Jump to content
Science Forums

ralfcis

Members
  • Content Count

    1,183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by ralfcis

  1. Here is my sarcastic retort to the PhD experts on the PSX: Despite the fact it's been stated that this question needs both more details and more focus, it has indeed been understood and some answers have been provided so why is it getting closed? Just look at the wide variety of answers, from the answer is in books to the answer is not in books, to there is no term for this to there is a term for this, you just need to transpose the words age difference to differential ageing. They may look the same, but actually mean two different things. They don't seem bright enough to understand sarcas
  2. Well mystery solved why no one understands what I've been saying. It appears all the terms I've been using do not match the concepts I've been describing because those concepts have no terms and the terms I've been using pertain to other concepts. I now have to build an agreed upon glossary of terms and their definitions. For example, the accepted term for reciprocal time dilation is age difference and the accepted term, which apparently few use, for what I've been taught to call age difference is differential ageing. However, if I use the term differential ageing, people will assume I mean ag
  3. They're probably grappling with algebra as no one I've ever dealt with understands it. PS There are no infinities that don't approach finite numbers. c and absolute zero are examples. Any equation or theory where infinities can't be normalized (cancelled out) is wrong. So yes, math ends.
  4. Day 6. Just as the cause of time dilation and the muon results are caused by the relativity of simultaneity between the starting gun and the start of the stopwatch, so too is the measurement of relative velocity. This next paragraph needs more work to be clear and correct. In my football example, the original separation between the thrower and the catcher is much greater than what is classically defined. The starting gun goes off for the catcher who starts 20 ft away at 5 ft/s but the throw at 5 ft/s comes much later at 10s after the start for a relativistic velocity result,
  5. Day 4. [Classic MMX/train/muon math] https://photos.app.goo.gl/MYbkUQeNk9PCtRt99 Here's the spacetime diagram of the MMX aka train in station aka muon example. It shows graphically where you get vx/c2, x, vt to plug into the Lorentz transforms. The problem is solved from the simultaneity of the train's perspective when light is "simultaneously" released from the back and front of the train. I'll go into more detail tomorrow. Day 5. Ok seems like no one wants more detail. Here is how I solve the same example using only [proper simultaneity] https://photos.app.goo.gl/aEwLAJFuS3Pz1w
  6. P.S. I'm correcting past posts and I'm up to page 50 so far. The corrections are in red and some are quite important.
  7. Day 3. This may be news to some but relativity never made the claim that plugging c into the velocity combo equation results in the conclusion that adding any velocity to c results in c. In fact plugging u=c into w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c2) results in v+c = v+c or plugging in w=c results in c=c, never v+c=c. However I have managed to derive an equation that explains what's happening with (v+u) as u-> c : Yu/Yw=DSRv There's no room for infinities in physics and I've found coupling Y with DSR cancels out pesky infinities into finite limits. So as u-> c, Yu/Yw approaches the fin
  8. Since my banishment is imminent on the PSX, I'm storing my expanding details to the question of proper time being a better way of looking at things here before I lose access. Day 1. I guess I have 5 days to clarify and add details so I'll add them slowly. From Willo's comment I see it will be a difficult climb because how he defined terms was a complete shock to me. I've read 1 book and taken 1 on-line course and neither gave me his definitions. However, his revelation that the concepts I wanted terms for have no terms so reading further books would not give me the answers I seek. I was
  9. Does anyone here understand my question because no one on the PSX seems to. Twilight Zone. P.S. So the problem is we don't speak the same language and theirs looks insane to me. None of the terms that I use, that I've seen others use, match theirs. If I adopt theirs then I'll have to speak one language on regular forums and another on the PSX.
  10. What are the terms in relativity for age difference due to perspective time and proper time I've edited this to get rid of any terms I may be misunderstanding. I've been asking the same question for years and finally realize I haven't been clear on the question or on the terminology I've been using. I'm going to ask it as it pertains specifically to these examples: spacetime diagram Alice leaves Bob (deemed stationary) at .6c. When Bob's 10, Alice is 8 (blue line) whether she keeps going or turns around at the 3ly mark. Bob is 2 yrs older than Alice in either case from his perspective.
  11. Measuring the one way speed of light While waiting for an answer to my previous question, I answered this question on the PSX. My former mentor was obsessed with this question at first saying there's no way to prove the anisotropy of light (one-way vs reflected 2-way) until Don Lincoln responded to just slowly separate two sync'd atomic clocks and fire light from one to the other and measure the delay. The problem is moving clocks apart causes them to unsync but this is not a problem for a single clock that measures its own reflected beam. So moving them slowly apart introduc
  12. My post on the PSX is on-hold and I'm waiting for it to be understood, found correct or found incorrect. I can't continue asking subsequent questions if they leave it in limbo like this.
  13. Ok, they were just playing some sort of moderator game to get me to focus on one question. The answer to my question was here: The real meaning of time dilation. In their own words, "It's not really clocks running at different rates, it's that different observers will disagree about the x and t spacing of the events." What this means is I was right all along, time dilation is not a result of time slowing, it's a result of proper time relativity of simultaneity. As an analogy, it's not about a racer going down a track with his own slowed stopwatch and declaring he was going so fast down the t
  14. Things are not going well on the PSX. No one has any idea what I'm talking about despite numerous edits of the question. I thought this was going to be a blockbuster. This spacetime diagram should be self-explanatory: https://photos.app.goo.gl/M1zzbJLBoRD41kC4A
  15. Ok I've decided to take up Dale's challenge and edit this question down to the bare bones. This question has been answered to my satisfaction here The real meaning of time dilation https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53232/the-real-meaning-of-time-dilation?noredirect=1&lq=1 but it does not address my specific question of how time dilation is caused by proper simultaneity. I'll explain what that is later. We will use the muon example to explore this question and first put up a generic spacetime diagram generic muon example https://photos.app.goo.gl/Re8v5Suk9oY4q4Ed8 that is f
  16. I'm going to go on the PSX and ask 5 questions to see if I can convince them of my findings. 1. If length contraction is a product of relativity of simultaneity, why wouldn't time dilation be treated the same way? 2. If Einstein's clock sync method sync's clocks, is it possible to also use light signals to determine perspective time on sync'd clocks? 3. What is the difference between "slowed time" due to time dilation and the apparent slowed time of a receding clock reading due to the Doppler shift ratio (DSR)? Hopefully the answers will lead to the conclusion that time dilation is not the
  17. You may remember my STD of the muon example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/XGouFnSGGsGhVKkr9 We can now concoct a much better understanding than Einstein's of what's going on without relying on the illusory concepts of time dilation or length contraction and replacing them with proper time and relativity of proper time simultaneity. Notice above the green line of proper time simultaneity, we get a triangle that has 2 sides of 2.165 usec. Even though one looks much shorter than the other, both represent the same proper time of 2.165 usec. The longer one looks longer because: Even though the
  18. That's exactly what I'm doing and look at the results, look at the new philosophy. I've taken time dilation and length contraction out of the equation and showed a "new" way of looking at velocity itself, a way to get around the limit of c. I've replaced Einy's clock sync method with a clock signalling method that is free to depend on the universal accuracy of the clocks themselves. I've even noticed this morning that light signals before the event can predict a future time relationship once the light signal reaches or triggers the event. As I gave in the example, Alice sending a light signal
  19. So the question remains if time dilation and length contraction don't exist, how does a muon make it to earth when it doesn't have enough time to cross the atmospheric thickness. The answer is in the new formula for t' re-written like this: Yv = x/t' The gamma velocity of the muon is much greater than its regular velocity hence it can cross the great atmospheric distance to earth in what little time it's given. It's as simple as that, no time dilation, no length contraction. Please before you state there's no velocity greater than c, try to remember v=x/t while Yv=x/t'. There's a big diffe
  20. Ok now back to answering Sluggo. "who also misses the point of the 1st postulate" Are you saying I miss the point of the 1st postulate also? "You have to know where they are, when you compare clocks." Not really required to establish proper time age difference if you believe space is invariant to relativistic effects. I see no need to introduce the concept of length contraction but relativity's philosophy does. "I'm with the Einstein view of time as distinct from space." Huh? Einstein's view is spacetime not time distinct from space. Lately the answers have been pretty good on th
  21. So we saw in the last post that perspectives each have a different opinion of whether the pink or yellow light was sent first. Bob's perspective at t=4 when he turns on his pink light tells him when he receives Alice's yellow light that he was 5 when she turned it on. The main equation of t'2 = t2 - x2 (the correct form is t'2 = t2 - x2/Y2 where Y=1 for Bob's and 5/4 for Alice's perspectives) tells us that Alice's clock was only running at 80% of Bob's because of the distance separation increasing between her and Bob. Her velocity through time, from Bob's perspective, had to decrease as her
  22. Ok I'm going to put you on ignore so if you directly address the topic of this thread, I won't be able to answer or see it.
  23. https://photos.app.goo.gl/eJM1jmLgPBUUtzEp8"That is just another rearrangement of ct' = t/gamma, which is much simpler, don't you think." My favorite form of the equation is c2 = vx2 + vt2 but I use the form that is most useful and in this case I need x2 in the equation. For Alice leaving Earth at .6c, the equation (ct')2 = (ct)2 - x2 for t'= 4 is the purple hyperbola which looks like this: https://photos.app.goo.gl/eJM1jmLgPBUUtzEp8 Yes I've put too many lines again in the diagram. If you extend the hyperbola from -c to c, every velocity line from the origin intersects the hyperb
  24. If I may just go back to what you guys were telling me to check if I've misunderstood you. You're saying our ability to see the 4-D universe is one dimension short so we can only see slices of 4-D. To me, we perceive 2-D space with time giving us the sense of 3-D space. Without time we'd just see a motionless flat screen in front of us. But I see time as the slicer outside of 3-D space. We can see the whole length of an object but we can only see the present time slice of that object (with some sensory persistence of past time slices). The future is not available and neither is the past withou
  25. Easy to prove if galaxies without black holes in the center don't sit in a puddle of their own Dark Matter excrement.
×
×
  • Create New...