Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

"So far as I can tell, there really is no way around the fact that the ground observer has “already” seen the future of the train passenger, before the train passenger has experienced his future"

 

But you can't tell because you can't do the math, you'd be able to tell a lot farther if you could do the math.

Edited September 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

But actually, I can do the math. So can a lot of other people here that you insult, to make you feel better about your insignificance.

 

This isn't about the math. It is about what relativity is telling us about the ontology of the world. You yourself said, upthread, that if Einstein is right, the future is fixed. I guess you forgot that. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

I said Einstein is wrong so the future isn't fixed. I've seen no evidence you can do the math but I've seen plenty that you lie often. Instead of philosophy, you should be able to mathematically show how the platform observer sees the light hit the rear of the train before the guy at the rear of the train sees the light. My math shows no such thing as being possible. Show me where my math is wrong. Unlike your non-existent math, mine is spelled out in great detail on this thread.

 

Einstein confused clock readings with time so he concluded that when the platform clock had a clock reading of the event that was less than the clock reading of the event on the rear guy's clock this meant the platform perspective could peer into the rear guy's future. This is nonsense. His now slices have nothing to do with the present. They are just some way to sync clocks that are separated by distance to the same time and he called this the perspective present, one of infinitely many. He couldn't understand the difference between clock readings and time, to him they were the same thing.

Edited September 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I was in the strange claims forum discussing how one of relativity's main precepts is if you're engaged in constant velocity, there is no way to tell if you are moving. I now realize Einstein rigged the question. If you travel at .8c relative to earth and travel 4 ly to proxima centauri, you will get there in 3 yrs according to your watch. This is not a contradiction of c being maximum possible velocity but Einstein seemed to think it was because he used length contraction to say from your perspective, the outside distance you travelled was only 12/5 ly, not 4. 

 

Normally when you approach something it gets bigger and things that recede get smaller. If the distance you are from a star is made less by length contraction, then the stars should be much closer than they appear. In fact they would appear unaltered by the length contraction because length contraction does not affect width or area the star would occupy in your view. So the length of your journey  isn't really contracting is it if the stars can look no bigger due to length contraction.

 

The Earth frame is not really just the earth, it is quite a big swath around the earth that includes the planets and probably many local stars moving relatively at nowhere near c. The ship moves within the earth frame, not external to it as Einstein defined.

 

We use many mundane methods to triangulate how far things are away from us in space. The distances to these things is not alterable by your relative velocity whether you are looking straight on or out the side of your window because length contraction does not work sideways. So if the ship started passing earth, he'd look out the side window to see earth and when he reached proxima, he'd also look out the side window and know from his star charts that are drawn from the mundane methods used to calculate distances, that he has indeed travelled 4 ly in 3 years. 

 

The guy back on earth hasn't travelled anywhere relative to his local swath of space. Proxima is included in that local space and he is no closer to proxima  than he was 3 years ago. His watch says 0 velocity relative to the local space while the ship's watch says his own velocity was 4/3 c relative to the local space. The ship guy knows relativity so he can calculate that this was his gamma velocity Yv=x/t' and his velocity v=c/Yt' = .8c. That calculation agrees with the doppler shift ratio he was observing  of the broadcast sitcoms he was receiving from earth which he views in slow mo 1/3 time rate compared to his time. (Earth is also viewing his broacast videos in the same slow mo. which is reciprocal so it is not an indicator of who's actually moving.) 

 

So all he needs to do to tell he was moving was look at his watch and out his side window. If he calculates this gamma velocity is non-zero, he is the only one actually moving which breaks relativity because it shows a measurable break in the symmetry between the frames. This has nothing to do with absolute motion. If a preferred frame can be defined in relative motion, relativity is falsified.

 

Einstein rigged the question by defining relative velocity between two separate point frames and not between a smaller frame within a larger one that was large enough to include both start and end points of a spacetime path.  He also botched the idea that all relative velocity scenarios were the same no matter who was deemed stationary.

 

So, in my example, some cataclysm could have propelled the local space past the ship without affecting the ship which would somehow remain tethered to the universe outside the local cataclysm. Not remotely possible. In fact, no depictions of relative velocity are equivalent when relative to the local space.

 

Take two ships leaving earth in opposite directions at 1/3 c. Their relative velocity is .6c which you'd think you could draw as one ship staying on earth while the other takes off at .6c. This would be  wrong because the closest you could come to an equivalent depiction is the earth's entire massive local space also taking off at 1/3c following the guy who took off at .6c. Now your cartesian coordinates would be referenced to one ship occupying a tiny, non-descript, nearly empty point in space untethered to the previous local earth-centered space. This may be an equivalent depiction of .6c relative velocity between 2 ships but a correct depiction includes the relative velocity of each ship to the background local space something Einstein did not include.

Edited September 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

My last post would have gotten me thrown off any other physics forum. I'm striking at the very core of relativistic beliefs and no one here knows enough to be able to look up some sort of counter-argument? 

[ralfcis]

So I'm on the physics stack exchange with this issue and although it began with a lot of usual abuse for even bringing up this topic, I got some people asking for further clarification which means maybe the experts will be getting involved soon. Or if the mods get involved I could get permanently banned. I'm trying a new tack by not responding to the abuse, just the facts. 

[hazelm]

Well, I'm probably not the right guy to follow your math, as I am just interested in Physics. There, that will get a bunch of guys shouting out that Physics IS MATH. But I don' buy that claim.

 

You don't need any math to know that if you go around a corner too fast in your car, it will spin out, or to follow the reasons why that will occur. You only need to employ mathematics if you want to calculate the difference between the point of spinout if you use 30 psi in the tires instead of the current 25psi.

 

And I doubt that you will be banned from this forum for explaining the details of your "personal theory", regardless of how unusual it may be, as long as you don't beat people over the head for not believing you. They can choose to continue reading your posts or not.

From my point of view, the first way, Einsteins way of deriving relativity's equations  is nothing but one error heaped on the first, so it is incapable of proving anything useful.

As your method arrives at the same end, I cant get excited.

 

That's why I was just interested in hearing about your concepts that allowed you to derive relativity without using Einstein's logic, or lack of.

I was expecting to see some leaps of faith or unsubstantiated claims in your hypothesis similar to those that exist in Einstein's Hypothesis.

 

Relativists can now shout again... "WHAT leaps of faith or unsubstantiated claims are in Einstein's hypothesis? and "its not a hypothesis now, its all proven!"

 

I don't listen to Relativists these days.

We (stress "we") can get our heads lopped off for making such statements, Marcospolo.  Yet, Einstein himself proved you right and I have a book on my shelf that shows him doing it.  But, since I have already talked about that before,  I'll skip it.  Just say you can, if you want to, write physics without math.

 

And, Raifcis,I can see how you managed to flunk - right, simple algebra.  Is this the new geometry?  No, it's probably just my density.  Keep going.  I may get it after a while.

[ralfcis]

I didn't flunk, I came close with a 61%.

 

Anyway I came up with my own answer to the question I posted on the physics stack exchange. I was getting nowhere with them because they kept re-writing my question to something they could answer but the answer should have been obvious to anyone who truly understands relativity. So far I've only met 2 people on all the physics forums I've been on and 1 was hopeless at answering questions. Here's the answer I posted there.

 

So on the advice of Paul Young I am going to post the philosophical answer to my question. If I had the time I'd verify it using math and graphically show it on spacetime diagrams (STD's). I can outline how the math proof would proceed:

 

I would draw 3 STD's. The first would have earth as a point frame which would be the vertical y-axis (stationary) and the ship would be a point frame represented as a velocity line of 5/4 slope. I would show how symmetry is preserved whether you draw it this way or have the ship stationary and the earth represented as a velocity line of -5/4 slope. Symmetry would be preserved between the two depictions whether for reciprocal time dilation, Doppler shift ratio, relativity of simultaneity or gamma velocity (Yv) between the earth and ship.

 

The second would be the extended earth frame that includes proxima centauri and a ship that is 4 light years long. This would be the classic pole in the barn or train in the platform STD. Symmetry would also be preserved here.

 

The third would cut the ship back down to a point. This would show the ends of the earth/proxima frame would not be relatively simultaneous from the ship's perspective because they are separated. So although I was saying the ship does not have to sync it's clock to earth's clock when it co-locates with earth or with proxima, I'm introducing an unsync'd relativity of simultaneity to the ship's clock. Hence I can say the ship has travelled 4 ly in 3 of its years but I have no valid comparison to how earth's or proxima's clocks are relative to the ship's clock so I can't make a valid determination that symmetry's broken. I should be able to mathematically show that the symmetry is restored once I take into account the relativity of simultaneity between the ship and earth's clock and the ship and proxima's clock which will not have the same clock reading from the ship's perspective.

 

So the answer to my question is that even though frames can consist of multiple relatively stationary points, you can't easily compare frames of different sizes unless you take into account how the separation between the points affects relativity of simultaneity.

 

Be wary, this answer looks like it makes sense but without doing the math to back it up, it's just philosophy.

Edited September 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

 

So the answer to my question is that even though frames can consist of multiple relatively stationary points, you can't easily compare frames of different sizes unless you take into account how the separation between the points affects relativity of simultaneity.

 

Be wary, this answer looks like it makes sense but without doing the math to back it up, it's just philosophy.

 

 

I didn't know reference frames came in different sizes.

 

[ralfcis]

I'm going to have to take a break from this. I don't have the time and I feel the next part is going to be the hardest to grasp and the last two were already hard enough. I'm having trouble understanding what length is in relativity. It seems to be only defined through time as:

 

x² = c²(t² - t'²)

 

and it gets stretched and shrunk to fit only time coordinates. It also gets its tip chopped off by relativity of simultaneity. Plus in the train example, where the middle of the train is relative to the ends depends on perspective. From the train's perspective, the train is longer and from the platform's it's shorter compared to the true proper length. I don't have a handle on what this all really means. 

[ralfcis]

I just wanted to make sure the equation above can be derived from relativity's main equation:

 

c² = v_x² + v_t²  where v_x = x/t and v_t = c/Y

 

so c² - c² /Y² = x²/t² 

c² (t² - t² /Y²) = x² 

 

and t = Yt' 

 

so c² (t² - t'² ) = x²   correct!

 

This is interesting because relativists believe time is just another space dimension because the time axis is really a ct axis and a ct' axis but I'm seeing that what they call space is mathematically another form of time. This is not physically true but in the train example, space is very fluid. It doesn't just contract due to perspective but it also expands and maybe thinking of it as a form of time will help me see why.

Edited September 29, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

I just wanted to make sure the equation above can be derived from relativity's main equation:

 

c² = v_x² + v_t²  where v_x = x/t and v_t = c/Y

 

so c² - c² /Y² = x²/t² 

c² (t² - t² /Y²) = x² 

 

and t = Yt' 

 

so c² (t² - t'² ) = x²   correct!

 

This is interesting because relativists believe time is just another space dimension because the time axis is really a ct axis and a ct' axis but I'm seeing that what they call space is mathematically another form of time. This is not physically true but in the train example, space is very fluid. It doesn't just contract due to perspective but it also expands and maybe thinking of it as a form of time will help me see why.

 

Which mind you actually is correct, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+c%5E2+%28t%5E2+-+t%27%5E2+%29+%3D+x%5E2+

 

Keep going Ralfcis, as I said before you may yet change special relativity with the amount of work you are putting in.

 

This form right here is actually the same as Invariant time-space upon a single dimension of space.

 

c² t'(x)² = c² t(x)² - x²

 

Expanded to 3-D, making it the same as invariant time space.

 

c² t'(x,y,z)² = c² t(x,y,z)² - x² - y² - z²

 

or

 

S² = c² t(x,y,z)² - x² - y² - z²

 

 

 

So when are you going to start on General Relativity, cause c² (t² - t'² ) = x²  is definitely correct and Invariant as shown by the mathematical proof I added to your post, that equates it to g_uv.

Edited September 29, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Kardashev6]

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.

I have read every post here (almost 60 pages). Ralf...you are a gentleman and a class act! You have non mainstream ideas and strong convictions to pursue them...regardless of people taking pot shots (insult jabs) at you almost every step of the way I commend you!

 

As a reader I enjoy your posts (others too when they play nice). I benefit by having my brain stimulated. I get to try and learn from the entire thread (the adult mannered posts). This is great for me since SR and GR are challenging to understand at times.

 

Example. The whole thread talk of light moving at c in any reference frame. Boggles my mind when I picture a spaceship moving forward at 0.99 of c (subluminal) and a flashlight being shined out the front window. Photon (from flashlight) barely creeps away at 0.01 of c? Or photon zooms away at c relative to the spaceship? Not trying to hijack thread, just wanted to add my admiration for your thread work and 1 area I get confused.

 

I hope you are never banned here if you keep doing what you do!

[Amplituhedron]

Example. The whole thread talk of light moving at c in any reference frame. Boggles my mind when I picture a spaceship moving forward at 0.99 of c (subluminal) and a flashlight being shined out the front window. Photon (from flashlight) barely creeps away at 0.01 of c? Or photon zooms away at c relative to the spaceship? 

 

Here is the answer.

[sluggo]

Here is the answer.

Relativistic mass is a misinterpretation and now considered obsolete.(even Wiki has a page).

The mass is determined by atomic number, particles in the nucleus and their properties. That does not change at high speed. What does change is the time to accelerate a particle, the transfer of energy requires more time as speed increases, i.e.time dilation. The answer to Kardashev6 is time dilation.

[Amplituhedron]

Relativistic mass is a misinterpretation and now considered obsolete.(even Wiki has a page).

The mass is determined by atomic number, particles in the nucleus and their properties. That does not change at high speed. What does change is the time to accelerate a particle, the transfer of energy requires more time as speed increases, i.e.time dilation. The answer to Kardashev6 is time dilation.

 

Yes that is right. My main point was to answer what an observer traveling near c would observe if he shined a flashlight out the window.

[ralfcis]

So I can't help myself and am responding to the philosophical article Amp sent our way. So the first thing that hit me is what the hell is a BA in physics? I thought maybe it was a carry over from the days when science was called natural philosophy but no, a BA in Physics is an actual degree in philosophy i.e. science without the math. No wonder Amp quoted this article.

 

The second thing that hit me is this highly regarded BA in philosophical physics, Walorski, doesn't seem to understand the dogma he's supposed to be spouting. For the truly ignorant in the theology of relativity, he does seem to be singing from the same hymn book but it's more like his mouth is moving and unintelligible sounds are coming out; much how Trump sings the national anthem. 

 

Let's pick apart his article line by line. But before we do, I'd like to give a shout out to my two supporters. Usually forum hyenas scatter when you get support but it more seemed to enrage Amp which is also good.

 

"Your question contradicts Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which states that no object with mass CAN travel at, or above, the speed of light ©."

 

I assume a BA in physics requires lots of memorization. It doesn't matter what Einstein states; that's just dogma. What matters is that there's a mathematical formula that describes the observed physics. This formula is the relativistic velocity combo law, a form relativity's main formula (c² = v_x² + v_t²) (the only formula you need to know), that shows the relative velocity between 2 objects can't reach c or between light and an object can only be c. But is it really the mass of the objects that doesn't allow their relative velocity to reach c? Let's see his next statement.

 

"As your car approaches c, its resistance to acceleration (mass) increases so that it would take an impossibly infinite force to actually reach c."

 

Well that's a very Newtonian explanation; F=ma. He's not even close on this one. Protons in the LHC are accelerated quite slowly.  A proton is accelerated to 0.999999964c (11,103.4 revolutions of the LHC per second). The inability to reach c is not a question of force and acceleration, it's a question of momentum and velocity. P=mv, the formula for momentum becomes p=mYv for relativistic velocities. Gamma (Y) tends to infinity as relative velocity tends to infinity. I've seen a nice video with a more complete formula for momentum which has rest mass and energy components that explains how mass prevents you from reaching c. I don't see it having anything to do with acceleration. In fact, very high accelerations will turn the mass into energy which will allow the equivalent mass to go at c as energy.

 

"Your question, then, is based on an impossible premise."

 

No it's not, the wording of the question may have been imprecise but hopefully you're intelligent enough to discern the gist of the question without needing to browbeat anyone. This is a very small-minded repugnant trait of most relativists.

 

"It's like asking 'What would happen if I reached the North Pole and kept going north?'"

 

I guess he's never heard of Polaris, the north star.

 

"As you approach the speed of light with your headlights on, however, you would still measure the light beam racing away from your car at 186,000 miles per second ©."

 

This is one of his dumbest statements and shows a total lack of understanding of relativity. Oh I can just sense the hyenas ready to pounce or whatever hyenas do. You are going no speed at all relative to your own frame. Plus light is not launched from your speeding headlights. Light self-propagates through its medium like any wave. So of course the light is going to propagate at c from your stationary perspective. duh.

 

Now if your car was in a long glass spaceship travelling at near c and you caught a lightbeam from earth, that lightbeam would also tear through your ship at c because of the relativistic velocity combo law. Any relative velocity to c is still c. 

 

"A 'stationary' observer watching this happen, though, would not then measure the beam's speed at almost twice c."

 

Again this numbnuts is suggesting you'd expect your car speed is pushing the light faster relative to a stationary observer. I don't think he's ever heard of the Doppler effect or understand how waves propagate.

 

"Relativity says that all observers always get the same measurement for c."

 

Polly want a cracker? Superficial regurgitation of dogma.  Yes the same velocity measurement for c but not the same measurement of distance and time that make up c. This is what I've been investigating in my last few posts. A light beam trying to catch up with a receding ship is going to travel a lot further and a lot longer to catch up with the ship than if the ship was moving toward the light beam. The ship's velocity affects the time and distance the light beam travels without affecting the relative velocity to the light beam. That's the trick.

 

"While that may not sound logical or plausible, it happens because what we normally think of as fixed concepts--length and time--are both variable at high speeds. "

 

This is where he really starts going off the rails. Time dilation and length contraction have nothing to do with explaining what he's laid out so far. However, if I may clarify what I think he's getting at. If time is slowed to a near standstill within a speeding ship from our perspective, why would  the speed of light within the ship not be affected by the time standstill? Wouldn't an outside stationary observer see the light barely crawl forward within the ship. No, for many reasons I've explained in detail in prior posts.

 

"If you observed a car travelling past you at close to c, its length in the direction of travel would appear shortened and the passage of time on board would appear slowed down."

 

I'll just let this pass. Yes this is what relativists believe. Again, this explanation has nothing to do with the original question.

 

"Although these ideas sound strange to all of us not used to moving at relativistic speeds, they have all been confirmed experimentally."

 

Well length contraction has not been confirmed experimentally at all.

 

I think Amp should apologize for wasting my time rebutting his stupid article from a "physics" expert.

Edited October 1, 2019 by ralfcis