Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1197 replies to this topic

#1191 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts

Posted 08 January 2020 - 08:26 PM

So, whats the conclusion to all this ralfcis, this is now on page 71, what have you discovered?


Edited by VictorMedvil, 08 January 2020 - 08:26 PM.


#1192 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 08 January 2020 - 10:03 PM

70 pages of earth shattering plenty. Now I just have to wait for everyone else to catch up. Recently I learned:

 

1. Relativity has very few agreed upon terms. It's the wild west of terminology.

2. Time dilation has about as much to do with time slowing as length contraction has to do with shrinkage. They're both figments of relativity of simultaneity.

3. Relative velocity is an illusion of perspective. There is no relative motion and there's no absolute motion. There is only an intermediate common reference frame and it can even be the background stars or the surface of the earth.

4. The doppler shift ratio is neither due to time slowing or relativity of simultaneity. It has to do with the rate of info coming from a clock.

5. The sun does not revolve around the earth nor does the earth revolve around a proton in the LHC. These are myths of relative velocity.

6. Distance does not convert into time in the equation ct'2 = ct2 - x2. Space is invariant.

7. Minkowski diagrams are a fraud. They are a manipulated coordinate semi-rotation designed to make c look constant from all perspectives (which it is anyway without his fraud).

8. I've learned how the muon example really works.

9. Much more to come now that I have a potential source of information. I haven't been kicked off yet and once that guy WillO becomes less of an a**hole, then I'll know I've made it.


Edited by ralfcis, 09 January 2020 - 11:10 AM.


#1193 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 10 January 2020 - 09:14 AM

Anyhoo Victor, I can ask the same question of you. What have you discovered in these 71 pages? 



#1194 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 11 January 2020 - 10:51 AM

Einstein used light signals to synchronize clocks in a frame to the same time no matter the distance separation between those clocks to come up with some kind of perspective present. But can the opposite be done? Can you use light signals from clocks in different frames to calculate what your proper time present was when your twin paradox twin sent you a light signal with his proper time indicating the moment he sent it?

Here is a Minkowski diagram 

https://photos.app.g...VZpdTsQjQ7Wkk98

of a twin paradox example for Alice doing a round trip at .6c. Bob sends out a pink light signal to her when his proper time is 2. She receives it when her proper time was 4. She wants to figure out what was her proper time when he sent it.

From her perspective, Bob's light signal is sent when she is 2.5 and Bob's 3 Bob yr light signal was only 1.5 Alice years long from the time she's 2.5 until she receives it at 4. So her proper time was 4 - 1.5 (light travel time) - .5 (the relativity of simultaneity from when Bob actually sent the signal to when she saw him send it) =2. Her proper time was 2 when Bob sent the signal so we draw a green proper time line of simultaneity to signify the answer.

Now I can figure out the rest of the answers for each light signal from Bob and Alice but my math method is not appreciated here. I'm wondering if relativity has a method to calculate proper time simultaneity using light signals from each year in the diagram. You don't even need to do every year just from Bob =5. The answer I get is Alice's proper time was 4.5 when he sent his light signal when his proper time was 5. The reciprocal also seems to be true, that if Alice sends out a signal at 4.5, Bob's proper time was 5 when she sent it.

 

 [1]: 

Edited by ralfcis, 12 January 2020 - 01:03 PM.


#1195 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:30 AM

So my last question was answered to my satisfaction on the PSX. I was told to separate the concept of simultaneity, from a half-speed perspective of proper times between frames, from the idea that this can be called "proper simultaneity" and the subtraction of those proper times can be called "proper age difference". Proper times are invariant within a frame and once they are viewed from outside, they become variant to perspective and are by definition no longer proper but coordinate time. So, finally I can ask my next question with all the terminology correct and my path to world domination of relativity no longer obstructed by terminology. 



#1196 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 12:48 PM

After looking for synonyms for the word "half-speed" I came upon the answer to my question. The Loedel reference frame is the frame of reference in which the velocities become equal speeds in opposite directions.   So the term I have been searching for to replace "half-speed" is Loedel velocity, Loedel simultaneity, Loedel perspective and Loedel age difference. No one knew that but so far no one is objecting to my revelation. Maybe they've lost interest in answering this and any further questions. Unfortunately the PSX did not answer the 2nd part of the question on how to use light signals to tell time in the twin  paradox example. I've been working on that daily and it turns out to be a very deep and difficult problem. Figuring this out will be the most important proof of the last 71 pages (if anyone is still reading this thread).


Edited by ralfcis, 16 January 2020 - 12:49 PM.


#1197 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 11:04 PM

Anyhoo Victor, I can ask the same question of you. What have you discovered in these 71 pages? 

 

That you are persistent, but I dunno whether or not I consider you correct, you have some points but other things I think you are incorrect about. You have a unique view of Relativity.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 16 January 2020 - 11:05 PM.


#1198 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 08:39 AM

Yes I have been incorrect and I've corrected them but what main points are still incorrect? Anyways I'm working out the wrinkles on the PSX. It's funny with them, if they don't understand something they just ignore it rather than ask for clarification. You have to get the terminology just right.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity