Jump to content
Science Forums

ralfcis

Members
  • Content Count

    1,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

ralfcis last won the day on October 4 2019

ralfcis had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About ralfcis

  • Rank
    Creating

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

929 profile views
  1. I'm not still posting on the physics forum, I'm in the alternate theories forum. Anyway, they finally kicked me off their physics forum to the alternate theories forum but I'm getting way more feedback there. Some is actually very minimally useful but still no "show-me-the-Md" answers to my circular motion question. Most is the usual Wiki reprints and mindless recitation that passes for intellect these days. I even agreed to assume length contraction was real but quickly hit a brick wall which led me back to the conclusion that length contraction is only due to relativity of simultaneity and i
  2. I don't because I'm talking about personal physics theories not all personal theories about anything.
  3. I'm really not too pleased with the movie buffs who've invaded this forum. The idea that you can express your gut feelings when there is actual math you can argue to support your philosophical ideas, turns this place into even more of a looney bin than it was before. My last thread was thrown into the looney bin even though it was mathematically supported while these guys are allowed to run amuck, drown legitimate discussions with their video droppings and unsupported musings. Get rid of them or stop pretending this is any kind of a physics forum (and re-instate my last thread). Also answer my
  4. Go away, both of you. Start your own thread and talk all the philosophy you want there.
  5. Diff eqs are calculus which can handle curves while algebra is about lines. Are you suggesting I can't apply algebra in the form of minkowski diagrams to circular motion as only calculus applies to curves like circular motion? I've never had to apply calculus to SR.
  6. I've been away at another forum because they don't kick off people who discuss personal theories in the physics forum. Of course it's polluted with the same type of parrot that pollutes every physics forum but I have been learning a lot there of how right my theory is. But I was introduced to the new wrinkle of circular motion that no one can answer my questions to. There are two variants to this circular motion scenario: One is the relative velocity and resulting time dilation of the circumference of a centrifuge to its center. This is similar to the HafelKeating Experiment (HKX) if the
  7. I guess it's time for me to find another home. Don't erase me until I save this work.
  8. How did relativity and simple algebra last this long and this thread is being moved to alternate theories when it's the same stuff. As I said this is a math thread that happens to look like a physics thread. Even c'=Yc does not violate relativity because Yc includes perspective velocity. No velocity surpasses c but v'=Yv does. v' is not the same as v because there is a Y factor. As I've said many times, take a look at Brehme who is a relativist. It's all legal what I said. So like all moderators who have demoted me because they just don't or can't understand what I'm writing, you're going to
  9. Sorry, I have found a mistake, my formula c'=Yc is incorrect. I'm going to derive the correct formula in the relativity and simple algebra thread as I don't want to mess this one up with too much boring math. Then I'll come back here, correct my previous posts and carry on. It looks like I've only mentioned this formula once and so I've already deleted that sentence. You know what would really blow my mind? If there was someone out there following my math closely enough that they could derive the correct formula independently. I imagine that would be impossible which proves how difficult
  10. I noticed something weird about my last diagram posted: the ct' axis is a line that represents 3 velocities and 3 different slopes. I'm no mathematician but is this some new form of algebra? I discovered this while trying to figure out where my vt (velocity through time line) would fit on the diagram. It turns out it's the same line as v and v' and the slope of each overlapping line is dependent on what coordinates you assign to the ct' axis. Let's look at the point labelled ct'=1. The coordinates of the velocity line at this point are (1.25,.75) where v=x/ct =.6c and the slope
  11. Let us begin to construct the mathematical framework for ralfativity. There are 3 axes ( ct, ct' and x) plotted on a Cartesian coordinate system. There is no 2nd Minkowski coordinate system so equations like the Lorentz transforms do not exist. Because the two time axes ct and ct' look to be in distance units, relativists declare that time is a 4th spatial dimension. This is not true if you algebraically derive relativity's equations from the main equation which defines there is only one velocity in the universe (c) that has velocity through space (v) and velocity through time vt components.
  12. Does relativity break the rules of physics? No, but the misconceptions about it do. The Sun does not orbit the earth, the entire universe does not pass by a stationary spaceship nor does it revolve around a proton in the LHC and it's not just because of the force imbalance. Even acceleration can be approximated as an average constant velocity or its duration ignored over a long journey. In fact, acceleration has negligible effect at the start of a journey but has seemingly huge relativistic consequences on age difference the further it is removed from the start. Acceleration actually has
  13. There's little relative about relativity. First, the principle of relativity asserts: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. So when I say all atomic clocks are universally accurate in their frames, which is in keeping with this first principle, I get nothing but condemnation from relativists and non-relativists alike. Non-relativists, who believe in absolute motion, believe velocity physically affects clock operation and that motion cannot possibly have an effect on time itself. Relativists, who worship the prophet, don't question Einstein's clock sync meth
  14. The main equation of ralfativity: The main equation (space and time velocity combination) is c2 = v2 +vt2 also written as the gamma function Y = c / sqrt(c2-v2) ( vt = c/Y and v = c/Yt) Here is the relativistic velocity combo equation: w =(v+ u) / (1 + vu/c2) So here is a more universal universal equation that includes relativistic velocity combination with space and time velocity combination: c2 = ((v+u)2 + vt2ut2 ) / ( 1 + vu/c2)2 The main equation is also written as: or (ct')2 = (ct)2 - Yox2 (Minkowski hyperbolic (difference of squares) form where h
  15. Where's the advanced editor gone that allows subscripts and superscripts?
×
×
  • Create New...