Relativity And Simple Algebra

[AnssiH]

The true significance of what is happening can be seen from the Loedel half speed perspective which gives us a window into the instantaneous universal present.

The part I don't understand is, how does this method imply something about a universal present?

 

Or if you mean it just as a convention, also how to apply this convention in any situation involving more than 2 observers (or more than 2 inertial frames)?

[ralfcis]

Oops, the 2nd sentence. I've laid out how to measure the one-way c according to the caveats of relativity.

 

I'm thinking you can experimentally measure the speed of time in observed moving frames, mathematically you can plot that you are motionless in your own non-moving frame. Physics is equivalent in all inertial frames so time passes at the same rate of c within all inertial frames. My theory extends this to within all frames because even if you are burning through time after a change in velocity, you do not experience time moving faster for you nor can you detect time moving differently than expected outside your frame. Only afterwards by comparing clocks in the Loedel perspective will you find time is permanently missing from your clock. 

 

I've outlined the connection between Loedel perspective and a universal present in this thread. I hope you're mathematically inclined. Feel free to ask me specific questions as you start reading.

Edited July 17, 2020 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

It is best understood as length. In fact the reason there's quadratic terms in there is that it's just a pythagorean equation (with a negative component).

 

You can just write it as

 

[math] s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 [/math]

 

For more info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_interval

 

This trick is not useful for everything because it gives you somewhat ill-defined coordinates along the light cones. Basically the last term being negative means you get 0 length interval along light cones. Meaning, an event on earth gets the same exactl coordinate as some event on mars. That kind of sucks for some use cases :D

 

See;

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2015/03/towards-quantum-gravity.html

 

-Anssi

 

 

Arrrgh! Every time I see this nonsense: it's “just a pythagorean equation (with a negative component)” I have to wince.

 

Look here, the fact that the second term is negative means the function is hyperbolic!

 

It is NOT “just a pythagorean equation (with a negative component”. That is as silly as saying a duck is just a pigeon with webbed feet.

 

Is there anyone here who understands SR?

 

I am beginning to wonder.

[ralfcis]

I don't want to get sidetracked in pointless minutiae but the hyperbolic nature of the equation stems from Minkowski's rotatation of the ct' axis wrt the ct axis (cartesian). The Epstein rotation of the ct axis wrt the ct' axis (cartesian) results in a circular pythagorian based spacetime diagram and prime equation (although I don't know what it is but it must be a sum of squares as opposed to a difference of squares). I'm not advocating Epstein as it's hard to wrap your mind around it when you're used to Minkowski but it does show that a lot of the assumptions of relativity are purely mathematical constructs and not set in stone as those who don't truly understand SR believe. The true meaning of relativity is distorted by the depictions and assumptions such as 4 vector spacetime, clock sync method, reciprocity, past/present/future co-existence, subjective reality, the depicted universal constancy of c,  etc. (If I remember correctly, in Epstein, c is not a 45 degree angle line common to all that is unchanged by perspective. Even in Minkowski, the c line is a composite of a bunch of overlapping differing length c lines. You won't find that in Wiki because relativity wants to keep that fact hidden as it undermines scriptural authority in the belief of one c-line for all.) I'm beginning to wonder if anyone's willing to risk their understanding of SR by reading this thread without subjectively redacting it.

Edited July 17, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

For anyone interested the green line is .6c drawn on an Epstein (or Brehme) diagram.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ka3sNAoLvSsKBv3j9

 

In minkowski, the coordinates (5,3), (4,0) are (4,3), (5,0) in Epstein. 4² + 3² = 5². So the prime equation is written as (ct)² = (ct')² + x²  (pythagorian) which is the same as (ct')² = (ct)² - x² (hyperbolic).

 

Strangely there's almost no information for either Epstein or Brehme on google. Brehme is my spark for the equation v'=Yv instead of Einstein's clumsy interpretation of length contraction and time dilation but I can find no evidence of this on google.

Edited July 18, 2020 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

AnnsiH#1276;

 

First of all the "aether detection" experiments 100 years ago all assumed that "objects" and "space" have independent existence from each other, and thus signals between macroscopic objects could be simply measured as if the measurement devices are not part of reality themselves.

 

The revelation of SR was, 'motion altered measurement and perception'. Unthinkable in a world of absolute, ideal concepts, in a supposedly 'enlightened' world.

Measurement is the verification tool of science. It's accepted as proof, just as evidence is accepted in a court of law.

Clock synchronization is necessary to perform measurements. Since light speed is finite, there can be no universal time or universal synchronization.

The synch convention establishes a simulated and relative synchronization, which is the best that can be done so far. Einstein defined 1-way light speed as constant for a consistent theory to ensure the inertial frame observer's perception would be equivalent to that of a rest frame.

Nothing new or exotic here, since all things conceptualized are by definition. Human knowledge is in terms of ideal mental constructs, and a process of constant refinement.

Postulates like axioms are accepted as true, until violations are found, for the sake of theorizing. Postulate 2 for Special Relativity, constant propagation speed of light, could not apply in General Relativity, which included gravitation and absolute motion in the form of rotation.

 

Slow clock transport still causes unequal time dilations relative to the central slave clock.

The slower the motion the less the effects, but a balance has to be found between the time to move vs the minimum acceptable variation.

 

 

If you understand special relativity you should understand he is talking about how a different definition of simultaneity impacts a definition of space. It's not "apparent" (it's not even visually possible to "see" because we only "see" the finite speed signals from events), nor is it "measured" without first defining what type of simultaneity are we using.

"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.?"

1905 paper, par.1

He is defining simultaneity as a relative concept, vs an absolute concept.

The meaning of 'simultaneous' doesn't change.

Our sensory input is predominately visual, and light is the ideal tool for measurement, being universal, constant, and independent of its source.

[sluggo]

;

The invariant spacetime interval:

For Einstein it was the spatial distance between two events expressed as an equality.

It was invariant because events do not move, which is equivalent to the Lorentz ether, and why Einstein labeled the ether as 'superfluous'.

 

x2+y2+z2=c2t2

 

Minkowski, being a mathematician, generalized the expression to 4 variables, by using complex notation to transform t to it, making it an independent variable. In the process of mathematical manipulation and removing its identity, 'time' became just another line on paper.

[AnssiH]

Arrrgh! Every time I see this nonsense: it's “just a pythagorean equation (with a negative component)” I have to wince.

 

Look here, the fact that the second term is negative means the function is hyperbolic!

 

It is NOT “just a pythagorean equation (with a negative component”. That is as silly as saying a duck is just a pigeon with webbed feet.

 

Is there anyone here who understands SR?

 

I am beginning to wonder.

 

Well, if you feel that it's not apt to bring up Pythagorean in this context, feel free to edit that same Wikipedia article as well :shrug:

 

I mean I understand how it could be misleading someone, but of course the reason the Wikipedia article also draw the same analogy is that the spatial dimensions are still simply euclidean, and really the only difference is the non-euclidean character of Minkowskis spacetime coming from the definition of t. So yes, those terms are quadratic because this thing basically has Pythagorean theorem in its derivation.

 

So the only thing I was pointing out was that it's unsual to view a spacetime interval as an area, it's more accurately length. Although I understand people don't want to use the word "length" because it overloads other usages of the word "length". Hence it's called "interval".

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Oops, the 2nd sentence. I've laid out how to measure the one-way c according to the caveats of relativity.

 

I'm thinking you can experimentally measure the speed of time in observed moving frames, mathematically you can plot that you are motionless in your own non-moving frame. Physics is equivalent in all inertial frames so time passes at the same rate of c within all inertial frames. My theory extends this to within all frames because even if you are burning through time after a change in velocity, you do not experience time moving faster for you nor can you detect time moving differently than expected outside your frame. Only afterwards by comparing clocks in the Loedel perspective will you find time is permanently missing from your clock. 

 

I've outlined the connection between Loedel perspective and a universal present in this thread. I hope you're mathematically inclined. Feel free to ask me specific questions as you start reading.

 

I feel like my only question is, what is the significance of defining a Loedel frame, and how do you define it in a universe with more than 2 inertial observers?

Basically the question is, what is in your opinion the philosophical significance of being able to establish a Loedel frame?

[AnssiH]

I don't want to get sidetracked in pointless minutiae but the hyperbolic nature of the equation stems from Minkowski's rotatation of the ct' axis wrt the ct axis (cartesian). The Epstein rotation of the ct axis wrt the ct' axis (cartesian) results in a circular pythagorian based spacetime diagram and prime equation (although I don't know what it is but it must be a sum of squares as opposed to a difference of squares). I'm not advocating Epstein as it's hard to wrap your mind around it when you're used to Minkowski but it does show that a lot of the assumptions of relativity are purely mathematical constructs and not set in stone as those who don't truly understand SR believe. The true meaning of relativity is distorted by the depictions and assumptions such as 4 vector spacetime, clock sync method, reciprocity, past/present/future co-existence, subjective reality, the depicted universal constancy of c,  etc. (If I remember correctly, in Epstein, c is not a 45 degree angle line common to all that is unchanged by perspective. Even in Minkowski, the c line is a composite of a bunch of overlapping differing length c lines. You won't find that in Wiki because relativity wants to keep that fact hidden as it undermines scriptural authority in the belief of one c-line for all.) I'm beginning to wonder if anyone's willing to risk their understanding of SR by reading this thread without subjectively redacting it.

 

Well yes, it is certainly possible to represent the same relationships in infinite number of ways, each potentially implying a different looking mental model of reality, yet reproducing the same exact observables.

 

And that is indeed the fact that is well lost on most people - they assume Minkowski spacetime is the only way to handle those relationships.

 

It is quite trivial to form a model where everything in the universe is moving at constant speed C, but one dimensions gets projected out (or flattened out) in terms of interactions. That model is mathematically identical to relativity too, and uses euclidean space through and through. Even general relativity can be reproduced with that type of model in fairly simple manner.

 

Perhaps the biggest significance of a model of that type is that it preserves a simple definition for coordinate systems (with fully orthogonal axes), and doesn't contain recursive concepts for space and time (conceptually, space can "bend" only if it does so in reference to another space).

 

If you click the link on my sig, there's an electronic book containing fully epistemological derivation (with exact mathematics) of that type of model ("epistemological" meaning a model that is focused on how information can be plotted in consistence ways - independent of how reality actually is).

[AnssiH]

Clock synchronization is necessary to perform measurements. Since light speed is finite, there can be no universal time or universal synchronization.

The synch convention establishes a simulated and relative synchronization, which is the best that can be done so far.

Now this is the single most important topic when bringing in philosophy to the discussion about Relativity. The one bit I take issue with is when people say that impossibility of measuring something means that it also doesn't exists.

 

It is certainly impossible to measure any universal simultaneity as far as we know. It is quite a stretch to then say "it does not exists". Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - it's not very clever to just assume one way or another.

 

I don't know if you were trying to say this or not - but I find the language you use can easily be taken as if you did, and this is incredibly common.

 

And yes, all theories include components that cannot be directly measured - they just act as the mental concepts with which ideas are communicated. Minkowski spacetime is also an obvious example of this.

[ralfcis]

"I feel like my only question is, what is the significance of defining a Loedel frame, and how do you define it in a universe with more than 2 inertial observers?

Basically the question is, what is in your opinion the philosophical significance of being able to establish a Loedel frame?"

 

I keep answering this question. The Loedel perspective is the only one where both participants have the same proper time at any relative velocity at any distance apart. All other perspectives are a hysteresis of this. For every 2 observers, there is a different half-speed relative velocity for the Loedel perspective of them but what's universal for all is the rate of proper time. The philosophical significance is there is a universal present the cause of all perspective presents which is not the pre- or post Einsteinian definition of the present. Read, I won't answer this again. I'm not interested in the philosophy or history of science. Especially philosophy which is supposedly a search for the truth without any rules to do so and no wrong answers. It's useless. I won't get into discussions like this.

Edited July 21, 2020 by ralfcis

[AnssiH]

"I feel like my only question is, what is the significance of defining a Loedel frame, and how do you define it in a universe with more than 2 inertial observers?

Basically the question is, what is in your opinion the philosophical significance of being able to establish a Loedel frame?"

 

I keep answering this question. The Loedel perspective is the only one where both participants have the same proper time at any relative velocity at any distance apart. All other perspectives are a hysteresis of this. For every 2 observers, there is a different half-speed relative velocity for the Loedel perspective of them but what's universal for all is the rate of proper time. The philosophical significance is there is a universal present the cause of all perspective presents which is not the pre- or post Einsteinian definition of the present. Read, I won't answer this again. I'm not interested in the philosophy or history of science. Especially philosophy which is supposedly a search for the truth without any rules to do so and no wrong answers. It's useless. I won't get into discussions like this.

 

Sorry, I still don't understand how you view this... With Loedel frame you only get shared notion of time between two observers, but what about the rest of the universe? Or just add a third observer; what is the convention you'd use in that case?

[OceanBreeze]

Well, if you feel that it's not apt to bring up Pythagorean in this context, feel free to edit that same Wikipedia article as well :shrug:

 

I mean I understand how it could be misleading someone, but of course the reason the Wikipedia article also draw the same analogy is that the spatial dimensions are still simply euclidean, and really the only difference is the non-euclidean character of Minkowskis spacetime coming from the definition of t. So yes, those terms are quadratic because this thing basically has Pythagorean theorem in its derivation.

 

So the only thing I was pointing out was that it's unsual to view a spacetime interval as an area, it's more accurately length. Although I understand people don't want to use the word "length" because it overloads other usages of the word "length". Hence it's called "interval".

 

-Anssi

 

I suppose that making a comparison to trigonometric relationship and the Pythagorean triangle is a way of pedagogically introducing people to hyperbolic functions. Obviously, there is a similarity between the two.  However, the similarity can only be carried so far, as the geometry of Minkowski space is hyperbolic.  [math](\Delta { s) }^{ 2 }=(c\Delta t{ ) }^{ 2 }-(\Delta x{ ) }^{ 2 }[/math] where [math](\Delta { s) }^{ 2 }[/math] can be replaced by [math]I[/math], the invariant interval.

Now the hyperbolic functions [math]cosh\psi =\frac { c\Delta t }{ \Delta s }[/math] and [math]sinh\psi =\frac { \Delta x }{ \Delta s }[/math] when used in the hyperbolic identity [math]{ cosh }^{ 2 }\psi -{ sinh }^{ 2 }\psi =1[/math] will return the expression for the invariant spacetime interval [math](\Delta { s) }^{ 2 }=(c\Delta t{ ) }^{ 2 }-(\Delta x{ ) }^{ 2 }[/math]

My only point was just that Minkowski spacetime is based on hyperbolas, not trigonometric relationships such as the Pythagoras theorem.

Ok, back to figuring out what Ralfcis is trying to do here. I admit I have no idea.

[ralfcis]

Don't try to absorb it all at once. Just baby steps. Ask about the 1st thing you trip over. I'm thinking of rewriting the whole thread and erasing all of my thought processes and only leave the conclusions. But I won't do this until December.

 

Ralfativity is based on proper relativity of simultaneity using a universal proper time present that can be glimpsed through the half-speed perspective (Loedel simultaneity). (.33c is half of .6c, .5c is half of .8c etc.) All the rest of relativity is rejected and I make experimental predictions Einativity can't make.

Edited July 21, 2020 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

AnssiH;

 

It is certainly impossible to measure any universal simultaneity as far as we know. It is quite a stretch to then say "it does not exists". Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - it's not very clever to just assume one way or another.

 

Consider the wind. We can't see it directly but we can detect it's effects.

Apply the same analysis to the Lorentz ether. It's invisible and experiments like MM cannot detect any effects it produces. If the behavior of the universe can be accurately described without it, it serves no purpose.

When there was speculation for new 'particles' to extend a theory, some were discovered, some not. Those found were obviously there before the search, the others not. All ideas thinkable are not all realizable.

[AnssiH]

Consider the wind. We can't see it directly but we can detect it's effects.

Apply the same analysis to the Lorentz ether. It's invisible and experiments like MM cannot detect any effects it produces. If the behavior of the universe can be accurately described without it, it serves no purpose.

Yeah, I actually discussed that exact topic here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35098-relativity-and-simple-algebra/?view=findpost&p=385984 which you might find interesting.

 

Anyway, yeah I would have agreed on that same junction - when Special Relativity was first introduced and it was mathematically exactly identical to Lorentz' latest theory - that redundant concepts are redundant. But then couple years later people invented a new redundant concept, the Minkowski Spacetime, which should have been recognized as equally redundant. But it made great headlines, I guess :shrug: Basically now we have even more ridiculous idea of an aether that is equally undetectable, but a lot of people like to defend anyway.

 

The original overwhelming expectation of measuring aether wind with M&M experiment is very naive and would require really strange naive-realistic disconnect between "matter" and "space" if you really think about it. I think if his theory would have become the more popular metaphysical flavor, it would have logically led into basically quantum field theory, where matter and space are basically "the same stuff".

 

Anyway to get back to the metaphysical idea of simultaneity, this is obviously much larger question than some ancient naive ideas of measuring aether wind. Have you ever really thought about what are the logical ramifications of the idea that reality itself does not have any universal simultaneity? I find that usually people who throw that idea out carelessly, and defend it with something like M&M experiment, have not really give the topic a serious thought... Because the ramifications are pretty whimsical, don't you think?

 

And just as a side note I really find it interesting that people who are so eager to defend relativistic simultaneity as an actual ontological "fact", never comment anything about the fact that cosmic background radiation is not isotropic. There are many possible sources for cosmic background radiation, but they all must recognize the simple fact that it only emanates from one magical inertial frame. I would think that should give people a little bit of a pause...yeah? No?