Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Personal Topic

Relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1030 replies to this topic

#35 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1034 posts

Posted 04 January 2019 - 11:53 AM

OceanBreeze i can recognize you're very intelligent. You know more than most people about relativity but you're stuck like I was stuck. If I can find someone in my travels who can answer my test question correctly, I'll come back for you. A second guy backing me up will be far more convincing.

 

Fair enough, mate!

I look forward to it, as I learn far more from being wrong than being right.

But please get your arguments better organized.

 

I am not a "relativity expert" I am a Chief Marine Engineer on an ocean going research vessel and I get involved in a little of everything.

I need to know relativity in my work but I also am just very interested in it.

 

I do not think you will find any new arguments to make against the standard understanding that I have of it, but I wish you luck!

 

Cheers



#36 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 04 January 2019 - 12:23 PM

Thanks for the tip, I will try out that forum. If you're really curious of why I've been banned and my threads shut down you can read years of forum interactions on the CR4 general forum and the science philosophy chat forum physics and personal theories. I use ralfcis for every site. I have been continuously wrong over the years and I am able to determine this through math. Two iterations ago I was only off to the third decimal place and could not reconcile the answers I was getting. So I throw out the old and start on a new tack. My current tack has the math working like a well oiled machine and has given me results I did not expect; predictions of testable physics phenomena that relativity cannot make.I have a lot of checking still to do but the math is tedious and I'm very prone to arithmetical mistakes. I used to bother with formulas but now I only deal with STD's which graphically represent the math. People hate them, don't understand them and don't read them.

 

Like I said I was only on the physicsforums for a day because they are very brusque and they did not like the leading question I asked. I was still confused about the difference between time dilation and age difference and they are not. That's why I want to get back there. I learned from a guy who is the only one I've met who really understands relativity, he wrote a book on it. It took years for him to beat out of me the ideas most people hold on to. The hardest one is the chronic confusion between age difference and reciprocal time dilation and coordinate time. Why would I go back to the way everyone else thinks of them when it took so long to beat it out of me?

OK, I might take a look at a few forums, when I have time, and read some of the correspondence.

 

What's an STD, by the way? Space/Time Diagram? In my youth this meant Subscriber Trunk Dialling (i.e. not needing an operator to make trunk phone calls) and then, later, when I was a young man, it meant Sexually Transmitted Disease :)    


Edited by exchemist, 04 January 2019 - 12:23 PM.


#37 Orion

Orion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 04 January 2019 - 12:59 PM


 

 

Orion, on 02 Jan 2019 - 11:57 PM, said:snapback.png

Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels.

A-wal response.

 

No he didn't. 

 

K

 

SR was based on the observation that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, which seemed to lead to paradoxes. SR resolves those apparent paradoxes.


Edited by Orion, 04 January 2019 - 01:00 PM.


#38 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 04 January 2019 - 01:42 PM

Yes it means  Sexually Transmitted Disease. I use std instead of sd because I don't subscribe to the notion that it's spacetime and not space time (although I do believe they are convertible into each other). We are all moving at the combined speed of light through space and time. In our own frames we move at the speed of light through time (which is seen as our normal time rate) but the more another frame moves through space, the slower our perception of its motion through time. This slowing is manifest differently in 3 separate phenomena: time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference.


Edited by ralfcis, 04 January 2019 - 01:46 PM.


#39 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1311 posts

Posted 04 January 2019 - 05:32 PM

Cheers for the derivation, now I'll see if I can follow it.

 

I am not a "relativity expert" I am a Chief Marine Engineer on an ocean going research vessel and I get involved in a little of everything.

Sounds like a very cool job. I love being out on the ocean.

 

I need to know relativity in my work but I also am just very interested in it.

Wow! So does your boat travel close to the speed of light? :)


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#40 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1034 posts

Posted 05 January 2019 - 03:02 AM

Cheers for the derivation, now I'll see if I can follow it.

 

 

You are welcome. Let me know if there is anything that needs more clarity.

 

Sounds like a very cool job. I love being out on the ocean

 

 

Yes, it is an amazing job to have. I am very fortunate.

 

Wow! So does your boat travel close to the speed of light?  :)

 

 

I wish! I could get home a lot faster.

 

When we are trying to hold a precise position in the churning waters of the Antarctic, for example to lower a very fragile and expensive probe to the ocean floor, we rely heavily not only on GPS positioning but also geosats and underwater Doppler sonar and even a new sonar/radar hybrid and sometimes even Lidar. The entire exercise is very relativistic!


Edited by OceanBreeze, 05 January 2019 - 06:02 AM.

  • Farming guy likes this

#41 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 05 January 2019 - 02:26 PM

Wow! So does your boat travel close to the speed of light?   :)

 

It's a speed boat at c.


  • Farming guy and OceanBreeze like this

#42 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1034 posts

Posted 06 January 2019 - 12:34 AM

I c what you did there.

 

Well, at least you have a sense of humor! :applause:



#43 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 06 January 2019 - 01:19 PM

The phenomenon of time dilation is most easly introduced via the light clock.

In fig.1, light is emitted from a source ED in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror M a distance d=1, to a detector/counter ED. In fig.2, for the same clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction generates a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed u, along p, equals c*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer. This phenomenon applies to all processes involving light interactions, which includes biological (chemical). Therefore in fig.3 the observer moving with the clock at v, does not detect his local clock as running slow.

 

lite clock.gif



#44 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 06 January 2019 - 01:23 PM

Ralf;

 

In the (space-time) graphic, A moves at a constant .3c for 10 units of U time. Simultaneously B moves at a constant .6c for 10 units of U time.

If B moves a greater distance than A in the same amount of time, B must have moved faster than A, and SR states a clock moving relative to a reference clock runs slower than the ref. clock.

Calculations in the U frame for the gamma factors give .95 for A and .80 for B.

A time is 9.5 and B time is 8.0.

The longer path results in less time, which seems contrary to common logic. The difficulty results from interpreting the graphic as a typical 2D map, which it is not. The lines plot speed using the v/c notation. The expression x=vt must be reformed to t=x/v. Time is inversely proportional to speed, i.e. as v increases, t decreases. Simple math without odometer analogies.

The previous statement can be rephrased as, the faster path results in less time.

 

If a revision is added at R, with B changing direction to return to A, the example becomes a 'twin" scenario.

 

simple td.gif



#45 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 06 January 2019 - 01:28 PM

Ralf;

 

doppler shift:

A perceives: 4 in 8, 4 in 2, .5 and 2

B perceives: 2 in 4, 8 in 4, .5 and 2

It's irrelevant since both clocks run at constant rates!

What is meaningful, A counts 8 B ticks in 10, and B counts 10 A ticks in 8.

They agree B is younger at reunion.

ralf twin profiles.gif



#46 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 06 January 2019 - 01:32 PM

Reciprocal time dilation

 

A and B moving at constant velocity of .3c and .6c.

They have synchronized their clocks. Gray hyperbolic lines are isobars of constant time.

Each sends a signal at .68 to request a time signal from the other. Each receives a reading of 1.00 at 1.47. Being in a pseudo rest frame, the SR convention requires the observer to assign the reading (clock event) to half the total transit time, (1.47+.68)/2 = 1.08 (red).

Each concludes the distant clock is running slower than their local clock.

Paradox or not?

 

sync signals.gif



#47 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1034 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 03:20 AM

exchemist, on 04 Jan 2019 - 9:57 PM, said:snapback.png

You're certainly right that are only a few of us on this forum that have much education in science - and only a subset of those (of whom I am not one) know much about relativity.  

 

I'm tempted to speculate on why you have  - by your own account - been banned from so many places. Usually that is for being either rude or a tiresomely unreformable crank. But I can't acccuse you of that based on your posts here to date.  

 

You could try this place if you have not already:http://www.thescienc...m.com/forum.php

 

It is not very active but there are a couple of people there that know their SR and GR.  

 

But be warned that moderation there is very brusque. 

 

 

 

 

He will not last long there.

 

 

Just out of a morbid curiosity, I thought I would check and see how my prediction was doing.

 

So far, I see his thread was:

 

Moved to Personal Theories.

 

And. . .

 

You're lucky: I've had several calls for your thread to be moved to Pseudo or Trash...

 

Ah well, can’t say that I am surprised.

 

By the way, exchemist, I meant to ask you what TheScienceForum.com did to you that was so terrible you extracted this vengeance on them? That was a bit mean of you, wasn't it? :innocent:

 

 


  • exchemist likes this

#48 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 04:23 AM

 

exchemist, on 04 Jan 2019 - 9:57 PM, said:snapback.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of a morbid curiosity, I thought I would check and see how my prediction was doing.

 

So far, I see his thread was:

 

Moved to Personal Theories.

 

And. . .

 

You're lucky: I've had several calls for your thread to be moved to Pseudo or Trash...

 

Ah well, can’t say that I am surprised.

 

By the way, exchemist, I meant to ask you what TheScienceForum.com did to you that was so terrible you extracted this vengeance on them? That was a bit mean of you, wasn't it? :innocent:

 

Ooh, harsh, harsh!

 

But actually I thought if this person were to talk to someone like KJW or Markus, he might learn something.

 

Also, that place is pretty dead and sending them a person who is not barking mad or a complete troll might liven it up a bit.  He has in fact been making some progress with KJW, I think. Though clearly struggling to control his behaviour a bit, as shown by the threads you quote.  :)

 

I would never dream of sending them Polymath or Victormedvil,  or Dubbelosix or A-Wal (who've already been there and got banned) for instance. 


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#49 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 08:20 AM

Yeah I got banned, not because of what I posted, but because I wouldn't hold my tongue with trolls like you.



#50 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1311 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 05:27 AM

I would never dream of sending them Polymath or Victormedvil,  or Dubbelosix or A-Wal (who've already been there and got banned) for instance. 

Er, excuse me. I was never banned from there. I've only ever been banned from one site and that was for losing my temper (for calling someone a ******* stupid ****), the first one I went to when I didn't understand how they worked and the mentality and maturity level of the people I'd be dealing with. I know now.

 

Being an arsehole like that for no reason says a lot more about you than it ever could about me Exchemist!



#51 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 07:58 PM

The news of my demise was premature. I have risen from the ashes and got my answer. (In fact I will launch my theory of ralfativity there because I think they have the talent I was looking for.) Here it is (awaiting final approval from KJW):

 

Here's the explanation of how age difference unfurls (it doesn't). Enjoy!

"she would know that Bob was the one who was stationary in regard to experiment's starting frame and that he was travelling only in time."

All wrong. Bob may have never been stationary wrt Alice if Alice flew past him at the start. (The start is significant for the co-location of the two, not their relative velocity.) Bob was depicted as stationary but he had the same relative velocity as Alice during the journey. He was also moving at .6c through space relative to Alice despite that the STD depicts him as not going anywhere. The starting frame was not Earth or the entire background universe. The starting frame just had Bob and Alice, the background doesn't matter. That's a separate frame; confusing because that separate frame is always included in the STD as the background cartesian coordinates. STDs are very bad for causing everyone's confusion and especially for implying a preferred frame. 

He was also not the only one travelling through time. Both were travelling through time at the velocity of light through time which manifests itself as the normal rate of time. For example, a VCR has slow motion, fast forward and play. Play is the normal rate through time. The other two are other velocities of time through time. The doppler shift ratio is like a VCR where the two can see each other at different apparent time rates but they see themselves at the normal time rate. Everyone in his own frame passes through time at the normal time rate which is the maximum rate events can progress through time.

So at first Bob and Alice were both moving at c through time and at, let's say, .6c through space. They saw the doppler shift ratio from each other, manifest as the tv signal they broadcast of their daily lives, as half speed slow motion. They both looked to be moving in slow motion from the others perspective and so were their clocks even though everything within their environment was looking normal. From that they could calculate their relative velocity was at .6c and from that they could calculate their time dilation as .8 of each other. For every year one was ageing, the other was ageing .8 yrs from each other's perspective. From other perspectives moving at different relative velocities to them, the ageing rates were something else. Also don't get confused with their ageing rate due to time dilation and the apparent rate they seem to be ageing due to the doppler shift ratio and the age difference between them at re-unification, which is not due to any universal ageing rate. It's a one-time endpoint number that had as many derivations as perspectives watching it get there.

The person who initiates a change in relative velocity that ends in their unification, will be the one who ends up ageing less than the other because his spacetime path is proven to have been through space and therefore less through time. (I don't know how relativity establishes that proof because if the guy on earth performs the velocity change, he is still at the same point where he started while the other guy isn't.) However that determination can't be made until they re-unite because any distance separation before that point brings in perspective from other frames. Any determination of age difference has to be referenced to the frame making that determination. It's only when they are together that the universe can say what their age difference is from all perspectives (the same) and hence, independent of perspective just like c which is also independent of perspective.

You need to forget everything you've ever been taught from wiki articles, popular science magazines, people on forums, on-line mickey mouse courses and probably most books.

P.S. I suspect the proof of who actually travelled through space is somehow connected to who entered the 0 velocity common frame (a party has to stop at some point temporarily to make a turnaround). Is this the lost spacetime path rule that explains why Alice can make a stop at a distance from Bob and still have a valid age difference with him? It's like the spacetime path doesn't need to go all the way to re-unification if the party runs out of gas trying to make it there and sends a note of apology. The age difference is established when the note reaches the other party.


Edited by ralfcis, 15 January 2019 - 08:07 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Relativity