Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

What?? Where do they contradict experimental verification. Please post your experiment you claim that matter shrinks due to relativistic effects on the PSE. You will be shown the post about whether lc is real or not. I've already asked the question about the mirror angle and you are just wrong about it. There are other posts on wiki that are just dead wrong about the physical proofs for lc due to relativistic effects because there are none possible. There is no physical lc, only a time construct due to relativity of simultaneity. As for lc in relativity, I've stated the entire theory could be discussed using only lc. The rest of my argument you just can't understand. lc and td can't exist concurrently to explain any relativistic result even the constancy of c. We've set our boundaries, neither will give an inch so why keep repeating yourself over and over.

[Farsight]

Ok farsight I'll bite even though I know there's various levels of crazy on this forum and there's no amount of reasonable argument that can shake the faith of believers in the dogma of their sects. In contrast you should post questions on the physics stack exchange. 

You mean questions like this?

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon

 

I got 202 upvotes for that. I also got suspended for a year for "low quality answers". Only they weren't. Some of the guys on physics stack exchange peddle lies-to-children, and gang up against the people who don't. Hence a lot of expert posters are ex posters. 

 

 

I haven't been involved in the dogma of the CMB as an absolute frame but here are my criticisms of it anyway.

 

1. The CMB is equally distant from every point in the universe like the earth's horizon is from everyone on the surface of earth. Everyone gets the same distance reading to the horizon no matter how fast they're going towards it. I assume this CMB dipole is like a mountain on the horizon. The thing is if your direction is a circle around the mountain, your relative velocity to the mountain is zero even though your relative velocity to others on the surface is not zero even if they're not moving relative to the mountain. You're moving but your absolute relative velocity to the mountain is zero just like someone who's not moving?

 

You haven't even bothered to look at it. If you're moving through the universe, the CMB is blue-shifted in front of you, and red-shifted behind you. 

[Farsight]

I remember when Farsight was a frequent visitor on many forums. They didn't like your analogy of time as counting beans!

I get the same response for orbits, trajectories, axis of simultaneity, etc. as perceptions, reality confined to the mind, with no physical counterparts. That's the current status of science where the representations are believed to be the reality.

.

I agree with that. People talk about world lines as if they exist. They don't. 

 

Rather than learn it, Ralf prefers to use demeaning and insulting responses to impose his own lack of understanding onto others. 

 

Noted Sluggo. Thanks. He didn't even look at the CMB dipole anisotropy.  

Edited November 9, 2019 by Farsight

[ralfcis]

Did your article answer my specific criticisms about the CMB as an absolute frame? When I pose specific questions I won't read general treatises or wiki articles on the subject. I don't care if math constructs are real or not so long as they produce real answers and the worldline construct does not in the example I gave. Lc is a valid math construct but to me an unreal physical construct. Your PSE score is impressive so I read that article and see your answer is just a bunch of more unanswered questions.  Philosophy is unimportant to me.

[ralfcis]

Ok, after all these years I finally got the answer I wanted to get on the PSE. I'll present it here once I finish fleshing it out there with examples. Finally I'll have the correct philosophical backing for my math so my results will be immune to others unsubstantiated philosophies.

 

To calculate age difference, the answer is simple:

 

1. Pick a perspective and stick with it. Ignore any other perspectives.

2. Cut the worldline into sections (following the correct technique).

3.  Apply the formula (ct')² = (ct)² - x² for each section of the worldline and add up the results.

 

Relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, frame jumps, the Rindler metric, the Minkowski metric x'-axis, the constancy of c, philosophy vs math, the multiple realities of perspectives, the Lorentz transforms, acceleration, constant relative velocity, worldline rules, reciprocal time dilation are all irrelevant.

And Sluggo, I love the way you're sucking up to farsight not saying one word about his obviously wrong interpretation. Is that integrity on your part?

Edited November 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

After years of banging my head against the myriad interpretations of special relativity on physics forums, I finally got the right answer from Ben Crowell (and Benrg) on the PSX (physics stack exchange). At first I didn't completely recognize the answer but after a couple of days struggling with it, I see that my last 5 yrs of effort were not wasted in a hopeless quest. I am going to extrapolate on his answer to come up with a math method for calculating age difference. Age difference is the only time measurement that is independent of perspective in SR.

 

The rules Ben gave me were:

 

1. Pick a perspective as stationary and stick with it. Ignore any other perspectives.

2. Cut the worldline into sections (following the correct technique).

3.  Apply the formula  d(s)² = d(ct)² - dx²  where  age difference = d(ct') - d(s) for each section of the worldline and add up the results.

 

I added the part of "following the correct technique" which is the math method I'm going to show you in an example now. It's the example I always use; Alice does a .6c roundtrip 3 ly out and back to Bob on Earth. Bob and Earth is my chosen stationary perspective. I draw the STD and carve it into 3 sections separating out constant relative velocity sections that don't contribute to age difference. I will use the formula in step 3 to define the boundaries of these sections and introduce those boundaries in a formula for proper time simultaneity instead of the usual perspective simultaneity. While Bob's lines of perspective simultaneity are horizontal and Alice's are at a .6c slope, the lines of proper simultaneity joining Bob and Alice's proper times are at a half speed slope of 1/3c. The formula for this is

 

v_h = Yv/(1+Y) where Y is gamma and v_h is half speed relativistic velocity. (e.g. if v=.6c, v_h=1/3c. if v=.8c, v_h=.5c)

 

What's left over is a middle section, between the turnaround point and when light from the turnaround point reaches the "stationary" observer. This is the section of relative velocity mismatch. The doppler shift ratio (1/2) the stationary observer was receiving led him to believe he was engaged in +.6c relative velocity while the doppler shift ratio (2) the traveller was receiving said the relative velocity had changed to -.6c. So how does this agree with the conclusion that comparing both wolrdlines will result in the traveller ageing 2 yrs less than Bob from take off to re-unification? Let's look at the STD and its 3 sections:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/MxkF1RptLAQT9pRw7

 

Let's calculate the age difference for the bottom purple triangle of constant relative velocity.

 

dt' =4 Alice has travelled 4 of her years 

dt = 5 where t=Yt'

dx =3 Alice has travelled 3 ly

ds = sqrt (5²- 3²) = 4

age difference =  dt' - ds = 0 for this section.

 

Let's calculate the age difference for the top purple triangle of constant relative velocity.

 

dt' =2 Alice travels 2 of her years 

dt = 2.5 where t=Yt'

dx =1.5 Alice travels 1.5 ly

ds = sqrt (2.5²- 1.5²) = 2

age difference =  dt' - ds = 0 for this section.

 

So for the remaining middle section age difference =  dt' - ds =  2 - 4 = -2. Alice has aged 2 yrs less than Bob.

 

You'll notice I have drawn in green lines of proper simultaneity with transitioning slopes in the middle section. This implies at t' =5 the age difference between Bob and Alice is -1yr. I have the math to prove this implication is true but it's too lengthy to show here so you can ignore that implication for now. It's not important for this preliminary introduction of this math method.

 

This math method applies for any combination of outgoing and incoming velocities from -c to +c. There is significant math involved for -c velocities but the rest are simple for any examples you'd like me to do to feel more comfortable with the method. 

 

You'll probably reject this short cut method as unnecessary but it does have physical implications. For example, if Alice accelerates away at the turnaround point, Alice actually ages faster than Bob which I don't believe was previously calculable for other math methods. So she goes out 3 ly at .6c and as her transition away approaches c, the most her age differential can be is 2 yrs more than Bob. Crazy stuff but I can prove it mathematically using this method.
 

Edited November 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

See what happens when you dont motivate me?

[ralfcis]

What happens?

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

What happens?

The sheeple give you the Gold Standard and you done gone get got cheated.

[ralfcis]

What really happened is I figured out the math rebelling against all the misinterpretations of relativity. Now I can connect it to this new simpler theory that doesn't need what almost everyone else interprets relativity to be including Einstein (especially his interpretation of time). I never expected it to turn out this way. So far no reaction to my math method on the PSX.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/512135/what-are-the-rules-governing-worldlines

Edited November 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I thought I had scored a major victory but the final answer from relativity is all perspectives count as realities. I view it the opposite way in that there is only one objective reality and all perspectives can be derived from it; they are all illusions of perspective. This one reality is the causal, instantaneous, god's eye view of the present but such a concept does not exist in relativity. It doesn't even exist when co-located participants agree on age difference because that agreement is fleeting as soon as they're separated. Permanent age difference is only temporary so long as the participants remain co-located. Once they separate (and it has to be a pretty significant separation), all these other perspectives come into interpreting what is their age difference and none can agree even though a causal perspective can indeed be agreed upon. But they won't even look at the proof so my theory and relativity will never reconcile so long as they insist on covering their eyes and ears.

 

I posed a question today of what is the age difference if Alice goes out 4 yrs at .6c and then accelerates to .8c out for 4.5 yrs. Relativity's answer from the Earth's perspective is it ages 4 more years than Alice. My answer from a causal time perspective is Alice ages .5 yrs more than Earth. If you draw a .72c line between the endpoints, which is almost like an average of the original 2 lines, the relativistic answer is 0 from Earth's perspective. My answer of .5 yrs seems far more reasonable as it's closer to the .72c answer than relativity's 4 yr answer.

I'm now officially a permanent crank, I could never accept perspective time as reality. There is an underlying causal time that is the true objective reality.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/rLjof83tQxERiTau8

Edited November 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

Farsight interpreted 'time' as a humanly conceived counting procedure, which is essentially what it is, going back to the beginning of civilization. (He'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

The bulk of human society wants to believe 'time' is a mystical magical entity that is responsible for events occurring, like a planner/director. It's a type of security blanket since people associate 'time' with longevity. You can run out of beer or toilet paper, but no one wants to run out of time. And still some refer to the current century as one of 'enlightenment'??? Wherever this idea is posted, they just ignore you. That's easy when you realize the degree of ignorance in the world. People are born into a world knowing nothing about it. As the photon article on the PSE shows, all we can do is invent models that approximate the physical behavior of the universe. Is the electron really a tiny porcupine with quills radiating in all directions? It doesn't matter as long as we can generate electricity. If an intellectually advanced alien tried to explain the 'reality' of the universe, no one would understand it, since the human mind doesn't have the capacity. This injures many egos, but so what, maybe it's time for a reality check. I agree with you as to some of science being a religion because that's where many put there faith in solving humanities problems.

Science IS philosophy (augmented with a system of measurement), in case you don't already know.

Your equation is correct but can be simplified to ct'=ct/g, and if you add x'=x/g, then you see the moving frame A' experiences td and lc, as seen by the ref. frame A. This also results from using the coordinate transformations.

 

The CMB as I understand it is everywhere. Another absolute ref. frame is the 'fixed stars' background, which are so distant there is no detectable motion. This is an argument against the LET promoters, who don't realize there is no difference between a fixed ether and the apparent fixed position of light emission. The independence of light speed relative to its source, allowed Einstein to declare the ether uneccessary. Like the lucky charm people wear, and as long as nothing bad happens, they say 'it's working'.

 

Where's the 'enlightenment', people?

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

I read the responses to your 'twin' scenario, on pse. A few agreed with my opinion, you are making a simple problem overly complicated. Ben's page of math is overkill.

In looking at your latest graphic with the purple sections. The original 3 segments are sufficient for this problem. Ben is considering any speed profile, when suggesting straight sections to approximate a curved profile.

Despite the fact that axis of simultaneity (green) is irrelevant, for a constant (inertial) speed they do not vary, which contradicts their purpose.

With coordinates (x, t):

From E-frame; A moves outbound at .6c to (3, 5), then inbound to (0, 10).

From A-frame; E moves outbound at .6c to (-2.4, 4), then inbound to (0, 8).

γ=1.25, 3/ γ=2.4, 5/ γ=4

If the graphic is rotated 180 deg, the inbound leg is equivalent to the outbound leg.

Or you can run the film backwards for the inbound leg. Either way the duration is the same for each. The extended speed profile accumulates 8 time units, so Alice is younger than Bob.

After A changes direction, she will receive Et=3 at At=4.6, after receiving Et=2 at At=4. There is no gap! The frequency of the E-clock appears to change at the reversal, but that's doppler effects, not aging. The E-signals are continuous. It's that simple1

I'm old school, and don't believe in experts, only people with more experience. That's my advantage here.

Edited November 12, 2019 by sluggo

[ralfcis]

I'd love to discuss this with you Sluggo but I can't for a couple of weeks. The subsequent question I posed about Alice going out at .6c and then accelerating away to .8c was the final killer for me. Relativity is concerned with infinite perspective realities and I'm interested in 1 objective reality from which the perspective ones can be calculated. Otherwise people start believing past, present and future are all a matter of perspective. Relativity seems to just want to calculate coordinate points and I want to get meaning from them. Now that I understand this, I think I'm going to have to start my presentation over concentrating on this one principle.

 

Here's an STD which is basically like 4 guitar strings being plucked (ignore the yellow, green and other lines).

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QiGYpm6u6FdgryA58

 

The longer the guitar strings, the less time they represent which is the rule and equation for worldlines. There is no concept of length contraction in the worldline math and no need for any of the relativistic concept Greene relies upon for his online course.

 

So the one where Alice goes out at .4c and then accelerates to c is the longest but takes the shortest time of 5.3 yrs. The shortest line (.72c) takes the longest time of 8.67 yrs. Those lengths are all compared to the earth perspective of 12.5 yrs and that is how relativity defines age difference. That is just a completely meaningless determination of coordinates for me when the true meaning in causal time reality is constant velocity (.72c) results in no age difference and Alice will actually age more for the other lines and will keep that age difference once a new relative velocity is established between them.

 

That is a powerful concept and is more than just a coordinate result. Good luck in trying to sell that to anyone already sold on relativity. I don't foresee I'll ever succeed and repackaging the explanation on this new focus will take many more years of daily slapping the keyboard and for no benefit other than I love the exploration of this (most days). I should be diverting my energy into developing a useful skill that could get me a job maybe?

Edited November 14, 2019 by ralfcis

[Farsight]

Farsight interpreted 'time' as a humanly conceived counting procedure, which is essentially what it is, going back to the beginning of civilization. (He'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

You could say that. I see the beans in a bucket image is still there in the 2006 version of Time Explained. More generally I think of it as a cumulative measure of motion. 

 

Where's the 'enlightenment', people?

 

 

It's all here: http://physicsdetective.com/. Once you understand the nature of time you know that the speed of light is not constant, then you understand how gravity works, and so on. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Farsight

[Amplituhedron]

Ralf, you are right about length contraction. There is no length contraction. Let there be a rod at rest in the reference frame of A. B is in relative motion with respect to A and the rod. A and B meet at event E, and then each measures the rod that is at rest in the reference frame of A. 

 

The outcome will be that B measures a shorter rod than A.

 

Why? Not because the rod shrinks, or space contracts or deforms, or anything of the sort. It is because A and B are measuring two different 3d rods. But the rod itself is not 3d — it is 4d! It exists at all its moments in time (as do A and B, who are also 4d). Hence cross sections — temporal parts — of A and B are measuring two different cross sections — temporal parts — of an existent 4d rod. The rod itself, the whole rod, is, like A and B, a world tube in Minkowski spacetime, and never changes. Therefore, there is no length contraction. 

 

Length contraction, as you say, is a matter of perspective, and there is an observer-independent, objective reality, given by the spacetime interval. It’s just that the reality is fully 4d, with all times as well as all places simply given. The whole reason for the apparent (but not actual) length contraction is that the temporal parts of  A and B have different planes of simultaneity, or cross sections, of an existent and unchanging 4d world. It is no different from looking at, say, a building (or anything) from different locations. It’s the same object, but it looks different depending on where you stand.

[ralfcis]

I will think about this.