Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
732 replies to this topic

#715 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 12:47 PM

Ok, so the math seems to be too much for anyone to decipher so let's go off road a bit. If a 4yr old was looking at my STD, she'd ask why is the yellow line longer than the pink line. The people in the choo-choo see the light travel from the center at 1ly per yr in both directions so how can the people on the platform see the light travel 2.5ly per 2.5 yrs from the center to the front of the train and only .625 ly per .625 yr to the back of the train. (Please notice c is constant from all perspectives without any of Einstein's wizardry.) The answer, little girl, is the time on the train is dilated from the platform's perspective. Just like the train's velocity can be expressed in v=x/t or v'=Yv=x/t' if t' is the train's dilated time, so can the light's velocity be expressed within the train's frame from the platform's perspective as c'=Yc where Y=1.25 at .6c. Within the train's frame from the train's perspective Y=1 so c'=c and v'=v=0 because the train is stationary from its own perspective.

 

But the youngster would respond, "but time dilation is the same for both perspectives so there's still an inequality in light travel time and distance travelled between the two halves from the platform's perspective that the people in the train don't experience." Wow, I'd say, you're much smarter than anyone I've met on a physics forum. The answer is incomprehensible to anyone else listening in. Relative velocity has 3 problems: 1. it can't be depicted on an STD, 2. the doppler shift ratio, not time dilation, is directly related to relative velocity and 3. relative velocity depends on direction and a change in sign results in an inverse of DSR. So the pink line going backward would have a DSR =2 while the one going forward would have a DSR= .5. The depicted length of the yellow line =2.5 but it's relative velocity length, if that could be drawn, is multiplied by the DSR to equal 1.25 and dividing by Y would equal 1 from the platform's perspective. The depicted length of the pink line is .625 but multiplied by its DSR=2  is also 1.25 or 1 when divided by Y. So you see, with a little math and STD understanding, both lengths are the same from the platform's perspective and the train's. Of course I've spent a lot of time previously proving why this is so and since no one understood that, they won't understand this.

 

PS. If you're having trouble with the concept of Yv and Yc, it is the distance travelled (invariant from any perspective) in perspective time. So if Alice takes off from Earth at .8c and travels 1 ly, using earth's perspective of her dilated time where Y = 5/3 at .8c, her Yv = 4/3 c. But she is not covering that distance faster than light would because light's Yc using earth's perspective of that frame's dilated time is 5/3c. Yv or Yc can't be seen from any perspective but can be calculated when Alice sees she has travelled 1 ly in only 3/4 yr of her time from earth's perspective. Light has travelled that same distance in 3/5 yr of her time from earth's perspective. Length contraction was brought in to try to explain why Alice isn't really travelling faster than c but there's no need for that as Yv is not the same thing as v. Only v is required to remain below c. 


Edited by ralfcis, 09 May 2019 - 03:30 PM.


#716 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 09:12 AM

Ok, try this, no confusing numbers this time. Time dilation from the train's perspective is the same as lines of simultaneity from the train's perspective which are also the same as the train's length contracted x' axis from the platform's perspective. So why would anyone think there is some magical physical significance to one name where that magic doesn't exist in the other names of the exact same mathematical construct. Why can no one here see that all those Wiki articles claiming certain physical phenomena can have no other possible explanation to them other than length contraction are all frauds? Why can no one here see that when wiki uses the phrase, "no other possible explanation" that the article is science fraud (like everything not understood can be explained by dark matter, climate change or the many world's theory). Really, I think Victor is right, you should all get MAGA baseball caps because nothing signals intelligence to everyone like a baseball cap.


Edited by ralfcis, 10 May 2019 - 09:32 AM.


#717 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 10:00 AM

Ok, so the math seems to be too much for anyone to decipher ...

 

Or maybe no one is reading your posts.



#718 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 10:34 AM

Ok back to some real science, it's going to get hairy so everyone put on your thinking caps, or not, it won't make any difference here.

 

So I left off saying time dilation and length contraction are illusions of perspective. I also showed length contraction has nothing to do with constant c from all perspectives. So what's real if nothing seems to be based on reality in relativity. Causal time is real. This is what I'll integrate into my last few STD's. We are going to take the following STD of a stationary train and show what happens when the train is moving at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.g...nTEqSRcXfPg5r69

 

https://photos.app.g...pJBhAuxdxxF9Av5

 

The blue lines are the platform's lines of perspective simultaneity, the red are the train's lines of perspective simultaneity and the green are causal simultaneity. While perspective simultaneity can be sync'd to any start value using the reverse of Einstein's clock sync method using light signals, causal simultaneity restricts all clock readings to be identical along its line. It's like what uncle Al tried to do with his definition of simultaneity which failed miserably once it was seen that other frames couldn't be sync'd to it. That's why there's relativity of simultaneity.

 

Using the causal lines of simultaneity to set the time values on the velocity lines is supported by the fact that when clocks are co-located, they have the same time value. When the blue stationary axis intersects the red velocity lines, both clocks have the same value as it should be. Introducing causal time fixes the time labels to only one possibility. Relativity never understood that true clock sync can only be done with co-location of clocks, not with light signals between clocks. However, I will be looking into the ability to use light signals with causal time to sync clocks at a distance. Too bad uncle Al didn't see this and came up with a really faulty method to sync clocks which resulted in a really hopeless theory.


Edited by ralfcis, 10 May 2019 - 11:31 AM.


#719 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 10:54 AM

Amp I took a look at your post. I haven't read any other recent ones because I've given up thinking you may have something intelligent to offer. You really can't follow a logical discussion from one point to the next. I don't care if the dummies on this forum, who are unable to understand anyway, read my posts. The number of views contradicts your theory. There's only 1 smart person on here and he's not engaging with me. The other sometimes smart person told me to keep going but I would do so anyway because this is the only forum that allows me to speak without getting banned. I'm writing this for myself and any dummies that want to come along I'm willing to help because I myself need to understand and explain this subject matter right down to their level. I came to this forum with unanswered questions and I no longer have any. I appreciate honest dummies but not whatever you and your sick purpose are.


Edited by ralfcis, 10 May 2019 - 11:33 AM.


#720 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 02:59 PM

. The number of views contradicts your theory. 

 

The number of views does not contradict my theory. The lack of responses to your crackpottery supports my theory.

 

The number of views is simply explained: Pure amusement for the viewers, or else utter astonishment -- people unable to quit watching you ramble pointlessly on, your viewers  like rubberneckers at a 30-car pileup.

 

Anyone like you who thinks Greene's video explanation of length contraction contradicts standard relativity is daft. 



#721 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 10:13 PM

Here's the STD for a train at .8c just to ensure the math is consistent. (DSR =3 at .8c and half-speed is .5c).

 

https://photos.app.g...sGSK1CZMeDDih69



#722 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 06:31 AM

I know when you guys look at my STD's, all you see are random brightly colored lines. It's like transitioning from learning the alphabet to learning to read, words on a page would look like random collections of letters before one could recognize them as words. Math illiteracy is the same thing so I'll explain what the math is telling me here and it's a lot.

 

I think the most important question in relativity is what time is it really when comparing watches. Uncle Al came up with a very complex theory with a lot of rules and regulations on how to answer that question. The Lorentz transforms should make it easy to convert time but unless they arrive at the same answers I have in my STD, those equations are faulty (I haven't checked). With no clear concept of causal time in his theory, those equations can't arrive at the same results. Also not realizing distance is invariant would probably invalidate Lorentz transform results. 

 

1. First thing you'll notice is Einstein's clock sync method taints the results. It's ridiculous to say all clocks on a blue horizontal line of perspective simultaneity should be forced by his method to have the same clock value at every point in space along the line because distance must naturally assume time difference between the clocks i.e. it takes time to traverse a distance. So what happens if you assume uncle Al was right in his assumption that's contrary to nature? A horizontal blue line at t=0 should imply the front and back train clocks should also be zero because they co-locate with the platform's end clocks which are zero. This would mean at t=1.25, both end train clocks should be 1. But by Einstein's reasoning, all the clocks on the train's line of perspective simultaneity are also sync'd to the same value but that can't happen if you've sync'd them to the initial platform clock. It's a contradiction, another one of Al's paradoxes which he emphatically states, through his parrot minions, don't exist.

 

The only lines that naturally have the same time on their clocks from end to end are the green lines of causal simultaneity. From these lines one can construct what the time values are on the blue and red velocity axes. This is the only clock sync method that works and it looks nothing like Einstein's.

 

2. So we've basically replaced the blue and red lines of perspective simultaneity with one size fits all green lines of causal simultaneity. The old horizontal blue lines are gone, there are no endpoints to set to the same value according to Al's broken down clock sync method that totally screwed up relativity. There are only point values of time where the green lines intersect red or blue velocity axes. If you try to draw the old red lines of the train's perspective simultaneity, the lines joining the two red velocity axes would not end with the same clock values as Einstein's method dictated. You can see this on the STD where the red line of the train's perspective simultaneity goes through t=0. The two ends do not have the same time just like New York and Paris don't have the same time on their line of distance separation.

 

I know none of you know what I'm saying because this is all new thinking even for me. You're reading my words, throwing them out and substituting your own that match Einstein's and then wonder why nothing makes any sense. 

 

3. Relativity only cares about endpoints to measure how long in distance or time something is. It used Al's clock sync method to try to artificially tie the endpoints and everything between them into some coherent commonality. This led to a complete mess that parrots were taught to recite led to complete order. As I said before, if you use stopwatches to measure the length of a drag racer, the length you measure is affected by how those watches are affected by outside influences (relativity's affect on time rate and synchronization). The introduction of causal lines of simultaneity now allows the proper sync of those watches that Einstein's method did not. The clocks at the end of the train are tied together by a different method other than setting their clocks to the same time readout. The end clocks can't be treated as independent of each other (as I had said a few posts back) but they do not require the same readout to tie them together.

 

4. I also said the train's end clocks could be set to zero when the light pulse hit them. With the introduction of the lines of causal simultaneity, this is also not true. Where the light pulses that emanate from the center of the train/platform co-location intersect the train's end clocks, now have very specific values that are derived from the mathematical interplay of DSR, Y and velocity through time and the velocity through space. The math behind this gets tedious so I'll leave it for the next post. Once that's done it will be easy to show  what a travelling horizontal or vertical light clock or interferometer looks like in an STD and how length contraction has no relevance.

 

Remember: Idiots dismiss what they don't understand, intelligent people wait until they do.


Edited by ralfcis, 12 May 2019 - 07:02 AM.


#723 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 06:50 AM

Sorry, I acidentally posted these notes to myself, just ignore.

 

spacetime path rules, Al came close to seeing causal time in co-location

causal time and colocation at a distnce

half speed persective

vx = .8c, vt = .6c, Yx = 5/3, Yt = 4/3, DSR =3

vx = .6c, vt = .8c, Yx = 4/3, Yt = 5/3, DSR =2


Edited by ralfcis, 12 May 2019 - 06:56 AM.


#724 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 08:59 AM

Since length contraction clearly happens, what is the actual explanation for it?

 

Lorentz Contraction and the Dimensionality of Reality



#725 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 10:04 PM

Here's what the train example as light clock at .6c looks like from the train's perspective of itself and the platform's perspective of the moving train:

 

https://photos.app.g...WiLV68xePo7Cc4A

 

Any questions? I'll fill in the details when I have time which may not be for a while.

 

PS. Do you see any length contraction?


Edited by ralfcis, 12 May 2019 - 10:11 PM.


#726 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 06:30 AM

Popeye, if you're waiting for me to put numbers on the last STD, here they are.

 

https://photos.app.g...PLG1ue3rHhvH9B8

 

So now are you going to answer my question or not. It seems the answer to interpreting what Greene said shouldn't even require me to do all this work since what he said was pretty straight forward for anyone who knows relativity. In case anyone else out there believes the light clock's orientation makes a difference as to whether it can only be explained by time dilation one way and length contraction another as Greene's videos show, you need to understand what 3 dimensions mean first. The distance between the two mirrors are distance and whether you align the mirrors with the z-axis or the x-axis makes no difference to the ct-axis. In one example the train (as light clock) would be horizontal passing through a train station and in the other it's a rocket passing through a space station. It makes no difference dummies. The light clock you seem to want would have mirrors vibrating from side to side at c hitting a stationary light ball. You got real problems understanding what "relative motion" actually means.

 

But then, duh, you'll ask why didn't Greene tell us this when he made 2 separate videos explaining the same thing in 2 different ways. This must, duh, mean one video is for length contraction only and the other for time dilation only. Well, then, the train through the station example matches Greene's horizontal light clock example and there's no length contraction to be seen anywhere. I don't have an x'-axis in my STD. Anyone out there understand what I'm saying or will I get another quantum physics explanation on SR from Sluggo before he slithers off back into the background. Yeah, I know it's tough for the brainwashed disciples to admit the Church of Relativity is a fraud and it's much safer to keep your faith in silence protected by the freedom of religion.

 

PS. If you also can't see how the train/platform example isn't identical to the MMX interferometer, I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding people that don't even want to put in the minimal thought effort required. The answer is just like the train doesn't length contract, neither does one arm of the interferometer so shove your wiki articles.

 

PPS. And Popeye, before you address my "cranky" mood, try addressing the science for a change.


Edited by ralfcis, 14 May 2019 - 06:55 AM.


#727 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 08:02 AM

"Cranky" isn't quite the word you're looking for. Just lop off the letter "y" and you're all set. :)


  • exchemist likes this

#728 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:51 AM

Been down this road before with ralf, but just to raise the point again to make him even more cranky … ;-)

 

Ralf, you have asked repeatedly why time dilation is permanent but not length contraction. I should say that this misconception of yours shows you just don’t grasp what SR is actually saying. 

 

Grasping it conceptually requires no math, though of course the math serves as a descriptive tool. In fact, though, time dilation is NOT permanent, any more than length contraction is. So you raise a nonexistent problem.

 

Time dilation isn’t permanent. When the clocks meet up again, both are ticking at the same rate!

 

What IS permanent is the lag in one of the clocks. But this lag is a record, not an ongoing phenomenon.

 

What is it a record of? According to the ground observer, it is a record of the traveler’s clock running slow (time dilation). Nonsense, says the traveler. He insists (rightly!) that his clock has always been ticking at the same rate. According to the traveler, the reason his clock ticked less than the ground observer’s clock is because he covered less distance than the ground observer estimated. And he did! That is length contraction!

 

Who is right? They are both right, from the point of view of their own frame.

 

Thus, a slowed clock is a record of BOTH time dilation (according to ground observer) AND length contraction (according to traveler). Now, invoking your sainted math, it can easily be shown, with math, that if you had time dilation WITHOUT length contraction, then the traveler would find he had arrived at his destination faster than the speed of light. Of course, this is impossible.

 

This is so obvious, to everyone except you, it seems.


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#729 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 05:30 AM

Here is my STD of a rubber ball clock using the train as clock example>

 

https://photos.app.g...P3USz7PudN4znW9

 

Rubber balls are bouncing from end to end at .8c in a train 2 ly long going at .6c. This is a very exciting diagram because it screams to me there is a new relativistic velocity combo law using Yv which looks more like traditional velocity combination because Yv and Yc are not limited like v and c are. The .8c balls are bouncing in a Yv time environment of 1.25 x .6c = .75c.  Yv of .8c in this environment = 1.25 x .8 = c. Now I just need to figure out what this new Yv velocity combination equation looks like. 



#730 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 11:39 AM

I don't know when I'll have time anymore so I'll just post this and explain it later.

 

https://photos.app.g...Zc3aEAVgGQYyX68

 

This is not a 3D poster but if you stare at it long enough, a deeper picture of relativity will be revealed to you. Unfortunately, for most on this forum, that time will probably exceed their lifespan. It is the Rosetta stone of relativity. It is all the examples of relativity in one STD. SR is only a 2 trick pony and this diagram shows the relationship between time dilation and age difference tricks. Curiously the difference is the difference between when and where the journey begins. If Bob takes off a yr after Alice (as shown by the yellow triangle), the result will be permanent age difference.  If Alice takes off a light yr away from Bob taking off at the same causal time(as shown by the blue triangle), the result will be reciprocal time dilation which is an illusion of perspective resulting in no age difference. If both happen but they started together at the same causal time (as shown in the purple triangle), the result will be cumulative time dilation and not age difference. If both happen (in the pink triangle), the result is cumulative: the time dilation adds to the total age difference.  Now time dilation can't actually be converted into age difference so I suspect the result here may just be coincidence but we'll see in further examples.

 

In short, taking off 1 yr apart results in age difference but taking off 1 ly apart only results in the illusion of perspective time dilation. There's a lot to unpack here and it will take a while to do so. As I said, a deeper picture will result and I'm not yet sure what that will be.


Edited by ralfcis, 20 May 2019 - 11:44 AM.


#731 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 08:24 PM

As I showed in the Waves and relative velocity thread, light that begins simultaneously in two relatively moving frames must end simultaneously. However, in the train in the station example, light travels further in a moving train than it does from a stationary perspective. So relativity fixes this paradox by ruling rulers must contract reciprocally in each relatively moving frame. Another way to fix this problem is ruling that time is dilated reciprocally in each frame and instead of using the formula c=x/t we can use the formula Yc=x/t' where Y is derived from the relative velocity, where Yc is the speed of light of invariant distance over dilated time. 

 

So here is an STD of Alice leaving Bob at .8c where she triggers two light signals when she is 4ly out.

 

https://photos.app.g...xM5F61asw8kRma9

 

This is similar to the train in the station example but instead of triggering the light signals from the same place and time, the signals are sent from both frames at the same perspective time  from the depicted moving perspective when the two are reciprocally 4ly apart. Alice is depicted as moving and her line of simultaneity from the 4 ly mark joins her time t'=3 to Bob's time t= 1.8. Her pink light signal takes 4 Bob yrs to reach Bob at t=9 so he knows it took 5 of his yrs to travel the 4ly but only 3 of her yrs to do it. Relativity says that makes her speed 4/3 c which everyone thinks is verboten in relativity so they make up the story that from Alice's perspective she made the 4ly of empty space contract to 2.4 ly of empty space. Hmmm, how do you physically contract a vacuum? Relativity's speed limit is on v=x/t but there is no limit on x/t'. The speed of Yc in Alice's dilated time frame is 5/3c so she did not go FTL. The 4 Bob yrs it took light to return to Bob took only 2.4 Alice yrs using the invariant distance between them divided by the dilated time of her moving frame. c is still the same value from Bob's perspective of his own frame and Alice's frame using his time but he has a window into her time and why she is able to seemingly traverse longer distances in less time to keep c constant.

 

From Alice's perspective, the signal sent from Bob at t=1.8 was simultaneous to the one she sent to Bob at t'=3. Since Alice is pulling away from Bob, the light signal takes 7.2 yrs to catch her according to this depiction of their relative velocity. The Doppler shift ratio for a depicted stationary frame like Bob's is DSR=1 but for a depicted frame moving at .8c, DSR=3. 7.2/3 =2.4. The depicted time of the yellow light signal is 2.4 Alice yrs and it reaches her at t'=5.4. 5.4-2.4 =3 which confirms that Alice had travelled 3 Alice yrs when she sent her signal to Bob which took 4 Bob yrs to reach him which confirms that from his perspective it took Alice 5 of his yrs to traverse the 4 ly between them.

 

Using relativity's method of length contraction, Alice traversed 2.4  of her ly from Bob's perspective while Bob traversed 1.44 ly from her perspective. Now if you think these numbers sound crazy then you don't understand how length contraction works in relativity. My method is much better. Distance is always invariant and frames being viewed from an outside perspective use dilated time and Yv which is not limited to c. I know none of you understood a word so any questions or will it just be ignorant remarks instead?


Edited by ralfcis, 25 May 2019 - 08:27 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity