Relativity And Simple Algebra

[inverse]

ralfcis,I recommend that you stop it 

 

and would make some notifications or remind them to you. 

 

in my oipinion,with extreme probability you are dealing with void things.

 

YOU SHOULD BE IN COMMUNICATION & CONTACT WITH  "JOURNALS"  ,NOT WITH PEOPLE HERE 

 

because, I saw many people teasing with other people here.(in science forums I mean)

 

also, there are  original scientists amongst them at both aside.

 

so, please realise that you are doing a void thing with writing all your ideas here and discussing with them.

Edited July 28, 2019 by inverse

[ralfcis]

I'm forming my ideas here where it doesn't matter. Sometimes I get some really constructive input (but not from any relativists). The members on all physics forums are  basically ignorant and closed-minded so it doesn't matter where I post. (Although I would like to get back on thescienceforum.com where they have the only person I've met who knows relativity.) Here moderators seem to let me do what I want and don't ban me like mods on other forums before I can finish my work. 

[inverse]

...I can finish my work. 

 

your this sentence is completely wrong. you will not be able to be accepted as a scientist and the one who deals with science.

in fact,all the forums are not real..

 

this forum's mods are a bit flexible and/or probably more modern than other some specific forums although they are more crowded than here.

 

anyway, I am almost sure that you have to get published your ideas so as to be acceptable scientist.

 

it is not easy ,conversely, rather difficult but not impossible.

[ralfcis]

For those who can't read I'll summarize what I wrote in 1st grade reader style:

 

Time is the rate of info. Not true.

 

Distance delays info but not the rate of info.

 

The rate of increasing distance decreases the rate of info thereby slowing apparent time. (DSR = .5 at .6c)

 

The rate of decreasing distance increases the rate of info thereby speeding up apparent time. (DSR = 2 at -.6c)

 

For constant relative velocity, DSR is an apparent rate of time.

 

During the time of mismatched relative velocity, DSR is a real rate of observed time within the frame that caused the mismatch.

 

Y is always a real rate of slowed time caused by relative velocity pushing down the observed time rate to keep total c at c. Not true.

 

Time "slowing" due to Y (80% at .6c) is not like time slowing due to DSR (50% at .6c and 200% at -.6c)

 

The year's info that is normally generated within a frame gets delayed into subsequent years because it can't fit into the year observed by an outside frame.  There are 2 different means of info delay at work here.

 

Perspective time isn't real time it's delayed time and an imbalance of information. Not all information generated has been received.

 

Since causal time has no info delay, there is no imbalance of information even if it has to increase the rate of time well beyond the limit of c in the frame initiating the velocity change.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

During constant relative motion, neither DSR or Y represent time itself slowing or speeding up. If Alice's outbound trip was a movie, she would cut the film into 4 cans each with 1 yr per can but Bob would cut her movie into 5 cans because Alice's year from his perspective is only .8 of a year from hers. Her time rate is identical to Bob's despite how DSR distorts it or how the film is divided up into years. 

 

During an imbalance of relative motion after a turn aound, DSR does represent time itself speeding up for Alice so she gets less done in a year even though everything around her looks like time is passing normally. In the two years during the  relative velocity imbalance, Alice will count half the number of heartbeats of any other two yr period in her roundtrip. She will age two years less than Bob during these two years. This phenomenon of cutting the amount of info Alice generates per year ensures her and Bob have no unshared info at unification. It's like taping commercials while you go to the bathroom and fast forwarding through them until you catch up with the live transmission of the game at normal speed.

 

So the answer is time dilation is not due to time itself slowing but is strictly a formatting conversion factor between how clocks from different perspectives cap a unit of time to satisfy c² = v² + v_t². Alice's tick of a light clock from Bob's perspective takes longer because her tick is compared to his which has a shorter duration even though both are ticking at the same rate and stay in sync in proper time. Relativity has a radically different interpretation of how two clocks tick at the same rate yet appear to tick at different rates because it only deals in perspective time as reality. That's where things went horribly wrong for it.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here are two STD's for those who want a visual representation of what's going on. One is for the roundtrip .6c scenario and the other is a muon-like example  where Alice is from a galaxy far far away and earth is trying to properly sync up her clock so that when she reaches earth their proper time is the same.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QCpHCcqoE8wrCwaV6

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/hQfiTb9R1EzDXT8SA

 

The green lines are for proper simultaneity, the blue are Bob`s lines of perspective simultaneity, the yellow are light signals and the purple are how many Bob years Alice`s proper time clock reading lag Bob`s proper time clock reading. Light purple is when Alice`s clock is ahead of Bob`s. A clock reading is not the same as time. A lagging clock is not in the past and an advanced clock is not from the future as relativity would try to have you believe where past present and future are all concurrent depending on perspective. That`s just nutty.

 

So in the 1st STD you notice that Alice`s clock falls behind Bob`s at a rate of .2 Alice yrs (= .25 Bob yrs) per Alice year until , from Bob`s perspective, her clock is 1 full Bob yr behind his at the end of her outbound journey. The purple lines grow at .25 Bob yr per Alice yr.

 

The green lines show Alice ages at the same rate as Bob until Alice is forced to go at 2c through time during the relative velocity imbalance period (Bob thinks their relative velocity = +.6c while Alice sees it as -.6c). During this time, the rates of the green and purple lines change. At yr 5 Alice`s clock loses another quarter Bob yr (for a total of 1.25 Bob yrs behind) but she is going 2 yrs per Bob yr faster through time so she has regained a yr for a net lag of only .25 yrs. Alice gains another yr on Bob in her next yr but her loss per yrs is .25 yrs and carry over her total .25 yr lag from before means her net gain in her clock is .5 Bob yrs. Subsequent yrs are out of the velocity imbalance zone so she will continue to lose a quarter Bob yr per Alice yr for the remaining 2 yrs so their clocks will have no lag or lead when they meet in real co-located proper time. Alice will have permanently and really aged 2 yrs less than Bob during the journey with both being unaware that their time rates were anything but normal during the journey.

 

The 2nd STD can`t even be handled by relativity because the start is not co-located. So how do you sync the start times when they are separated. Proper simultaneity provides the tools to do so. The other key is that since there has been no imbalance in relative velocity, the two clocks must read the same when they meet. You can see there is no change in slope for the green lines (so both age at the same rate) but the light purple lines shrink by .25 Bob yrs per Alice yr. Alice`s clock leads Bob`s by a full year at the start but both end up meeting with no lag or lead in their clocks.

 

May I humbly submit that relativity`s explanation is total garbage compared to this one.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I guess the main difference between the two theories is in the definition of ``time slows``. Relativity assumes the source of time slowing is caused by the observed frame`s relative velocity. What is really happening is the observing frame is seeing a distorted illusion, it`s all a mirage except for that one scenario when time actually speeds up in the observed frame if it causes an imbalance in relative velocity. Conservation of information and causality take control of the rate of time away from the max speed c in that case.

[ralfcis]

Oh all sorts of previously unexplained things in relativity are becoming clear to me. In the example of Alice handing off her clock info to Charlie who performs the return leg of her journey for her, I can now see why Charlie`s clock ends up 2 yrs younger than Bob`s even though if he had never met Alice his clock would have met Bob`s with no time difference. The reason is in the difference of what sync`d Charlie's clock not in some magic time slowing during the journey. If Alice's clock sync'd his, it's the twin paradox scenario. But if his clock had been sync'd correctly with Bob's clock as I showed in the 2nd STD, then it's just a normal muon-like constant relative velocity scenario where both clocks do not age differently even though they do experience the illusion of time dilation. So weird how relativists are just brain dead and don't question the obvious inconsistencies in the ridiculous dogma they blindly believe. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here's what happens to the units on the velocity line if you sync Alice's incoming clock using perspective time rather than causal time.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/aksRXrhL6uP2RRZZ6

 

If you remember the train in the station example, if I sync my incoming clock to the green line of causal simultaneity, Einstein demands the syncing (to t=6 here) using the red or blue lines of perspective simultaneity is done as shown in the STD. He demands this because his fudged math that the train`s relative velocity to c is capped at c won't work in the train example unless you do (as previously shown). He throws out the rule that co-located clocks at unification must have the same clock reading. This is not true if you sync the incoming clock with perspective simultaneity. If you use Bob's perspective, the incoming clock will read 9.2, 1 Bob yr behind Bob's clock. If you use Alice's perspective, the incoming clock will read 11, 1 Alice yr ahead of Bob's clock. There should be no lag or lead between the clocks because that signifies Alice and Bob have not aged at the same rate and that only happens when a relative velocity mismatch has occurred. It has not. Einy was so desperate to fudge his math in the train example, he violated a cardinal rule of relativity. How is this even a valid theory?

Edited July 30, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So where am I going with all these attacks on the pillars of Einy's theory. This is the list of phenomena I've been attacking:

 

1. Time dilation is an illusion, time itself slowing does not cause a mismatch in the perspective clock rates.

2. Length contraction isn't even an illusion, it just doesn't exist as a unique phenomenon. It's actually the result of relativity of perspective simultaneity.

3. Relativity of perspective simultaneity is not important, proper simultaneity is. There is no relativity of proper simultaneity.

4. Einstein's clock sync method does not reveal relativistic phenomena due to perspective, it artificially creates them.

5. Einstein's rules about c are flexible if the conservation of information needs them to be.

6. The only example of time actually slowing is when a change in velocity increases the rate of separation. Otherwise time speeds up temporarily for the frame making a velocity change.

7. Light itself travels at 2c not c; it's rate through space is c and its rate through time is c (and its Y = 1 not infinity Not true). Photons do not travel infinite distance in zero time, in fact they don't move at all (waves do). 

8. The existence of light's medium and its nature is irrelevant.

9. Acceleration is not what causes permanent age difference in the twin paradox, unbalanced relative velocity does.

10. Which participant is actually moving is irrelevant.

 

I'm tired and I'm sure I've forgotten some. Someone following along might ask, if none of these things are real, how do I explain Muon's living longer than they should. I've been replacing the perspective time based equations Einy uses with my own based on proper time. Basically I'm not tying Y to time, I'm tying it to velocity where it has always belonged in any relativistic equation. (Einstein made Y promiscuous and tied it to any variable in his equations: mass, distance, time.) Yv explains things that v alone can't. Yv is not limited to c so a new velocity combo law for Yv has emerged that is simple linear arithmetic without square roots involved. v looks to be zero when relative to c but Yv can be combined with c. As a result you don't have to worry that a train's Yv velocity towards a light source results in a combined Yv velocity greater than c and go to great lengths to hide that it does. I'm going to have to redo all the examples in this thread using this new math. I guess I'll start with the muon example.

 

PS I'm just thinking when I joined this forum back in January how close I was to accepting relativity and all its teachings. I had just been kicked off thescienceforum before I got my last question answered. Now I see Einstein's theory of relativity to be the biggest scientific con job of all time. I know saying that out loud doesn't help my credibility but I know the math evidence is overwhelming. It'd be great if I could return to that forum because there are definitely people there that really know their stuff and would put my stuff to the test. For all I know, I might be a nut.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

You said it.

[ralfcis]

ineffable: When you just know something's wrong but you don't have the knowledge, the literacy or the intelligence to know why.

[fahrquad]

Effing what???  I didn't think we could use that kind of language here.  :eek:

[ralfcis]

If you really look like your avatar I`d say you`re ineffable. I mean no one would eff ya.

[ralfcis]

Way back in post #644 I solved the muon example in 6 different ways all resulting in the correct answer. Here, finally, for the first time in history is the correct way to solve it.

 

v= .994c the muon's speed from earth's perspective.

In km/s v= .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s = 2.082 *10⁵ km/s.

Distance from upper atmosphere to earth is x= 5.9km. There is no such thing as length contraction.

Y = 9.14 so Yv = 27.25 *10⁵ km/s. 

The muon's lifespan = 2.2 * 10^-6 s. 

How much distance can it cross at Yv in 2.2 * 10^-6 s?

Well max x=27.25 *10⁵ km/s * 2.2 * 10^-6 s = 5.996 km.

So it can hit the earth in its proper time where the speed from the earth's perspective would not have been enough.

 

Yv is velocity dilation but unlike time dilation it is not observed from the outside. The person within the frame looks at his clock and sees he has travelled to proxima centauri (4 ly away) in 3 of his years so his Yv = 4/3c while earth's perspective of his velocity was .8c. There was no difference in ageing  or time rate between earth and the ship the entire journey (so long as he didn't stop at his destination). This doesn't violate Einy's theory, it just states it in the correct light.

 

Let's draw the STD. The key difference here is we use the correct method (not Einstein's) to sync the start of the muon with the earth's clock. We need the half speed line of proper causal simultaneity to start.

 

v_h = Yv/(1+Y) = 9.1424 * .994 / 10.14 = .896c (the green line)

We need to convert the numbers above in pico years and pico light years.

So Yv = 9.0875c (= x/t')

x = 5.9 km = 6.2363e-13 Ly = .6236 pLy

t'= 2.2 usec = 6.9762e-14 yrs = .06976 pyrs.

t=Yt'= 9.1424 * .06976 = .6378 pyrs.

 

The intersection of the line of proper simultaneity with the t axis is

t = xv= .6236 * .896 = .5587456

 

The intersection of the velocity line with the t axis is 

 

t=x/v = .6236/.994 = .627364

 

t=Yt' so at .627364

t'= .627364/9.1424 =.06862 which, according to the new method, should equal .627364-.5587456 = .06862 (the purple line length).

You need to do this calculation to about 10 decimal places to get the answers to match.

 

The important thing to notice is there is no difference in the two clocks in proper time, they both age the same amount in the same time. Einstein's time dilation has nothing to do with time slowing, it has to do  with clock readouts read from different perspectives at different points in time to which he assigned a false simultaneity with his clock sync method.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/bLnyCBVWke5pUS4Y8

 

I know, this probably feels like an apes at the monolith moment for most of you, cue the music.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

100% of the people reading my last post would agree that from the Earth's perspective, its time rate was 9.14 times the muons time rate. Earth aged .627 Earth pYrs from the muon's birth until its death in .068 muon pYrs. Even if the muon sent out a light signal to earth at its birth, Earth would not have been aware of the muon's birth until .624 Earth pYrs had passed. .003 Earth pYrs later the muon arrives so it could be argued that from the real time earth's perspective, the muon only aged .003 Earth years from birth until death. Relativity's definition of earth perspective time cannot be experienced in real time just like the proper time perspective (which is .068 pYrs for both) can't be experienced in real time. Only from the arrival of light signals from a known distance can these two perspectives be calculated after the fact. By then, they have no relevance to reality. The only thing that's real in real time is the muon's perspective of how much distance it travelled in it's own time at Yv.

 

The next example I'll do is the MMX. Hopefully I can answer the riddle why does v+c = c in the velocity combo law yet Yv + Yc = c/DSR in my velocity combo law and what does it mean to understanding the results of MMX where the velocity of the inferometer had no effect on c. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Upon closer inspection, c is not a velocity vector in the equation (wrong it is a vector as shown in next post)

 

Y(v + c) = c/DSR

 

it is a scalar unit, it has no sign or direction. Hence v+c is not an expression of relative velocity and the equation will be of no use in my dissertation on the MMX. Fortunately I have two other equations that do handle relative velocity combination of velocities written as Yv. I have to be very careful of the math because a change in sign of v causes the answer to flip. For example, in the above equation v= -.6c has DSR =2 while v = .6c has DSR = 1/2. Subtraction results in division. Einy's equations don't have to worry about this because v is usually squared so its sign doesn't matter.

Edited December 25, 2019 by ralfcis