Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
729 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 12:24 PM

I'm not fluent in word salad but I actually understand what you're saying. One guy admitted to me they spread the BS  until you're allowed to see the real theory way up in the academic level. Then it's no longer in algebra-land.

Delusional conspiracy theory stuff. Science does not work like that at all. Just read the book I recommended to you, or one like it. It is nobody's fault but your own if you won't do the hard work to master the theory, before you try to criticise it.  



#19 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 453 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 09:11 PM

Delusional conspiracy theory stuff. Science does not work like that at all. Just read the book I recommended to you, or one like it. It is nobody's fault but your own if you won't do the hard work to master the theory, before you try to criticise it.  

Theory:  I have three chickens, Using nothing but a strobe light, they will change into a woman, because of my math equations which I am still sorting out a bit.

 

Now please don't be critical of my theory till you master it.


  • Moronium likes this

#20 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 01:33 AM

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.  



#21 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 02:49 AM

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen  Idioten  selbst vergebens



#22 inverse

inverse

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 04:13 AM

as a mathematician at my background,I can see (almost or absolutely) nothing relevant to algebra.


Edited by inverse, 15 February 2019 - 05:42 AM.


#23 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:52 AM

Descartes, Cartesian coordinates as the marriage between geometry and algebra. Go ogle it. As I suspected, no mathematicians on this forum. Ok, that's unfair, there are people who can recite math here. So no one here has ever seen a Minkowski spacetime diagram or Cartesian coordinate rotations and view that as sorcery and not math? Wow, maybe I'm not in hell but an unknown level below it. I really need to get back on thescienceforum.com. Boy did I blow it! I was having a real discussion there with a real non-crank expert.  I couldn't keep my yap shut and still can't. I can't even hold a job. I suck.


Edited by ralfcis, 15 February 2019 - 09:26 AM.


#24 inverse

inverse

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 09:27 AM

Descartes, Cartesian coordinates as the marriage between geometry and algebra. Go ogle it. As I suspected,

 

1) no mathematicians on this forum. So no one here has ever seen a Minkowski spacetime diagram or

2) Cartesian coordinate rotations

 

and view that as sorcery and not math? Wow, maybe I'm not in hell but an unknown level below it. I really need to get back on thescienceforum.com. Boy did I blow it! I was having a real discussion there with a real non-crank expert.  I couldn't keep my yap shut and still can't. I can't even hold a job. I suck.

 

 

1) nope ,I am a real mathematician.

 

in order to make it relevant to algebra ,use these basic keywords

 

i) group theory

ii) ring heory 

iii) polinomial rings.

iv) algebraic numbers , transcendental numbers , iir (x,F) , F[x],etc.

v) isomorphism,homomorphism (not homeomorphism),automorphism,ideal

vi)vector spaces

vii) linear equation systems

 

etc. 

 

 

2) that is not relevant to algebra,more relevant to analysis but seems simple


Edited by inverse, 15 February 2019 - 09:33 AM.


#25 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 09:56 AM

Pythagoras,  is both an algebraic expression and a trigonometric expression which is part of geometry. Maybe I'm technically mistaken, I don't know,  but it looks to me you're trying to undermine my arguments with semantics. Here is the quote from my math book:

 

"Descartes' mathematical contribution was not initially intended for use in maps and navigation, but as a means to unite geometry and algebra." Mathematics an illustrated history of numbers.


Edited by ralfcis, 15 February 2019 - 10:02 AM.


#26 inverse

inverse

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 10:02 AM

  but it looks to me you're trying to undermine my arguments with semantics. 

 

ok. move on!


Edited by inverse, 15 February 2019 - 10:11 AM.


#27 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 10:04 AM

At least you responded, most people don't  when mistaken.



#28 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 01:21 PM

 Ralfis;

#3

 

That's how relativistic math works.

 

 

 

[Math is the verification tool of science, a language with a rigid syntax. The symbols represent physical relations of entities and can be translated into words of the common language. Math can be applied in any field where measurement is required.]

 

the "time" axis being ct which is actually a distance, not time

 

[Many don't notice this, which removes 'time' as a mysterious, elusive, whatever that makes things happen. A spacetime graphic is then a historical plot of simultaneous object speed vt, vs light speed ct, or v/c. If v=c, then the slope of the line is 1 or 45 deg.]

#9

 

The rate of space is the velocity it would take to cross that distance.

 

 

 

[That would be the object velocity, space does not move.]

 

 

One is the velocity through space and the other is the velocity through time which reduces to c

 

 

 

[Time is a measure of clock events from your local clock. The light speed profile is 45 deg in the spacetime graphic, but light moves on the horizontal x axis 1 light unit in 1 unit of time. People misinterpret the spacetime graphic as a 2D map, with light moving at 45 deg. This also means the clock and observer are moving in the x dimension, leaving 2 spatial dimensions for motion]

 

Your current posting is easily extracted from the light clock.

You should be able to post your std with only the necessary numbers and stay under the size limit.



#29 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 02:09 PM

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with what I've said or just repeating what I've said back to me.



#30 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 453 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 09:40 PM

I thought you said you were smart?

Its not mathematically or geometrically or musically possible that the axis labled "ct" is a distance axis.

 

rather no one who first created this abortion on graph paper, said it was a distance!

 

"ct" is just the time taken by light to go a distance in a scale that is set up so that the distance scale will have the same units. ratio of 1:1

 

This purpose of doing this, (and this is what most people don't realize) is that this is now a trick designed to fool the gullible, and its worked really well.

 The reason why its a trick is simply because to allows us to use c on both sides of the equation. When we are not interested in the velocity of light, we wanted to know the TIME elapsed!

 You can never get any equation that provides the results of SR or LT unless you INSIST on calling the time axis ct. 

BUT you should be able, the fact that you cant demonstrate that a trick has been used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


the "time" axis being ct which is actually a distance, not time

 

[Many don't notice this, which removes 'time' as a mysterious, elusive, whatever that makes things happen. A spacetime graphic is then a historical plot of simultaneous object speed vt, vs light speed ct, or v/c. If v=c, then the slope of the line is 1 or 45 deg.]

 



#31 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 February 2019 - 10:42 PM

The reason why its a trick is simply because to allows us to use c on both sides of the equation. When we are not interested in the velocity of light, we wanted to know the TIME elapsed!

 

 

Yeah, Marco.

 

The idea seems to be that if you're absolutely motionless, then you're travelling at the speed of light.

 

Through "time," that is.  It's senseless.  And irrelevant to the real question.


Edited by Moronium, 15 February 2019 - 10:44 PM.


#32 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:00 AM

This post will prove to be a dead end so the reader can skip it.

 

I don't know why anyone else is on this forum, it's truly an insane asylum. I personally have nowhere else to go where I won't get banned. I'm convinced there are no answers out there because you're not even allowed to ask the questions without getting banned. So I'll just sit here and explore for myself, in peace and quiet hopefully; just try to ignore the crazies until they get bored and pass on through.

 

I posted in my old thread a crazy idea because I actually thought if I posted it here, this thread would get shut down. I don't think there's any danger of that now. Basically I said that instead of subtracting the age difference from Alice, just add it to Bob at re-unification and that way you avoid crazy concepts like if a person could go at c, she'd be at all points instantaneously throughout the universe. Age difference is relative so if the twin paradox subtracts age from the person who changes the relative velocity, it should be mathematically feasible to just add the  age to the stationary party. There are no infinities or stopped time in that approach.

 

I've worked out the math that allows that to be possible but I don't see any correlation to any way to explain it in physical terms. In relativity, the line of reunification is Bob's ct axis with Alice's line of velocity. In this new approach, Alice's possible return velocity lines intersect with a line that looks like the Doppler shift ratio line I posted earlier. The intersection points line up with the correct age difference points on Bob's ct axis from his perspective.  I don't understand the physical significance of that but I'm pretty sure it would base relativity on a whole new set of equations. Instead of imposing time dilation on the moving party's clock from the stationary perspective,I'm imposing time expansion on the stationary party's clock from the moving perspective. Despite that, both would still see mutual reciprocal time dilation. It sounds like a lot of work which I don't wish to pursue. Maybe some math whizz out there wants to have a crack at it. Maybe as I go forward I'll see some future connection to this math and have an ah-ha moment.


Edited by ralfcis, 11 April 2019 - 06:32 PM.


#33 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:17 AM

Age difference is relative so...

 

Just playing around with the numbers like that won't get you any further than just playing with your dick, Ralf.

 

You have to understand the concepts first.  You don't.

 

Just for example, age difference is not "relative."  It is absolute.  So long as you fail to understand that (and why), you'll be lost.


Edited by Moronium, 16 February 2019 - 12:20 AM.


#34 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:52 AM

The girl's annoying voice notwithstanding, that video was well done.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity