Jump to content
Science Forums

ralfcis

Members
  • Content Count

    1,183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by ralfcis

  1. That is very good news for those types of people and I don't want to really go off topic but I was only on that forum to talk to people who knew what they were talking about and only KJW fit the bill, the rest were complete rejects IMO. Yes it's rude to tell someone I've judged them to be inadequate for my purposes but I will not be bullied by a forum-Nazi moderator protecting his toadies to troll me with personal insults and ban me for complaining about it. I gave up hope when I thought I was at the end of the discussion and had to endure more abuse from people I had no respect for and didn't
  2. P.S. I went back for OceanBreeze's answer to the question: "The age difference will be one year at the turnaround point and one more year at the finish, for a total of 2 years difference. The stay-at-home twin ages 10 years and the travelling twin ages 8 years." Right answer, wrong explanation for it because it breaks up the spacetime path. Without me understanding how non-inertial acceleration is involved, I too don't have the full correct explanation.
  3. Maybe someone here can finish and give me the final answer. Here's how far I got. 1. The progression of age difference can only be unequivocally determined at the valid end of the spacetime path so long as the start was valid as well. Validity of the start and end is co-location of the two parties. The reason it can't be determined during the path is that the age of each participant is subject to perspective when separated. All perspectives are valid so there is no universal answer on how age difference unfurls from all perspectives except during co-location of the parties. Another thing
  4. Well as predicted I have been banned from the science forums without getting my final answer on what causes age difference. The last word I got was that it may or may not have something to do with non-inertial acceleration but I guess I'll never know. Does anyone have contact here with KJW on that forum? I'd like to find out the final answer if I could. That guy was a fantastic well of knowledge, the others not so much. I blew my chances of getting the answers I've been searching for over a decade.
  5. Even though you may try to apply it, there's no shame in ignorance, only in the denial of it.
  6. Then why are you? Are you now the representative of your chum (no nautical inference implied). Ok maybe a little inference. Hi guys, couldn't help but to check in.
  7. So no answer? I never know when people who just leave a conversation are embarrassed or exasperated or satisfied with the answer. It's ok to be ignorant but it's not ok to not have the integrity to admit it. I'll be on the other forum. No need to check in here again.
  8. Well you have not been following along, I have learned a lot on that forum. I needed to have my questions about relativity answered so I could be knowledgeable when presenting my counter-arguments. My only reason to come back to this forum was I promised to come back for you when I had my answers. Who between us is really the one not here to learn?
  9. The news of my demise was premature. I have risen from the ashes and got my answer. (In fact I will launch my theory of ralfativity there because I think they have the talent I was looking for.) Here it is (awaiting final approval from KJW): Here's the explanation of how age difference unfurls (it doesn't). Enjoy! "she would know that Bob was the one who was stationary in regard to experiment's starting frame and that he was travelling only in time." All wrong. Bob may have never been stationary wrt Alice if Alice flew past him at the start. (The start is significant for the co-location of
  10. Wow! So does your boat travel close to the speed of light? :) It's a speed boat at c.
  11. Yes it means Sexually Transmitted Disease. I use std instead of sd because I don't subscribe to the notion that it's spacetime and not space time (although I do believe they are convertible into each other). We are all moving at the combined speed of light through space and time. In our own frames we move at the speed of light through time (which is seen as our normal time rate) but the more another frame moves through space, the slower our perception of its motion through time. This slowing is manifest differently in 3 separate phenomena: time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference
  12. OceanBreeze i can recognize you're very intelligent. You know more than most people about relativity but you're stuck like I was stuck. If I can find someone in my travels who can answer my test question correctly, I'll come back for you. A second guy backing me up will be far more convincing.
  13. Thanks for the tip, I will try out that forum. If you're really curious of why I've been banned and my threads shut down you can read years of forum interactions on the CR4 general forum and the science philosophy chat forum physics and personal theories. I use ralfcis for every site. I have been continuously wrong over the years and I am able to determine this through math. Two iterations ago I was only off to the third decimal place and could not reconcile the answers I was getting. So I throw out the old and start on a new tack. My current tack has the math working like a well oiled machine
  14. Sadly, I'm looking for experts in the field and the responses I've gotten so far show me I'm in the wrong place. However, if someone has encountered an actual physics forum out there that I haven't been banned from already, I'd be more than happy to check out their recommendations.
  15. Guys, guys, vamonos. I got some serious work to do here.
  16. I don't want to get sidetracked from my main topic but I love physics discussions and would like to interject my unorthodox opinion on what you and A-wal are discussing. The real significance of the Michelson Morley experiment was not in proving that the speed of light was constant from all perspectives, it was that the earth could not register any velocity relative to a vacuum or more precisely the electromagnetic medium that allows light to propagate at c. Since earth can't have any relative velocity to that non-material medium, material objects can't have any relative velocity to light.
  17. Oh good, we're talking. I tried to post an STD but can't figure out how to do it on this forum. I did say I was going back to correct my number in the OP so I'm not trying to pull a fast one. I did say the total age rate for Alice was .8 which means over both legs she aged 8 years and Bob 10. So would you agree with Orion's statement that two participants engaged in constant relative velocity age at the same rate? So just before Alice turns around, she and Bob have both aged 4 years. From Bob's perspective, using his line of simultaneity, he's aged 5 and Alice 4. From Alice's perspective, sh
  18. The purpose of the test question is to see who has the correct understanding of the 3 terms and that they give different answers. 1. Draw a spacetime diagram of this typical twin paradox scenario. If you draw a light line from Bob's time t=1 it will intersect Alice at t'=2. This is the graphical representation of Doppler shift ratio and it shows that if both Alice and Bob were sending out a TV signal of themselves and their clock readouts, they would appear moving through time at half the normal rate from each others perspective. On the inbound leg, if Alice sent a light signal from t'=6, B
  19. Ocean Breeze, you seem interesting. Just tease me a little further. Do you agree or disagree with the answers (which aren't rounded btw)?
  20. Are there experts on relativity on this forum? Will we be able to talk mathematically (and all I'm talking about is the basic algebra of spacetime diagrams)? Full disclosure: I've tried 3 forums, CR4, SPCF and the physicsforums and no luck. Burt Jordaan spent years tutoring me on the CR4 and SPCF forums but he's not happy with the direction I took so he stopped. I see no point in continuing on the CR4 or SPCF forums and almost 3 yrs ago I spent a day on the physicsforums and got permanently banned for discussing a personal theory. My fault, I didn't know what I was talking about. I know so muc
×
×
  • Create New...