Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Marco I hope no one is confusing us because to the untrained eye I sound just like you. The difference is you have nothing to support your inconsequential ravings. However, keep asking the big questions because they do make me think.

Edited June 29, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Marco I hope no one is confusing us because to the untrained eye I sound just like you. The difference is you have nothing to support your inconsequential ravings. However, keep asking the big questions because they do make me think.

well, keep thinking about my question, and when you have a rational way to explain how time can be a part of space as claimed the spacetime fantasy, do post it here.

Your whole reason for existence is encapsulated in this claim, (your theories depend in it) so your explanation needs to be rock solid.  Or you could just stop, take a deep breath and realise that spacetime is a fable, and Newton had Physics fairly correct, no need for inventions of wacky time differences etc.

 

I'll wait patiently for the answer.

Edited June 29, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

I forgot to re-iterate a very important point of my last example. If the times of the events from different perspectives don't reflect the facts of perspective simultaneity, what do they mean? Event 2, from the causal time perspective says the pink light hits the back of the train simultaneously from the train or platform perspective even though the platform says it happened at .625 its time and the train says it happened .833 its time. The light, from the platform perspective, has much less distance to travel because the train rear is moving towards the light source. Inside the train, the train is not moving relative to the light source so the light has an entire half train length to travel. But it's the same light so somehow either the distance the light has to travel inside the train from the platform's perspective must contract OR the time must dilate to give the light more time to travel that greater distance and maintain the same speed of light inside and outside the train.

 

 Let's follow the math and see what happened. From the platform's perspective, the train rear has moved .375 ly closer to the light source so the light only has .625 ly to travel to hit the back of the train in .625 yrs platform time. .625ly/.625yrs = c so that checks out. Inside the train that same light signal has to travel 1 ly. It does so in .833 - .333 = .5yrs train time which is .625 yrs platform time. The time inside the train is dilated from the platform's perspective to give it more time to travel the greater distance. But 1ly/.625yrs is still greater than c. Hmm this is the wrong answer and even if I introduce length contraction the answer is still wrong.

 

At this point after staring at the math for 2 days I realize that the explanation is far more complicated than I had thought up until now. It's not just a simple matter of time dilation or length contraction or a combination of both to explain how long it takes to hit the train rear from the platform perspective and how it can hit the train rear simultaneously in a different amount of time from the train perspective. I'll explain tomorrow but with the new (old) rule I've introduced that clocks engaged in constant velocity must have the same time readout at the moment they meet has made all my previous explanations not quite correct. 

 

This is where I start seeing the light.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

I forgot to re-iterate a very important point of my last example. If the times of the events from different perspectives don't reflect the facts of perspective simultaneity, what do they mean? Event 2, from the causal time perspective says the pink light hits the back of the train simultaneously from the train or platform perspective even though the platform says it happened at .625 its time and the train says it happened .833 its time. The light, from the platform perspective, has much less distance to travel because the train rear is moving towards the light source. Inside the train, the train is not moving relative to the light source so the light has an entire half train length to travel. But it's the same light so somehow either the distance the light has to travel inside the train from the platform's perspective must contract OR the time must dilate to give the light more time to travel that greater distance and maintain the same speed of light inside and outside the train.

 

 Let's follow the math and see what happened. From the platform's perspective, the train rear has moved .375 ly closer to the light source so the light only has .625 ly to travel to hit the back of the train in .625 yrs platform time. .625ly/.625yrs = c so that checks out. Inside the train that same light signal has to travel 1 ly. It does so in .833 - .333 = .5yrs train time which is .625 yrs platform time. The time inside the train is dilated from the platform's perspective to give it more time to travel the greater distance. But 1ly/.625yrs is still greater than c. Hmm this is the wrong answer and even if I introduce length contraction the answer is still wrong.

 

At this point after staring at the math for 2 days I realize that the explanation is far more complicated than I had thought up until now. It's not just a simple matter of time dilation or length contraction or a combination of both to explain how long it takes to hit the train rear from the platform perspective and how it can hit the train rear simultaneously in a different amount of time from the train perspective. I'll explain tomorrow but with the new (old) rule I've introduced that clocks engaged in constant velocity must have the same time readout at the moment they meet has made all my previous explanations not quite correct. 

Sooner or later if you keep thinking, you will realise that there can be no time dilation or anything of the sort.

 

Before you bog yourself down in meaningless math (because it's based on irrational assumptions) you need to be able to explain what's supposed to be happening, what it the basic concept, how that concept is supposed to work, why it should work that way.  THEN (if this explanation is rock solid) only then can you start figuring out what maths equations will fit your concepts.  This goes for STD as well.  You explanation a concept that says that Time or someone's age is going to shrink but not another person, simply because someone moved..... by jumping immediately into some weird math or some even stranger graphic called an STD.

 

"Spacetime" as a concept is nonsensical to begin with, so it's probably best to use some other tools to explain why time or age differences would occur.... can you do that?

Give me a sensible written explanation as to how this shrinking of Time is supposed to occur, its either going to be sensible and rational with no conflictions or its not.

 

Also, I'm waiting patiently for the explanation about how Time as a concept can be considered as a physical part of space. (which is the areas that exist between planets where there is no physical stuff.)

[ralfcis]

For Einstein time was just another dimension of space but it's separate for me. 

 

I let the math take me and then form what's going on physically. Your way is just philosophy. When the math stops working in a particular direction, I have to change direction which I've done many times. Here's the latest change:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/sCVGuRdB7AJBZsA38

 

This is the STD for the train rear only.

 

1. Einstein's rule was a spacetime path must start with the participants co-located. I've extended that rule with the green line of proper simultaneity that joins the same proper times in both frames. It allows the start of the spacetime path to be separate for both frames but still have all the characteristics of co-location. It also ensures when the two frames meet up at constant velocity, they will have the same time reading.

 

2. The proper time line of simultaneity comes from the half speed relative velocity line between the two frames. The thin 1/3c green line is the half speed between the train's depicted .6c and the platform's depicted 0c. It's impossible to draw that they are both at .6c relative to each other. It also makes it impossible to draw the pink and yellow light signals which should be the same depicted length for any true depiction of relative velocity.

 

3. When the train's mid hits the platform's mid a pink light signal goes on. I've added a yellow light signal which goes on proper simultaneously from the train rear. Since we can't deal with proper time in real time, the yellow signal must be pre-arranged or post processed from calculations.

You'll notice both signals end at the same time value even though the yellow line actually travels .833 + .4167 = 1.25 blue years (which equals 1 red year) while the pink line travels .625 blue years.

 

4.Reciprocal time dilation dictates the endpoints of the blue and red lines of reciprocal simultaneity must have the same time readings at their endpoints. You'll notice this holds true throughout the journey (highlighted by the green circles). The calculations of the red and blue velocity line time values are made from the top down if you want to use the simple formula of t=Yt'.

 

 Let's look at the blue platform perspective of the red train. The blue line of simultaneity when the pink light goes on for event1 says the platform calculates the train rear is co-located with the platform end and already reads 1/3  red year (= .4167 blue yr). The blue perspective simultaneity is not the same as the green causal simultaneity so the delay between the train mid and train end from the platform perspective means the train end will not read 0 when the platform mid reads 0.

 

From the blue perspective the pink light hits the train end at .625 platform time. So how does that correspond to .833 train time? Well (.625 -0) = Y (.833 - .333) where Y = 1.25 for .6c. In .625 yrs, the light has moved .625 ly towards the train and the train has moved .625 x .6c = .375 ly towards the light. 

Light speed has supposedly not been changed from the platform's perspective (.625ly/.625yr = c) but that's actually another of Einstein's lies. Relative velocity has always been defined as starting distance between the participants divided by time it takes for the participants to meet. The starting distance was 1 ly and the time was .625 yr which results in a relative velocity of 1.6c. Maybe some relativist can explain to me how Einstein got away with this lie. Obviously he changed the traditional definition of relative velocity.

 

Now let's take a look at the train end's perspective of when the light hits it. It looks like the train end starts off a lot further from the platform in this perspective than from the other. I can see all the relativists jumping up and down that this is proof length contraction (in the form of length dilation) is indeed needed to guarantee c is constant from all perspectives like uncle Al always said. Calm down girls. This is just relativity of simultaneity which has always been stubbornly confused with the non-existant physical phenomenon of length contraction.

 

What the train is actually calculating is the proper simultaneity of the pink signal on is the train's perspective simultaneity of the time of event 1 in platform time is (.333 + .4167)  = .75.  The yellow light signal will take just as long to traverse the inside of the train as the pink signal just in the opposite direction. The time is .833 + .4167 = 1.25 platform yrs which corresponds to 1 train yr. Hence, from the train's perspective the light takes 1 red yr to traverse the train's proper length of 1 ly. There never was any length contraction, just a really weird way of using time dilation to get the right answer from the train's perspective. I'm sure there is an easier way to understand this and hopefully I'll see it in the future.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Important

 

Ok, it looks like the light signals are enough to explain how the consistency of the speed of light is maintained from the two perspectives. The pink signal explains the platform's perspective of light relative to a moving train and the yellow signal explains the train's perspective of the same light moving a longer distance within a stationary train and still hitting the train end simultaneously from a proper time perspective. Hmm there's no explanation like this in Einstein's theory.

 

Could it really be this easy? All relativistic problems could be solved just using light signals and proper simultaneity. No more doppler shift ratio, time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity? I'll have to see if this is possible.

Edited December 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

You know ralfcis I want to put you up to this challenge compute your equations in wolfram alpha sometime and see if they work. If they fail to compute then you have messed up. Mine usually compute even as unitary groups so if your equations are correct then it should compute them fine.

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/

Edited July 1, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

I'd like to to reverse your challenge. See if wolfram matches my findings. I've done enough problems here to check.

[Vmedvil2]

I'd like to to reverse your challenge. See if wolfram matches my findings. I've done enough problems here to check.

 

Alright here is what I got for one of them, you aren't a crank they work so relax, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(ct)%5E2+%3D+(ct%27)%5E2+%2B+x%5E2

[sluggo]

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

 

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 causal 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.

 

 

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.

Ralf;

 

I occasionally look in to see any signs of improvement, only to see flaws in your train example (train21a).

In the graphic, c0 is the master clock, c1 and c2 the slave clocks. U is the platform observer, T the train observer. T uses light (blue) to synch the end clocks to c0 and establishes his green axis of simultaneity. Light gray lines are measurements. The red lines transform c0 clock values to the Ut clock values. Eg., when the c2 signal returns to T at Ut=6.25, Tt=5.00. TD is .80.

[ralfcis]

You see flaws because you can't read what I'm writing. Your green lines are not proper simultaneity, they are perspective simultaneity . Your scale for Ut should be half of the numbers you used. Your clock sync method is not the one I'm using. If you're not going to read anything I'm writing and you can't even get the STD correct using Einstein's relativity, why are you constantly repeating yourself. As I said, if there is no frame jump, the clocks at co-location must have the same time value because all perspective is eliminated. You need to argue this first point before you start plotting out your tired old Einstein STD's or at least get the numbering right. Your 1st blue line does not travel 1.25 if it doesn't even cross 1 ly. This should be obvious. Now forget doing math and come up with a counter argument to my 1st premise. Then maybe I can see some progress in your understanding and basic reading comprehension.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

 

Ok, it looks like the light signals are enough to explain how the consistency of the speed of light is maintained from the two perspectives. The pink signal explains the platform's perspective of light relative to a moving train and the yellow signal explains the train's perspective of the same light moving a longer distance within a stationary train and still hitting the train end simultaneously from a causal time perspective. Hmm there's no explanation like this in Einstein's theory.

 

Could it really be this easy? All relativistic problems could be solved just using light signals and causal simultaneity. No more doppler shift ratio, time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity? I'll have to see if this is possible.

 

 

http://milesmathis.com/galileo.html

[ralfcis]

Ok my 13 yr battle against all the mindless parrots I've encountered over many forums could finally be resolved right here. Actually I believe others on this forum have asked the same question and I did not recognize its significance until now. For that I apologize because it means I'm as dumb as the relativists I've been criticizing on here. The question is about the (v+c) term that appears when solving relativity problems. If the relativistic velocity combo law dictates v+c = c, how does that term appear in any calculation. It appeared in my last example.

 

From the platform's perspective, the train rear moves toward the oncoming light signal at .6c from a distance of 1 ly. The light takes .625 yrs to hit the train end. In that .625 yrs, the train has moved .625 x .6 = .375ly. So 1 ly was covered in .625 yrs which means v+c = 1.6c which goes against the velocity combo law for relativity. This is where I suspect Einstein had to introduce length contraction which means the 1ly had to be shrunk down into .625 ly. But I can't see any formula that arrives at that number. This is the only instance in all of relativity where length contraction needs to be used so is there any still thinking relativity parrot out there who can show me the math where length contraction is used to keep the relative velocity  capped at c in this example? I suspect this question will expose all the frauds on this forum and too bad I'm banned from so many others because it would expose the frauds on those forums as well. I'd ask this on the physics stack exchange but they are way to close minded to even understand the question.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

As a side note while thinking how a relativist would explain this paradox, I came up with some interesting math of how to keep relative velocity capped at c using my theory. It turns out

 

Yc - Yv=c(DSR) where v is positive for separation

 

Yc, if you remember, is the speed of light from an observer's perspective in the observed frame using Yc=x/t' where Yv is also expressed in terms of x/t' .

 

For my example, the doppler shift ratio =2 for the light  approaching (so v is negative) the train at -.6c where Y = 1.25. So the new formula for (c+v) is

 

(c+v) = c/(Y(DSR))

 

It's basically a new relativistic combo law if you add Yv and Yc together but it retains the same results as the old one if you want to solve for v:

 

v= c/(Y(DSR)) -c. If DSR =2 v=-.6. If DSR = 1/2, v=+.6.

 

So that's how I get around the problem of (v+c) but I can't figure out how relativity does it with length contraction. Please help.

Edited December 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Ok my 13 yr battle against all the mindless parrots .....

 

 

How on point you are for once... you call out people as ''mindless parrots'' for how long... 13 years you say? So you've been arguing against mainstream for equivalently the same yes?

 

You have no one better to entertain your persistent idiocy because you are impertinent towards the so-called parrots. When will sink in, you will not change the world if you cannot get your head around even the most simple formats of physics. Imagination is not everything, you do actually need some knowledge.

[ralfcis]

You mean like the knowledge you don't have to answer the question?

[Dubbelosix]

You mean like the knowledge you don't have to answer the question?

 

 

I don't have to answer someone who likes to play swings and roundabouts. Keep in mind, people have been very nice and in concurrent events, I have explained things to them in response. Your issue is you keep parroting the same rubbish.... so.... just to let you know, I have reported you. No doubt when you or I get deleted from here, I won't be returning, but you will be making a new account no doubt to by-pass the nonsense and come in here under female and male names, just to try and put us all off.

 

 

We are not stupid, and you are not as smart as you think you are. If the moderator warns you which I really hope he does, please heed it.