Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

[Vmedvil2]

This is all metaphysical nonsense, relativity is not about perception but rather what happens physically as you move through space, stop confusing the poor man. You people and your crank ideas are giving the poor man a headache. Basically mattzy it all physically happens that way and isn't an illusion don't listen to their crackpot horseshit or risk being infected with the crank disease.

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Mattzy]

My question is: How does the rate get shifted if it is always coming in at light speed? I'm suggesting that doppler shift doesn't change the rate - only unimportant effects.

And before that : Can the elasticity of spacetime account for individual realities? 

Is light speed limit a function of spacetime elasticity? Again, the elasticity explains a lot - maybe everything?

[Mattzy]

This is all metaphysical nonsense, relativity is not about perception but rather what happens physically as you move through space, stop confusing the poor man. You people and your crank ideas are giving the poor man a headache. Basically mattzy it all physically happens that way and isn't an illusion don't listen to their crackpot horseshit or risk being infected with the crank disease.

 

Victor, thank for your concern. I just keep taking aspirin for the headache. Confusion is what brings me to the questions I ask.  Especially this topic! The main thing is to keep challenging the grey matter!

[Vmedvil2]

My question is: How does the rate get shifted if it is always coming in at light speed? I'm suggesting that doppler shift doesn't change the rate - only unimportant effects.

And before that : Can the elasticity of spacetime account for individual realities? 

Is light speed limit a function of spacetime elasticity? Again, the elasticity explains a lot - maybe everything?

 

It is all about the curvature of space-time that gives the universe this limit in general relativity, the curvature of space-time has a limit of C when you get to C that is the fastest you can curve space-time without causing a infinite amount of energy to be present to curve it more under normal circumstances. It is like a punching a brick wall with each layer harder than the last, you can break the brick first couple of sheets and get deeper into the wall but once you hit deep enough your fist does almost nothing to the final layers of brick with steel behind it.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Victor, you're saying relativity is not about perception? You're saying anyone who believes perspective is reality is a crank? So Einstein is now a crank in your book because he quite plainly states each individual perspective is reality. He also states pasts, presents and futures all exist concurrently from all these subjective presents and all of them are real. Just go ogle that if all you trust is the internet for information.

[sluggo]

Mattzy#46;

I ask you: Does the limit of c apply to everything, including light? I had thought that light speed has never been measured at more than c regardless of the closing speed of the emitter, and that all we can measure in this case is blueshift. True or false?

 

 

[in SR, the speed limit for any form of matter is c. The reason being energy can't be transferred faster than c.

Just as in a light clock, more light energy is used to compensate for motion of the object.
A simple example is the merry-go-round. With each push, you have to accelerate your arm to match the rotational speed before you can apply a push.
In a particle accelerator, each increment of speed requires more energy than the previous one.]

[Mattzy]

OK. I'm starting to see what I have to simply accept - that's progress for me. There are still many very fundamental questions that spring to mind. For example: Why does light move at all? Why doesn't it just stay at the electron instead of radiating? Like Aristotle I can just keep asking why.

On perception, there has to be something at the root of whatever we perceive. Even an illusion has a cause which can be - or may never be - explained.

Humans are trying to explain what they observe and maybe even agree that they've found the truth!

[ralfcis]

Hoo boy. That just about sums up every physics forum I've been on. The less you know, the less anyone can possibly know, so why not join the crowd.

[sluggo]

Mattzy

#31;
 

Regarding the slowing of the passengers' electro chemistry (proportional to relative speed)

 

[Clock rate is proportional to 1/gamma, = 1/sqrt(1-a^2), with a = v/c.]


#50;
 

Is the light speed limit a function of spacetime elasticity? Does this mean that the greater the distance the greater the illusion? That would make all distances illusions - nope - I'm melting down again on that one - but I'm not giving up.

 

[The clock rate is a function of relative speed v/c, with c=1. Human perception of time is literally what they think it is. Another manifestation of time dilation is length contraction. If all em processes slow at high speeds, so do the interactions of electrons and similar basic particles. This allows closer spacing during acceleration. There are no rigid rods. You can heat a metal rod in the privacy of your home, and measure the difference.

Timelines are histories of positions.

 

[ralfcis]

Yup I'm sure you can call up any number of wiki articles supporting your contention that rods actually contract for the reasons you gave but why don't they shrink in 3D? I mean the electrons orbit in 3D and time dilation would affect all 3 dimensions but length contraction only happens in 1 dimension. Did you ever consider trying critical thinking out for a test drive?

Edited June 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[Mattzy]

Hoo boy. That just about sums up every physics forum I've been on. The less you know, the less anyone can possibly know, so why not join the crowd.

The more I know, the more I know I don't know. None of us know very much ralfcis. You don't realise how much more I know now by reading what you and the others have told me. You're frustrated by those struggling with something that's clear to you.

[ralfcis]

I was so glad to see an open mind for a change but I sense you'd prefer if it could be closed to avoid the headaches of employing your own reason over just adopting others beliefs.

[exchemist]

The more I know, the more I know I don't know. None of us know very much ralfcis. You don't realise how much more I know now by reading what you and the others have told me. You're frustrated by those struggling with something that's clear to you.

This is indeed one of the issues in learning science, because it is (nearly) all connected. As soon as you get the beginnings of an answer to one question, you find it draws on concepts from other areas, prompting further questions unless you are already familiar with these concepts.  

 

I think it is inevitable that to learn one topic one has to be willing to "park" some questions and take some of this material temporarily "on trust", until one can get round to investigating it separately. This is also the reason why one learns science progressively over many years at school and university, mastering the intellectual structure in stages, each stage being necessary before the next one can be reached.

 

As you say, it can be hard to explain a thing to someone who does not know the infrastructure. But I find it a challenge to try, and do not find it frustrating, so long as I am dealing with someone interested  - and without a hidden agenda of some sort.    

[ralfcis]

It's not like I became mean over the years, I was mean from my very first post in 2006. I asked a question, SolarEagle posted an irrelevant wiki article in response, I asked wtf is this, the entire forum came down on me for being ungrateful. I told them all to FO as I'm not looking for any answer to any question, I'm looking for a specific answer to my specific question and I'm not interested in some guy trying to show how smart he is at googling answers off wiki. He wasn't helping, he was wasting my time and I didn't want any more answers from him. My pappy always told me to treat everyone you meet with disrespect , make them earn it. Not really true, they never do nor do you ever get rid of them, they continue as a drag on your time forever.

 

So just as my flame war with everyone took over like wildfire, I met Jorrie, the resident expert on relativity who wrote a book on it. He coached me for over 10 years until I found his non-answers no longer satisfactory and began on my own path to the theory of ralfativity. Words will not guide you, you have to learn the algebra.

Edited June 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Yup I'm sure you can call up any number of wiki articles supporting your contention that rods actually contract for the reasons you gave but why don't they shrink in 3D? I mean the electrons orbit in 3D and time dilation would affect all 3 dimensions but length contraction only happens in 1 dimension. Did you ever consider trying critical thinking out for a test drive?

Lorentz analyzed the possibilities of which dimensions change in his electron theory after hearing Heaviside had formulated an expression for contraction in the direction of motion from Maxwell's equations. Lorentz accepted that scenario and SR was born. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, SLAC,  experiments with electrons at near light speed. They measure length contraction indirectly from the increased electric field intensity of an electron.

[ralfcis]

Even if you're the lead scientist at that facility, your point is irrelevant to the question I asked and you'd rather sacrifice any integrity you may have so long as you can hide your ignorance through misdirection. If you shot electrons out of a gun at regular intervals and detected a difference between emitted duration and detected duration, would the difference be due to time dilation, length contraction or a combination of the two? Or would both durations be equal?

Edited June 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[rhertz]

Victor, you're saying relativity is not about perception? You're saying anyone who believes perspective is reality is a crank? So Einstein is now a crank in your book because he quite plainly states each individual perspective is reality. He also states pasts, presents and futures all exist concurrently from all these subjective presents and all of them are real. Just go ogle that if all you trust is the internet for information.

 

I believe that Lorentz-Poincarè-Einstein relativity is exclusively based on perception (and deception of human senses).

 

And I'm not a cranck.

 

I defy anyone who dares to confront me, using mathematics (no walls of words), to prove otherwise.

 

Note: From the very instant that Voigt (1897, before MM, Lorentz, etc.) developed HIS relativity by

proposing a change of coordinate systems other than the natural cartesian (x,y,z) everything developed

around the perception from a transformed reference systems over the natural one was perception.

 

I don't know if Lorentz knew about Voigt's work, when he started to mess with relativity around 1892, but

rationality was lost forever.

 

This is not about physics. It's a metaphysical problem which involves some mathematics. And because

it's metaphysical, it's subjective instead of objective. There were, are and will be thousands of different

points of view in a philosophycal discussion about the consequences of this metaphysical approach to

reality.

 

That's why I believe that any discussion or debate about relativity is useless. Everyone has a plausible

explanation, and all of us are right (or wrong).

 

Better to play with Newton's mechanics. It's a safer and more rational ground (excluding cosmic gravity).