Science Forums

ralfcis

Members

1,177

11

Reputation Activity

1. ralfcis got a reaction from GAHD in Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong
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 mathematically does.
2. ralfcis got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Relativity And Simple Algebra
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 simultaneously from the same perspective. I don't think you're going to weigh in on this unless you can defend this contradiction because crankhood awaits.
3. ralfcis got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Relativity And Simple Algebra
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.
4. ralfcis got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Doppler Effect Of Gravitational Field
But Victor, you don't understand. Victor, you're one of the cranks. Anyway here's something I don't understand. Instead of that big formula I used to solve the problem. I looked at that thread Tony provided on the sciforums and Janus has a different way of solving it.

Third scene We will look at it from the rest frame for A where you get:
0.9c
<--Earth-----------------A
|
|
|
\/ B

Since the Earth-B pair share a 0.9c to the left velocity, this pair is time dilated by a factor of 0.436 as measured by A. This includes the vertical speed of B with respect to the Earth. That means that B vertical speed component is 0.392c (which is why I drew the Earth-B line shorter than the Earth-A line.
Now we can just do vector velocity addition to get sqrt ((0.9c)^2+ (0.392c)^2) = 0.9817c
He takes the perpendicular velocity (vB) and divides it by the horizontal velocity's gamma (YA) and then uses pythagoras of the velocities vB' and vA to get the right answer from A's perspective. So he`s saying velocity A`s (vA) perspective of velocity B (vB) is vB' = vB /YA (velocity dilation formula). So w2= vA2 + vB'2 I've never seen that before but it looks like a way better method than the big formula method. I'm sure Victor will be claiming that's what he meant all along but then I'll ask him to prove it in a mathematical example using his formulas.
5. ralfcis got a reaction from OverUnityDeviceUAP in Relativity And Simple Algebra
I've just noticed something in my STD that I've never noticed before. Since the Earth was chosen to be the stationary frame, its blue lines of perspective simultaneity are horizontal but I did not draw in the muon's red lines of perspective simultaneity ( slope of 1/.944c) like I normally do. I just drew the green lines of causal simultaneity which is the god's eye view of time between the two. But then I noticed the muon's perspective is also in the STD at the top where the vertical purple line would be its ct-axis and where it intersects the red velocity line is the x-axis at .645 km. From the muon's perspective the atmospheric distance it must cross is .645 kms. v=x/t.
v = .994c * 3*106 km/s = .645 km / 2.165 usec. The Earth's perspective lengthens the muon's time to cross the atmosphere and the muon's perspective shrinks the atmosphere it must cross. Both are handled if you consider the muon's velocity is Yv = 9.1424 * .994c = 9.09c or 2.72e6 km/s = x/t'. In this example  the muon's Yv will cross 5.9 km in 2.165 usec (it's time) . The Earth will measure that to have taken 19.79 usec. In this way, Yv obsoletes the need for length contraction.
6. ralfcis got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Relativistic Law Of Reflection
Your question is good because it highlights the thing most misinterpreted about relativity. If the light hits the eyepiece in any frame, it must hit the eyepiece from any perspective. Reality is not subjective and fractured into equally valid perspectives. The event is invariant but due to the lag or lead of moving clocks relative to other clocks, the timing of the event is affected by the perspective. There is no length contraction because if the angle of the mirror shrinks due to length contraction there is no reason to assume the angle of the light off the mirror doesn't also shrink due to time dilation. But that double shrinking doesn't happen because both are mathematically the same phenomenon.

Victor, what are you posting? Completely irrelevant stuff.
7. ralfcis got a reaction from LightStorm in Relativistic Law Of Reflection
Which is what he said in his first post. This could be an interesting example to solve using time only as there's no such thing as length contraction.

PS. Considering time only, this is the same as the moving light clock example. The angle of the light bouncing off the light clock mirrors gets smaller as the light clock's speed increases relative to a stationary observer. Like I said, there's no such thing as length contraction. As Einstein said a theory should be as simple as possible and he also said his theory depends on both time dilation and length contraction working together to guarantee the constancy of c from all perspectives. This is his explanation for the MMX and my explanation does not require length contraction. So then  his theory is not as simple as possible and therefore must go into the trash can of history by his own words.
8. ralfcis got a reaction from LightStorm in Relativistic Law Of Reflection
No such thing as length contraction.
9. ralfcis got a reaction from hazelm in Dark Matter & Scalars
The only thing known for sure about dark matter is that it occupies both space and grey matter (which are identical for most humans).
10. ralfcis got a reaction from exchemist in Is Magnetic Flux A Misnomer?
Well that's just another one of your lies because you were on my bus the other day. I'm curious how a guy who admitted he doesn't have expertise in relativity somehow has the expertise to know I'm wrong about it but can show no proof of his claim. Could it be that you're just an insecure kind of liar who tries to mask his inferiority with malicious and baseless posts? It seems so to me. You neither put up or shut up. You don't meet the minimum intelligence quota to ride on my bus so, really, stay off for good.
11. ralfcis got a reaction from Dubbelosix in Is Magnetic Flux A Misnomer?
Hmm, I'm surprised XC knows any math at all. It'd be great if he challenged mine instead of dismissing it without any justification. I read the rules for the first time. It'd be nice if there was one against all the different types of motivations for deception I see on this forum.
12. ralfcis reacted to exchemist in Is Magnetic Flux A Misnomer?
Sigh.

To take a simple example, if J/2e^2=1/c, then it can only also equal 1/c . Gm^2/2e^2 if Gm^2/2e^2 = 1.

But Dubbelsox has previously stated e^2 = Gm^2. So that means that 1/2 = 1.

And so it will go on..and on...if anybody can be bothered to go through this rubbish.

This poster has found that by expressing himself in maths salad, rather than the more usual word salad, he can fly under the radar of some forums for a while before anybody can be bothered to point out it is gibberish.
13. ralfcis got a reaction from OceanBreeze in My Favorite Equations I Have Derived Over The Years.
"but this is where pure algebra reaches a limit because there is no such thing as a negative speed of light. "

Yup  if c=x/t algebra just doesn't know what to do with -c = -x/t because that would mean light is going in the opposite direction and no one knows what that means because only tachyons can do that and there are no tachyons in a flashlight if you turn it away from your face. But why would any normal person not want the light to shine in their face because everything is much brighter that way. Also, your equation for Y, why would anyone needlessly introduce i when you can just take the sqrt of c2-v2 instead of v2-c2. The sign of c wouldn't matter anyways because c is squared.You are just spouting useless nonsense. Take your meds unless equation porn is self-medication, then, continue.
14. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
It's not like I became mean over the years, I was mean from my very first post in 2006. I asked a question, SolarEagle posted an irrelevant wiki article in response, I asked wtf is this, the entire forum came down on me for being ungrateful. I told them all to FO as I'm not looking for any answer to any question, I'm looking for a specific answer to my specific question and I'm not interested in some guy trying to show how smart he is at googling answers off wiki. He wasn't helping, he was wasting my time and I didn't want any more answers from him. My pappy always told me to treat everyone you meet with disrespect , make them earn it. Not really true, they never do nor do you ever get rid of them, they continue as a drag on your time forever.

So just as my flame war with everyone took over like wildfire, I met Jorrie, the resident expert on relativity who wrote a book on it. He coached me for over 10 years until I found his non-answers no longer satisfactory and began on my own path to the theory of ralfativity. Words will not guide you, you have to learn the algebra.
15. ralfcis got a reaction from fahrquad in Unanswered Problem With Time Dilation
Not caring is never having to say you don't.
16. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Should We Believe In A Timeline Paradigm?
Einstein comes to the rescue with his nonsensical statement that time is what clocks measure. Time and clocks are no more related than coffee being defined as something cups measure. When you slow a clock or a metabolic rate with cold are you slowing time or just a clock? Sure a wood frog goes into hibernation and the entire winter looks to him like time was stopped. The temperature has reduced the amount of change so if you now define time as the amount of change, your lowering of the temperature must have affected time itself. It hasn't. The assumption is wrong because if the time rate is based on the amount of change, there would be slow and fast rates of time interspersed all over space and there is absolutely no evidence of that. Does time move slower in Arkansas than it does in L.A.? I showed in the other thread how the speed of light (not clocks) is intimately related with the rate of time and the universal max rate of information transfer which regulates amount of change not vice versa. The facts from this assumption are consistent when the doppler shift ratio shows apparent rates through time outside the norm. You`re more arguing time is controlled by how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and while that`s fascinating to the wiki crowd, it`s not to the thinking crowd.

PS. And Einstein's other ideas on time that it is just another coordinate dimension of space with no flow or direction, that past, present and future all exist concurrently and that there are infinite personal perspective presents are a testament to how wrong he was about everything.
17. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
If you have a dripping faucet and each drop was a bit of information, would the rate of information coming to you change if the faucet was 1 inch above the water or 1 mile above the water. No, the rate would not change due to the distance. What the distance does is store the information for a time until the information reaches you. A lot more delayed water drops would be stored in the air between you and the faucet at a mile separation. The rate of information would change only if the faucet was moving. The spacing between drops would shrink if it was moving toward you and the rate of information would be more sparse if the faucet was moving away from you. This is the droppler effect.

Their perception of each other is in the past but there is an instantaneous present between them they can't share in the present unless there's no distance between them. Einstein did not acknowledge this instantaneous present.

The perception of time is information transfer rate at c but when time is actually moving at a rate different than the normal rate, it is hidden behind the perception of the doppler shift ratio. For example, someone at .6c moving towards you would look like their velocity through time was twice the normal rate. This does not mean you are actually seeing time move at twice the normal rate. In fact, if they had just turned around towards you after separating from you at .6c for 4 of their yrs, you will still see their apparent velocity through time at half the normal rate for 3 of your years before you can see their velocity through time double. During that 3 yr delay, time for them was actually going at double rate but neither you or them could detect it. You would have seen your time rate hidden behind your perception of their time rate at double c which would be expected. What you didn't expect is that you were the one actually going through time at double the normal rate while perceiving they were. (Not how Einstein's relativity explains it)

Yes velocity changes the perceived rate of info transfer but a change in velocity initiated by you will actually change your rate of time through time which neither you nor they will become aware of until the relative velocity imbalance period overcomes the info delay between you and you end up with a real and permanent age difference.

We can't perceive time as simultaneous when both  velocity and distance are involved. We can calculate the relativity of perspective simultaneity and causal simultaneity which is independent of perspective (not part of Einstein's relativity).

Max scalar when v=x/t is 2c and max relative velocity when v=x/t is c. But if you use v'=x/t' there is no limit on v'=Yv.

No change of rate of transfer if v=0 for any distance between you. But  any other v will change the rate of transfer. Messages will show an apparent doppler shift ratio multiplying the normal time rate. The time lag does not affect the transfer rate. 2c has nothing to do with transfer rate. You're going to have to read my detailed calculations on what happens to the transfer rate when a ship is approaching or separating at near c or two ships approaching or separating from each each other at near c (same thing).
18. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
19. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
So your question is what is real and what is perspective and what does perspective say about reality if it isn't itself real. Let's just use distance perspective as an analogy. Why do things seem to shrink as they move away from you? They don't really shrink. But what would reality look like without perspective and everything remained the same size no matter how far away it was from you. Your field of vision would be constantly overloaded with information and big blocking things. So why do things look smaller from a distance. It's because less and less information is reaching your eye. The information is still there and you can access it by zooming in on it with a telescope. This makes things at a distance seem big again.

The same is true for time. As things move away from you, the rate of their movement affects the rate of information transfer back to you and hence their time rate you see. Their time rate isn't really affected at all but your perspective of it is. But if you change the relative velocity at a distance, it will take time for them to see the new rate of information transfer you're sending. Time must be conserved, there can't be any discontinuities of missing time and there can't be any imbalances of stored info that does not sync up.

If you have been moving away from me at .6c, you will store .25 yrs of info for every yr you move away. If you turn around after 4 yrs, you have 1 yr of stored info that has not been transferred back yet. For every yr you move back, you will also be storing .25 yrs but that's easy to shed because your movement back doubles the normal info transfer rate. But this is still not enough to transfer all the stored time your movement has created so that you can sync up your normal time rate with your partner when you meet up again. Relativity (not Einstein's version but my own) takes care of this problem of information imbalance during the relative velocity imbalance after a change in velocity. During this time, which is 3 return yrs in my example, you will be actually travelling through time at twice the normal rate although you will not see anything but the normal rate of time in your own frame. Your return doppler shift ratio = 2 will no longer just be a perspective of information transfer but it will become a real movement through time at a rate other than the normal rate. Without this correction, there would be no way to clear the backlog of information created during the velocity change and the time the news of the change reaches the other party.
20. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
Everyone experiences time pass for themselves at the same universal normal rate of time. Even if relative motion makes it appear the one they're observing is going through time at a different rate, it's only an illusion of perspective, time still passes for both at the same normal rate with only 2 exceptions. If you're at a different gravitational potential or change your velocity relative to someone else, you will be going at a different rate of time (undetectable to you) at the DSR rate during the time it takes for the news of your change to reach the observer. These are the facts and relativity can't disprove them. Relativity has a different interpretation of these facts but my math will arrive at the same results as relativity's math except that

1. Relativity's math is far more complex with a lot of arbitrary spacetime path rules to follow.
2. My math applies to all changes of velocity not just the ones that end in re-unification of the two parties. Hence there is a possiblity of experimentally falsifying relativity's math as being incomplete.

Yes there is only one reality. Einstein almost understood what that was but he fell short and declared all perspectives were equally real. However, he did acknowledge one was more equal than others: co-location. Even though two parties can have a non-zero relative velocity as they whizz past each other, for a split second, at their closest, they are co-located in a present that is independent of anyone's perspective. What he didn't realise is the instantaneous present reality that supercedes all perspective realities does not depend on co-location. Causal time joins all proper times of all frames into a universal single present reality that we can only experience during co-location but can be calculated otherwise.

So could the greatest scientific minds of all time have been totally wrong for the last 114 years? I'm sure a similar question applied when Aristotle was being overturned and the answer is yes because the evidence stands on its own even if no one wants to look at it.
21. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
OK sluggo I'll decouple the outside detector from the train onto the platform such that it receives the outside emitter's light at the same point on the platform as  it hits the outside back of the train simultaneously from the platform's perspective. To you this must semantically and dogmatically mean a world of difference but it makes no difference to the point I'm making. The clock is not the detector just like the back of the train is not the clock, it is a detector. One clock is from the platform's perspective of what time the outside light hits the back of the train and the other clock is from the train's perspective of what time the inside light hits the inside back of the train which is in the same spot as the outside back of the train. Why do I need to go down to this level of explantion? Are you now going to slink away and just repeat your last post ignoring any of this dialogue? I could go back and tear apart every point you've made but it's a huge waste of time for me if you can't acknowledge whether you agree or disagree and just parrot your dogma instead.
22. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
You're not understanding because your brainwashing prevents you from reading what I wrote. The outside emitter is not attached to the train while the inside is. The inside length from the inside perspective is fixed. The outside length from the outside perspective shortens not due to length contraction but simply due to the forward velocity of the train relative to the platform's fixed emitter. There is no relative velocity to the light inside the train because that's a stationary frame but there is relative velocity to the light outside the train. Yes or no.  Relativity then dictates the inside length must length contract so that the inside and outside light simultaneously hit the back of the train. From inside the train, the light hits both front and back simultaneously but from outside (the platform perspective) the front and back are not hit simultaneously. The inside and outside light does hit each end simultaneously even though each end is hit at different times by the inside and outside lights. Every word I write counts towards the meaning I am trying to convey. Do not selectively ignore the words that don't fit your narrative of what you think I'm saying. I am really done with that.
23. ralfcis got a reaction from Mattzy in Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?
What would be the relative speed of said photons?

See the waves an relative velocity thread. You mean what is the relative speed of the photons to each other. It's c due to the relativistic combo law. What is the speed as seen from a 3rd party observer from a perpendicular perspective? It's 2c but this is not a relative velocity vector but a scalar speed.

Also in that thread you will see the existence or not of a medium for light is irrelevant. Here's a nice short  link.