Relativity And Simple Algebra

[sluggo]

AnssiH;

 

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?

 

Einstein defined a relative simultaneity as a convention, for the purpose of measurement. There was no universal simultaneity to relate local time with distant time.

The beauty of the convention, you don't have to know your speed in space, to establish a local simultaneity.

 

Alternate frames:

The 'fixed stars', so distant there is no perceptible change over 1000's of years.

The cmb which I would place at the top of the list. Events that do not move. This property eliminates the need for an ether in SR.

 

In the 1920 Leyden lecture paper, Einstein removes the immobility of Lorentz's ether and thus its existence. He replaces it with the 'new' ether of GR as space with properties supporting gravitational fields, which Einstein defines as independent structures.

 

Minkowski is thinking in the purely abstract terms of mathematics, which do not have to correspond to the physical world, but provide an accurate representation.

[AnssiH]

Yeah I would pretty much agree with that. It's a bit unfortunate that it's so popular to see these concepts as something much more than very handy mental ideas.

[marcospolo]

A grade school child knows speed x time = distance!

I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.

No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3.  

I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.

This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance.  As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.

But we can with Einstein right?

[OceanBreeze]

I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.

No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3.  

I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.

This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance.  As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.

But we can with Einstein right?

 

 

Speed is a ratio, that is, it is a change in distance compared to a change in time. A change in distance is incoherent without a corresponding change in time. Meters per second is mathematically expressed as meters/second, or simply m/s but regardless of the mathematical symbolism, you will be hard pressed to actually divide the seconds into those meters and even more hard pressed to subtract seconds from meters. Someone might accuse you of using sophistry here, but I suspect you are just having bad luck when trying to think about these things.

[sluggo]

I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.

No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3.  

I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.

This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance.  As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.

But we can with Einstein right?

Time is used in determining distance, and that is the space-time connection, which existed long before relativity.

 

Time has always been a measure of motion/distance, earth orbit, earth rotation, moon, etc.

There are no tape measures long enough for distances on the earth surface or beyond. Light is the ideal tool for measurement, being constant and super fast.

Engineering uses lasers in all types of projects just for their accuracy.

Air traffic control depends on GPS for navigation, ensuring safe travel for the masses.

Just the beginning of useful benefits from applications of light.

 

Using ct was the work of Minkowski in his 4D version of SR, not Einstein.

If you don't do some form of scaling, the unit of distance is 300,000,000 x the unit of time, which produces useless graphs!

 

 

[marcospolo]

Speed is a ratio, that is, it is a change in distance compared to a change in time. A change in distance is incoherent without a corresponding change in time. Meters per second is mathematically expressed as meters/second, or simply m/s but regardless of the mathematical symbolism, you will be hard pressed to actually divide the seconds into those meters and even more hard pressed to subtract seconds from meters. Someone might accuse you of using sophistry here, but I suspect you are just having bad luck when trying to think about these things.

Ok, But in the usual example involving a right angled triangle, where you mix distances (clock height) with the distance traveled vt, with another distance traveled over another time, ct, what I want to see is you immediately calculate the three distances of that triangle, expressed in meters, BEFORE you try to use any algebra or Pythagoras theorem.

So get the length of the hypotenuse by measurement of ct, and calculate the length on meters, move on to the distance traveled vt and calc that distance, and we already have the height of the triangle, so now that you possess all 3 lengths of that triangle, NOW show me how you can come up with time or length dilation.

[marcospolo]

 

I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.

No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3.  

I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.

This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance.  As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.

But we can with Einstein right?

Time is used in determining distance, and that is the space-time connection, which existed long before relativity.

 

Time has always been a measure of motion/distance, earth orbit, earth rotation, moon, etc.

There are no tape measures long enough for distances on the earth surface or beyond. Light is the ideal tool for measurement, being constant and super fast.

Engineering uses lasers in all types of projects just for their accuracy.

Air traffic control depends on GPS for navigation, ensuring safe travel for the masses.

Just the beginning of useful benefits from applications of light.

 

Using ct was the work of Minkowski in his 4D version of SR, not Einstein.

If you don't do some form of scaling, the unit of distance is 300,000,000 x the unit of time, which produces useless graphs!

 

 

You summed up the Minkowski graph PERFECTLY.... "a useless Graph".   Try doing anything useful with that graph when you are not FORCED to set light as a 45 degree vector.  This stupid arrangement means that 99% of the graoh area is USELESS.  The half below the 45 deg light vector is never able to be used, anything in that section is moving faster than light, so that just leaves the top half triangle, And in this 45 deg triangle area, Most of it is also useless to us as we can only achieve speeds up to a small fraction of light speed.

I say change the ratio of light velocity to time from 1 to 1, and make is something reasonable, so we can actually make some readable plot.

Like, make the light speed vector almost HORIZONTAL, so that we get to use much more of the graph area. 

 

But trouble is if you do that, then Einstein's crap theory of time and distance dilation wont work anymore.

Anyway, light as a tool for measurement is useless. Why?  Well because we don't really know how long a Meter is now, as that distance is now how far light goes in one three millionth of a second, but the second is not a constant. We don't know what a second is now, because it changes with motion, and we cant ever claim that we are stationary. So we cant claim that our second is the correct second.  We have no idea if we are moving or not, we could be the "moving twin" that aging slower, or we may be the "home twin" that's aged more.. My second is not your second, therefore my meter is not your meter. Thanks Einstein.

 

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

Ok, But in the usual example involving a right angled triangle, where you mix distances (clock height) with the distance traveled vt, with another distance traveled over another time, ct, what I want to see is you immediately calculate the three distances of that triangle, expressed in meters, BEFORE you try to use any algebra or Pythagoras theorem.

So get the length of the hypotenuse by measurement of ct, and calculate the length on meters, move on to the distance traveled vt and calc that distance, and we already have the height of the triangle, so now that you possess all 3 lengths of that triangle, NOW show me how you can come up with time or length dilation.

 

Trig relationships, such as Pythagoras theorem, are not used on the standard space-time diagrams developed by Minkowski. The applicable function is hyperbolic. The velocity of the moving object is expressed by the angle of the path it takes with respect to the vertical ct axis. Light makes a 45 deg angle to that axis. Real objects move slower than light and the angle they make to the ct axis is less than 45 degrees. Please read up on the way space-time drawings are made and used. I cannot  write out an entire description for you here, sorry.

[Mutex]

I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.

No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3.  

I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.

This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance.  As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.

But we can with Einstein right?

 

When it comes to speed of velocity, you can subtract time from distance, you do that with increased velocity I can subtract 30 minutes off a 100 mile trip if I go at 100 miles per hour instead of 50. But that really makes no difference to your argument. 

 

The thing you have to get your head around with relativity is that the distance does not change! But the length of distance does change, so you could have a 100 meter distance, but the length of that 'distance' is dependent on the length of 1 meter.

 

Relativity tells us, and its is confirmed with observations, that the length of 1 second varies from place to place (and not only from SR and velocity, but also from GR and gravity). 

 

The length of time varies, the speed of light is constant, so the length of space has to also vary. Space and time length gets longer in higher gravity or higher velocity, and shorter in lower gravity. In fact, gravity IS the gradient of that change in the length of space (and the length of time derived from the length of space). 

 

Matter wants or tends to 'fall' into longer space, or a lower energy space, (longer space is lower energy). That's why things fall down, and why it takes energy to put things 'up'. Up is shorter space (and time) and down is longer space (and time). 

 

Velocity in that space length makes the space in the direction of travel (and therefore you at that velocity) bigger, or greater length. (you 'consume' or experience more space length over time).

[marcospolo]

Trig relationships, such as Pythagoras theorem, are not used on the standard space-time diagrams developed by Minkowski. The applicable function is hyperbolic. The velocity of the moving object is expressed by the angle of the path it takes with respect to the vertical ct axis. Light makes a 45 deg angle to that axis. Real objects move slower than light and the angle they make to the ct axis is less than 45 degrees. Please read up on the way space-time drawings are made and used. I cannot  write out an entire description for you here, sorry.

You don't understand. Its not your fault, its your education that's the problem.

 

The triangle example I refereed to is regarding Einsteins light clock, and the use of Pythagoras theorem along with ct and vt to derive Gamma factor.

Next, Minkowski is an idiot.

Please stop drawing graphs where you make lights velocity vector a 45 degree line!

Its MORONIC to do that. 

But its the only way you can do it if you want to make crappy graphs that are supposed to support the notion of spacetime or time dilation.

 

Make the line for lights velocity almost horizontal, where it really should be, so we can plot useful information in the majority of the remaining graph area.

[marcospolo]

When it comes to speed of velocity, you can subtract time from distance, you do that with increased velocity I can subtract 30 minutes off a 100 mile trip if I go at 100 miles per hour instead of 50. But that really makes no difference to your argument. 

 

The thing you have to get your head around with relativity is that the distance does not change! But the length of distance does change, so you could have a 100 meter distance, but the length of that 'distance' is dependent on the length of 1 meter.

 

Relativity tells us, and its is confirmed with observations, that the length of 1 second varies from place to place (and not only from SR and velocity, but also from GR and gravity). 

 

The length of time varies, the speed of light is constant, so the length of space has to also vary. Space and time length gets longer in higher gravity or higher velocity, and shorter in lower gravity. In fact, gravity IS the gradient of that change in the length of space (and the length of time derived from the length of space). 

 

Matter wants or tends to 'fall' into longer space, or a lower energy space, (longer space is lower energy). That's why things fall down, and why it takes energy to put things 'up'. Up is shorter space (and time) and down is longer space (and time). 

 

Velocity in that space length makes the space in the direction of travel (and therefore you at that velocity) bigger, or greater length. (you 'consume' or experience more space length over time).

What you need to get into your head is that Relativity is all rubbish.

Its NEVER been shown to work by any experiment.

 

And it never will, because the hypotheisis and assumptions are moronic.

You can not do this,  140 meters minus 39 seconds equals ?

That is exactly what occurs hidden in the algebra when deriving lorentz transformation.

 

If the distances change, then the distances change. If a meter shrinks, then that is now not a meter,

 

Its moronic to claim that matter shrinks in one direction just because someone is watching it from a different location.

Moronic.

 

And even Einstein agreed in the end, that Light speed is NOT CONSTANT.

Bang goes his theory of Special Relativity.

 

Time has no relationship with space.

Time is a concept, related to comparing the cyclical motions of objects with other objects.

 

Space is not "curved" in any way. That is a mathematical construct, therefore its purely only a imaginary construct.

Mathematics is NOT PHYSICS, and cant "explain" the Physical universe in any way.

Math is merely a clever counting tool.

[ralfcis]

Sorry I did not read all these posts because I've blocked most of these people and I'm trying to get some time to finish a post I started 2 weeks ago. Anyway, Popeye, Zeno's paradox is solved (infinity removed) when you consider distance and time joined as velocity. I use the same technique in my math. I don't need to explain relativity using distance and time separately, I always use Yv. What's doubly interesting is how the half speed Loedel perspective fits into all this to cancel the infinity of Y (gamma) (and all the wrong physics interpretations that go with that infinity) as v> c. If v>c then it's half speed v_h also approaches c. You do not end up with two gammas that approach infinity because v and v_h are always together in formulas and approach a finite number because the infinities cancel out.

 

Oops writing this blurb has deleted my previously saved work. Ok good I didn't have time to finish anyway. It looks like it will take me an infinite amount of time to get to re-writing that post.  It was how to write the prime equation and make the invariant interval a time duration instead of a distance measurement. Simple at first as you divide both sides of the equation by c² but then the fun starts.

 

[ralfcis]

I just popped in to see what was happening so is this the new Hypography? Was it sold? I don't know how to navigate this site. I'm dying to come back and write. Will I still have the leeway I once enjoyed or are things stricter now? 

[Vmedvil2]

8 minutes ago, ralfcis said:

I just popped in to see what was happening so is this the new Hypography? Was it sold? I don't know how to navigate this site. I'm dying to come back and write. Will I still have the leeway I once enjoyed or are things stricter now? 

Ralfcis I think you are always welcomed, Go for it.

[OceanBreeze]

You are always welcome to post here, Ralf.

[ralfcis]

I've been away at another forum because they don't kick off people who discuss personal theories in the physics forum. Of course it's polluted with the same type of parrot that pollutes every physics forum but I have been learning a lot there of how right my theory is. But I was introduced to the new wrinkle of circular motion that no one can answer my questions to. There are two variants to this circular motion scenario:

 One is the relative velocity and resulting time dilation of the circumference of a centrifuge to its center. This is similar to the HafelKeating Experiment (HKX) if there was a guy at the center of the Earth conducting it. The other is the HKX where two planes leave an airport at the north pole in opposite longitudinal orbits around the Earth neglecting gravitational effects. 

  Now on this forum we discussed closing speed as not being relative velocity. An example of closing speed would be orbits parallel to yours on Earth where the orbiting satellite maintains the same distance from you. There is no linear vector between you and the satellite so the relative velocity between the two of you should always be zero. This should be the same relative velocity between a rotational centrifuge and its center. But here is some irrefutable mathe from John Rennie on the PSX who proves that assertion not true. 

"Suppose you're whirling about a pivot with velocity v at a radius r and I'm watching you from the pivot. I'm going to measure your position using polar coordinates (t,r,θ,ϕ), and in polar coordinates the line interval is given by (I'm leaving c in the equation this time):

ds2=−c2dt2+dr2+r2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)ds2=−c2dt2+dr2+r2(dθ2+sin2⁡θdϕ2)

Note that this is just the flat space, i.e. Minkowski metric, in polar coordinates. We're using the flat space metric because there are no masses around to curve spacetime (we'll assume you and I have been on a diet :-). We can choose our axes so you are rotating in the plane θ=π/2θ=π/2, and you're moving at constant radius so both dr and dθ are zero. The metric simplifies to:

ds2=−c2dt2+r2dϕ2ds2=−c2dt2+r2dϕ2

We can simplify this further because in my frame you're moving at velocity v so dϕ is given by:

dϕ=vrdtdϕ=vrdt

and therefore:

ds2=−c2dt2+v2dt2=(v2−c2)dt2ds2=−c2dt2+v2dt2=(v2−c2)dt2

In your frame you're at rest, so ds2=−c2dt′2ds2=−c2dt′2, and equating this to my value for ds2 gives:

−c2dt′2=(v2−c2)dt2−c2dt′2=(v2−c2)dt2

or:

dt′2=(1−v2c2)dt2dt′2=(1−v2c2)dt2

or:

dt′=dtγ

which you should immediately recognise as the usual expression for time dilation in SR. Note that the centripetal force/acceleration does not appear in this expression. The time dilation is just due to our relative velocities and not to your acceleration towards the pivot."

One of the blowhards on my new forum who doesn't understand the reciprocal time dilation is not the same as permanent age difference caused by the twin paradox, insists that for every revolution, the time difference between the center and the guy on the circumference is accumulating. Basically the centrifuge has become a Jules Verne time machine.

So I drew a Minkowski diagram (Md) to support reciprocal time dilation between the two but it fell apart when I tried to stop the centrifuge to compare clocks to establish permanent age difference between the two. The fact remained no matter how many orbits the centrifuge performed, when stopped, the only separation between them was always just the length of the radius. In normal linear twin paradox, the total age difference greatly increases the farther the separation between them when a change in velocity is made. So I asked the blowhard to draw me an Md that supported his theory. Of course these philosophers have no way to back up their opinions with math so he left in a huff calling me a mentally ill liar. I got an even worse reaction on the PSX to this question and I'm not allowed to ask any more questions. 

There is just one more question. The only difference between the HKX and centrifuge scenarios is the participants begin separated in the centrifuge and begin together in the HKX. Otherwise they could be both modelled as circular motion. Except the HKX is free to expand into ever larger and more pointed elliptical motion which would at some point be the same as the linear twin paradox scenario which ends in permanent age difference, not reciprocal time dilation like the centrifuge scenario. So I also asked for an Md for the circular HKX which I assume is not an example of reciprocal time dilation but is always an example of the round trip twin paradox. Of course, no one understands this question either.

 

 

 

[write4u]

Can I ask if "differential equations" are algebraic expressions of relativity?

I am not sure if that is of any interest, but the question occurred to me. Perhaps it may clarify some unrealized cognition in my mind.....😁