Relativity And Simple Algebra

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Did it ever occur to you that time dilation propagates just like spacetime within gws?

[ralfcis]

Ok is that my math error you've found? Sounds like more of your word salad.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Ok is that my math error you've found? Sounds like more of your word salad.

Yes it's a math error, you fail to use hydrodynamic post-Newtonian expansion in your math.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTNcxgiqWB4V_yRAeXmD_Tcn0X3HA%3A1571980244117&source=hp&ei=1IOyXeHhBIj2swWawbqgBw&q=post-newtonian+expansion&oq=post-newtonian+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.0.0l2j0i30l2.1544.6775..7604...1.0..0.347.2643.1j9j3j2......0....1.......8..35i362i39j46i362i39j35i39j0i131j46j0i5i10i30.q3FcNoFrHzY

[ralfcis]

Please, I'd love to learn from the master, show me how it's done.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Please, I'd love to learn from the master, show me how it's done.

First of all "the master" would use a 3d diagram for the problem. I think you know how I expressed frame dragging? You did admit I show math every once in a while, if your familiar with it my spheres had diagonal coordinates:

 

https://i.imgur.com/kdkIAIq_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

 

These are not the correct coordinates for a true 3d sphere:

 

https://previews.123rf.com/images/koksikoks/koksikoks1610/koksikoks161000576/64321255-ball-with-lines-earth-globe-with-meridian-and-longitude-3d-sphere-vector-illustration-of-angering-pr.jpg

 

Have you seen any of my work?

 

It has between 4 and 6 dimensions, aka a 5 dimensional system (vector is 4 time is 5) seems to be catching on src

Edited October 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

For each 3d qubit the gradient vector "4th dimension" runs from -x2, +y2; to +x2, -y2

 

The real equation for spheres (which I spied with my third eye on mathematica's automatic plotter before it was taken down and replaced with something that did not give the equation away for some reason) is irrelevant until you define the magnitude and direction because the sphere can have one of infinite tilts.

 

Start there before you get into the reducing fractional gradient matrices that can be time dilating carriers of information which is important for your third observer.

 

Most of what is taught is either wrong or deliberately misleading (i.e. mathematica changing its spherical plot system)

Edited October 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Here is the secretive REAL equation for a sphere, does not have to be Planck volume can be used for this scenario in your topic:

 

X^2+y^2+z^2-8x+6y+4z+7=0

[Vmedvil2]

Here is the secretive REAL equation for a sphere, does not have to be Planck volume can be used for this scenario in your topic:

 

X^2+y^2+z^2-8x+6y+4z+7=0

This is why you don't hit the crack pipe then write about physics.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

This is why you don't hit the crack pipe then write about physics.

That's how you graph a sphere bro.

 

x

 

y

 

x,y

 

x,y,-z

 

-x,y

 

-x,-y,z

 

x,-y

 

-x,-y

 

-x

 

-y

 

Those are 10 outlier coordinates with infinite coordinates inbetween forming the curved outline of the sphere which can be found using y1 and z1 output to get x2, x1 and z1 for y2, x2 and y2 for z2 and so on. Try it before you keep going with your newly adopted exchemist schlemeil

Edited October 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I found it pertinent because ralf's 2 dimensional diagram alone is throwing him off. He probably never took calc, which is fine. I didn't either and what I taught myself was specifically for spacetime.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Forgive me for bringing this up Tory but recently you posted a thread in which you believed you had achieved unification merely by splicing together a few modern equations with one of Einstein's field equations when either were for specific unrelated applications pfft

Edited October 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Btw, Raplh time dilation works with the gradient vectors which have 5 per sphere, diagonally. If your observer is n planck lengths away from Alice and Bob you have to go into vector calculus to account for the distortions in time dilation and that's a whole mess but it will give you the precise values. I had devised a clever way of doing this using "x-1/total number of Planck lengths" in that diagram per Planck time back in the day.

Edited October 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Anyway here's why frame dragging changes things...

 

Bob is going faster, so we already right there why Alice is older and this fits with SR. However, Alice is getting to the finish line more quickly throughout most of the journey, and it seems that way to Alice as well. Why? Because Alice is higher up when her image gets to Bob, and Bob's light has thus accumulated more redshift (I think that was brought up here before) than Alice's light from a lower position when the light was emitted to a higher position when the light caught up. At least until halfway to the finish line, but even after that we have consider how the photograph is aged and not their true positions in the moment. SR fails.

 

Here's why the third dimension matters, the observer will see them age differently due to redshift depending on their angle. Are they moving toward the 3rd observer, who is in proper, away from the third observer, etc? GR fails.

 

Or is like as shown in your graph in which is meant to convey how general relativity does not sway the truth.

 

However in a 3d graph it can be swayed, and we experience reality in 3 dimensions. There is an absolute frame of reference...on graphing paper. But not with simple algebra which is, also, my point on your math "skills".

 

Your problem is that you lack vision, Victor has some vision, but it's more like a lazy eye type of vision. Dubbel has third vision, he goes into that higher vibrational state awareness with his math. But I miss when Dubbel overreacted to every little criticism it was beautiful.

Edited October 26, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Vmedvil2]

Anyway here's why frame dragging changes things...

 

Bob is going faster, so we already right there why Alice is older and this fits with SR. However, Alice is getting to the finish line more quickly throughout most of the journey, and it seems that way to Alice as well. Why? Because Alice is higher up when her image gets to Bob, and Bob's light has thus accumulated more redshift (I think that was brought up here before) than Alice's light from a lower position when the light was emitted to a higher position when the light caught up. At least until halfway to the finish line, but even after that we have consider how the photograph is aged and not their true positions in the moment. SR fails.

 

Here's why the third dimension matters, the observer will see them age differently due to redshift depending on their angle. Are they moving toward the 3rd observer, who is in proper, away from the third observer, etc? GR fails.

 

Or is like as shown in your graph in which is meant to convey how general relativity does not sway the truth.

 

However in a 3d graph it can be swayed, and we experience reality in 3 dimensions. There is an absolute frame of reference...on graphing paper. But not with simple algebra which is, also, my point on your math "skills".

 

Your problem is that you lack vision, Victor has some vision, but it's more like a lazy eye type of vision. Dubbel has third vision, he goes into that higher vibrational state awareness with his math. But I miss when Dubbel overreacted to every little criticism it was beautiful.

 

You have been hitting the crank pipe again, I can tell!

Edited October 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I think someone has found a new favorite word

[Vmedvil2]

I can literally prove that everything you said is literal bullshit in less than a paragraph,  

 

A) the equations for a sphere is (x - a)² + (y - b )² + (z - c)² = r²  Whatever you wrote there is nonsense.

 

B )Time Dilation doesn't redshift, that is a improper usage of that term, Redshift is caused by Expansion or Contraction of Space via Dark Energy or Gravity and it happens upon light that is traveling large distances.

 

C) There are not 5 vectors per unit of time dilation in SR, there is only a combination vector as it is a normal vector field, special relativity nor general relativity has nothing to do with a planck length which is a Quantum Mechanical unit only in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity can you use a Planck Length which ralfcis is not talking about either.

 

D) Redshift does not change because of the observer frame it changes because of the space's curvature on light, another thing is light doesn't "catch up" to moves at a steady C, you will never outrun the light with traditional forms of movement.

 

E)  GR is a theory of gravity not of motion, thus everything you wrote about GR is nonsense, GR tells about curvature of space because of gravity not anything else, especially nothing to do with motion like SR.

 

F) there is no such thing as reference frames dealing with redshift you are getting GR and SR concepts confused and putting them in the wrong theory.

 

This is why you are hitting the crank pipe!

Edited October 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil