Jump to content
Science Forums

ralfcis

Members
  • Content Count

    1,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by ralfcis

  1. 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
  2. PS I found a much better video explaining electromagnetism and relativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7rgIQawko
  3. Again Anssih, where have you been all my life? You are so correct in your thoughts (and so is Popeye) so why is the world so painfully dumb? Yes I didn't draw the Loedel spacetime diagram. I borrowed the concept to give a name to a reference frame that defines a line of simultaneity which pokes a window onto the universal instantaneous present. It shines a light on the unseeable. Also, I was forced to not discuss what happens after Alice changes direction. My math that describes this has no relation to relativity but it has been discussed at length in this thread. As for the diagram the onl
  4. Ok fair enough but this statement while partly true does not exclude other math that flows naturally out of MM. "the math all begins with the Lorentz transform, or the Lorentz factor which falls out quite naturally from the geometry of the MM interferometer and the null result from that experiment." The Lorentz transform is a hodge podge of 4 concepts when there is only 1 (relativity of simultaneity). I went through the MM math extensively in this thread rejecting all the superfluous assumptions Einstein made. The Lorentz transform is not the beginning, these assumptions are what the Lore
  5. Dear Popeye, I know we had a bit of a shaky start; you thought I was a crank and I thought you were a parrot. But every time I had a question that I was stumped on, you came through. You are capable of both math and reason unlike the vast majority on philosophy/physics forums. This means you are capable of stepping outside of conventional thinking and scripture. There is an obvious contradiction in saying length contraction is due to relativity of simultaneity which is a function of time and then saying length contraction is simultaneously a function of space. The two cannot be true simult
  6. https://photos.app.goo.gl/NDABXTfzdhFoeVeK8 I've discussed this spacetime diagram before. Anyone who understands what I'm saying can see how this diagram relates and could match the colored lines and times to the start of the pole's stopwatch, the Loedel line of simultaneity, the pole's and barn's lines of simultaneity, the start of the barn's stopwatch, the length of the barn's and pole's timeframe, the length of the pole and barn and how the pole fits the barn from 3 different perspectives. It should be very easy for anyone who understands relativity to put words to this diagram and descri
  7. AnssiH, here's a link to my Loedel perspective question and the extents those dishonest people went to hiding the truth including anonymously deleting my supporting math. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/520866/can-the-loedel-reference-frame-be-used-as-the-basis-for-establishing-loedel-age?noredirect=1#comment1268437_520866 This is science today, liars with credentials.
  8. Sure if you press them into a corner they'll all say length contraction is just shorthand but that doesn't explain away all the other parts of relativity that depend on length contraction being an actual physical phenomenon. The Lorentz transforms incorporate time dilation, relativity of simultaneity and length contraction. There'd be no need to include the last if they truly believed space itself didn't actually contract. I guess it's up to Popeye to confirm my argument is the beginning of the end for Einstein's interpretation of relativity. I can't present my case any clearer and this exampl
  9. Ok let me dumb it down even further. The barn's (or race track's) length is equivalent to the spacing between the electrons as seen from the fluff ball moving with the electron stream. The pole's length is the spacing between protons which is the same proper spacing as between electrons. Without the relativity of simultaneity, there would not be enough time for more than 1 proton to appear in the spacing between electrons. Since the barn's stopwatch has a delayed start, it gives a bit of the next proton time to make it between the electrons in the same way the pole being longer than the barn i
  10. These are the pole in the barn paradox videos on what length contraction actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ZUHhaC17w&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZfqv2MJyIg&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=59&t=274s In the 1st one, the barn sees the pole shrink and the pole sees the barn shrink. Parrots need not see any more than this. The 2nd video says there is no shrinking of either. The front of the pole is always outside the barn when the back is just entering the barn from both perspectives. The times
  11. "you assume that they are not impacted by the very mechanisms that we are trying to apply to all natural objects" Correct and you assume that all clock ticks are electromagnetic in nature and must be affected by relativity the same way anything electromagnetic would be. Atomic clock ticks are not. They are indeed outside of my relativity in that I neither have time dilation nor length contraction that could affect them.What appears as time slowing is a difference between observing clocks of when a tick starts and ends, the duration of the ticks is invariant as is consistent with the proper t
  12. Some of my questions were specifically addressed. We`d have to go through each scenario (I count about 4) and I promised I wouldn`t do any physics until Dec. I`ll try my best to sneak. The main problem is terminology. Relativity sucks at defining its terms. It refuses to do so and the definitions that you squeeze out of experts (spurts) are ridiculously stupid and well guarded because they're so stupid. So first off, what does the guy define as charge? There's no way a magnet is electrically charged with some right handed electrical charge called magnetism. So his example of a current in a w
  13. Thank you Popeye, I did not know there was a posting delay. I have read through your answer once and will read it a few more times. I didn`t even know you had posted.
  14. I don't need a clock sync method since atomic clocks are universally accurate and since I do not require closed spacetime paths because I use the Loedel reference frame to determine instantaneous universal time at a distance. Where I yield different expectations than SR is in permanent time difference where clocks have no need to start or end co-located. SR artifically bans such determinations. If you go out 3 ly at .6c and stop, SR states the permanent time diff of 1 year is indeterminate even though if you took a million years to return, the co-located clocks upon that return would show a 1
  15. Mostly correct except one way measurement of the speed of light is possible if you start with the clocks together and move them apart at a small constant velocity and maintain it while measuring the speed of light (otherwise a stop causes a permanent time diff and de-sync between the two clocks). This is important: "Obviously nothing really happens to a body when someone somewhere just decides to describe it in different coordinate system!" Just like Einstein's seemingly innocuous clock sync method is actually the source of his interpretation of relativity, so too do Minkowski's spacetime
  16. As I suspected, no retorts from any of the non-cranks on here. That makes you guys just as useless as any of the cranks. I doubt any of you understood the video. I just noticed another logical fallacy with this example. He defines the cat`s charge as being magnetic and electric whichever fits his narrative. The electrons length contracting will repulse a stationary positive magnetic charge while the protons length contracting will repulse a moving positive electric charge. All you non-cranks just bought this bogus explanation without question. It`s typical relativistic misdirection. That`s why
  17. So can someone explain if the cat is relatively stationary to the wire with moving electrons, length contraction would be relatively occurring between the electrons thereby causing greater negative charge density relative to the cat causing the cat to be attracted to the wire. Yet, hocus pocus, the video says the wire is neutral so they contradict their own explanation. Maybe someone has an explanation before I start trashing Einstein's relativity again.
  18. When you can't understand another person's contrary viewpoint, you really don't understand your own, relativists. I've put all my math out in the open and no one yet has the mathematical muster to provide the slightest counter argument. This is not to say I haven't made mistakes and my last one was certainly a doozy misstatement (on another forum) which I'm trying to figure out why I said that when I should've known better.
  19. I haven't been around physics for a while and probably won't be around for a good long while. However, I came across a video that the mumble minded illiterates on physics forums have been trying to tell me about. They always say, "if you don't believe in length contraction, then what about electricity and magnetism?" I say what about it? This video is the answer and I just want to mark it here for when I come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&feature=emb_rel_end
  20. Sorry I'm about to get banned from the sciforms because the idiots that infest this forum also infest that one and I have no interest in engaging clueless morons anymore. So I'm dumping my discussion about non-linear velocity combination here. The method I used for the "right angle" scenario works because You don't have to account for length contraction or the relativity of simultaneity. http://www.sciforums.com/attachments/image2-gif.3199/ For example, In the following diagram, we show A and B's velocity as measured from the Earth on top, and then the same scenario as seen from the rest
  21. Ever been to the sciforums? That is one loony bin. Either all but one are insane or I'm insane.
  22. It seems that Willo is using a math method I have never seen before and am wondering if anyone else has. @Willo I've decoded what you tried to tell me into this Md. photos.app.goo.gl/JA8iwFX7yboAvYfdA. I've never seen this format and it's not used in popsci relativity. This is the format used photos.app.goo.gl/Cp7FjpQ3Rmhp9VYB6 t'=t/Y and t''=t'/Y=t/YY. The ' represents how many times gamma is used. t(E)=t′(E)=t′′(E)=0. t(F)=5, t′(F)=4, t′′(F)=3.2 from Alice's perspective outbound to t''(F)= 6.8 from Alice inbound. t(G)=10, t′(G)=8, t′′(G)=10. We don't use the same language so you'll never
  23. Arithmetic is not my forte but did you make one of the velocities negative? It doesn't seem like it could apply to anything besides 90 degrees but why would anyone develop a method that only solves one rare example? I think I just don't fully understand how to use his method. Here's what I'm trying to do. All perspective realities are illusions of perspective. Einstein says they're all equally real. I base relativity on a single proper time and space reality that is accessible through the Loedel perspective which is the half speed perspective. So for .6c, it's 1/3c. Then I show how relativi
  24. So, Popeye, you won't take me on because I'm a denier? My math is granite, no, diamond, it's that rock solid, not soft like BS but no one wants to take the trouble to understand it.
  25. Let's check if it works for a 45 degree vB . I assume the vector of w will be 45 degrees to vA. I see no justification for this assumption but let's check it out against the longform equation. So w2 = .92 -.3922 = .6563 so w=.81c Oops should have seen the angle can't be 45 if one of the sides is .392 and the other is .9. The longform is w = sqrt (u2+v2+2uv [email protected] - (vu [email protected]/c)2) / (1+vu [email protected]/c2) w= sqrt(.92+.92 + 2*.9*.9 cos45 - (.9*.9 sin45)2) /(1+.9*.9cos45) cos45=sin45=.707 w=sqrt( 1.62 + 1.145 - .328)/ 1.5727 =.9926c which is definitely the wrong answer. The longform answer is to
×
×
  • Create New...