Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1152 replies to this topic

#970 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 10 September 2019 - 10:17 AM

Amplituhedron;

 

Greene invites us to consider an already baked loaf that has always been baked and always will be — it’s eternal, hence eternalism (all times exist, as do all locations), in contrast to presentism,

 

 

[I criticize/challenge the statement, not the poster, for the reason you mentioned. It may be an idea from someone else.

I've seen Brian Greene on PBS talk about moving in time. For me his interpretation sounds more like fantasy than science. It's also known that scientists are expected to publish and lecture to promote themselves and the organizations that employ them.

 

After 12+ yrs of varied forum participation, my conclusion of why the 100+ yr old SR theory is still debated, especially with so much experimental verification, is misinterpretation, excessive abstraction, and not recognizing it as a theory of perception. Apparently Einstein was content with the mechanics of SR. But it's obvious the observer plays the central role in the theory.

His 'eternal loaf' does not agree with the 'big bang', which itself could have alternate variations. Where does he place new events, like a human birth, a nova, etc. After an event occurs, the only evidence are the images that can be detected. The event is history for everyone, because the universe has extent.

 

No one is wrong all the time, and I agree with Ralf on some things. Science is a religion for some who expect it to solve all their problems. Science has its limitations. It’s philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool. It can’t analyze spiritual or intangible things. like ‘how much love will a container hold’?

Regarding .999… on the ‘infinity’ topic, my argument is the same.



#971 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 10 September 2019 - 04:39 PM

Sluggo, I still don’t understand your objection to the block world. I have stated mine: it does not account for consciousness, or the alleged illusion of passing time. This defect may not be fatal, but I have yet to see a repair.

 

The BW is a theory of perception, or, strictly, a meta-theory of perception. I wonder why you think otherwise. (BW is a meta-theory of SR, just as, for example, Many Worlds is a meta-theory of quantum physics.)

 

You invoke the big bang. What of it? Under the BW, the bang is simply another standard-issue location in spacetime, no different from any other.

 

In Einstein’s original train thought experiment, we find that the ground observer sees lightning flashes happen simultaneously at the front and back of the train, while the train observer sees, first, the flash at the front of the train, and then sometime later, the flash at the back.

 

What are we to make of this? It seems straightforward: In a meaningful sense, the ground observer has seen the train observer’s future. The train observer, even before he/she knows it, is going to encounter a flash at the back of the train, but just can’t predict this fact. He/she is not going to encounter a tortilla there, or a banana, or nothing at all. It’s going to be lightning flash.

 

Hence the future, for all of us, is as fixed and unalterable as the past. That is the essence of the BW. Minkowski mooted this first and Einstein seems to have accepted it later. Greene is just explicating the idea.



#972 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:05 AM

They say the human brain uses 12 watts of power. So you'd think pushing physics thoughts around all day would burn more calories than watching sit-coms all day. You'd think they'd make a study on this and reveal the results of how many more calories you burn thinking about physics over the philosophy which appears in the science gossip rags. Anyway, I must burn most of my energy while asleep because when I have a problem, I put it in for processing before I konk out and usually wake up with the solution. This morning I had to deal with a great deal of solution.

 

I was having a ton of difficulty resolving the right hand side of my STD. It just wouldn't work out in the same way the left hand side did. So I thought I'd go back and try to solve it using Einstein's method of employing length contraction and time dilation (Lorentz transforms) to see if it would give me any insights. 

 

Then I remembered the battle between cranks and relativists on all physics forums. Both sides have little to no math skills but one side at least asks questions while the other blindly quotes art history philosophical theologian dogma from scripture thinking that's what science is all about. The question I remembered from the cranks was why do Einstein's derivations have terms such as (c+v) and (c-v) if in Einstein's relativity those terms should always equal c. Those terms are Newtonian, not Einsteinian. 

 

So I went back into the left hand side of my STD to see if (c+v) appears there. It does but it's written as (pink c) + v = (yellow c). I've had to swap the colors of the light lines on the right side to match this equation.

 

https://photos.app.g...ZoB2Rp1KWgF7ms8

 

 So look within the triangular area bounded by the numbers 0, .67 and 0.  The pink light signal always uses up .5 Bobs seconds to reach Alice and crosses .5 ls of invariant space to do so. (Space is invariant unlike what Einy's un-physical length contraction assumed.) Alice's .6c velocity starts simultaneously to the light pink signal no matter what the perspective and is given the time to cross the required distance to meet the pink football. So from Bob's line of simultaneity, she is given .4 sec Alice time = .5 sec Bob time to cross .3 ls to catch the football. Since the green line represents causal simultaneity, she is given a head start of .2 ls from Bob's perspective. Causality is the sun going out before the Earth's perspective goes dark. There is a delay between causal simultaneity and perspective simultaneity and that is how Alice's head start to the blue line works.

 

Speaking of causal simultaneity, Alice is given .67 sec Alice time = .833 sec Bob time to cross .5 ls to catch Bob's football. From Alice's perspective simultaneity, she is given 1 sec Alice time = 1.25 sec Bob time to cross .75 ls to catch the pink ball. 

 

The equation is (pink c) + v = (yellow c). Bob's time for pink c is .5 sec. Bob's time for v from the blue green and red perspectives is .3, .5 and .75 sec.  Bob's time for yellow c from the blue green and red perspectives is .8, 1 and 1.25 sec.  The distance for pink 5 is .5 ls. The distance for v  from the blue green and red perspectives is .3, .5 and .75 ls.  Distance for yellow c from the blue green and red perspectives is .8, 1 and 1.25 ls. So the equation becomes:

 

Pink c distance / pink c time + v blue, green or red distance / v blue, green or red time  = yellow c blue, green or red distance / yellow c blue, green or red time.

 

Obviously the equation Einy should have come up with instead of his lame Lorentz transforms.

 

Now let's apply it the the right side of the STD except the equation is now pink c - v = yellow c. Velocity will now subtract from pink c because it takes longer for the light to catch up.

 

So pink c distance = 2 ls

pink c time = 2 sec

Blue v time = 2 sec

Blue v distance = 1.2 ls

Green v time = 1.67 sec

Green v distance = 1 ls

Red v time = 1.25 sec

Red v distance = .75 ls

Blue yellow c time = .8 sec = Blue yellow c dist = .8 ls

Green yellow c time = 1 sec = Green yellow c dist = 1 ls

Red yellow c time = 1.25 sec = Red yellow c dist = 1.25 sec

 

Plug these values into the equation and see c-v is always = c but the catch is pink c and yellow c have two different time and distance values. This is how the MMX works to conclude velocity towards or away from light does not add or subtract from a relative velocity which is always c. Hopefully armed with this understanding I can come up with a much more powerful mathematical description of how velocity relative to c really works.

 

PS. You may wonder why I always use Bob's time for the calculations. This is because velocity uses Bob's time (v=x/t). If I wanted to use Alice's time, velocity is expressed as Yv = x/t'.


Edited by ralfcis, 12 September 2019 - 09:27 AM.


#973 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:54 PM

PPS. I think I'm getting an idea why my previous attempt to make DSR the differentiating factor between pink c and yellow c failed: because DSR is not enough. Somewhere in the math, perspective, maybe Y,  works with DSR as the differentiating factor.



#974 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:06 AM

So what have I mathematically proven so far.

 

1. Length contraction is not only a made up physical phenomenon but it's also a made up mathematical concept as well to explain flawed assumptions made up by Einstein that have no basis in reality. No need to use it to explain the MMX.

 

2. Time dilation also doesn't exist in physical reality. It has nothing to do with time slowing due to relative velocity. All it is is a time coordinate conversion factor for relative velocity's effects on the rate of time information. DSR is also an illusion of time rate change for constant relative velocity except it can be seen while time dilation can only be calculated. However time rate can actually change during a relative velocity imbalance period where DSR becomes a real reflection of time rate (not just information rate) change while time dilation never becomes real.

 

3. c = c is misleading because pink c does not equal yellow c. They are composed of different distance and time components due to different perspectives to hide the effects of relative velocities to c to keep c constant from all perspectives. Einstein really had no clue.

 

So you philosophers might argue I haven't proved anything because none of you can read the physics language of math. If you can't read it then philosophically it doesn't exist like a tree falling in the forest.


Edited by ralfcis, 13 September 2019 - 08:21 AM.


#975 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 09:05 AM

Amplituhedron;

 

Sluggo, I still don’t understand your objection to the block world. I have stated mine: it does not account for consciousness, or the alleged illusion of passing time. This defect may not be fatal, but I have yet to see a repair.

 

 

[If time is treated as convenient perception and not a physical entity, that issue would end. The block is psychological. No one wants to run out of time.]

 

 The BW is a theory of perception, or, strictly, a meta-theory of perception. I wonder why you think otherwise. (BW is a meta-theory of SR, just as, for example, Many Worlds is a meta-theory of quantum physics.)

 

 

[Compare heliocentric vs geocentric theory for an example of physics vs perception.]

 

You invoke the big bang. What of it? Under the BW, the bang is simply another standard-issue location in spacetime, no different from any other.

 

 

[I don't accept the big bang, just saying, if there is a beginning, there can't be any forever loaves!]

 

In Einstein’s original train thought experiment, we find that the ground observer sees lightning flashes happen simultaneously at the front and back of the train, while the train observer sees, first, the flash at the front of the train, and then sometime later, the flash at the back. What are we to make of this? It seems straightforward: In a meaningful sense, the ground observer has seen the train observer’s future.

 

 

[The ground observer has seen some very recent history.]

 

The train observer, even before he/she knows it, is going to encounter a flash at the back of the train, but just can’t predict this fact. He/she is not going to encounter a tortilla there, or a banana, or nothing at all. It’s going to be lightning flash.

 

 

 

 

[Because an event is perceived by one observer does not imply it will be perceived by others. Football fans at the game see a pass thrown and a touch down. The fan watching tv misses the event because the power went out while the ball was in the air. The longer the time interval between events, the greater the possibility of an interruption. Chains of events don't always reach completion.] 

 

Hence the future, for all of us, is as fixed and unalterable as the past. That is the essence of the BW. Minkowski mooted this first and Einstein seems to have accepted it later. Greene is just explicating the idea.

 

 

[The block universe itself would have to change just to include growing population. The future is unknown. Human will causes changes, daily. I'm old fashioned in the belief that physics can be explained in terms of matter, light and motion. Theories are abstractions which may have benefits in terms of measurement and useful analogies, but the theories are not physics. Just as an image of Biff is not Biff. Humans come into the world totally ignorant of how it works, and speculate with mental constructs (rules and forms) that mimic to a degree the 'laws' that regulate its behavior. Why the constructs work so well, is unknown.]

 

Edited by sluggo, 14 September 2019 - 09:08 AM.


#976 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 05:42 PM

Sluggo,

 

Well, yeah, the guy on Einstein’s relativistic train is not guaranteed to see the flash at the back of the train. Maybe he will pass out or die before it happens. Nevertheless, it will happen, even though he cannot predict it, and may not know that it happens, because he might be comatose or dead, when it does happen.

 

And … so? How does this fact vitiate the block world, or the fact that SR suggests that the future is as fixed as the past? Everyone sooner or later croaks before the future “happens,” after all. Someone who died in 2015 would never (mercifully!) experience the election of Trump as president. But his election is an objective fact, all the same. 

 

How would the block universe have to change “just to include growing populations”? This makes no sense to me. The growing populations are embedded in the block world. That is the definition of eternalism.


Edited by Amplituhedron, 14 September 2019 - 06:01 PM.


#977 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 11:34 AM

If the world changes with new people, new ideas, etc., then it can't be fixed. The world actually shows itself to be dynamic, constantly transforming. An anaut orbiting the moon could see a meteorite hit the far side, but no one on earth would see it. 

Just because it happened does not guarantee it's in everyone's future.



#978 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 08:34 AM

Sluggo, but it can be fixed. The past is fixed, isn’t it? Why can’t the future be fixed as well?

 

If someone is orbiting the moon, and sees a meteorite hit the far side, but no one on earth sees it, it is still an objective fact of reality that the meteorite hit, even if no one but the astronaut sees it. The fact that, under the block world, the future is as fixed and unchangeable as the past, does not mean that we can know everything that happens. There is plenty about the past that happened, but we have no knowledge of it.



#979 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 09:59 AM

Sluggo, but it can be fixed. The past is fixed, isn’t it? Why can’t the future be fixed as well?

 

If someone is orbiting the moon, and sees a meteorite hit the far side, but no one on earth sees it, it is still an objective fact of reality that the meteorite hit, even if no one but the astronaut sees it. The fact that, under the block world, the future is as fixed and unchangeable as the past, does not mean that we can know everything that happens. There is plenty about the past that happened, but we have no knowledge of it.

 

The past is fixed since it has already happened, independently of human awareness. We study dinosaurs via evidence still remaining, even though no one has seen live examples.Two people get hungry at lunch time. One eats, the other doesn't since they are protesting some issue. That's free will..The future is unknown. Predictions: comets, weather, lottery, etc. are based on history, with a probability value attached. It can never be a certainty.



#980 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 11:23 AM

It is as logically possible for the future to be fixed, without us knowing anything about it, as it is possible for the past to be fixed. We know some things about the past, but a great deal of it is disguised from us. We know next to nothing about the details of ordinary people in ancient Rome whose names never made the history books, to take one of many possible examples.

 

The rider on Einstein’s train has a fixed future: A lighting bolt is going to strike the back of the train, only he doesn’t know it yet. He may never know it — before the flash, he may become comatose or die. It’s true he can’t predict the future, but so what? It’s fixed all the same, irrespective of his knowledge.


Edited by Amplituhedron, 16 September 2019 - 11:23 AM.


#981 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 10:38 PM

I find Miller Lite neither tastes great nor less filling. That's about how deep this conversation is. You either believe in a fixed future or you think Einstein was wrong. You can't have it both ways. Now that that's settled I'll be getting back to some real physics sometime in the future unless it's already been written for me.


Edited by ralfcis, 16 September 2019 - 10:40 PM.


#982 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:12 AM

Today I woke up and had to face the fact I can no longer hold with the idea that everything is relative since my pink light/yellow light revelation. The relativity of everything to everything else is distortion of the relativity of everything to an absolute time and absolute space. Sounds very crank-like and it would be if I agreed with cranks. You can drive your car at 60 mph without having a radar gun and worrying about your relative velocity to everything else on the road. It doesn't matter because everything, including your radar gun, is relative to the road, not to everything else on the road. Your tires do not make the earth spin underneath you like a treadmill.

 

The information about reality is not the same thing as reality itself. The information, although distorted, can be used to determine what the reality of the past was. The reality of the present is not determinable in real time; it is always hidden. The future isn't hidden, it just doesn't exist at all because it hasn't happened.

 

I've always said there's no such thing as length contraction and recently concluded there's no such thing as time dilation's dilation of time but now I must also conclude there's no such thing as relative velocity without an absolute background. The scenario of two spaceships leaving earth at .33 c in opposite directions is not the same as 1 leaving earth at .6c without taking into account the background of where this scenario takes place. The mass of Earth is the background and affects the results.

 

Einstein's idea of a grey featureless background does not exist. The perspective that space can move past you like you're a stationary record needle on a record moving past you is impossible because what is the arm of the record needle attached to? You can tell you're moving. The light signals from a moving ship are going to have different durations of length and time than the ones from your stationary companion. You're motion is not on a treadmill with someone moving the scenery past you. You can have a speedometer on your spaceship that has .8c on it because if you travel from earth to proxima centauri (4 ly away) in 3 yrs on your clock you know you have travelled .8c without being relative to anything but the background universe. The guy back on earth hasn't moved, no spacetime paths required for this analysis. 

 

The key to understanding all this is to separate perspective from reality, not to conclude perspective is reality like Einstein did. Perspective is just raw, distorted information. I have to go back and correct a lot of what I said in this thread. This should be my last break with the brainwashing of Einstein's relativity.


Edited by ralfcis, 18 September 2019 - 10:12 PM.


#983 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:48 AM

It is as logically possible for the future to be fixed, without us knowing anything about it, as it is possible for the past to be fixed. We know some things about the past, but a great deal of it is disguised from us. We know next to nothing about the details of ordinary people in ancient Rome whose names never made the history books, to take one of many possible examples.

 

The rider on Einstein’s train has a fixed future: A lighting bolt is going to strike the back of the train, only he doesn’t know it yet. He may never know it — before the flash, he may become comatose or die. It’s true he can’t predict the future, but so what? It’s fixed all the same, irrespective of his knowledge.

One event doesn’t represent a person’s future. True there may be a car salesman who plans on calling the rider when he gets home, and other planned activity that may involve him. It’s still unknown relative to the rider, and not certain events. All plans don’t succeed. They are more like potential or probable events. If known, the rider may even take action to avoid encounters with those people.



#984 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 01:58 PM

Sluggo, I still don’t understand your objection. Going back to Einstein’s train passenger, her future is fixed, regardless of her knowledge. Sure, she can’t predict what will happen, and so, from the passenger’s point of view, a lightning bolt striking the back of the train is a potential event, even a probable one — she has already witnessed the lightning strike at the front of the train, and may plausibly suppose that, because the train is passing through a thunder shower, a bolt may also shortly strike the back of the train. It is also possible, of course, that a  bolt will not hit the back of the train — but these calculations or suppositions are only, again, from the passenger’s point of view, in which her future has not “happened” yet. But, regardless of her knowledge of lack thereof, Einstein’s thought experiment shows that the bolt will hit the back of the train, with certainty. Hence the future, like the past, must be fixed and unchangeable, all of it, if Einstein is right. This is the whole point of Greene’s video, an elaboration of Minkowski’s spacetime, and it seems Einstein eventually agreed with all of this, after evidently resisting the implications of his own theory at first.

 

If in one objects that accepting the implications of the block world vitiates free will, and thus cannot be countenanced, this constitutes an invalid argument to adverse consequences. However, as I have noted, the block world thesis does not, in my judgment, actually invalidate free will, though the argument for why this is so is a bit complicated.



#985 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:39 AM

Sluggo, I still don’t understand your objection. Going back to Einstein’s train passenger, her future is fixed, regardless of her knowledge. Sure, she can’t predict what will happen, and so, from the passenger’s point of view, a lightning bolt striking the back of the train is a potential event, even a probable one — she has already witnessed the lightning strike at the front of the train, and may plausibly suppose that, because the train is passing through a thunder shower, a bolt may also shortly strike the back of the train. It is also possible, of course, that a  bolt will not hit the back of the train — but these calculations or suppositions are only, again, from the passenger’s point of view, in which her future has not “happened” yet. But, regardless of her knowledge of lack thereof, Einstein’s thought experiment shows that the bolt will hit the back of the train, with certainty. Hence the future, like the past, must be fixed and unchangeable, all of it, if Einstein is right. This is the whole point of Greene’s video, an elaboration of Minkowski’s spacetime, and it seems Einstein eventually agreed with all of this, after evidently resisting the implications of his own theory at first.

 

If in one objects that accepting the implications of the block world vitiates free will, and thus cannot be countenanced, this constitutes an invalid argument to adverse consequences. However, as I have noted, the block world thesis does not, in my judgment, actually invalidate free will, though the argument for why this is so is a bit complicated.

Einstein’s thought experiment shows that the bolt will hit the back of the train, with certainty.

 

[Certainty is an assumption, based on 'nothing will intervene'. This would require complete knowledge of all possible events, which no one has. When an event happens, then it becomes a certainty or fact. Until then, it's speculation. Facts are verified via recording, typically visually, or evidence within an investigation. This is where the time interval enters. A flash of light over a short distance as in the train scenario only requires micro seconds, which severely restricts any form of intervention. Planning a flight to another city, allows for the possibility of severe weather, hijacker, mechanical problem, ... that could prevent it from happening.

Your idea of the future as an unalterable chain of events is not reality. The storm in Italy did not occur because a butterfly flapped its wings in Mexico. The idiot kills people at a mall. We cannot blame the gun dealer, the gun maker, or his mother for bringing him into the world. The gun fired because he moved his finger.

In the train drama, it's possible for a bird to fly past and get struck by lightening, heading for the train. Out of respect for wildlife, today we would sacrifice a drone.

From an initial event, there are many possible outcomes that can unfold, depending on the interactions between events. That could easily be the basis for a many worlds idea.


Edited by sluggo, 19 September 2019 - 08:41 AM.


#986 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:36 AM



 

In the train drama, it's possible for a bird to fly past and get struck by lightening, heading for the train. Out of respect for wildlife, today we would sacrifice a drone.

From an initial event, there are many possible outcomes that can unfold, depending on the interactions between events. That could easily be the basis for a many worlds idea.

 

But that is precisely the point. It is not possible for lighting to hit a bird, before it hits the back of the train, from the perspective of the train’s passenger. If that did happen, then the ground observer would have seen that thing instead — lighting hitting the bird, simultaneously with lightning hitting the front of the train. So far as I can tell, there really is no way around the fact that the ground observer has “already” seen the future of the train passenger, before the train passenger has experienced his future — and this means that the future, all of it, must be as fixed as the past.


  • sluggo likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity