Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Umm, maybe your early-onset prevents you from remembering but you already threatened this and the moderator laughed in your face. Yes go ahead and keep deflecting on why you can't answer the question. It should be easy to answer for anyone who actually knows relativity otherwise, like I said, it's also about identifying the frauds on this forum.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Your scale for Ut should be half of the numbers you used. 

Yes, it should. Need to do more more checking before posting. Hopefully you weren't expecting perfection.

[ralfcis]

Mistakes can happen to anyone. I have to repeatedly check my work because I am very prone to making simple arithmetical mistakes. That's irrelevant. Answer my question because your method of where you zeroed the platform and train clocks contradicts the primary rule that the clocks must read the same upon co-location. So your method is completely wrong, not just your arithmetic.

 

PS. I know when I've made a mistake because I know what the answers should be in advance. It's when they don't match after careful checking that I know I've made a mistake in understanding.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here's a clue for you Sluggo, one that Einstein never figured out for himself with which he could have saved himself a lot of future embarrassment. An STD of constant velocity must yield the same results upside down as right side up. Knowing this, you can set a correct sync'd start point for the upside down version where the frames are physically separated at the start. The muon example has therefore always been solved incorrectly by not setting the correct start time from the upper atmosphere.

[Dubbelosix]

Mistakes can happen to anyone. I have to repeatedly check my work....

 

Fine, but don't be writing things that are intentionally misleading when you can learn properly.

[ralfcis]

Like what things. Can you identify them. No because you just don't know enough. Again, how does length contraction figure into the relative velocity being limited to c between the light source and the incoming train end in my example. Put up or shut up. Stop trying to intentionally mislead that you know the answer.

[Dubbelosix]

Like what things. Can you identify them.

 

Not just me.... GAHD, exchemist... along many other posters can see through the bullshit, so stop it.

[ralfcis]

Then point it out. The "everybody knows" argument is a schoolyard argument. Do you know or don't you. Stop misleading and deflecting. Can you answer the question.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Then point it out....

 

 

The only reason I would point something out to someone like you, is if you admit you need to be taught. That takes humility, not by going about saying people are wrong because you don't have the first clue. Your psychology almost reflects an entitlement that people should waste their time trying to explain things to you when it doesn't ever seem to sink in.

 

 

Last chance buddy, or I am leaving.

[ralfcis]

I fully admit I need to be taught. That's what questions are for. So now you can answer the question right?

[Dubbelosix]

In this case, actions will definitely speak louder than words, so calm down and demonstrate first you mean what you say......

[ralfcis]

I know you're not stalling, you just don't know so just be honest and admit you can't teach me even though I need the answer so very very bad.

 

I'll maybe jog your memory. (v+c) in relativity equals (v+c)/ (1+ vc/c² ) according to the relativistic combo law. Yet that does not match the results of v+c in my example. From the train's perspective the light traverses 1 train ly in 1 yr train time but from the platform's perspective the light meets the train end in .625 platform yrs travelling .625 platform ly. But the train covers .375 platform ly in .625 platform yrs. So the relative velocity is (.375 + .625)/.625 = 1.6c. The combo law says the relative velocity must be c so the train length must have shrunk somehow to .625 ly. Yet no combination of time dilation or length contraction formula gives that answer. I suspect the answer lies in the Lorentz transform equations because they also include relativity of simultaneity which I have not taken into account. Now this is a big clue so someone here must now be able to show some basic math skills and answer the question and act like I never gave you the clue.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

I couldn't be more honest.... you stick to what I said, and I will stick to what I said,

[ralfcis]

Dubble, you can be more honest because we both know your level of integrity is not very high. You're a compulsive fraud who's been kicked off of how many forums for being a compulsive fraud? You think you're lying to me, go ahead think that. You wouldn't be able to work out the answer even if I told you how.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Dubble, you can be more honest because we both know your level of integrity is not very high.

 

You just lost your chance. Integrity has been proven here with other people... why do you single yourself out... I said adjust your attitude and in time i will teach you.

 

 

But this doesn't mean I have no integrity, I have oodles of it when treated with respect.

[ralfcis]

True integrity is independent of that. Prove you have something to teach me in this one instance and I'll give you oodles of respect and not clash with you ever again.

[Dubbelosix]

I don't have to prove to you... people can look at my work and know I at least have a grasp of many things. The integrity has to come from you first, or I am terminating this with you.

 

 

Push me further, and you won't get what you want.