Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ralfcis

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Where's the advanced editor gone that allows subscripts and superscripts?
  6. 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
  7. 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?
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Hey Popeye, you're too busy to be engaged in this. I thought you were busy finding flaws in my "crank" ideas.
  12. " 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).
  13. 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.
  14. "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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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'
  25. 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.
  • Create New...