Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
729 replies to this topic

#596 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 12:48 PM

The old "everybody says so" argument just like Ahole used and look how far it got him. In fact no one has ever explained in detail anything except for KJW on the science forum. I can recognize intelligent people and you certainly ain't even close. You haven't said a single thing mathematical or scientific since you got here unless you're a sock puppet for someone else. I've shot many people down on other forums, I wouldn't be surprised if you're someone with a grudge for past humiliations.  My math is all laid out. It's high school algebra FFS. All you need is high school algebra to prove me wrong or show where I misrepresented relativity. You're a poser, you know nothing and haven't proved anything otherwise. This is a discussion forum, not a place for ignorant trolls to take potshots at their betters.


Edited by ralfcis, 19 April 2019 - 12:53 PM.


#597 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 03:18 PM

:lol:



#598 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • 1081 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 03:37 PM

Ralf, I, and others, for years, have explained in detail where you go wrong. No one wants to waste time on you anymore. I just like to check in on your stuff from time to time and shake my head  in baffled, bemused wonderment. I'm sure the same is true for others who read your stuff.

 

I have no dog in this fight, but how could you have "explained in detail for years" if you just joined last month?

 

"Member Since 05-March 19"



#599 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 03:48 PM

I have no dog in this fight, but how could you have "explained in detail for years" if you just joined last month?

 

"Member Since 05-March 19"

 

I have met Ralf before.  ;)



#600 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 07:42 PM

I'm easy to find, I don't hide behind a sock puppet or pathologically lie like at least one does on here. I've met many dishonest people on physics forums and yet Amp seems to be proud of his ignorance and dishonesty. I have a feeling it's Mitch but it could be any number of cockroaches I've stomped on. I've already explained to this person that I evolved my theory so I have been corrected and adjusted over the years unlike people who can't learn.  As I said, I couldn't read before I was 6 but someone as ignorant and dishonest as this can't fathom that I am now able to read. I've also explained until recently I was close to buying the whole relativity package until I learned what relativity's definition of time was. That's the topic I'm now concentrating on but I don't think he understands that either. If they do come with straight jackets, I'll be very lonely posting on here.



#601 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 02:54 AM

The rest of us are just humoring y'all until the guys with the straight jackets arrive.

That should be "straitjackets", as in the Straits of Gibraltar, i.e. narrow, restricted. 

 

But I agree it's quite entertaining to glance occasionally at the crank-on-crank action here.  :winknudge:



#602 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 03:07 AM

I don't think it's possible to fit a crank into a "straight" jacket

 

crank-rig-main.jpg


  • exchemist likes this

#603 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 08:00 AM

one thing that has been constant on this forum is relativity cranks, There is no shortage of supply in that department. As for putting relativity cranks in straight jackets, I dunno if they can be called mentally deranged for being relativity cranks but sometimes they say the strangest things. I think that these cranks need to just accept Einstein's theories and get over the crankness of the argument.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 20 April 2019 - 08:04 AM.


#604 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 08:26 AM

Really? I'm not sure you parrots know what a crank is:

 

1. A crank is someone who speaks in word salad or number salad that is generally a bunch of numbers to 10 or more decimal places .

2. A crank doesn't try to make his point understood with anything but endless repetition.

3. They may use overly complex formulas without explaining or answering questions of clarification on those formulas like you do Vic.

4. Cranks don't use math unless it's random equations that mean nothing.

5. Cranks quote cranks to back up crank theories which are generally not their own.

6. Cranks use word searches on Wiki and generally call up articles that are out of context.

7. Cranks' theories never evolve and they don't engage in honest discussion and never ask questions of clarification of another point of view.

8. Cranks should be easily proven wrong by  knowledgeable people to knowledgeable people even though the crank himself can never be convinced or change his point of view. Unknowledgeable people use the excuse they can't be bothered and these parrots are as much a problem on this forum as the number of cranks.  Yes relativity attracts cranks because almost no one, crank or parrot,  understands it.


Edited by ralfcis, 20 April 2019 - 04:17 PM.


#605 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 11:47 AM

9. Cranks are touchy



#606 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 11:54 AM

Well ya got me on that one. 

 

10. Cranks have the answers missed by decades of the greatest scientific minds.

 

Here's more:

 

https://www.physicsf...n=ReviveOldPost


Edited by ralfcis, 20 April 2019 - 12:24 PM.


#607 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 12:04 PM

Ok math fans, here's the STD of the method correlating perspective time to causal time from Bob's perspective of Alice going out 3 ly and making a choice of velocity changes (-40/41 c, -.8c, -.6c, 0, +.6c) at the 3 ly mark. The yellow lines are light signals from Alice most importantly during the period of velocity imbalance. The red lines are Alice's velocity lines. The blue lines are Bob's lines of simultaneity with his causal time in blue and his perspective of Alice's time dilation in red. The purple lines are causal simultaneity and the purple times are causal times.. This will take a few days to fully describe. The STD of Alice's perspective is a nightmare compared to this and should be finished in a few weeks. Enjoy.

 

https://photos.app.g...1wEh2zZjAfBWWv8


Edited by ralfcis, 20 April 2019 - 12:27 PM.


#608 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 04:30 PM

OK, math fans, her is my STD of Bob and Alice when both have had their brains eaten out by tertiary syphilis (STD).

 

https://previews.123...ric-texture.jpg

 

The strong black diagonals going every which way at once are Bob’s light signals from his improper (naughty) time to Alice’s coordinate time (blouse and skirt matching). Since both Bob and Alice are insane because of tertiary syphilis, it is impossible for them to sync their clocks or even to hold in their pee before reaching a toilet in time. 

 

Note Alice’s dark gray lines. These are the TV signals she sent to Bob before changing frames, but Bob was drunk on his *** and missed them.

 

The light gray lines are just put in there for fun and don’t mean anything.

 

The STD of Alice's perspective is a nightmare compared to this and should be finished in a few weeks. Enjoy.


Edited by Amplituhedron, 20 April 2019 - 04:31 PM.

  • fahrquad likes this

#609 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 05:29 PM

Jealous?


Edited by ralfcis, 20 April 2019 - 05:30 PM.


#610 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • 1081 posts

Posted 20 April 2019 - 08:58 PM

That should be "straitjackets", as in the Straits of Gibraltar, i.e. narrow, restricted. 

 

But I agree it's quite entertaining to glance occasionally at the crank-on-crank action here.  :winknudge:

 

Oopsie!!! It is "strait-jacket" after all.  Apparently there are some very stylish strait-jackets on the market in link below.  Who wooda thunk it?

 

Alice1.jpg

 

https://www.google.c...cSuI-fIM:&vet=1


Edited by fahrquad, 20 April 2019 - 09:24 PM.


#611 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 06:44 AM

Wow that pic of Alice is like looking in a mirror when I'm reading y'all's responses. Do you guys like cartoons? I bet you do. Here's one about my experiences on this forum:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=nX9OnI4yDrw

 

There are only two rules of relativity club: First rule is there are no problems with relativity. Second rule is if you find a problem with relativity, there are no problems with relativity. That may sound like one of relativity's circular arguments but there are are no circular arguments in relativity. So, as Vic says, why wouldn't everyone just accept Einstein's theories? Okay, I'm going to explain what "I" means once again.

 

Because of relativity's definition of perspective time as the only type of time, present, or reality, in order for all perspectives to agree on a time difference between two parties engaged in relative motion, those parties must be co-located. They don't even need to stop their relative motion, they can pass by and be co-located for an instant in order for them to agree on what is the age difference between them. The time this comparison happens will be different from different perspectives, but the difference between their two times will be universal from all perspectives. 

 

So in cartoon language, if Homer's time is 5 and Marge's time is 4, their time difference is 1 to them. That same time diff of 1 is seen by everyone in the room even though everyone in the room may have different times on when Homer and Marge compared watches. But the key is that Homer and Marge can only establish their time diff when they're side by side. Homer can't yell across the room to Marge to ask what time she's got. Then no one will agree on their time difference or when they compared watches. It's like relativity defines co-location as a super perspective of time, like a present that's more real than the normally real perspective present. (This was a simplified example of faulty watches causing time diff but, in relativity, the time diff is real, the watches only record it.)

 

So what does the "I" mean again? Relativity can only define age difference when Bob and Alice re-unite because not everyone will agree on their time difference so long as they remain separate. There's absolutely no reason for this rule except for how relativity defines time. It's a circular argument in a theory that can't have circular arguments so the rule must be correct. Yet what I'm showing is a method that allows one to establish age difference for whatever velocity change is made without ending in co-location. But this violates spacetime rules which are a cornerstone of the theory of relativity. If those rules are wrong, the entire theory is wrong. Therefore, invoking the first rule of relativity club, my math must be a trick because it's impossible to establish age difference for velocity changes that do not end with re-unification. It's not even worth setting up an experiment to determine who's right because the results of that experiment would be invalid if they proved relativity wrong. This reasoning makes perfect sense to everyone on this and every physics forum out there. 

 

What does the "I" stand for again?


Edited by ralfcis, 24 April 2019 - 07:46 AM.


#612 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 02:43 PM

MMM! Relativity donuts!

      /

homerdrooling.gif





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity