Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Much simpler equation manipulation is possible if you substitute these terms:

 

A = (v+u)

B= (1+vu/c²)

sqrt(c²B²-A²) = c/Y_vY_u =v_tu_t 

 

w²= A²/B²

w_t² = ( c²B²-A² )/B² 

 

c² = w² + w_t² = A²/B² + (c²B²-A² ) /B² = c²B²/B² = c² 

 

Wiki derives the formula for  w using Lorentz transforms. Nowhere do I touch these formulas because they are contrived to make Einstein's false assumptions on clock sync, time dilation, constancy of c and length contraction come up with answers that match the physics. His math may clumsily get the right answers but it in no way explains why the physics works that way.

 

P.S. So here is a more universal universal equation that includes relativistic velocity combination:

 

c² = ((v+u)² + v_t²u_t² ) / ( 1 + vu/c²)²

Edited December 25, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Einstein declared reality is subjective based on perspective. The order of events can change due to the relativity of simultaneity but he took it much further. He stated reality has no timestamp of past present or future as all exist concurrently and are just persistent illusions. A far off perspective can see our pre-determined future before we can experience it which means there is no causality. Our future is set in stone and even though the remote observer can't manipulate it, neither can we from our cause and effect actions. He consoled his friend's widow that his friend was actually still alive in some perspective reality. What's shocking isn't that Einstein was a loon but that he was able to sell these lunatic ideas to an even dumber scientific community.

 

As I mentioned before, all relativistic phenomena are the result of 4 terms that emerge from 1 main equation: v velocity through space (x/t) and its counterpart v_t velocity through time (c/Y). (Yv = cv/v_t is also a very important term describing the velocity through space in terms of x/t') They, in turn, generate equations for half speed velocity through space v_h which form the lines of causal simultaneity and half speed velocity through time v_ht =cDSR (Doppler Shift Ratio) which is a more important velocity through time than v_t.

 

So we have 2 terms that define a velocity through time but what do they physically mean and why would you need two?  DSR serves two purposes. It is the apparent illusory rate of time in the past for constant relative motion and it is the real rate of time in the present for light signals and following velocity changes during periods of velocity imbalance. For example,  the broadcast signal from a ship leaving earth at .6c would  play at half speed slow motion (DSR = 1/2) when received. Time is not really going at half speed within the ship. But if that ship was to turn around at .6c, the time within the ship would indeed be going at twice the normal rate (DSR=2) for however long the delay of the velocity change would take to reach the receiver. More on how light's velocity through time is controlled by DSR later. 

 

v_t  has no motion picture associated with it  and it is not affected by direction. At .6c the rate of time is 80% not 50% as it is for DSR. v_t is the perspective rate through time while DSR independent of perspective in purely proper time. Perspective time is where you see the stars in your present but proper time is where the stars actually are. In order to "see" proxima centauri in proper time, you'd have to wait 4 years and use that picture for what you would have seen 4 yrs ago. Perspective time might seem real to you but it's an illusion that Einstein defined as reality. 

 

Similarly you can construct a motion picture for v_t that is an illusion from your perspective. Here's an STD showing how the motion picture for DSR happens and how one for v_t would happen.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/YHoqNN7iCv7yWBay7

 

Both are created from light signals except DSR is based on the green causal lines of simultaneity created from v_h while  v_t light signals emanate from the same spot based on red perspective lines of simultaneity. The green lines are redundant because you can see from the 1st light signal that 1 yr of information is received by Alice over 2 yrs so she sees Bob go at half speed slow motion. Otherwise you can calculate the proper time for Alice when Bob sent the light signal was 2 - DSR (duration of light signal= 1.5) / v =1. Both are the same age when Bob sent the signal.

 

Alice's perspective gives a different story from what she actually saw. Her perspective time when Bob sent the light signal as 2 - DSR (duration of light signal= 1.5) = 1.25. Her motion picture based on lines of perspective simultaneity defining her present show she was 1.25 when Bob was 1 so Bob is moving through time at 80% of Alice's rate of time. While her constructed motion picture based on perspective simultaneity would show she was 1.25 when Bob was 1, if she went back into the archives to see the DSR motion picture from Bob, he would have looked .625 when she was 1.25.

 

Neither of these rates of time are real here, time itself is not slowing (unlike what Einy said). Bob and Alice are both ageing at the normal rate of time c. The rate of time DSR is actually a rate of information transfer and how it's affected by the delay of distance and rates of velocity increasing that delay. When Alice is 1.25, Bob is no more 1 than he is 1.5625 perspective time. Bob and Alice are both 1.25 proper time.  In Alice's real time, delayed information from Bob is being received at 50%.

Edited December 25, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Is this thread killing Hypography? Sooo many people have disappeared since I got here.

[ralfcis]

A light wave's frequency is measured in cycles per second. Clocks count cycles per second to determine time. Yet the main formula dictates that light can't have a velocity through time. If time stops for a lightwave from our perspective in order to satisfy the main formula, how is it possible for us to see a lightwave's frequency which should be frozen in time? How is it possible that our motion relative to the light can affect the light's frequency yet our motion relative to the light can't change our relative velocity to the light like it can for sound waves? These are all questions ignored by relativists so they can worship the words of the Einstein without question. The answer lies not in all their rationalizations but in how light's velocity through time works.

 

We saw in the previous example, how the time of light signals is manipulated by DSR to give us the right results of what time an event happened in the past from Alice's perspective time and causal time. This is a technique similar to Einy's clock sync method. He decided to use light signals to define a present time through space such that all the clocks along that present time line had the same reading. Of course just because clocks read the same didn't mean they were in a present time because they were separated by distance so they could not have been in the same present. Only causal time can have clocks separated by distance with the same readout in the present time. 

 

Now here`s the same scenario of light signals sent from Alice to Bob. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tLZ9xzbegTvefmfs7

 

The math is identical except for 1 thing. The value of DSR  that determines the duration of the pink light signals is not the same as the reciprocal DSR between the two. This DSR is equal to Bob`s velocity as if he was absolutely (not relatively) stationary. I have no idea yet what this signifies for the physics of determining the light signal duration in this direction to arrive at the the correct perspective and causal time for Bob. All I know is this is the correct answer but I don`t yet know why. It`s possible if I redo the train example (aka the MMX) with this knowledge I may gain some insight.

Edited September 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok I just figured out what's happening. The reciprocal DSR between Bob and Alice is not the same as the DSR between the light coming towards Bob and the light coming towards Alice. Those DSR's are controlled by the formula I worked out earlier:

 

DSR_vx = Y_ux/Y_wx  where w is the combined velocity of u and v where u = c. So  DSR_vx for Bob =1 and for Alice = 1/2.

 

Yup I'm good with that explanation. It shows that just because the combined velocity of c with any other velocity is still c, there is a back door with the ratios of the gammas at c that generates a DSR that determines the time duration of the light signal. This is the true explanation of the MMX paradox, not the twaddle Einstein came up with. Nobel prize please.

Edited September 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Just like the words street smart, educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, inventive, experienced all mean completely different things, so do the words speed, closing speed, velocity, average velocity, instantaneous velocity, mechanical wave speed, light wave speed, relative velocity, relativistic velocity and distance over time all mean completely different things.  I've given up trying to explain words in the 2nd group to people not in the first group so I'll just concentrate on explaining the difference between relative velocity and relativistic velocity.

 

Relative velocity is the original (not final) distance between event 1 and event 2 over the time duration from event 1 to event 2. An example of this is two people throwing a ball across 10 meters. The start of the throw is event 1 and the catch is event 2. If the throw is 10m/s, it takes 1 sec from event 1 to event 2. Now if the catcher starts moving away at 6 m/s when the ball is thrown, it will take 2.5 sec for him to catch it. Just to check the math without going into impossible grade school problem solving, in 2.5 sec the catcher moves 15 m which is 25 m away from the thrower which at 10ms, the ball takes 2.5 sec to be caught. This is event 2 but the distance used to determine the relative velocity of the ball to the catcher is not where he caught it at 25 m but where he would have caught it at 10 m. So the relative velocity of the ball to the catcher is 10m/2.5sec = 4 m/s. For those who can't grasp the math just think of it in rough terms. If he had stood still the ball would hit him at 10 m/s but since he's moving away from the ball, he is subtracting his speed from the ball's speed so it's only 4m/s. I hear marbles rolling around so you must all be duh yeah nodding in agreement.

 

Now replace the football with light and the guy's speed from the light does not subtract from it, the ball still hits him at 10m/s. This was the result of the MMX and you can come up with all kinds of seemingly plausible explanations for this impossible to comprehend result. Lorentz's stupid explanation was the original distance must have magically shrunk from 10m to 4m after the ball was thrown. Hence in 1 sec the catcher has moved 6 m. He catches the ball 10 m away which takes the ball 1 sec to cross. The original distance was 10m (never mind it had to shrink to 4 to make things work) and event 2 happened in 1 sec so the relative velocity of the ball to the catcher remains at 10m/s even though he was moving away from the ball. Even Einstein said, yeah that's stupid, so he threw in time dilation so the field wouldn't have to shrink as much. Brilliant! (I'm being sarcastic.)

 

But then things started getting complicated. The thrower and the catcher were separated so how could they determine the simultaneity of the catcher starting his run with the throwing of the ball. Einy said we gots to sync up dem der two clocks so that when the time is the same on both clocks that's a shared present. But it turns out it wasn't shared at all due to perspective causing two different presents. At that point Einy gave up thinking anymore and hoped no one would notice which they didn't for over a hundred years. The End. (I took math liberties with the story but the moral remains the same.)

 

Now, let's draw up an STD  and use causal time instead of perspective time to sync up the clocks for event 1. Let's do that later as I have reams of job postings to look over to temporarily solve my chronic unemployment problem.

Edited September 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

This explanation is going to be more involved than I thought. First we'll explore the problem classic relativity style but introducing the perspective times as factors of Y of causal time. This means I will set up the football example (same as the train example and the MMX) using causal time and then multiplying Bob's perspective by Y and dividing Alice's perspective by Y. I will first show the catcher running from the football at .6c from a 1 lsec separation with the football thrown at c and then the football thrown at the catcher approaching at .6c. These examples will show how Einstein handled the MMX paradox. 

 

Let's first build from the football example where catcher Alice is separated from thrower Bob by 1 light second (ls) which is about a billion feet. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RUR8yg68oHSyyQux5

 

We're doing this from Bob's perspective so Alice will take off at .6c at Bob's t=0 which is simultaneous to when he throws the yellow football. She catches it at 2.5 seconds Bob's time. But at the moment Alice took off, she also passed a pink football to Bob which he catches in 1 sec his time. The results of the MMX proved that Alice and Bob must catch their footballs simultaneously because Alice's velocity relative to the football is c, her velocity does not subtract from it as it would pre-MMX. We can see that Alice's thick red line of simultaneity confirms the catches were simultaneous from her perspective even though Bob caught her football a full 1.5 sec before Alice caught his. 

 

Despite all this smoke and mirrors, the facts remain unchanged: 

 

 Relative velocity is independent from the background grid so the time length of the light lines should remain the same. Only the slope of the light lines remains the same but the time it takes for them to reach their target is different. Since the calculation of relative velocity is time to the catching event over the original distance between them, the relative velocity of the light to the catchers should have been different. This shows the time duration of the light lines is dependent on each velocity's relative velocity to the background grid not to the relative velocity between the two velocities as I showed in my equation:

 

DSR_vx = Y_ux / Y_wx

 

We still have a problem in that the yellow football travels too long and by the definition of relative velocity, Alice's velocity must subtract from it. But this breaks relativity's rule that Alice's velocity can't do that and maintain constant c. There is a way around this problem and that is to fudge the facts. There are several options on this but the one I mentioned previously is to start Alice at a separation of only .4 ls and the football will be caught at 1 ls. Then you erase the .4 ls and say it was 1 ls where she originally started and voila her velocity relative to c is preserved at c.

 

Another way to cheat is for Bob to launch his football at -.6sec and lie that he sent it at t=0. This pushes the problem into the more plausible realm that there was an initial problem with simultaneity. This looks like a very good solution as Alice's line of perspective simultaneity from her start point intersects t= -.6sec for Bob. 

 

Here's what that looks like on an STD where the light sec is shifted over and light crosses it in 1 sec:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/zymaSKSdAqpKnGhc8

 

I'm trying to work out a different fudge factor. I'm saying the time the light travels is not in its velocity through space, which is preserved in the slope of the light line, but is in light's velocity through time embedded in the equation DSR_vx = Y_ux / Y_wx. I haven't figured out how it works yet though. But we'll continue for now, relativity's take on the MMX ignoring the fact it still doesn't address the MMX paradox directly.

Edited September 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

Is this thread killing Hypography? Sooo many people have disappeared since I got here.

 

I am impressed by this thread, please continue you may yet disprove or change relativity with this level of work.

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

And the corollary to this is given an infinite amount of time, a monkey can type out the works of Shakespeare. 

 

Thanks for the encouragement. Sometimes I fear I won't be able to cross over the next hurdle as there always seems to be a next one. This one is tough as the time information in the light signal must not only maintain c for any velocity relative to c but must also be a means to determine what was on each participant's clocks when the signal was received. The only way I can see to reconcile the two is to keep the time information from the space domain independent from the time information in the velocity through time and understand when one or the other is applicable. This is a new unexplored path and I don't know if it will be a dead end or lead to the next hurdle.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok let's go back to the rear train example using  the football version to understand how Einstein's declaration that all perspective times are real and time is just another space dimension, led all  subsequent science down the tubes for over a hundred years. The rear train example has the catcher go towards the light at .6c instead of away from it. 

 

We're going to change Bob's perspective of the separation to 1/Y of the previous separation which is .8 ls. This will make the causal time perspective, the only real perspective that deals with real proper distance and time, have a real separation of 1 ls. The catcher (aka the train) perspective sees the distance separation of Y times 1 ls = 1.25 ls. So each perspective sees the separation as a different factor of gamma. 

 

Some might say, aha this is Einstein's length contraction. Sure if you define length expansion is the same thing as length contraction and if you believe the train coming into the station expands to 1.25 ls then shrinks from the proper length to .8 ls depending on perspective. If you look at Einy's math he often expanded lengths by Y or Y² and then shrunk them through his fake length contraction to proper length. What he termed length contraction was separation of 0 dimensional points in space seen from different time perspectives and it was never about 1 dimensional lines being shrunk which is a completely different non-existent phenomenon. Right Sluggo?

 

I'll show what that looks like on the STD using all three perspectives. Only 2 belong to Alice or Bob, the causal time perspective is external to them and can't be experienced by them in real time (except when they are co-located). All other perspectives are external to Bob and Alice but none can affect causality, they can only affect the time order of unrelated events. This is contrary to Einstein's demented interpretation that a distant observer can experience our future before we can. (I can again post Brian Greene's videos on this.) This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out. There are no possible perspectives that contradict causality despite what Einy said. 

 

Einy's beliefs stemmed from his misinterpretation of the twin paradox where Alice's lines of perspective simultaneity swung from Bob's past concurrent with her present to Bob's future concurrent with her present during her change of velocity and direction back to Bob.

 

I'll show the STD in the next post.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Einstein did not say that time is another spatial dimension.

 

The theory of relativity does NOT predict that for some observer, the earth goes dark, before the sun goes out. It predicts just the opposite! You do not seem to be acquainted with the difference between spacelike, lightlike and timelike intervals, and hence still fail to understand, at all, the theory you purport to critique.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

Where you been lurkin, in the shadows? Yup as I mentioned, you can change the order of spacelike events (not causal) from perspective  but  when you also say future past and present are all concurrent then you extend into changing the order of causal events as well. Anyone can parrot words dumbamp, it's knowing what they mean that's the hard part. Take a look at these videos. See if I've misinterpreted Einy. Brian Greene is his representative on earth and Burt Jordaan, my mentor, stamped what he said as, "essentially correct."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR8DYZzmin0&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=17&t=0s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoOKSIDaF0&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=52&t=29s

 

Then there's this video supporting the invariance of causality so our future can't be seen by a distant observer before we see it. This one is correct but Einy still said the other things which are wrong. Read my other posts where I said how can a theory which supports the invariance of causality have Einstein make those other declarations. And yes oh ignorant one, time is viewed as a fourth space dimension stick added to the 3 other space dimension sticks in relativity. Try learning some math or reading something other than your scientish comic magazines.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P5dQn9ENM&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=56&t=0s

 

Now I know you'll either not watch these for fear of exposing yourself as the malicious, ignorant liar that you are, or you'll disavow Greene as a true representative of your religion. Thanks for playing though, this forum gets sleepy without a little spice now and then.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Of course I’m familiar with Greene’s videos, which I’ve already viewed, and I’m also familiar with his written works. They do NOT support the idea that some observer might see the earth go dark, before the sun goes out! That was YOUR strawman attack on ToR. It’s wrong!

 

Greene’s videos are correct, and they are just an elaboration of Minkowski spacetime, which does NOT say that future, past and present are “concurrent” — rather, it says that all of them are ontologically on a par. This is known as the block universe, and is quite uncontroversial. It does NOT predict any violations of causality. You are simply clueless.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

I'm not tired dealing with illiterates. This is what I said:

 

"This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out."

 

If you say a distant perspective can see your future before it happens to you then:

 

This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out.

 

Please watch the videos again. Your addled brain may not be able to remember what Greene said at 12:19 of the first video.

 

I had to look up ontologically . Einstein said everyone's line of present is equally real. As Greene argues my future and a distant observer's present are concurrently valid as real. If you want to call that ontologically on par, that's just semantics and the two are ontologically on par in meaning. You're losing loser. Try again.

[Amplituhedron]

I'm not tired dealing with illiterates. This is what I said:

 

"This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out."

 

If you say a distant perspective can see your future before it happens to you then:

 

This is equivalent to saying that if the sun went out, he'd be able to see from his perspective our planet go dark before the sun went out.

 

Um, no, it is not.

 

This reversal of causality would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory.  Relativity does NOT predict reversal of causality -- it predicts just the opposite.

 

As I said, you are clueless. And it is obvious you do not understand Greene's videos, either. 

[ralfcis]

"This reversal of causality would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory.  Relativity does NOT predict reversal of causality -- it predicts just the opposite."

 

Absolutely correct. So try to follow my argument. If an observer can see my future before I do that would only occur if information could be propagated faster than c -- which is ruled out by relativity theory. So for Greene or Einstein or anyone from your religion of relativity to state it's possible for an observer to see my future before I do he is contradicting relativity. Why can you not follow this? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're dumbamp.

[Amplituhedron]

Wow, you are stupid. 

 

Three observers may disagree on the temporal order of events. This is relative simultaneity.

 

What Greene is saying is that these three different planes of simultaneity are equivalent to slicing a loaf of bread at three different angles. The totality of existence, then, cannot be any individual plane of simultaneity, but rather ALL planes of simultaneity; i.e., the entire loaf of bread — from which it follows that the future is as fixed as the past. The indexical that we call NOW is a plane of simultaneity that slices an extant 4d reality at a particular angle. Others will slice the bread at a different angle.

 

In a sense, yes, someone could “see” my future before it happens — NOT in the sense of violating causality, but in the following sense that was originally mooted by Einstein in his train thought experiment: The ground observer sees lighting flashes hit the back and front of the train simultaneously. However, for the observer moving in the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, and flash at the back happens later. This just IS relative simultaneity.

 

Now, in a sense, ground observer has “seen” train observer’s future — the train observer will, without fail, observe the flash at the back of the train, but sequentially, after the flash at the front, whereas the ground observer saw the flashes simultaneously. There is NO violation of causality here; however, the train observer’s future is fixed, even though he/she has not experienced it yet.