Relativity And Simple Algebra

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I can literally prove that everything you said is literal bullshit in less than a paragraph,  

 

A) the equations for a sphere is (x - a)² + (y - b )² + (z - c)² = r²  Whatever you wrote there is nonsense.

That's a horrible way of doing it. "Whatever I wrote there" will save ralf a lot of work.

 

B )Time Dilation doesn't redshift, that is a improper usage of that term, Redshift is caused by Expansion or Contraction of Space via Dark Energy or Gravity and it happens upon light that is traveling large distances.

Redshift can have something to do with time dilation if we are talking phonons, any elementary particle as a fluctuation in the ST foam of varied density (aka length contraction and time dilation of light). Bob and Alice are covering a very large distance.

 

C) There are not 5 vectors per unit of time dilation in SR,

Per spherical qubit. Why are you still on SR. Rhetorical question.

 

D) Redshift does not change because of the observer frame it changes because of the space's curvature on light, another thing is light doesn't "catch up" to moves at a steady C, you will never outrun the light with traditional forms of movement.

Bob's light has to catch up to Alice in order for Alice to observe Bob and vice versa. That doesn't mean that by the time it catches up to the relativistic trekkers it's going to be a live feed

 

E)  GR is a theory of gravity not of motion, thus everything you wrote about GR is nonsense, GR tells about curvature of space because of gravity not anything else, especially nothing to do with motion like SR.

Post-Newtonian approximations, however

 

That's your problem, it's a real barrier to your understanding and imagination, you are so textbook, you need to deepen your vision and have more patience and actually take the time to understand where another is coming from regardless of whether it fits to your normie textbook examples

[Vmedvil2]

That's a horrible way of doing it. "Whatever I wrote there" will save ralf a lot of work.

 

 

Redshift can have something to do with time dilation if we are talking phonons, any elementary particle as a fluctuation in the ST foam of varied density (aka length contraction and time dilation of light). Bob and Alice are covering a very large distance.

 

Per spherical qubit. Why are you still on SR. Rhetorical question.

 

Bob's light has to catch up to Alice in order for Alice to observe Bob and vice versa. That doesn't mean that by the time it catches up to the relativistic trekkers it's going to be a live feed

 

Post-Newtonian approximations, however

 

That's your problem, it's a real barrier to your understanding and imagination, you are so textbook, you need to deepen your vision and have more patience and actually take the time to understand where another is coming from regardless of whether it fits to your normie textbook examples

 

and this is all literally nonsense too, I am done with you, like I said you are like the Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the future.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3y0eDEN1A

Edited October 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Even in the scientific line of reasoning it's improper to think of things in terms of right and wrong prematurely. It takes a lot of deduction to be able to do that. Not induction, and that's all we do when trying to learn something new, and that's where stop being scientifically proper. You be done with the discussion though, that's your choice.

 

Ralf can do one of two things, he can look at my methods in terms of right and wrong, or he can look at them in terms of efficiency. For instance, the equation I gave would be far easier than the one you gave when it comes to plotting diagrams which is what he's doing. You gave the formula for a sphere for metric conversions, in order to graph it you input x and y, but getting z out of that is a lot more arduous than with the form I gave, mine has like 2 steps before you solve for z (solve for x calculator) with the one you gave you have input the vertices of a right triangle to find c, root everything, input a radius, etc, etc. I mean really, if I were Ralf I'd go with Lizard Brain's method.

Edited October 26, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

You have a false sense of learnedness. Learnedness is all about the application of ideas. Whether or not you can find those ideas in your college textbook, on arxiv or an article is irrelevant. Deduction in this case involves trying out a sphere my way. Preferably by hand on graphing paper, with a pencil and eraser, it's better for your brain than using an online program.

Edited October 26, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

In the specific post you're calling crank I gave very good reason in redshift specifically as to why so many people are coming up with different numbers for Alice and Bob (also some insight into Hubble Trouble, variations in the Hubble Constant that is tearing at the SC), it's perspective and the theory that covers the most perspectives has to be efficiently designed to cover ground.

[Vmedvil2]

You know man, I think Ralfcis and how he is doing this model is closer than the actual relativity as for your theories they don't have enough explanation about them, why don't you go make a thread and stop hijacking them. There is a degree to the amount of hijacking should go on, let's leave ralfcis's thread alone.

 

 

 

A) As for Ralfcis I think you need to drop the idea that time will resync after time dilation, you are physically older, this even happens to satellites, the clocks will run more slowly which means that you would not go back to how you were.

 

 

B ) You can  actually use a different equation if it is correct for time dilation, you can scale the metric with the equations you wrote.Time dilation must be done by the Einstein equation if you can not find a correct equation to scale it with.

Edited October 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

XC might be a nasty and dishonest person but he is right about one thing, mental illness on this forum. I don't care if you guys are right in some beyond my ability to recognize true genius sense but your quantum physics philosophy musings have no place on this thread. I don't engage in this waste of time in obfuscation. The title of this thread is relativity and simple algebra.

 

OK, back to reality. Let's do the STD using the real numbers for the muon example to show the solution from the Earth's perspective something you'll find in no physics textbook. Please try to prove me wrong.

 

I've done this before in post #901 on page 53 but this time I'll use kms and usec instead of pico years and pico light years.

 

 We need the half speed line of causal simultaneity to sync the start times of the Earth and muon.

 

v_hx = Yv_x/(1+Y) = 9.1424 * .994 / 10.14 = .896c (the  slope of the green line is 1/.896c because it's a line of simultaneity)

 

We need to convert the formerly used pico years and pico light years into kms and usec.

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

x = 5.9 km (formerly .6236 pLy)

t'= 2.2 usec (formerly .06976 pyrs)

t=Yt'= 9.1424 * 2.2 =  20.1 usec (formerly .6378 pyrs) (this value is only relevant for a max atmospheric distance of 5.99 km)

 

The intersection of the causal line of simultaneity with the t axis was

t = xv= .6236 * .896 = .5587456 pyrs but in the new units

t= 5.9km * .896 / 3 * 10⁶ km/s = 17.62 usec

 

Now you need to figure out the number of usec per unit of t axis and it's

17.62/5.6 = 3.15 usec per t axis unit

 

The intersection of the velocity line with the t axis is 

 

t=x/v = .6236/.994 = .627364 pyrs but in the new units

t= 5.9km / .994 (3*10⁶ km/s) = 19.79 usec which is 19.79 - 17.62 = 2.165 above zero.

 

t=Yt' so at t=19.79 usec

t'= 19.79/9.1424 =2.165 usec above zero

 

Here is the original muon example redrawn in km and usec units.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/coTXRb7UHiNecx3S6

 

It shows a muon can cross 5.9 km in 2.165 usec because from the earth perspective it crosses that distance in 17.62 + 2.165 = 19.79 usec earth time which is 2.165 usec muon time. The muon lives for 2.2 usec muon time so it does reach the earth. No length contraction required. The math is tedious to work out so I don't expect anyone will bother to check my work with spherical coordinates.

 

PS. Oh yeah, notice how when you sync the clocks correctly using causal simultaneity, they both meet up at the same time of 2.165 usec. This means no twin paradox has occurred and this is just a straight up constant relative velocity problem. I guess it's too straight forward for Einstein to have figured out so he based his entire theory on perspective time as reality. That's why no relativist is willing to explain relativity's definition of reality because it's ludicrous. 

Edited October 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Well I feel both insulted and flattered by that. Thanks meanie

[ralfcis]

I've just noticed something in my STD that I've never noticed before. Since the Earth was chosen to be the stationary frame, its blue lines of perspective simultaneity are horizontal but I did not draw in the muon's red lines of perspective simultaneity ( slope of 1/.944c) like I normally do. I just drew the green lines of causal simultaneity which is the god's eye view of time between the two. But then I noticed the muon's perspective is also in the STD at the top where the vertical purple line would be its ct-axis and where it intersects the red velocity line is the x-axis at .645 km. From the muon's perspective the atmospheric distance it must cross is .645 kms. v=x/t.

v = .994c * 3*10⁶ km/s = .645 km / 2.165 usec. The Earth's perspective lengthens the muon's time to cross the atmosphere and the muon's perspective shrinks the atmosphere it must cross. Both are handled if you consider the muon's velocity is Yv = 9.1424 * .994c = 9.09c or 2.72e6 km/s = x/t'. In this example  the muon's Yv will cross 5.9 km in 2.165 usec (it's time) . The Earth will measure that to have taken 19.79 usec. In this way, Yv obsoletes the need for length contraction.

Edited October 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Victor, I don't understand this statement:

 

"A) As for Ralfcis I think you need to drop the idea that time will resync after time dilation, you are physically older, this even happens to satellites, the clocks will run more slowly which means that you would not go back to how you were."

 

Since the satellite's orbit has a turnaround point, GPS is an example of the twin paradox age difference not reciprocal time dilation so they are permanently ageing less. 

[Vmedvil2]

Victor, I don't understand this statement:

 

"A) As for Ralfcis I think you need to drop the idea that time will resync after time dilation, you are physically older, this even happens to satellites, the clocks will run more slowly which means that you would not go back to how you were."

 

Since the satellite's orbit has a turnaround point, GPS is an example of the twin paradox age difference not reciprocal time dilation so they are permanently ageing less. 

 

Which that is correct, I think, basically as things are in motion there is a permanent change in aging, there is nothing in physics that will make you age more quickly only more slowly as objects are in motion.

Edited October 27, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

I still don't have the answers, there are still contradictions I can't resolve. Maybe if I write out what these contradictions are I'll gain some clarity.

 

The muon example clearly shows you can base an entire theory of relativity solely on length contraction, solely on time dilation or solely on velocity dilation Yv. If you choose any one of these options, the others become irrelevant, they can't all co-exist if you correctly interpret how c stays constant (it's not because length contraction and time dilation balance each other out as Einy posited). Or maybe they can if you come up with a theory that a certain percentage of the total relativistic effect is due to each phenomenon. 

 

If the muon had eyes, it would see the atmospheric distance it had to traverse as only .645 km instead of 5.9 km. This should mean the Earth would either appear or actually be much closer to the muon. If we could look up at the muon, it would paradoxically appear no bigger than any comparably sized particle beside it in the upper atmosphere because we would not see the atmospheric distance contracted because it is in our own frame of reference just like the muon's time of 2.165 usec is in its own frame of reference. We, reciprocally, would see the muon time of 2.165 usec as 19.79 usec our time for it to cross our 5.9 km. All of these parameters remain unaffected by relativity. The muon travels at v'=Yv= 9.08c  to cross and the Earth sees it cross at v=.994c. This calculation remains unchanged whether you blame it on length contraction or time dilation.

 

The rate of time that both clocks are ticking down is the same for both within their own frames but obviously relatively 9 times slower for the muon. The difference in the clocks, 19.79 usec for the Earth clock and 2.165 usec for the muon clock, is not totally due to time slowing, it's caused by when you start the clocks as is apparent in the STD zero times. That's where the green line of causal simultaneity comes in. The earth clock is not zeroed until 17.62 usec after the muon clock starts from Earth's perspective. This clock sync records the same number of ticks for both clocks even though the muon clock ticks slower. So relativity of causal simultaneity works in concert with time dilation.  The time difference is because the Earth starts recording way later than the muon starts recording.

 

So the answer is if the muon clock counts time that is 9 times slower than the Earth time, the Earth time clock must count 9 times as many clock ticks as the muon clock does.

Edited October 28, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So the old formula for t due to perspective simultaneity was t_ps = vx/c².

 

But now we need to derive a new formula for t due to causal simultaneity. We'll call it t_cs.

 

We know from the above post that t=Yt' but that t=t'+t_cs. Let's put numbers to it:

 

t= 19.79 usec

Y=9.1424

t'=2.165 usec so t_cs=17.62 usec.

 

We also know that t_cs is due to the intersection of the line of causal simultaneity from the distance where the muon starts.

 

So using the formulas in post #1097

 

 t_cs= xv_cs = xYv/(1+Y) which is the new formula for causal simultaneity. Let's plug in some numbers:

 

x=5.9 km

v=.994 / (3 * 10⁶ km/s) (if we were not using km and usec we would leave out the 3 * 10⁶ km/s factor)

Y=9.1424

 so t_cs=17.62 usec. Correct!

 

Any questions? 

Edited October 28, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;

This will be impossible for relativists to understand..

 

.

No! It's impossible for you to understand, because you want to reinvent the wheel, and don't know how. Are you going to squander another decade working on the 'twin' problem?

The rate of time for a clock depends on its speed, thus the 'speed profile' as drawn in a graph determines the accumulated time. If two clocks separate from point A, follow different profiles, then rejoin at point B, it's more probable they will have accumulated different amounts of time. That is determining aging.
While they are in relative motion the observer with each clock can get a reading from the other clock (using light signals), and will conclude, the other clock has a slower rate. That is not aging! It results from the clock synch convention, even when the clocks are running at different rates! There is a tv commercial with a slogan 'you can't fake steak'. It could also apply to special relativity. You either know it or you don't.
Why not find something constructive to do.

[ralfcis]

The only waste of time is your ignorance. It's been more than a decade for you and you still can't read yet. I don't disagree that reciprocal time dilation is not the same as permanent age difference. Try reading what I write.

Edited October 28, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

The only waste of time is your ignorance.

:o

 

It's been more than a decade for you and you still can't read yet.

:o

 

I don't disagree that reciprocal time dilation is not the same as permanent age difference.

Thank God, what a relief.

 

Try reading what I write.

*facepalm*

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Edited October 28, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP