Jump to content
Science Forums

ralfcis

Members
  • Content Count

    1,177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by ralfcis

  1. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Hey Popeye, you're too busy to be engaged in this. I thought you were busy finding flaws in my "crank" ideas.
  6. " 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).
  7. 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.
  8. "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
  9. 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
  10. For anyone interested the green line is .6c drawn on an Epstein (or Brehme) diagram. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ka3sNAoLvSsKBv3j9 In minkowski, the coordinates (5,3), (4,0) are (4,3), (5,0) in Epstein. 42 + 32 = 52. So the prime equation is written as (ct)2 = (ct')2 + x2 (pythagorian) which is the same as (ct')2 = (ct)2 - x2 (hyperbolic). Strangely there's almost no information for either Epstein or Brehme on google. Brehme is my spark for the equation v'=Yv instead of Einstein's clumsy interpretation of length contraction and time dilation but I can find no evidence of this on google.
  11. I don't want to get sidetracked in pointless minutiae but the hyperbolic nature of the equation stems from Minkowski's rotatation of the ct' axis wrt the ct axis (cartesian). The Epstein rotation of the ct axis wrt the ct' axis (cartesian) results in a circular pythagorian based spacetime diagram and prime equation (although I don't know what it is but it must be a sum of squares as opposed to a difference of squares). I'm not advocating Epstein as it's hard to wrap your mind around it when you're used to Minkowski but it does show that a lot of the assumptions of relativity are purely mathema
  12. Oops, the 2nd sentence. I've laid out how to measure the one-way c according to the caveats of relativity. I'm thinking you can experimentally measure the speed of time in observed moving frames, mathematically you can plot that you are motionless in your own non-moving frame. Physics is equivalent in all inertial frames so time passes at the same rate of c within all inertial frames. My theory extends this to within all frames because even if you are burning through time after a change in velocity, you do not experience time moving faster for you nor can you detect time moving differently t
  13. Yes it's 75 pages of simple so far. But for your specific question, c may be constant for v=x/t but Yv is the amount of invariant space you travel in the time on your ship's clock. So if you travelled 4ly to proxima centauri in 3 yrs according to your clock, your Yv is 4/3c using invariant space in your time. If you think I'm breaking c by saying this then you haven't been paying attention. As for the rest of what you said, you do have a theory, it's called relativity and in that theory c is kept constant for observed frames by time dilation being compensated for by length contraction. Wh
  14. A lot of words but all you've said is for c to be constant, time and space must compensate. That's what Einy said, that's not what I say, hence the length of this thread. I'm not entertaining other theories, just here to answer any questions on my own theory. Do you see a problem with it or are you offering alternatives. I've listed the problems I see with Einativity and people continually ignore that list.
  15. Popeye, the invariant "length" of the spacetime interval comes from the video I posted. This line is like a 4 dimensional straight line as it has both time and distance components. I haven't been able to gleen any significance from its existence (except that it's a reciprocal form of relativity's prime equation from which I derive all my equations) and have discounted its relevance to this discussion.
  16. Popeye, here's how ralfativity handles the train in the station/pole in the barn scenario. It's very different from how Einativity does it. First Einativity since you're familiar with it: https://photos.app.goo.gl/gswbA72uqG7Rjq9N9 The train is depicted as the red lines of simultaneity which are also the Minkowski rotated x-axis. Since they follow Einy's clock sync method, the train clocks are the same value at the endpoints. The train and station both have a proper length of 2 ly which is reciprocally contractible from a 2.5ly spacing between where the light signals hit the ends of the tr
  17. Anssih, I came up with a one way speed of light determination on the physics stack exchange. All other tests are flawed. The measurement is done from two colocated clocks slowly separated at constant relative velocity. All other tests stop the motion of the clocks which induces a twin paradox permanent time diff which does not happen if you maintain constant velocity during the test of 1 light beam fired between clocks. The results are measured from the Loedel reference frame which allows one to peer into the universal instantaneous present as if the clocks were again colocated despite their s
  18. c2t2 - x2 =c2t'2 - x'2 each side of the equation is the invariant length of the spacetime path. So if Alice goes out 3 ly at .6c, her coordinates of (ct', x') are (4,0). Bob's coordinates of that same point are (ct,x) = (5,3) So Bob's invariant length = sqrt (25 - 9) =4 which should equal Alice's invariant length of sqrt(16-0) =4. So the spacetime path = 4ly from both perspectives. I don't know what the significance of this is. This is from Greene's video on invariants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJs7rk3QGD4&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=54&t=0s I'
  19. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of world knowledge. The 1st sentence of that article was completely wrong so I didn't bother to read the rest. If you don't assume time passes at the same rate within each inertial frame then you can't assume you are motionless relative to the clock right beside you. I only deal in math and experimental evidence, I won't engage in philosophical arguments that deny them as also being philosophy.
  20. I'm trying to get my head around what I'm trying to prove. A train coming into a station has a proper length at velocity zero. I'm expecting the invariant length should remain the same from the platform's perspective no matter what the incoming speed of the train? I have to check if this is true and the significance of it being true. In Einativity, the formula for invariant length includes both length and time but in ralfativity length is already invariant so there would be a different formula for invariance. That formula would also need to calculate an invariant length of the train no matter
  21. Popeye something you said bothered me and something I said bothered me and I think I have the answer. You said length has time incorporated in it into some relativistic hybrid substance and I said my coordinate endpoints don't care about their time duration or length separation. But now I think this hybrid substance is invariance from all perspectives. Length must contract when time dilates to make the length of the spacetime path invariant. It's not enough that the proper length of a train and that of a station are the same, there is some hybrid spacetime path time/length invariance that nee
  22. With time dilation being the 3rd side and. also, as you taught me, closing speed. On wiki people have examples that certain particle collisions or group particle movement can't be explained other than through real length contraction. Even Feynman said quarks can only collide when they bulge out of a proton like blueberries out of a pancake but that's just an idiotic thing for him to say. My formula is v'=Yv. The concepts of length contraction and time dilation are joined in that formula because they can't be separate.
  23. "universal disturbance in actual information propagation" This is the deeper theory than spacetime I was alluding to. Is the propagation of information the basic reality of the universe. "The fact that speed of light cannot possible be measured is completely non-controversially true" I totally disagree but you undermine my counterproof by saying atomic clocks can't be definitively universally accurate. They can if you believe there's such a thing as proper time and they measure it. "no way of knowing how fast that information was moving towards you" But you do though. You can see the
  24. Anyway Popeye I hope you agree that relativity depends on length contraction being a physical phenomenon no matter what the spurts say on the PSX. Without this fact, relativity ceases to exist as a theory. I still need a proof that length contraction is real because I can explain every relativistic phenomenon without any need for it. I thought maybe this concept of electromagnetism being dependent on relativity would be that proof but it totally phizzled like in every other example I've disproved. Surely there exists one example of length contraction that can't be explained away by relativity
  25. PS I found a much better video explaining electromagnetism and relativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7rgIQawko
×
×
  • Create New...