Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Ok so 006 taps out in disgrace. Any other fraud on here want to tackle the question? Surely someone understands how to pick the right equation and shove numbers into it? C'mon Popeye, you have the best chance here of getting it right. Don't you want to set all these imposters straight?

 

I've seen the answer and it's disgraceful; another one of Einstein's circular arguments where he assumes length contraction and time dilation work together to keep c constant and then derives the Lorentz transforms based on that assumption to prove his assumption. Or you can prove me wrong that's not what happened. I used to work with people way more intelligent than me. WTF has happened to the world in my 18 yrs of chronic unemployment?

Edited July 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

 

Ok my 13 yr battle against all the mindless parrots I've encountered over many forums could finally be resolved right here. Actually I believe others on this forum have asked the same question and I did not recognize its significance until now. For that I apologize because it means I'm as dumb as the relativists I've been criticizing on here. The question is about the (v+c) term that appears when solving relativity problems. If the relativistic velocity combo law dictates v+c = c, how does that term appear in any calculation. It appeared in my last example.

 

From the platform's perspective, the train rear moves toward the oncoming light signal at .6c from a distance of 1 ly. The light takes .625 yrs to hit the train end. In that .625 yrs, the train has moved .625 x .6 = .375ly. So 1 ly was covered in .625 yrs which means v+c = 1.6c which goes against the velocity combo law for relativity. This is where I suspect Einstein had to introduce length contraction which means the 1ly had to be shrunk down into .625 ly. But I can't see any formula that arrives at that number. This is the only instance in all of relativity where length contraction needs to be used so is there any still thinking relativity parrot out there who can show me the math where length contraction is used to keep the relative velocity  capped at c in this example? I suspect this question will expose all the frauds on this forum and too bad I'm banned from so many others because it would expose the frauds on those forums as well. I'd ask this on the physics stack exchange but they are way to close minded to even understand the question.

 

The problem is that you have an incorrect assumption to begin with. This has caused you to create a nonsense paradox where there is a claimed impossibility of v+c=c. This is the place you went wrong. The reason why its wrong is simply explained by the following observation:

Where Einstein went wrong!

 

Maxwell: The speed of light in a vacuum is relative to the vacuum. The speed of light in a diamond is relative to the diamond. The speed of light in Water is relative to the water.

 

Einstein: The speed of light in a vacuum is relative to a person standing on a railway station!

 

Light must always transmit at the constant velocity of 300,000 km/s through a vacuum, regardless of the velocities of any material bodies which may also be travelling through that same vacuum at some other velocity. (any material bodies such as, Trains, people standing on railway stations, or space ships or Twins or the Earth)

So light will NOT be measured at “c” by every one of those observers, relative to themselves. But it will be measured at “c” relative only to the medium it's moving in. (we can use a “virtual” origin to measure lights speed, we don’t need to have an absolute, existing origin or other “frame of reference”. (all frames are just imaginary anyway)

 

Thus, it appears that Einstein was fooled by his own algebraic descriptions and measurements.

In fact, there never was a real “problem with the velocity of light” that needed any solution.!

Special Relativity is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

So if you think about this carefully, giving yourself enough time to swap to a new paradigm, you will see that any relativity that results in warping time, distances or mass is invalid.

 

Once you can see this simple truth, you will be free to use your obvious expertise in Math for far more useful endeavours. Right now, you are chasing your own tail, and no one in the Physics world cares anyway.

The physicists are blind disciples of a religion based on deception. You may as well be talking to a brick wall.

[Dubbelosix]

   

The problem is that you have an incorrect assumption to begin with. This has caused you to create a nonsense paradox where there is a claimed impossibility of v+c=c. This is the place you went wrong. The reason why its wrong is simply explained by the following observation:

Where Einstein went wrong!

 

Maxwell: The speed of light in a vacuum is relative to the vacuum. The speed of light in a diamond is relative to the diamond. The speed of light in Water is relative to the water.

 

Einstein: The speed of light in a vacuum is relative to a person standing on a railway station!

 

Light must always transmit at the constant velocity of 300,000 km/s through a vacuum, regardless of the velocities of any material bodies which may also be travelling through that same vacuum at some other velocity. (any material bodies such as, Trains, people standing on railway stations, or space ships or Twins or the Earth)

So light will NOT be measured at “c” by every one of those observers, relative to themselves. But it will be measured at “c” relative only to the medium it's moving in. (we can use a “virtual” origin to measure lights speed, we don’t need to have an absolute, existing origin or other “frame of reference”. (all frames are just imaginary anyway)

 

Thus, it appears that Einstein was fooled by his own algebraic descriptions and measurements.

In fact, there never was a real “problem with the velocity of light” that needed any solution.!

Special Relativity is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

So if you think about this carefully, giving yourself enough time to swap to a new paradigm, you will see that any relativity that results in warping time, distances or mass is invalid.

 

Once you can see this simple truth, you will be free to use your obvious expertise in Math for far more useful endeavours. Right now, you are chasing your own tail, and no one in the Physics world cares anyway.

The physicists are blind disciples of a religion based on deception. You may as well be talking to a brick wall.

 

 

No... even you are wrong. I don't know how many times I have explained, you are not even using the right velocity addition formula.

[marcospolo]

 

No... even you are wrong. I don't know how many times I have explained, you are not even using the right velocity addition formula.

 

 

Really? The correct velocity addition formula is V1 + V2 = result.

[Dubbelosix]

Yes really, go look it up.

[marcospolo]

 

Yes really, go look it up.

 

 

I don't need to look it up, I have just given the correct formula for velocity addition.

V1 + V2 = result. (or from measuring light speed, its c+v = result. But here v must also be relative to the same frame as the light's frame or you won't get any meaningful result. Otherwise, it would be like two people trying to compare their speeds, where one is measuring his speed relative to a tree, and the other can't see the tree, but he has measured his speed relative to a bird flying nearby.

 

What am I supposed to be looking up? Einstein's incorrect formula? Why would I what that? We know it's wrong because his whole hypothesis is based on wrong assumptions.

 

So where were we? Oh Yes, someone was supposed to be explaining why, given two observers, one must remain ignorant about his circumstances in relation to the other observer? When the first observer is allowed to know the conditions of his own "frame" and of the other observer's frame. The moving observer has to be crippled in his access to information, working from a handicap, trying to do science without any data...

 

The reason is simply that if both observers (moving and stationary) knew the overall conditions then there can be no special or general relativity.

[Vmedvil2]

You know what this is why nothing gets done of these relativity threads because people constantly fight about stupid stuff do you not remember the relativity addition formula that was put forward I tired to use that formula of V₁ + V₂ = V_final  and got a obviously wrong answer of like 2C, this has already been discussed you gotta multiply the gamma's to receive the proper amount and from Gamma you can solve for both Length contraction and Time Dilation for two velocities which was like a gamma of 3600 @ .9995C or something meaning L' = 3600L for the size of space and 1/3600t = t' . If you won't under the proper formulas even after they are presented then I think there is no hope for you. You are only calculating the approach speed, not the relative velocity additions. It just stands to reason that if you truly were able to learn you would be using the proper formula that has already been presented and explained.

 

The Proper formulas again for u'

 

 

All you people mainly do is waste time, I want 5 minutes of my life back.

Edited July 3, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

You know what this is why nothing gets done of these relativity threads because people constantly fight about stupid stuff do you not remember the relativity addition formula that was put forward I tired to use that formula of V₁ + V₂ = V_final  and got a obviously wrong answer of like 2C, this has already been discussed you gotta multiply the gamma's to receive the proper amount and from Gamma you can solve for both Length contraction and Time Dilation for two velocities which was like a gamma of 3600 or something meaning L' = 3600L for the size of space and 1/3600t = t' . If you won't under the proper formulas even after they are presented then I think there is no hope for you. You are only calculating the approach speed, not the relative velocity additions.

there is no such thing as Gamma.  It's a wrong fudge factor that was invented to solve a problem that never existed.

This is the whole point.  There is no Special Relativity, no time dilation, no length contraction or mass increase.

Maybe you would like to explain my original question which no one has yet supplied an answer for.

 

Look back a few posts. It's about the problem of the two observers in different reference frames. One is allowed to have full knowledge of the whole situation, but the moving observer must be kept totally ignorant about his relative condition to the other "stationary" observer.  We have a clued up professor on earth, but the professor in the space ship must be kept ignorant, and try to do science without knowing the facts, and having no data.

WHY is the moving observer to be kept ignorant?

Because if he was privy to the same info as the stationary observer, you can't possibly derive any special or general relativity.

 

Ignorance is the basis of Einstein's theories, ignorance of the moving observer. This is stupid. and its not science, its a faith based religious belief.

[Vmedvil2]

there is no such thing as Gamma.  It's a wrong fudge factor that was invented to solve a problem that never existed.

This is the whole point.  There is no Special Relativity, no time dilation, no length contraction or mass increase.

Maybe you would like to explain my original question which no one has yet supplied an answer for.

 

Look back a few posts. It's about the problem of the two observers in different reference frames. One is allowed to have full knowledge of the whole situation, but the moving observer must be kept totally ignorant about his relative condition to the other "stationary" observer.  We have a clued up professor on earth, but the professor in the space ship must be kept ignorant, and try to do science without knowing the facts, and having no data.

WHY is the moving observer to be kept ignorant?

Because if he was privy to the same info as the stationary observer, you can't possibly derive any special or general relativity.

 

Ignorance is the basis of Einstein's theories, ignorance of the moving observer. This is stupid. and its not science, its a faith based religious belief.

 

And you are just a crank, I won't deal with you macropolo you are way out there.

[exchemist]

No sh*t. 

[Vmedvil2]

No sh*t. 

ya anyone who starts a conversation about relativity that gamma is just a incorrect  fudge factor ends up on my like, Crank list.

[marcospolo]

And you are just a crank, I won't deal with you macropolo you are way out there.

You also can't answer the question? Seems that although you profess knowledge, you can't answer simple questions?  Who is the crank then?

Edited July 3, 2019 by marcospolo

[Vmedvil2]

You also can't answer the question? Seems that althouyght you profess knowledge, you cant answer simple questions?  Who is the crank then?

 

No I can answer the question but I would rather not due to the fact I know that it will be like rejected like you did the double slit experiment under crank logic, which the double slit experiment is like one of the most verifiable experiments in physics besides dropping a apple and proving gravity.

Edited July 3, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

ya anyone who starts a conversation about relativity that gamma is just a incorrect  fudge factor ends up on my like, Crank list.

and you also cant explain how you can possibly need to have a need for the fudge of gamma either. You guys are the cranks I'm afraid. Lots of talk, no rationality.

[Vmedvil2]

and you also cant explain how you can possibly need to have a need for the fudge of gamma either. You guys are the cranks I'm afraid. Lots of talk, no rationality.

 

Alright I'll give this a try to get this into your skull, the reason that Gamma exists is not to be a fudge factor but rather is the the relationships between velocity and movement, it would be like saying why is there a 1/2 in front of E = 1/2 MV² because when they did the integral that was the factor that held the relationship mathematically, it is basically being a ratio between movement and space/time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor).

Edited July 3, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

No I can answer the question but I would rather not due to the fact I know that it will be like rejected like you did the double slit experiment under crank logic, which the double slit experiment is like one of the most verifiable experiments in physics besides dropping a apple and proving gravity.

why is it that every time I ask a simple question, I get as a response, the claim such as, "I do know the answer, but I'm not telling you".

 

and the double slit experiment is another topic.  It's showing something, but I don't automatically accept the first explanation, especially if it's nonsensical.

But forget that, let's hear your explanation about the ignorant observer, and why he must remain ignorant to do physics.

[marcospolo]

Alright I'll give this a try to get this into your skull, the reason that Gamma exists is not to be a fudge factor but rather is the the relationships between velocity and movement, it would be like saying why is there a 1/2 in front of E = 1/2 MV² because when they did the integral that was the factor that held the relationship mathematically, it is basically being a ratio between movement and space/time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor).

You have come into this thread late. Im saying that Lorentz and Einstein could not be more wrong. There is no need for the LT because there never was a problem needing a solution in the first place.