by deductive reasoning, we know the speed of the two ships relative to each other. 

 

So go ahead, explain why this it wrong, and the ships possess two speeds.

 

I'm looking at these three objects from a reference place that places the tree as a non-moving object, as are the occupants of the shipos, they also use the tree as their reference for velocity.

 

Now please proceed with your explanation.  You cant use any math or weird diagrams based on your explanation until we can see that your explanation is rational and logical.  Graphs and math don't EXPLAIN how it works, they just allow you to come up with working examples based on your hypothesis, so they are NOT necessary to use in an explanation of the Hypothesis.

 

Einstein in his 1905 paper attempted to hypothesize that a single pulse of light would do two different things if seen from two different vantage points. He then used math to provide working examples.

But trouble is, his hypothesis about the two things light would do at the same time, was totally flawed. Its an irrational and impossible claim.

So to be clear, I need you to only explain one thing.

How it's possible to have two have the ships going at two different speeds when we are observing the whole scenario as a single process.

We are not hopping between reference frames, we are watching all three objects and it's  IMPOSSIBLE that a ship can have two different velocities.  If something is IMPOSSIBLE, its IMPOSSIBLE in another frame of reference too.

[sluggo]

I know how you can get this result.  I see what you are doing.   But its rubbish.

 

 

 

Then there is no answer acceptable to you.

[marcospolo]

Then there is no answer acceptable to you.

I do fully accept RATIONAL answers, based on sound logic.   The spacetime diagram is just distorting the facts by incorrectly creatioing relationships that were never explained rationally in the first instance.  You cant justify the way that a STD is generated or explain why we are reading it that way we do.  

 

I cant accept explanations as to HOW SR time dilation works,, that involve the inteprettion of such a dubious mechanism as the STD.

 

If you are going to explain how the many obvious errors in SR are not in fact errors at all. then you need to come up with something better than the STD.

[ralfcis]

I've been wasting my time on other threads so I need to return to churning out the math here to complete this thread. I've found my math already exists

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-using-bondi-k-calculus/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

 

and will one day have to familiarize myself with what Bondi has to say.

Edited June 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I've learned so much about relativity answering questions from the most unintelligent, ignorant and wilfully ignorant people on this forum than from any parrot or know-it-almost I've ever encountered. The mathematical answer to Marco's question really gave me an insight into the nature of time that none of the navel gazing  philosophers on the "light speed, are we talking relativity" thread could ever understand.

 

The nature of time employs a limited speed of light to preserve the order and conservation of information (causality). Time and c are inextricably intertwined but if c were any other value we would not notice any difference in our normal rate because we would have nothing to compare it to.  I know, c through time seems a lot slower than c through space and that’s confusing.

 

 As I learned in my answer to marcospolo, the mathematics is beautifully simple to ensure when things start apart and come together there is no permanent time difference at the end but is instead forced at the start. Conversely, when things start together and end apart, there is no permanent non-reciprocal time difference at either end unless one makes a velocity change. Then things get complicated to understand.

 

 Basically the math kicks in to preserve the conservation of information by creating a permanent time difference between the two frames while hiding it in the background under the doppler shift ratio so neither frame sees that the one making the change has gone many times the speed of light through time until the information that a change has been made reaches the other party. All this is accomplished without any anomaly or blip between the delay of information, the reciprocal time dilation or the apparent reciprocal doppler shift ratio. Everything works like clockwork or like fast forwarding your show during a bathroom break to catch up with the show in real time. 

 

  What's more interesting is that while relativity says you can't tell you're moving without acceleration, this goes one step further in that you can't tell you're moving through time at any speed other than c (the normal rate through time) even though after you make the velocity change you are. The change of your rate through time from anyone's perspective is not detectable until after the delay of the information of a change reaches the other party. All this ensures the gap in continuous information flow after a change in velocity is never detected because no time is given to the gap.

 

  That is the nature of time as defined by the facts and math of relativity (not Einstein's theory though). I've already gone over the math in detail but if you're  math illiterate, you'd have no way of seeing this. Correct math is the only answer that counts, not dogma.

Edited June 25, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok, I don't know where to start so I'll start with the first rule of relativity: Everyone knows there are no paradoxes in relativity. I, on the other hand, see nothing but paradoxes and circular reasoning in Einstein's theory but do agree there are no paradoxes in the facts of relativity outside his theory. There are 4 conflicting causes of the paradoxes in his theory:

 

1. His primary spacetime path rule dictates valid spacetime paths can only start and end with co-location. Scenarios which do not follow this rule are indeterminate because of rule 2.

2. All perspective realities are equally valid. Hence separated endpoints of a spacetime path result in an infinite number of perspective realities which makes the end result universally indeterminate. He decided separated startpoints would similarly be indeterminate. However, by definition, co-located spacetime path ends must make the result determinate regardless of the separation of start points. I see no problem in working back from the end and using the rules of reciprocal time dilation and relativity of simultaneity to establish valid startpoints but he said no because of rule 3.

3. A paradox would arise because the start points would have no universally agreed upon times so how could they possibly end with the same universally agreed upon time which they must because the spacetime path would not have included a frame jump (eg. acceleration). (A frame jump in the spacetime path must end in permanent time difference upon co-location.)

4. There is no instantaneous universal proper reality and the only example of this in his mind was the Newtonian definition of time where sync'd clocks always agree under any circumstances; another dumb assumption. The cproper reality I've defined, which is based on the universality of the proper time rate within each frame, allows separated spacetime path endpoints the same universal determinacy as co-located ones. Hence, no need for any of Einstein's rules.

 

And round and round we go. He had so many flaws in his leaky bucket theory that he declared the bucket can only be filled below the leaks and any scenarios which contradicted his flawed rules were deemed unsolvable. The solution to all these problems is proper time as I've defined it and I'll show how with a few examples. 

 

PS. As I've shown in my last post, relativity goes to great lengths to preserve causality. If c wasn't limited, the Newtonian reality would not have causality. So for Einstein to say it's impossible to determine which separated events happen first regardless of perspective is a denial of a universe based on causality. Please don't start posting fringe articles on the lack of causality in quantum physics because there are a lot of liars out there with academic credentials trying to make a buck out of sensationalizing science.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

If you consider Minkowski spacetime, every spacetime event is designated by four coordinates: three of space and one of time.

 

With respect to space, no one has any problem with the idea that “here” is an indexical — i.e., a point of view. “Here” is where I am. But I acknowledge that there are other “heres”, it is just that, from my point of view, I call them “theres.”

 

If Minkowski spacetime is real, as opposed to a mathematical model, then what is true for space, must be true for time as well. What I call “now” is when I happen to find myself. But, just as with space, I can acknowledge that there are other extant “nows” relative to me, only I call them “earlier” and “later.”

 

If we return to Einstein’s original relativistic train though experiment, it seems we have powerful evidence that the future must exist, relative to our own present. The rider on the train sees the lightning flash first at the front of the train, but sometime later, in his/her own future, sees the lightning flash at the back of the train. Meanwhile, the observer on the ground has seen both flashes simultaneously.

 

What are we to conclude? Although the rider on the train doesn’t it know it yet, he/she is guaranteed, sometime later, to see a lightning flash at the back of the train. The conclusion seems inescapable: The future is not open. It is just as fixed as the past.

 

Yes this is exactly what relativists believe. There can be no shared instantaneous present between two frames in relative motion separated by a distance so depending on whether the frames are converging or separating, their lines of present can only include the future or past of the other frame. They interpret that to mean a past included in their line of present must be in their present also and a future that hasn't happened yet in the other frame is already set in stone in the observing frame's present and must eventually inescapably happen in the observed frame. Of course this idea supports that time is just another space dimension and there is no temporal direction or progression. Einstein himself confirmed this idea when he told his dead friend's widow that his friend was presently still alive in another perspective of reality. Sorry folks, if you're a relativist you have no option but to accept this notion as the whole theory is based on this magical interpretation.

 

Let's go back to my train example to understand whether Einstein should be retroactively committed to a mental institution. Here's a simplified STD of a train speeding through a station at .6c. When the middle of the train hits a switch on the middle of the platform, a light is switched on. That is event 1. Event 2 is when the light hits the back of the train and event 3 when it reaches the front. Depending on what perspective you choose, each of these events will have different times.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Cqcv33DGP1coHCKf6

 

Now I went to great lengths in a previous post to show that there is only one possible way the train and platform clocks relate to each other. It involves ensuring that the front and back of the train each have reciprocal time dilation with the platform. That's the only rule needed. Not Einstein's crazy gaggle of conflicting fudge factors. This rule is illustrated in the STD with the thin red and green lines circled with thin green circles. What's really great is that the thick green lines of causal simultaneity fit right in joining the same proper time across all clocks.

 

So what are the times on the clocks for each event when the times are properly labelled following the one simple rule?

 

Event 1, the light starts propagating. Clocks: train rear = .333, train front = -.333 and platform = 0.

Event 2, the light hits the train rear. Clocks: train rear = .833,  and platform = .625.

Event 3, the light hits the train front. Clocks: train front = 1.67,  and platform = 2.5.

 

So what do these numbers mean? According to the clock from the platform's perspective, it's clock sees the light hit the train rear at t = .625 but according to the clock from the train rear's perspective, it's clock sees the light hit the train rear at t'= .833. But does this mean the people on the platform see into the train rear's future and see the light hit the train rear before the train rear sees it? Absolutely not. The proof is in the thick green lines of proper simultaneity which also happen to be from a half speed ( 1/3c) perspective. Those green times both agree that the platform and the train rear clocks registered the light hit the train rear at the same time t=.833. You can't compare times from 2 different perspectives and say one is seeing into the future of the other just because it reads a lesser time than the other.

 

You'll also notice the thick red line of perspective simultaneity from the train rear overlaps the one from the train front meaning that from either end of the train the pink and yellow light lines hit both ends simultaneously from inside the train's perspective. But does that mean because from the platform's perspective the pink line hits much sooner than the yellow that now the train's perspective is seeing into the platform's future? Absolutely not. In fact only from the train's inside perspective are the light strikes simultaneous but they are not from the green c line of proper simultaneity from the half speed perspective nor from the platform's perspective. In proper time, Event 1 happens at t=0, event 2 at t'=.833, t=.625 and event 3 at t'= 1.67, t= 2.5. In proper time you need to wait for event 3 to actually happen before you can claim that from inside the train's perspective the light hits both ends simultaneously even though the train rear clock reads t'=.833 and the train front's clock reads t'=1.67. It's not the clock readings that determine perspective simultaneity, it's the lines of perspective simultaneity that do. There is no crystal ball gazing into the past or future and the causes of the events follow a causal time order that the perspectives don't need to follow. Things that actually happen later can be perceived to happen simultaneously. This illusion of perspective is what Einstein labelled as reality instead of labelling the hidden cause of those perspectives as reality which is instantaneous causal proper time.

 

I realize this is all gibberish to all of you but one day someone intelligent will stumble across this thread and with a lot of reason and hard work will be able to realize what I`m saying is correct and that uncle Al was indeed batshit crazy and built reality on a foundation of perspective illusion.

 

I will supply more examples.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

You have no Physical reason to assume a 4-dimensional "spacetime' in the first place, so STD's are just so much meaningless scribble, a graph plot FUBAR effort.

Someone needs to address the claim that there even could exist such a thing as spacetime prior to trying to explain the nonsensical world that is the consequence of such a concept.

There is not only no empirical evidence for spacetime, but also no rational explanation for one existing. The concept of combining a measuring system with a man-made invention of a way of monitoring relative motion by observations of cyclic motions, called timekeeping, is a nonsensical marriage, and can't be considered as belonging to the study of Physics. Whereas Time as a tool used in Physics is essential, as is the use of agreed measuring systems, but the fantasy of some entity called "spacetime" is impossible to even explain rationally.

It's primarily a belief system that one has to accept by faith.

If spacetime is just a fantasy, then so too is your STD's and time dilations or aging differences you think you have discovered.