Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Vmedvil2]

You have come into this thread late. Im saying that Lorentz and Einstein could not be more wrong. There is no need for the LT because there never was a problem needing a solution in the first place.

 

Then you don't mind me calling you a crank then because that is why you are crank that you disagree about fundamental aspects of the universe that are generally accepted as necessary.

[marcospolo]

 

 

Then you don't mind me calling you a crank then because that is why you are crank that you disagree about fundamental aspects of the universe that are generally accepted as necessary.

They are incorrect assumptions about how some people believe the universe works. They are NOT fundamental aspects at all. Just misguided beliefs based on misconceptions, bad math and nonsensical hypothesis.  You only accept it all because someone in authority told you it was true. You never thought it through yourself. I don't believe people, especially people who claim superiority.

Edited July 3, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

Then you don't mind me calling you a crank then because that is why you are crank that you disagree about fundamental aspects of the universe that are generally accepted as necessary.

And you could set me straight by trying to answer my simple question, but you refuse... what am I supposed to think?

[Vmedvil2]

They are incorrect assumptions about how some people believe the universe works. They are NOT fundamental aspects at all. Just misguided beliefs based on misconceptions, bad math and nonsensical hypothesis.  You only accept it all because someone in authority told you it was true. You never thought it through yourself. I don't believe people, especially people who claim superiority.

 

 and that assumption you make about people that accept stuff like this is false, I know the reason that it is needed due to the fact that is the correct ratio between velocity and Time-space, you don't get correct answers otherwise.

[Vmedvil2]

And you could set me straight by trying to answer my simple question, but you refuse... what am I supposed to think?

 

But see if you read that, you will notice I did answer your question it is just a ratio between Velocity and Time and Space like the 1/2 in front of 1/2 MV² , you don't accept that 1/2 MV² is wrong because of the 1/2 do you then why do you think this is wrong because of the gamma factor.

[marcospolo]

 and that assumption you make about people that accept stuff like this is false, I know the reason that it is needed due to the fact that is the correct ratio between velocity and Time-space, you don't get correct answers otherwise.

you are of course going to get the same wrong answers down to 12 decimal places, perfectly wrong every time.  This is no evidence that your theory is valuable or correct.

Try answering my question.

[Vmedvil2]

you are of course going to get the same wrong answers down to 12 decimal places, perfectly wrong every time.  This is no evidence that your theory is valuable or correct.

Try answering my question.

 

Alright repeat your question exactly and I will try to answer it.

[ralfcis]

Why would you do that Victor. First you never answer any question directly. You re-write it to a question you want to answer which usually ends up with the gamma equation. Second, why would you try to answer someone who won't accept any answer but the one he keeps repeating over and over? He's just looking for your answer so he could repeat his again. Since he doesn't accept any math or any expert opinion or any experimental evidence, there is no 3rd party arbitration to settle differences. Now you two girls are polluting my thread with your catfight. Take this to the other relativity thread.

[ralfcis]

I went to Brian Greene's course material for the answer to my question. Here it is in 2 videos. The only conclusion I can draw is what a mess Einstein made of science. I'll explain.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPndP_YIgfo&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=35&t=4s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaC1lTpeLts&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=35

 

Now I know none of you are capable of understanding these videos so you'll have to trust me to give you the correct interpretation. Let's go back to the analysis of the train rear approaching the light source and then I'll do the analysis of the train front pulling away from the light source which is what Greene's videos deal with.

 

In my analysis, from the platform's perspective, the train half is 1 ly long but from the train's perspective it looks like the train half is 1.25 ly long. But this is a misinterpretation because this length is actually the platform's perspective of the train's perspective of its length. There are 2 ways to prove this.

 

1. We know the yellow light signal crosses the distance inside the train in 1 yr train time or 1.25 yrs platform time. So in order for c to be constant from all perspectives, the train length from the train's perspective must be 1 ly proper length and the 1.25 ly perspective is really the platform's since 1.25 is the platform time. The light in the train travels the train's proper length in the train's proper time so the length can't be 1.25 and the time 1. Einstein really botched this up because for length contraction to be true, the train's rest length must be 1.25 ly long. This makes c from the train's perspective 1.25/1 = 1.25c which it can't be. So he tries to cover up this mistake by making more. Einstein will blow up the proper length by gamma so that he can make the numbers work by length contracting that blown up length for the moving frame. He's like a kid cheating on math exam  knowing the answer but being unable to derive it.

 

2. If you slow the train down, the red velocity line tends towards vertical and the green lie of simultaneity tends up towards horizontal. They tend to intersect where the train length = 1 ly not 1.25ly as Einy had fudged.

 

So now let's use Einstein's Lorentz contraction equations to see how he fudged the correct answer. 

I had to come back from a future post to correct this.

 

Here is the new STD as Einy would have drawn it in support of his fake math:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yNNqhXypwzozUcVW9

 

x = x'/Y + vt   and t = t'/Y + vx/c²

 

So, in my example, t=.625 + .9375 = 1.5625 .

 

Einy set it up that x must also be 1.5625 so that x/t=c. So he puts the rear of the train 1.5625 away from the platform when the mid-train turns the mid-platform light on to increase vt such that x'/t' = c as well. There's no physics behind this, it's a math scam to make his assumption about c work with all his other assumptions of length contraction and clock sync method. 

 

So vt = .6 * 1.5625 = .9375

 

So x'/Y = 1.5625 - .9375 = .625 which is the duration of the pink light signal.

 

So x'= .78125.

 

t' can't help but also be .78125 just watch

 

vx= .6 * 1.5625 = .9375

 

so t'/Y = 1.5625 - .9375 = .625

 

so t' = .78125

 

Wow everything works out because it was artificially forced to work out. Length contraction doesn't come in to save the day and keep c constant from all perspectives and prevent any velocity relative to c at c, it's the way the lorentz transforms were written to artificially hide these problems behind an inflated vt. Jeez, if only there were some high school graduates on this forum with some math skills because they'd point out to the rest of you what type of scam is obviously happening here.

Edited July 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

In your train example (train21a). the end clocks would read the same, but not in the platform frame. Simultaneity is relative for each frame.

times: (emit, reflect, return)

platform (0, .63 & 2.50, 3.13)
train (0, 1.25, 2.50)
The train clocks c1 and c2 should read half of the round trip times, as for all inertial frames.
Studied your std, it's confusing as to how you get those values!
There is no known way to know what is happening at a distant location while you are asking the question.

[ralfcis]

"There is no known way to know what is happening at a distant location while you are asking the question."

 

Correct unless you pre or post process the times later. There is no way to to set any times in the perspective present either. Time dilation can't be determined in real time. There is no disagreement in the std's now except you use the train's line of perspective simultaneity to set it's 0 time with the platform and I use proper simultaneity which you refuse to understand because its outside of relativity. I'm not using relativity wrong, I'm saying relativity is wrong in how it sets the zero times if the train and platform clocks do not have the same time values when the clocks co-locate. You don't understand the last sentence so you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

"Studied your std, it's confusing as to how you get those values!"

 

They are not derived through using relativity. Just look at the advantages. I can automatically derive the perspectives just from the light signals and this new and correct way of labelling the velocity lines.

 

This std shows it all

https://photos.app.goo.gl/vFkVDJiWXzVAJ3KX8

 

For the rear train, from the train's perspective the yellow light signal crosses 1ly train length in 1 train yr. From the platform's perspective  the pink signal intersects the incoming train rear at .625 platform time. But from the proper time perspective both events occur simultaneously at .833 proper time. This is the apparent paradox people have trouble with. How can the light hit the rear train simultaneously at different times but they forget its from different perspectives.

 

For the front train, from the train's perspective the pink light signal crosses 1ly train length in 1 train yr. From the platform's perspective  the yellow signal intersects the receding train front at 2.5 platform time. But from the proper time perspective both events occur simultaneously at 1.67 proper time.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So I'm stating over and over I'm not doing it like Einy wants it done because his way violates his own rules. If the clocks co-locate and if you have sync'd them correctly and no frame jump has occurred to incur age difference, the clocks must re-unite without any age difference. If you sync the platform and train clocks that break this rule then you have not sync'd them correctly as is shown in your std.

[marcospolo]

Alright repeat your question exactly and I will try to answer it.

Relativity is about comparing measurements taken by two observers, called stationary and moving observer.

The stationary observer knows he is stationary and can measure the location and velocity of the moving observer.

BUT the moving observer has no clue about his condition, that he is moving and where he is located.

Einsteins thought experiments demand that the moving observer must remain totally ignorant about his condition, but the stationary observer id not restricted in this regard.

 

However, if we allow the ignorant observer to have the same information as the stationary observer, so BITH obseerverscan do real science, with real data, then we can no longer conclude any need for Specail Relativity or General Relativity.

 

My question is WHY must the moving observer be ignorant? This is not science when one scientist has no data.

[marcospolo]

Why would you do that Victor. First you never answer any question directly. You re-write it to a question you want to answer which usually ends up with the gamma equation. Second, why would you try to answer someone who won't accept any answer but the one he keeps repeating over and over? He's just looking for your answer so he could repeat his again. Since he doesn't accept any math or any expert opinion or any experimental evidence, there is no 3rd party arbitration to settle differences. Now you two girls are polluting my thread with your catfight. Take this to the other relativity thread.

You are not being honest with your science, you are only a simple maths nerd.

 

I asked a simple physics question, which can and should be explainable as a concept, and does not require any expert opinions or math.

You don't get to develop a math equation unless you have some understanding of whats physically occurring.

You seem to have skipped over physics and dived into Math w=even though there is no physics underpinning it.

 

As I said, you are good at Math, now all you need is to realise that the equations you are playing with are nonsense, and don't in any way align with reality. It's just a big game.

And you can't answer my question.

No one here has even tried.

This says everything.

[marcospolo]

 

Ralf;

There is no known way to know what is happening at a distant location while you are asking the question.

train 7-2.jpg

 

Really?  Is this what you are claiming?  If this is accepted Einsteinian Physics then Lorentz can't is used to get Gamma.

Because if the stationary observer can't determine what's happening at a distant location, he has no way to accurately measure the moving persons NOW location, nor his velocity, and can't "see" the moving observers "clock".

 

You guys are crazy, arguing between yourselves over a totally insane set of impossible imaginary conditions, with equally crazy "laws" and wacky distorted graphs.

 

There IS NO TIME DILATION, LENGTH CONTRACTION or MASS INCREASE.  The whole theory of Einstein is full to the brim with major issues making it invalid as a science.

Its a religion accepted solely by faith, in spite of the many contradictions and errors of logic.  But SR and GR do one thing perfectly. They demonstrate that Mathematics is equally able to support sound theories OR really stupid theories! Math is not able to generate or prove a hypothesis.  It's only a tool that is accurate if the concept is valid.

Still no one has answered my question, and not only the moving observer must be ignorant, but all students of Relativity must also assume ignorance!

[marcospolo]

Ralfcis,

Can you present a rational explanation for the invention of the STD?

Ive never read one, despite watching several lectures on the subject.

Stuff is asigned and labled without any obvious logic, in fact it is developed in a series of illogical steps.

So without any sane explanation, its not useful to rely on these diagrams as if they could possibly explain anything in reality.

Its just a big game you are playing, with irrational rules.

Or maybe you can explain why a STD could possibly be considered to be a accurate tool.?

Can you point me to a killer instructional lecture that I may have missed, you know the one that makes some shred of sense?

[ralfcis]

So as long as I have the std up for the front of the train, let's see if the lorentz transforms work any better than they did for the rear. I think I see my mistake. I need to use Einy's method of labelling the velocity lines.

 

I've just realized I have no idea how Einy labels velocity lines with distance separated start times. I'll have to take guesses until the math works out

 

 

x = x'/Y + vt   and t = t'/Y + vx/c²

 

I know only a few things for sure

t=2.5

vt= 1.5

x=2.5

vx=1.5

so t'=1.25 and x'=1.25

 

yes these values work.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yNNqhXypwzozUcVW9

 

So here is the STD and Sluggo's labelling correctly used Einy's method that allows the lorentz transforms to work.

 

Einy uses the train's line of perspective simultaneity to zero both the train's front and rear clocks to the mid-platform clock just as Sluggo had showed. It also provides the illusion that all the clocks across the train have the same value for their perspective present. It also looks like this labelling method prevents the train's oncoming velocity from being added onto c and thereby maintaining the illusion of the constancy of c at the expense of setting co-located clocks to the same time. Notice the platform clock is -1.67 while the train clock is -2.086 at the bottom when they're co-located. 

 

I see now that Einy had to introduce the concept of length contraction so his explanation and assumptions about relativistic facts could be supported. His clock sync method wouldn't work nor should it. It artificially creates a perspective present where all separated clocks share the same superficial readout without sharing a present at all. His idea of the constancy of c should only apply to velocities and not down to the time level because that needlessly brings distance in as well.

Edited July 4, 2019 by ralfcis