# Relativistic Law Of Reflection

74 replies to this topic

### #69 sluggo

sluggo

Understanding

• Members
• 286 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 12:16 PM

Ralf;

This is my objection, just because his Yv >c does not mean his v >c. c= x/t or x'/t'. That is c's invariance and max velocity from any perspective. I use Yc or Yv = x/t'. No odometer required, I'm assuming space is invariant. I'm also not violating the formula for c. The ship travelling 4ly to proxima Centauri according to his starcharts from the earth perspective at .8c will do that trip in Yv= 5/3 * 4/5 = 4/3c but that is x/t' not x/t. He's using his own clock readings to measure his Yv. He has not violated c because from his perspective c travels at Yc = 5/3 c. Light will still beat him to his destination. Using Yv and distance travelled in his own time has no need for an odometer because space need not be warped.

[Speed does not vary. The anaut Biff can measure his speed relative to earth as he leaves, and his speed relative to the target as he approaches. Per the earth frame E (left), his arrival event A is E(x, t) = E(4, 5). SR allows Biff to assume a pseudo rest frame (right), so the arrival event A' is (0, 3). Biff will always measure light speed as c (2nd postulate). His clock is slow and so is his biological clock, thus he is not aware of any time discrepancy. The left compares Biff's perception of his motion to that of E. He thinks he is closer to E because less time has elapsed on his clock. Note, he still has the same speed.
coordinate transformations from E to Biff:
x'=5/3(x-vt) = 5/3(0) = 0,
t'=5/3(t-vx) = 5/3(1. 8) = 3,
in agreement with the graphic.]

### #70 sluggo

sluggo

Understanding

• Members
• 286 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 12:24 PM

Ralf;

This is my objection, just because his Yv >c does not mean his v >c. c= x/t or x'/t'. That is c's invariance and max velocity from any perspective. I use Yc or Yv = x/t'. No odometer required, I'm assuming space is invariant. I'm also not violating the formula for c. The ship travelling 4ly to proxima Centauri according to his starcharts from the earth perspective at .8c will do that trip in Yv= 5/3 * 4/5 = 4/3c but that is x/t' not x/t. He's using his own clock readings to measure his Yv. He has not violated c because from his perspective c travels at Yc = 5/3 c. Light will still beat him to his destination. Using Yv and distance travelled in his own time has no need for an odometer because space need not be warped.

[Speed does not vary. The anaut Biff can measure his speed relative to earth as he leaves, and his speed relative to the target as he approaches. Per the earth frame E (left), his arrival event A is E(x, t) = E(4, 5). SR allows Biff to assume a pseudo rest frame (right), so the arrival event A' is (0, 3). Biff will always measure light speed as c (2nd postulate). His clock is slow and so is his biological clock, thus he is not aware of any time discrepancy. The left compares Biff's perception of his motion to that of E. He thinks he is closer to E because less time has elapsed on his clock. Note, he still has the same speed.
coordinate transformations from E to Biff:
x'=5/3(x-vt) = 5/3(0) = 0,
t'=5/(t-vx)/3 = 5/(1.8)/3= 3,
in agreement with the graphic.]

### #71 sluggo

sluggo

Understanding

• Members
• 286 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 12:27 PM

Amp;

I was just addressing Ralf's specific question about "permanent" time dilation vs. supposedly impermanent  length contraction, pointing out, as did Dale, that a clock is a record of time dilation and length contraction both, and that you could have a similar record stressing mainly length contraction if the ship had an odometer.

[An odometer works because you are measuring a road surface. In space there is no surface to measure. A clock counts clock events in a cumulative manner. If an original clock was started in the beginning of civilization, today it would indicate approx. Oct 6040. All clocks when moving through space lose time. What is measured is the difference in losses. This is a fundamental idea in measurement, not just clocks. Also the losses are permanent. If a moving clock slows to rejoin a ref. clock, it resumes the rate of the ref. clock, but it can't go slower than zero!

The clock rate will vary according to its speed, but I don't see how that provides any additional info. The observer cannot detect his own td or lc. You can compare clocks for differences, but lengths return upon deceleration.]

### #72 sluggo

sluggo

Understanding

• Members
• 286 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 12:33 PM

Oh good boy Amp, you responded like you were trained to do. And there you go adding some more lines to Sluggo's lines. I don't want to bore you with a long rebuttal but here is the real answer to how time goes missing:

What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox?

Take a look at part 3, the Rindler metric.

Just more unnecessary complications for a simple problem.

### #73 ralfcis

ralfcis

Creating

• Members
• 1100 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 03:39 PM

I'm going to continue this discussion on my relativity and algebra thread because I want all my info in one thread.

### #74 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

Questioning

• Members
• 157 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 03:59 PM

PPS. I know neither you nor Sluggo will respond to this. You feel humiliated, I understand. You'll both just ignore this since admitting ignorance would be a blow to your manhood. So you'll slither away again for a while and return with your pride intact as if the Rindler metric never happened.

Excellent projection, worthy of your hero Donald Trump!

### #75 ralfcis

ralfcis

Creating

• Members
• 1100 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 06:01 PM

Amateurish misdirection on your part, like you're throwing a smoke bomb to hide your retreat.  At least Sluggo answered my challenge. He in effect said screw relativity if it contradicts his simplistic interpretation of it. Are you also going to deny the Rindler metric explanation of age difference or pretend such a thing doesn't exist? I said you two were useless but in this case you both have been very useful. I finally understand your points of view and indeed I have not understood relativity correctly. It doesn't mean I agree with you or that I need to abandon my interpretation. I'll elaborate further back on my thread.