Relativity And Simple Algebra

[OceanBreeze]

No Ralf, I don’t consider you to be a crackpot. I do think you have an obsession about relativity that is based on some fundamental misunderstanding. The reason I don’t engage with you is just that I think it would be a waste of my time and yours, as nothing I could say would convince you. I do read your posts, however, and I have no objection to you continuing with your quest to prove whatever you are trying to prove. I say, go for it!

 

[Vmedvil2]

This sounds interesting. There are a few of us who might appreciate it.

 

There happen to be three prolific posters here who fairly obviously have mental conditions (Ralfcis, Dubbelsox and Victor offhis Medsville). I have had all three of them on Ignore for quite some time. But I do scan the forum most days just to see if anything interesting has been posted. If you care to post something on another thread, away from these characters, I will certainly read it.

 

The main entertainment here otherwise is waiting for another perpetual motion crank to show up.

 

Whats your problem exchemist? You are against 2 people that actually know what they are doing.... Don't ever group me with Ralfcis.

Edited October 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

There has always been a way to convince me but it requires someone understanding what I say and turn it around on me rather than assuming I don't understand relativity. The problem is there are so many interpretations of relativity and that's why it's both deemed settled science by the high priests and supplicants and completely unsettled science by everyone else. That's why this theory is still constantly hotly debated for over a century. The problems are how it's taught and the fact there isn't a FAQ for it. The other problem is that there is an unwritten  FAQ for it but when you ask a question it gets pigeon holed into questions that have nothing to do with yours. People are terrified of looking stupid so often the pat answers have nothing to do with the questions and when you point that out to them they get very offended.

 

The best book I've ever read, and I don't read much, is "Sapiens". It really explained human nature to me. The most important lesson is that masculinity is the most important thing to a male and femininity to a female. If you attack a woman's looks, that's like a dagger to the heart. The same if you insult a male's strength and vigor whether mental or physical. Physics forums are based on the latter dynamic as well as providing a rubber room for certain types of mental illness. 

 

Yes I have an obsession with SR; at first it was to try to master it and recently to try to destroy it once I mastered it enough to see its flaws. When the math clicks into place I get such a feeling of euphoria. But when I have trouble figuring out a problem, it actually causes physical pain much like constipation. It hurts to concentrate that much. That's why I'm reluctant to start into the next problem because the last two really stretched me.

 

PS. You're just assuming I have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity based on the evidence that you can't be bothered to identify it. So you're statement has no basis in fact other than it goes against established dogma which has historically always been the least likely to withstand all challengers.

Edited October 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

 "I have had all three of them on Ignore for quite some time. But I do scan the forum most days just to see if anything interesting has been posted."

 

I knew XC was illiterate but reading most days what people he has on ignore write is not having them on ignore. You might want to explore that XC. I'm not saying you're mentally ill, just lacking integrity like Damp.

 

PS. I just read Victor doesn't want me to be lumped in with him and 006. I second that.

Edited October 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Ocean believes you do as he says, not as he does. Remember to be nice.

[Amplituhedron]

I'm all for you navel gazers to go navel gaze on another thread amongst yourselves. I won't bother you because I find you've got nothing important or interesting to say. I see a lot of hurt feelings, egos and malice but no glimmer of intelligence in any of you. 

 

Pure projection on your part, like Trump calling others crooks. 

[Amplituhedron]

... I don't read much ... 

 

Ya don't say!

[ralfcis]

It's all about perspective.

[Amplituhedron]

 

 

The best book I've ever read, and I don't read much, is "Sapiens". It really explained human nature to me. The most important lesson is that masculinity is the most important thing to a male and femininity to a female. If you attack a woman's looks, that's like a dagger to the heart. The same if you insult a male's strength and vigor whether mental or physical.

 

Of course, another believer in evolutionary psychology! What a shock!

 

Those who want to see this sort of nonsense thoroughly and repeatedly debunked are recommended to read P.Z. Myers' Pharynguyla blog. 

[ralfcis]

Dave's another one like XC, never reads my posts and is outraged by all of them. In the old SPCF forum they had a philosophy section. Can't we make Dave a happy camper and get one going here for the big boy? Then he won't feel compelled to follow me around and not read my posts.

Edited October 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

Of course, another believer in evolutionary psychology! What a shock!

 

Those who want to see this sort of nonsense thoroughly and repeatedly debunked are recommended to read P.Z. Myers' Pharynguyla blog. 

Now that is interesting. I read Sapiens, on the recommendation of someone, and found myself underwhelmed by it. It seemed rather too obviously to revel in iconoclasm without a lot of evidence to support the ideas. But I confess I don't like Harari's sweeping and exaggerated journalistic style, so that is partly what put me off.

 

Myers is someone I have a lot of time for. I'll look this up and see what he has to say. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

How soon could that philosophy forum be set up please?

[ralfcis]

I've been off on theRelativistic Law Of Reflection thread learning stuff about relativity from Amp (learned nothing from Sluggo though). The lesson I've learned is that reciprocity in relativity is between time and space not between time and time as in reciprocal time dilation or space and space as in reciprocal length contraction. My theory does not use these constructs but how relativity does has not been obvious to me at all.

 

My misunderstanding came out as a result of a question I asked on the Physics Stack Exchange. The question was why is there permanent age difference in the twin paradox but no sign of a permanent form of length contraction? Why doesn't Alice return having aged less and also be permanently flatter? The answer is because her turnaround caused her to age less and the distance she travelled was reciprocally permanently shrunk. There is no physical proof of this, there is no odometer that could have actually measured a shrunken space. However, according to relativity, the distance travelled must have shrunk otherwise Alice would have covered an unshrunken distance superluminally which is impossible. QED who can argue with that logic. I'm being sarcastic, this is a circular argument.

 

There is no real reciprocity in the twin paradox because the result is independent of perspective. There is no reciprocal perspective where she returns flatter and Bob has aged less than her because she is the only one who  broke the reciprocity by having initiated the frame jump. But the muon is a perfect example of the reciprocity of space and time because there is no frame jump.

 

From the muon's perspective, it can only live 2.2 usec and it has to traverse 5.9kms of atmosphere to reach Earth. Luckily, due to reciprocity, the distance to Earth shrinks and it only has to cross an atmosphere, from its perspective, of 5.9/Y = .645 kms where Y = 9.14 for v=.994c. So how much time does it need to cross that shrunken distance? t= 5.9kms /.994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s =1.98 usec which is plenty of time to reach Earth. 

 

According to Amp, this is the only way to solve this problem and it seems to be in keeping with the twin paradox example. But the twin paradox is devoid of perspective and we have only solved the muon example from the muon's perspective. It turns out that the Earth's perspective is the muon flattening and the Earth's time ticking faster and the atmospheric distance remaining 5.9kms. The muon's flattening is not only unmeasureable but it's also irrelevant. The muon only lives 2.2 usec from its own perspective but from the Earth's perspective it has 9.14 * 2.2 usec = 20.1 usec to traverse 5.9 kms.  So how many kms at .994c can a muon cross in 20.1 usec? .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s * 2.01 *10^-5 = 5.99 kms. So it makes it to earth!

 

You'll never see that last solution in any physics book because relativists forget how time dilation really works. Time slows for the muon which means the earth gives it more time to travel its atmospheric distance from the Earth's perspective according to the formula t=Yt'. 2.2 usec muon time is equal to  20.1 usec earth time. So from the Earth's perspective the muon gets 20.1 usec earth time to traverse 5.9 kms earth distance and from the muon's perspective, the muon gets 2.2 usec muon time to traverse .645 kms muon distance which is its perspective of 5.9 kms earth distance.

 

My theory gets rid of all this confusing gobbledegook by only considering Yv = x/t'. That's the muon velocity in terms of the atmospheric distance it must cross un-contracted in its time. So 9.14 * .994c * 3*10⁵ km/s = 2.72 * 10⁶ kms/s which is the muon's Yv. The muon has 2.2 usec to live so how far can it travel = 2.72* 10⁶kms/s * 2.2 usec = 5.99 kms and it only has to travel 5.9 kms to reach earth. There's no need for length contraction.

 

Here is Greene's explanation of how time ticks faster for the stationary perspective at 10:00 of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu4NpoDYDGM&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=12

 

PS. When I started this post I was convinced that the muon example could only be solved in 1 way as Amp had always insisted and my post #644 on page 38 was wrong but now I see it wasn't wrong. The problem remains that both Amp and Sluggo (and almost everyone else on earth) do not understand the difference between permanent age difference in the twin paradox and reciprocity in constant relative velocity.

Edited October 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I slept on what I just wrote and am amazed at how Einstein's theory has been able to fool so many people. I mean, he was either an idiot who didn't understand math or a genius to pull off such a scam. You'd think that this equation is incontrovertible:

 

v = x/t = x'/t'

 

It's the basis of relative velocity that within each frame the relative velocity is the same. It's also the basis for the speed of light being the same within each frame. c is no different from any other velocity in this equation.

 

The muon example has been fraudulently presented as a paradox. It always falsely states the muon only has 2.2 usec to reach Earth but in fact, from Earth's perspective it has 20.1 usec to reach earth. There is no magic here except the simple equation of v=x/t=x'/t'. There is no question that from both perspectives the muon easily makes it to Earth. The muon's line of simultaneity connects its 2.2 usec to the Earth's 20.1 usec so with the more expansive earth time it can cross the earth's atmospheric distance. Most people are led to believe time dilation always shrinks the amount of time given for something to happen but this is not true.

 

The 2nd misconception exposed in the last post is about the cause of age difference. Age difference is not caused by time dilation becoming permanent due to a frame jump and reciprocally the distance travelled does not become permanently shorter because it has to in order to preserve the constancy of c. Age difference has nothing to do with time dilation and length contraction has nothing to do with length, it has to do with the measurement of length using unsync'd clocks. So even if you had a non-time based odometer to measure the space you travelled has contracted, it would, in fact, not measure space has contracted because you are not using the relativistic method (using clocks) to measure length contraction. Einstein put his thumb on the scale with how he defined synchronization of clocks, perspective simultaneity and reciprocal time dilation to create the necessary falsehood of length contraction.

 

Permanent age difference is caused by the Rindler metric. There is no corresponding math where the distance you travelled has permanently and reciprocally shrunk. The Rindler metric is not bound by c so there is no requirement for length contraction to balance out time dilation so that c is not exceeded. I'll ask this question on the Physics Stack exchange where 99% of the morons there won't know what I'm talking about but will try to answer anyway. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Now I know why math was your worst subject in highschool.

[ralfcis]

Which part do you find wrong?

[ralfcis]

So I guess we need a math review.

 

Here's the STD for the twin paradox at .6c out and back: 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1uVNuNNPRfsQujBk9

 

Notice they both start at zero and end with Alice having aged 2 yrs less than Bob when they reunite. To the untrained eye using time dilation for the analysis, it looks like Alice ages 1 yr less on the outbound leg and another yr less on the inbound. This is not true. The permanent ageing process must hide any discontinuities in time between the two participants. This means reciprocal time dilation looks smooth before and after the turnaround and the doppler shift ratio must also transition smoothly once the ageing difference occurs during the relative velocity imbalance due to the info delay of the turnaround.

 

You can take or leave that but what's important is that reunification in the twin paradox is where age difference shows itself in relativity. So anytime there is no permanent age difference when the two are together means there has been only constant relative velocity, no frame jump, no twin paradox scenario.

 

The red lines are Alice's lines of perspective simultaneity. Notice at the turnaround, Alice's reciprocal time dilation at t'=4 is most notably t=3.2, t=5 and t=6.8 Bob's time. The formula for time dilation gets thrown out the window because the formula for relativity of simultaneity (= vx/c²) takes over in this no man's land. This is where relativity goes off the rails if you try to make the top half of the STD into a muon constant relative velocity example. Relativity uses Bob's blue lines of simultaneity to zero Alice's  (the muon's) start time with Bob's zero time. Why this is wrong is that the clocks differ at unification as if there was a frame jump which couldn't have happened because the muon example is only about constant relative velocity.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qEKDoo4mor3bAnR37

 

So the only way to properly sync the start times and have the time at unification equal indicating no frame jump is to use the green line of causal simultaneity.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BEpbYQ6Jhfzy3tq79

 

This will be impossible for relativists to understand because there is no recognition of causal proper simultaneity  in relativity except when the participants are co-located. Causal simultaneity is now no longer dependent on co-location, the two participants can be separated and still share the same present that is not dependent on perspective. 

 

Notice when the last STD is turned upside down it corresponds identically with the bottom half of the 1st STD except instead of both starting at 0 they would start at 5 and count down. This is just a superficial labelling difference but it satisfies the rule co-located clocks in constant relative motion, whether at start or end, have no age difference between them. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by ralfcis