Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ralfcis

  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?
  16. Luckily I had a major heart attack Jan 4 and can now go back on this physics forum which was the only one that allowed me to pursue my ideas without getting banned. I hope nothing's changed here as I plan to start over in this thread. My interactions with Popeye and Sluggo taught me that another's math is basically an impossible language to understand so I will restart at the most basic level. Relativity can be explained with basic algebra using only 2 formulae and without any of Einstein's circular arguments and constructs that proved relativity by assuming relativity was correct. Relativity
  17. I just popped in to see what was happening so is this the new Hypography? Was it sold? I don't know how to navigate this site. I'm dying to come back and write. Will I still have the leeway I once enjoyed or are things stricter now?
  18. Sorry I did not read all these posts because I've blocked most of these people and I'm trying to get some time to finish a post I started 2 weeks ago. Anyway, Popeye, Zeno's paradox is solved (infinity removed) when you consider distance and time joined as velocity. I use the same technique in my math. I don't need to explain relativity using distance and time separately, I always use Yv. What's doubly interesting is how the half speed Loedel perspective fits into all this to cancel the infinity of Y (gamma) (and all the wrong physics interpretations that go with that infinity) as v> c. If
  19. So what's the escape velocity for this solar system and how big a sail would you require to achieve it. My guess is you haven't worked it, or any other required math, out yet.
  20. Don't try to absorb it all at once. Just baby steps. Ask about the 1st thing you trip over. I'm thinking of rewriting the whole thread and erasing all of my thought processes and only leave the conclusions. But I won't do this until December. Ralfativity is based on proper relativity of simultaneity using a universal proper time present that can be glimpsed through the half-speed perspective (Loedel simultaneity). (.33c is half of .6c, .5c is half of .8c etc.) All the rest of relativity is rejected and I make experimental predictions Einativity can't make.
  21. Hey Popeye, you're too busy to be engaged in this. I thought you were busy finding flaws in my "crank" ideas.
  22. " If light speed is "absolute", then that speed c minus 300 million meters per second constitutes an ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY position. " And you said you didn't believe in math. c-c=0, brilliant! Except it's not. PS To be precise there's a different answer if your talking about closing speed (ans= 0) as opposed to relative velocity (ans=c) which is subject to the relativistic velocity combo formula).
  23. I have no idea what you're saying but it's wrong because he never started to do the math and has no intention of doing so.
  24. "I feel like my only question is, what is the significance of defining a Loedel frame, and how do you define it in a universe with more than 2 inertial observers? Basically the question is, what is in your opinion the philosophical significance of being able to establish a Loedel frame?" I keep answering this question. The Loedel perspective is the only one where both participants have the same proper time at any relative velocity at any distance apart. All other perspectives are a hysteresis of this. For every 2 observers, there is a different half-speed relative velocity for the Loedel per
  25. Ok, show me your math explaining how muons make it to earth from the upper atmosphere. I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage. I have no math that uses time slowing or length contracting yet I can explain muons making it to earth mathematically using other less known relativistic concepts. You must be able to do the same because otherwise your opinions are not provable and are therefore just the ravings of a crank even if eventually proved true by someone else. Your beliefs don't make you a crank, your inability to back them up ma
  • Create New...