Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1222 replies to this topic

#1208 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 10:21 AM

I guess I'm done with the PSX. I'm banned for lack of clarity. Usually I'm banned for being a dick or for trying to push a personal theory which is what I was partly trying to do (except I don't view pushing new math as pushing a new theory). But their heads are so far up their asses my posts look like hieroglyphics to them (except for Dale who is open-minded but has disappeared). I laid all my cards on the table and they had no idea what the numbers meant or what hand I was playing. How can people deal with the most complex math on the planet and not understand algebra? I can still interact somewhat but what's the point, they have no information for me. Even this place, a total cuckoo's nest, influenced my quest greatly. I changed my views a lot here which usually led me back to my original path which I hope is near the final final end. This last piece of the puzzle on how to use light signals to tell time was huge and a total surprise to me. I don't think there are any pieces left (although I've said that many times before).


Edited by ralfcis, 02 February 2020 - 10:49 AM.


#1209 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 05:38 PM

(I had your quote here Flummoxed, it's gone now... 

 

 

I'm impressed Flummoxed (not so much Flummoxed I think), without a new thread, as you appear to be thinking somewhat in line with me on this I will accept that as you helping my confirmation bias!  :nahnahbooboo:  (I new thread on the nature of light would be good, but ill address my views quickly here)

 

 

The idea of frequency of a single photon as always bugged me, especially when trying to visualize how it must move through space. 

 

Would you ascribe an amplitude to a photon as well as a wavelength? ie Lower frequency implies less energy > longer wavelength implies less energy therefore reduced amplitude.

 

 

It's bugged me too, especially how it must move through space, what it is and how you would visualize it if you could see it and were travelling next to it and looking at it.

 

As a kid I was into electronics and radio in the 70's building crystal radio's, CB's (27Mhz HF) and Amateur radio and such (later becoming Navy Radio/electronics tech/eng).

 

It's all about electrons for me, they are amazing (whatever they are), electrons are the 'interface' between matter, energy and space and time! I love those little guys.

 

Electrons make matter stable, they bind protons and neutrons together to give up atoms, and bind atoms as molecules, and molecules as solids, or liquids and gases (bound to lesser degrees), and not bound at all in plasmas. (and deeply bound in BEC, Bose-Einstein condensate).

 

Electrons also do things in an electric field, and do other things in a magnetic field, they also create electric fields and magnetic fields.

 

So electrons interface between energy and matter, and matter and matter.

 

So back to radio, if you build a radio transmitter (or oscillator) (radio is light), you deal with voltages and currents, so what you do to create light is manipulate voltages (the electric force, EMF electro-motive force), and you manipulate currents.

 

Electrical current creates a magnetic field, so now you have the electric field and the magnetic field as both being a product of voltage and current, and you can create light/radio by carefully matching current and voltage AT AN ELECTRON in a specific way.

 

The simplest oscillator, is a resonant circuit like a LC 'tank' circuit, that is a capacitor and an inductor connected in parallel, what happens when you get that to oscillate is you continuously transfer energy from a magnetic field (in the inductor) current, into an electric field (in the capacitor) voltage. The frequency of this oscillator is how long that transfer takes, it's a function of time.

 

So back to the electrons, we know you can accelerate electrons with electric field, that's how old TV cathode ray tubes work for example, and we can also rotate or precess  electrons in a magnetic field (it's the 'g' value that makes quantum mechanics so 'awesome'!!).

 

So back to light, to create a photon of light you (at the same time, over the same time), you drive an electron through two forms of motion, you accelerate it with an electric field, and you rotate it with a magnetic field.

 

To process works in reverse as well, if the electron experiences an electric field and a magnet field it will accelerate and rotate (and generate a voltage and current).

 

So a photon is a COUPLED electric field (transition) and a magnetic field transition, they are coupled because both were created by the single electron.

The amount of time it takes for this transition to take place represents the wavelength of the photon.

 

So a photon of light is a 'standing' transition of an Electric and Magnetic 'wavelet' that are coupled together in space and time as they are created from the same source at the same time (the mighty electron).

 

So if you could visualise electric and magnetic fields and you were flying next to a photon you would see a transition or the electric field and magnetic field and it would be static and stationary. It would have a length and therefore a size, but it would not be moving in any way (excepting going at a speed of light).

 

 

 

Would you ascribe an amplitude to a photon as well as a wavelength? ie Lower frequency implies less energy > longer wavelength implies less energy therefore reduced amplitude.

 

That is an excellent, excellent question! For me it is THE question because, you are on to the very nature of light, matter and energy.

 

What I think about this is that it takes the SAME amount of energy to move an electron over these two modes of motion (velocity and rotation, Electric and magnetic), but that amount of energy is applied over different lengths of time.

 

Lower frequency, or better yet longer length is the same amount of energy over a longer period of time, and shorter wavelength is the same energy over a shorter period of time.

 

You are still doing the same amount of work, So of course, if you have the same amount of energy over different lengths the 'size' or amplitude of that coupled electric and magnetic field will be proportionally larger or smaller.

This makes sense to me because that reduced amplitude is less interaction or motion but over a longer time.

 

Once you get into longer lengths of photons, they do not have enough energy to be significant to a single electron, so the EM transition many electrons and creates a useful voltage and current to be detectable.

 

Visible light is in that very narrow band of energy lengths that can impart that energy into a single or very few electrons to be separately detectable (by a single electron) and can by itself create an amplitude of current and voltage (EM amplitude) that can be detected.

 

Even short wavelength light imparts too much energy to the electron (in too short of a time), and you get into ionising radiation, where the photon rips the electron off the atom or molecule. 

 

The shorter the wavelength of light (size of the photon), the higher the resolution you can get when you look at an object, you get electron level resolution! With longer wavelength light it will be spread over a larger area over more electrons, so you lose resolution, especially when you get to long wavelength light you need large detectors (big/long antennas) to detect a slight interaction over many, many electrons.

 

That's why we see visible light, it gives us the highest resolution without breaking atoms, and we don't need large size detectors to get that energy.

 

 

 

Would it not be safer to assign a photon an energy level, rather than any link to frequency or amplitude.

 

Yes, see above, a photon is the amount of energy required to move an electron through two modes of motion established or a consequence of an electric and magnetic force distributed over a length of space.

 

 

A spinning blob of energy moving through space might be a better analogy?  Perhaps a frequency can be assigned if the photon moves via absorption and emission between points in space?

 

Not spinning, not moving (except at c), not wiggling, not a packet or energy incased in a particle, it's just a coupled electric field transition and magnetic field transition (rate of change), created by the motion of an electron over a period of time AT THE POINT OF CREATION, (the length of time when the photon is made), and as light goes at constant speed the time it requires to move the electron through this motion the amount of time it takes to creates is the length of space that it takes (its length, wavelength).

 

We also know from Faraday rotation that the polarisation of light changes with light moves through matter (electrons) that is in a magnetic field, and from 'g' in QFT of the precession of an electron in a magnet field.

 

Magnet field is current, it processes electrons, Electric field is voltage, it makes electrons move (rotate and move, at the same time, coupled motion).

 

 

 

 

I am tending to opt for variations off Bohemian explanations of the double slit experiment, 

I'm not a fan at all of the conclusions of the double slit, I've not looked at other explanations but I can think of a few myself (particularly edge effect, diffraction or some other matter/electron light interaction.

 

So not a duality fan, photons do not interact with other photons, they just don't, a magnetic field or an electric field does not interact either. You can't bend a magnetic field with another magnetic field.

 

If light interacted with light in space, it would be a mess! you would get mixing and cancellation and it would be crazy town! (kind of make seeing things impossible).

 

It's when light is in the form of electric voltage and magnetic current in matter is where you get voltage and current interaction (that's what electronics does), and that is how you get mixing, cancellation and odd effects, if you don't built your transmitter right you get odd effects and 'spurious emissions', because you create spurious voltages and currents.

 

 

 

due to the recent proof of non locality. Do you reject non local effects between entangled particles?. 

 

Yes, I think I do, I also don't really think non locality or even entanglement is confirmed, I can however accept particle entanglement (but probably not separate photons of light). I think the entanglement of particles is information at the point of the creation of the entanglement, that information goes along with the particle and is not a function of the other particle at a distance (non-local). I'm more 'gloves' in boxes, than gossamer strands..

 

** possibly some cut and paste thing happened, so this many have some massive repeat in it or something... sorry about that... 

 

Thanks for your comment... 


Edited by Mutex, 02 February 2020 - 05:54 PM.


#1210 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 06:17 PM

I'm not really a fan of people squatting on my thread with their personal theories. This place is indeed a looney bin but it doesn't mean there's only one general ward without private rooms. I promise not to crash or trash yours.



#1211 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 06:50 PM

I'm not really a fan of people squatting on my thread with their personal theories. This place is indeed a looney bin but it doesn't mean there's only one general ward without private rooms. I promise not to crash or trash yours.

 

Rightly so, I probably would not be a fan of that either, however, my response and Flummoxed's response are the continuation of the question you asked.. 

 

 

"Is there a physical (non-time based) ruler that allows one to directly measure length contraction? "

 

So as light has a length value that can directly measure length contraction,  a discussion of why light has a length and why and how that is a function of the properties of the length of space and time at the creation of that photon, it is on topic and pertinent to your question. It's kind of the nature of how science is done.. 



#1212 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 08:28 PM

This is a thread about relativity, not unrelated theories from bizarro world. See if I got into a debate with you, it would be about me shredding every one of your mystical opinions and that should be what you need to do on this thread to my theories. Unfortunately, you'd need to know algebra first and pick out my flaws mathematically instead of via Quija board.



#1213 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 09:25 PM

I guess I'm done with the PSX. I'm banned for lack of clarity. Usually I'm banned for being a dick or for trying to push a personal theory which is what I was partly trying to do (except I don't view pushing new math as pushing a new theory). But their heads are so far up their asses my posts look like hieroglyphics to them (except for Dale who is open-minded but has disappeared). I laid all my cards on the table and they had no idea what the numbers meant or what hand I was playing. How can people deal with the most complex math on the planet and not understand algebra? I can still interact somewhat but what's the point, they have no information for me. Even this place, a total cuckoo's nest, influenced my quest greatly. I changed my views a lot here which usually led me back to my original path which I hope is near the final final end. This last piece of the puzzle on how to use light signals to tell time was huge and a total surprise to me. I don't think there are any pieces left (although I've said that many times before).

 

I'm not seeing much relativity here in this post from you on this thread.. Just saying.. 

 

 

See if I got into a debate with you, it would be about me shredding every one of your mystical opinions and that should be what you need to do on this thread to my theories.

 

I might be a little pithy here, but it seems to me that much of what you post is "about me". Science is not about you, or your ability to shred others, I find that an adversarial approach to learning and understanding nature tends to put many offside.

 

Just saying, perhaps that has something to do with being banned or whatever from other science sites. 

 

 

Unfortunately, you'd need to know algebra first and pick out my flaws mathematically instead of via Quija board.

 

OK, Do you have flaws mathematically? I know algebra already, I guess that is why I am able to pick out some of your flaws, some flaws don't require algebra to pick out at all. BTW it's Ouija Board.

 

The best you can do is listen and try to understand other peoples opinions and ideas, that is what I did for you, I read all your posts (and there are SO many and they are big), I considered your arguments and your analysis, I did not disparage you or insult you in any way. I did participate in the discussion and engaged in a attempt at a debate.

 

It's up to you how you carry yourself and how you interact with other people, that often comes down to whether you want to talk with people or at people, do you want discourse and dialogue, or dogma and dissent..

 

Have a nice day...



#1214 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 02 February 2020 - 11:13 PM

Well you were right about one thing, it is Ouija. So what are the other flaws you've picked out? Is it the one where you say light has no frequency only wavelength and then your other theory explaining photons moving? When I was a kid, I saw the word "quantum" in a Superman comic. I repeated that word to my dad who thought I was very smart. Being able to parrot words out of a comic book is not intelligence.


Edited by ralfcis, 03 February 2020 - 07:30 AM.


#1215 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 05 February 2020 - 03:30 PM

Here's a sample of the awesome power of the Loedel velocity perspective: photos.app.goo.gl/TXD5j6HzvhvUDEvt9.

 

The 1/3c Loedel lines of simultaneity extend up from the original .6c velocity and then intersect the light line from the turnaround. Then new -1/3c Loedel  neon green lines of simultaneity (due to the new -.6c velocity at turnaround) extend to the -.6c velocity line. A new Loedel line of simultaneity (thick green line) extends back from there to the stationary perspective's point where the 1/3c lines of simultaneity started. This method can be employed from any original velocity to any subsequent one as shown in: photos.app.goo.gl/b9D3FSk3Dh8TYeVG9 and photos.app.goo.gl/DfRjhge4x7E3mVc68.

 

Notice linearly progressing Loedel age difference only occurs during the time of relative velocity imbalance (whose duration is the light delay from the turnaround to the ct axis) between the two worldlines. For constant relative velocity there is no change in Loedel age difference. This explains the invariant age difference at re-unification. What's relativity's year by year mathematical explanation of the progression of age difference after the turnaround? Instantaneous lump sum at the turnaround or at the re-unification point? Rindler metric? Not a valid question? Actually I already know that relativity has no answer for this.

 

If anyone has questions about the algebra involved I'm open.


Edited by ralfcis, 05 February 2020 - 03:32 PM.


#1216 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 08 February 2020 - 01:54 PM

Here's a muon-like example using the Loedel perspective. photos.app.goo.gl/fhSGp1WVdvRiNoh17 A ship comes in at .6c and can make various velocity changes at 3 ly away from earth. The swing in Loedel simultaneity lines occurs between 4 and 6 Earth time. No change in velocity results in no Loedel age difference. A stop results in the ship ageing 1 yr more but a velocity change to .8824c results in the ship ageing .8 yr less than Earth for the final Loedel age difference.



#1217 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:00 PM

Here's an Md of the hysteresis of simultaneity at the top and bottom triangles of a return trip at .6c. photos.app.goo.gl/rFd42uvoNWJ9r1EP7 The age difference from sample perspective velocities from -c to +c is the same for both top and bottom if you you subtract the Loedel age difference which is constant and without hysteresis during constant relative velocity. This is a constant age difference from which all other perspectives of the age difference between Bob and Alice can be calculated using a formula for the hysteresis. Hence, the perspective age differences are unimportant. This is huge but those PhD's on the PSX won't even glance at this. 

 

Hysteresis can be compared to a camera's aperture and shutter. The aperture is wide open at +c and -c perspectives but closed at the Loedel perspective where Alice and Bob both agree on their proper times. (There is a reciprocal fuzz of time between the two when the aperture is open.) This is a window into a proper time present from which all perspectives begin. Hence, this is the basis of a common reality unlike Einstein's idea that the perspectives are individual realities and a common reality is the illusion. I think he chose the wrong perspective on how to perceive time. This is the math that proves it.


Edited by ralfcis, 10 February 2020 - 12:08 PM.


#1218 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:21 PM

I've figured out the formula for the hysteresis of simultaneity around the Loedel perspective. For the example above, A=B=2 And you're trying to find the resultant intersections on the velocity lines b or a. d = Y of ( relative velocity - perspective velocity) / (Y of perspective velocity). So b=Ad and a=B/d.  For example if B =2 and we want the value of a for a perspective velocity of +7/9c (Y = 1.599), Y of (.6c - 7/9c) = Y of (-1/3c) = 1.06066. So b= 2(1.06066/1.599) = 1.33. So the age difference between Alice and Bob from the +7/9c perspective of A-b = 2-1.33 = .67yrs. 


Edited by ralfcis, 10 February 2020 - 09:52 PM.


#1219 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 12 February 2020 - 07:13 AM

Wow, so they, on the PSX, hold a reopen vote on my Loedel age difference question but some unknown person deleted all my math supporting my argument just before the vote. No record of it ever having existed and all my avenues to repost the math have been closed. Do they really fear anyone was going to look into my math and actually be convinced? Only in movies are mathematicians able to read anothers math as if it were text or 006 hieroglyphics. No one knows algebra anymore. 



#1220 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 08:30 PM

Here's a nice little article that shows relativity doesn't need to be interpreted as Minkowski spacetime:

 

http://www.timeone.c...l.gg3iXMb9.dpbs

 

I've been arguing this on the PSX but their minds are absolutely closed shut ignoring other mathematical interpretations:

 

There is an obsession on wikipedia of whether some physical ruler could be held up to something long whizzing past and being able to determine that the moving object has physically shrunk due to length contraction. There is all kinds of supposed evidence that the results of certain particle collisions do not make sense if the particles hadn't have contracted before the collision. In a previous question, I had hoped Raskar photography, with its femtosecond frame resolution would be that physical ruler but the frame resolution is not enough to detect length contraction.

 

This led to this question and indeed the parallax measurement does present a physical ruler, independent of time, to measure reciprocal length contraction. The physical ruler is the distance to a star and due to relative velocity, the ships can be viewed as the stationary frame and the distance to the star is whizzing past them. The parallax view, which is independent of time, does indeed measure the distance to a far off star as having length contracted, from the ships' perspective, due to the velocity of the ships approaching that star. But the fact that it's impossible that the velocity of a ship can shrink space all the way to the star and physically pull it towards them must mean that length contraction is an illusion of perspective caused by relativity of simultaneity. The star would only look closer due to a trick of time, not due to a length physically contracting.

 

Here's the subsequent exchange from a knowledgeable parrot:

 

Assume the origin of the coordinate is system is at the Sun, the earth is orbiting the Sun in the xy plane, the star is at a distance L along the z-axis, and the radius of the earth’s orbit is r. When the earth is at y=-r, an astronomer on earth points a little arrow at the star on the celestial sphere. When the earth is at y=+r, the astronomer must rotate the little arrow in the y z plane by θx so the arrow points to the star’s new location on the celestial sphere. If an observer is now boosted by λ toward the star, we can calculate the new angle and boost parameters that the boosted observer sees done to the arrow.

 

Sorry his 4-vector math did not copy and paste:

 

 
Θ=1000010000coshλsinhλ00sinhλcoshλ000000θx00θx0000001000010000coshλsinhλ00sinhλcoshλ=000000θxcoshλθxsinhλ0θxcoshλ000θxsinhλ00=000000θxγθxβγ0θxγ000θxβγ000]
Therefore, the new parallax angle is θx=γθxθx′=γθx. The new observer could understand this as

 

 

θx2rLL=γθx=γ2rL=Lγθx′=γθx2rL′=γ2rLL′=Lγ
So the boosted observer is correct in saying the new parallax angle is the diameter of the orbit divided by the Lorentz contracted distance L to the star.

 

Ok that is the correct and factual answer to my OP. But if I may go a bit further, is the contraction an illusion of perspective or is the star physically pulled forward by the line of contracted space between the moving ship and the star (which was the new part of my question which was removed). – ralfcis yesterday    
 
I don't think "illusion" or "star is physically pulled" are good concepts as to how L behaves. You may be led to unworkable conclusions like fictitious forces acting on the star. Here is an example to make the contraction of L seem more real to you. Your spaceship is going close to c toward the star. Via redshift of lines you see the star approaching you at close to c. Via the parallax measurement you conclude the star is the contracted L' away. What makes L' even more real is that it takes you ~L′/c seconds of your life to get to the star …. no illusion! – Gary Godfrey yesterday
 
Sure but anything you ascribe to length contraction can be ascribed exclusively to time effects. The point of the question is whether there's a length-only yardstick. The parallax measurement is that but it's undermined by the effects of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) otherwise fictitious or illusory forces causing actual shrinkage are being invoked as you said. Slowed time is also illusory as RoS affects the relative start of time measurement, not its rate. I'm pretty sure no one agrees with my last statement even though I have the math to support it. – ralfcis yesterday   
 
This feels like I'm jumping into an existing discussion you are having to which I can't add much. My only 2 cents is that physics seeks to mathematically copy what we measure with a minimal set of ideas. If more than one word story can decorate that math, fine, but I wouldn't choose to get lost in philosophy seeking which is really true. – Gary Godfrey yesterday
 
Wise words. Yes an existing discussion where everyone is telling me an iron bar is forcibly being shrunk by the energy imparted to get to the velocity or by quantum effects ellipsizing spherical electron orbits in the iron atoms. My math says the RoS between a travelling object relative to a stationary observer will cause the observer to start his stopwatch later than when his perspective said the worldline began:
 
http://photos.app.go...6UpRjw7U29pMgC6 . The blue perspective starts his stopwatch 1.8 sec after he determines the race started but both agree the race took 3.2s of stationary time. – ralfcis yesterday    
 
RoS = vx/c^2. It is like the distance between them has a time value of 1.8s in my example which is like a head start in the race, related to these equations (ct')^2=(ct)^2 - x^2 (or (ct")^2 = (ct')^2 - (x/Y)^2 from the moving perspective). The RoS is not the time dilation rate of time but a lump sum of time that is the difference between race start and timing start. v'=Yv=x/t'=6/4c which is the distance moved / proper time on the moving ship. That's why it takes less ship's time in your ship to reach the star not because length contraction is real. – ralfcis 9 hours ago   Delete
 
As you said, math trumps philosophy but the simplest math wins. – ralfcis 9 hours ago   
 
Then of course he disappears because his closed mind prevents him from understanding what I've written. A real expert would have come across my reasoning before and if it was wrong he would have had a ready made answer to what I've said. Instead my math proofs are deleted in silence anonymously.
 
Anyway the Loedel perspective gives the clearest understanding of how relativity of simultaneity works without worrying about perspectives.
 
 
Notice both perspectives show 5s of travel with a delayed timing start of 1s. Clear as a bell.

Edited by ralfcis, 15 February 2020 - 08:45 PM.


#1221 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 08:14 AM

Since my comments that involved a lot of math have disappeared silently and anonymously on the PSX once in the past on my Loedel question before a reopen review, I'm going to address Gary Godfrey's answer here. There seems to be a confusion between Galileo's principle of relativity and the illusion of perspective relativity. When we get in the car and drive down the road, we can't say we're stationary and our wheels are turning the Earth beneath us like a giant treadmill. Similarly, we can't say the earth is revolving around a proton in the LHC. The sun does not orbit the Earth daily. It's orbit does not have a sinusoidal component that gives us our seasons nor does the Earth's axis tilt like a metronome to give us the same. These are all proven illusions of perspective, not examples of the principle of relativity.
 
Now distant stars that do not red/blue shift appear relatively motionless to us. So if we turn on a ship's engine to approach them and a blue shift begins, it does not mean we can assume the star with the entire universe has now coincidentally decided to move towards us and we are just treading water against the flow. That blue shift is an illusion of perspective and is not due to the principle of relativity. Even if we turn off the ship's engine and coast towards the star can we claim we now don't know who's actually moving between the two of us. To say the ship is the one moving relative to the star is not a claim of absolute motion because absolute motion would involve the entire universe.
 
So how do we tell what's real and what's illusion? Persistence. There is no persistence in the blue shift or length contraction to the star once the ship returns to Earth but there is persistence in the time difference between the ship's clock and the Earth's clock. This persistence is not due to time dilation which is also the same illusion of perspective as length contraction and relativite velocity. The reciprocal time dilation does not change on the outbound or inbound journey. The persistent reality of the time difference is due to something else which I was trying to mathematically explain but gets deleted without any reasons why.

Edited by ralfcis, 16 February 2020 - 08:16 AM.


#1222 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 05:37 PM

Finally I got a nibble from someone with physics credentials after all these years:

 

Your word "illusionary" seems synonymous with any measurement of the rod's length not done in the rod's rest frame. The idea that the rest frame length of the rod is invariant under boosts is well known. You are correct, the invariant length of the rod (or invariant distance to the star) does not change just because we look at it from a boosted frame. In this sense, measurements of the rod's length in other reference frames is illusionary, and we must return to the rest frame of the rod to measure its "real" length. I am still thinking about your idea of Persistence. – Gary Godfrey 44 mins ago
 
Yes, thank you, I wish I could shove your comment in the face of everyone who says otherwise. The rest frame length is invariant. So frustrating when everyone else I've ever come across disagrees. I do have a problem without knowing the correct terms to use as my Loedel age difference post shows. – ralfcis 30 mins ago    
 
Here is a link to a good portion of my math explaining why the time effect persists. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/526395/… . The 2nd half of the math has been erased and I can't repost it until my ban expires in 5 months but I do have it.

Edited by ralfcis, 16 February 2020 - 05:38 PM.


#1223 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 12:42 PM

Non one reads this thread anyway so I dump my conversations from the PSX here before they delete them there.
 
I should have included that the invariant length dsds is the length ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2dt2ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2−dt2 of the 4-vector (dx,dy,dz,dt)(dx,dy,dz,dt) between two spacetime points. In the rod's rest frame take these two spacetime points to be at the ends of the rod at the same time (so dt=0dt=0). Then ds=Lds=L. In a boosted frame the 4-vector between these same two spacetime points will be (dx,dy,dz,dt)(dx′,dy′,dz′,dt′) and ds=ds=Lds′=ds=L still. But dt0dt′≠0. So the observer chooses a different spacetime point for one end of the rod such that dt=0dt′=0, measures the new length ds=Lds′=L′, and reports a Lorentz contracted L'. – Gary Godfrey 12 hours ago
  •  
    @Gary Godfrey So yeah, whether 4-vector or Lorentz transforms, space and time are interchangeable and there's always a proper perspective and a boosted one. That's why my Loedel perspective is so cool because it simulates a common proper length and time perspective for both participants simultaneously. If you want to chat I'll make a room but if not they'll delete all I'll put into it if no one responds. Or you can wait 5 months until the brief interlude before my next banishment. – ralfcis 3 hours ago   
  •  
    My point is as soon as you accept all perspectives are equally real, you ignore the underlying objective reality of proper time and proper space from which all perspectives are derived and hence illusory. The Loedel perspective and its beautiful math gives you a window into the underlying reality. Heresy I know and it's a shame I can only present the vast amount of math in small erasable chunks. Math is not a personal theory, it's a language to convey meaning as I lack the terms to use the relativistic language. I hope Chris will open that chat room now. Makes it easier to delete my stuff.
     
    If space and time are interchangeable in equations, why is there no instance of persistence in length as there is for time? People argue the persistence exists because c would be exceeded in near c travels to distant stars without length contraction. This is false because v=x/t not x/t'. Travel is at Yv =x/t', which is the invariant distance in the time on your spaceship, not in Earth time; no violation of c, no evidence of length persistence. I remember this being a Breme or Epstein concept but I see nothing on wiki about this.

Edited by ralfcis, 17 February 2020 - 03:35 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity