sluggo 42 Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 AnssiH; It is certainly impossible to measure any universal simultaneity as far as we know. It is quite a stretch to then say "it does not exists". Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - it's not very clever to just assume one way or another. Consider the wind. We can't see it directly but we can detect it's effects.Apply the same analysis to the Lorentz ether. It's invisible and experiments like MM cannot detect any effects it produces. If the behavior of the universe can be accurately described without it, it serves no purpose. When there was speculation for new 'particles' to extend a theory, some were discovered, some not. Those found were obviously there before the search, the others not. All ideas thinkable are not all realizable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

AnssiH 36,649 Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 Consider the wind. We can't see it directly but we can detect it's effects.Apply the same analysis to the Lorentz ether. It's invisible and experiments like MM cannot detect any effects it produces. If the behavior of the universe can be accurately described without it, it serves no purpose.Yeah, I actually discussed that exact topic here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35098-relativity-and-simple-algebra/?view=findpost&p=385984 which you might find interesting. Anyway, yeah I would have agreed on that same junction - when Special Relativity was first introduced and it was mathematically exactly identical to Lorentz' latest theory - that redundant concepts are redundant. But then couple years later people invented a new redundant concept, the Minkowski Spacetime, which should have been recognized as equally redundant. But it made great headlines, I guess :shrug: Basically now we have even more ridiculous idea of an aether that is equally undetectable, but a lot of people like to defend anyway. The original overwhelming expectation of measuring aether wind with M&M experiment is very naive and would require really strange naive-realistic disconnect between "matter" and "space" if you really think about it. I think if his theory would have become the more popular metaphysical flavor, it would have logically led into basically quantum field theory, where matter and space are basically "the same stuff". Anyway to get back to the metaphysical idea of simultaneity, this is obviously much larger question than some ancient naive ideas of measuring aether wind. Have you ever really thought about what are the logical ramifications of the idea that reality itself does not have any universal simultaneity? I find that usually people who throw that idea out carelessly, and defend it with something like M&M experiment, have not really give the topic a serious thought... Because the ramifications are pretty whimsical, don't you think? And just as a side note I really find it interesting that people who are so eager to defend relativistic simultaneity as an actual ontological "fact", never comment anything about the fact that cosmic background radiation is not isotropic. There are many possible sources for cosmic background radiation, but they all must recognize the simple fact that it only emanates from one magical inertial frame. I would think that should give people a little bit of a pause...yeah? No? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

sluggo 42 Posted July 26 Report Share Posted July 26 AnssiH; And just as a side note I really find it interesting that people who are so eager to defend relativistic simultaneity as an actual ontological "fact", never comment anything about the fact that cosmic background radiation is not isotropic. There are many possible sources for cosmic background radiation, but they all must recognize the simple fact that it only emanates from one magical inertial frame. I would think that should give people a little bit of a pause...yeah? No? Einstein defined a relative simultaneity as a convention, for the purpose of measurement. There was no universal simultaneity to relate local time with distant time.The beauty of the convention, you don't have to know your speed in space, to establish a local simultaneity. Alternate frames:The 'fixed stars', so distant there is no perceptible change over 1000's of years.The cmb which I would place at the top of the list. Events that do not move. This property eliminates the need for an ether in SR. In the 1920 Leyden lecture paper, Einstein removes the immobility of Lorentz's ether and thus its existence. He replaces it with the 'new' ether of GR as space with properties supporting gravitational fields, which Einstein defines as independent structures. Minkowski is thinking in the purely abstract terms of mathematics, which do not have to correspond to the physical world, but provide an accurate representation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

AnssiH 36,649 Posted July 29 Report Share Posted July 29 Yeah I would pretty much agree with that. It's a bit unfortunate that it's so popular to see these concepts as something much more than very handy mental ideas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

marcospolo 26 Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 A grade school child knows speed x time = distance!I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3. I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance. As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.But we can with Einstein right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

OceanBreeze 395 Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3. I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance. As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.But we can with Einstein right? Speed is a ratio, that is, it is a change in distance compared to a change in time. A change in distance is incoherent without a corresponding change in time. Meters per second is mathematically expressed as meters/second, or simply m/s but regardless of the mathematical symbolism, you will be hard pressed to actually divide the seconds into those meters and even more hard pressed to subtract seconds from meters. Someone might accuse you of using sophistry here, but I suspect you are just having bad luck when trying to think about these things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

sluggo 42 Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3. I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance. As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.But we can with Einstein right?Time is used in determining distance, and that is the space-time connection, which existed long before relativity. Time has always been a measure of motion/distance, earth orbit, earth rotation, moon, etc. There are no tape measures long enough for distances on the earth surface or beyond. Light is the ideal tool for measurement, being constant and super fast.Engineering uses lasers in all types of projects just for their accuracy.Air traffic control depends on GPS for navigation, ensuring safe travel for the masses.Just the beginning of useful benefits from applications of light. Using ct was the work of Minkowski in his 4D version of SR, not Einstein.If you don't do some form of scaling, the unit of distance is 300,000,000 x the unit of time, which produces useless graphs! Quote Link to post Share on other sites

marcospolo 26 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Speed is a ratio, that is, it is a change in distance compared to a change in time. A change in distance is incoherent without a corresponding change in time. Meters per second is mathematically expressed as meters/second, or simply m/s but regardless of the mathematical symbolism, you will be hard pressed to actually divide the seconds into those meters and even more hard pressed to subtract seconds from meters. Someone might accuse you of using sophistry here, but I suspect you are just having bad luck when trying to think about these things.Ok, But in the usual example involving a right angled triangle, where you mix distances (clock height) with the distance traveled vt, with another distance traveled over another time, ct, what I want to see is you immediately calculate the three distances of that triangle, expressed in meters, BEFORE you try to use any algebra or Pythagoras theorem.So get the length of the hypotenuse by measurement of ct, and calculate the length on meters, move on to the distance traveled vt and calc that distance, and we already have the height of the triangle, so now that you possess all 3 lengths of that triangle, NOW show me how you can come up with time or length dilation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

marcospolo 26 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3. I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance. As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.But we can with Einstein right?Time is used in determining distance, and that is the space-time connection, which existed long before relativity. Time has always been a measure of motion/distance, earth orbit, earth rotation, moon, etc.There are no tape measures long enough for distances on the earth surface or beyond. Light is the ideal tool for measurement, being constant and super fast.Engineering uses lasers in all types of projects just for their accuracy.Air traffic control depends on GPS for navigation, ensuring safe travel for the masses.Just the beginning of useful benefits from applications of light. Using ct was the work of Minkowski in his 4D version of SR, not Einstein.If you don't do some form of scaling, the unit of distance is 300,000,000 x the unit of time, which produces useless graphs! You summed up the Minkowski graph PERFECTLY.... "a useless Graph". Try doing anything useful with that graph when you are not FORCED to set light as a 45 degree vector. This stupid arrangement means that 99% of the graoh area is USELESS. The half below the 45 deg light vector is never able to be used, anything in that section is moving faster than light, so that just leaves the top half triangle, And in this 45 deg triangle area, Most of it is also useless to us as we can only achieve speeds up to a small fraction of light speed.I say change the ratio of light velocity to time from 1 to 1, and make is something reasonable, so we can actually make some readable plot.Like, make the light speed vector almost HORIZONTAL, so that we get to use much more of the graph area. But trouble is if you do that, then Einstein's crap theory of time and distance dilation wont work anymore.Anyway, light as a tool for measurement is useless. Why? Well because we don't really know how long a Meter is now, as that distance is now how far light goes in one three millionth of a second, but the second is not a constant. We don't know what a second is now, because it changes with motion, and we cant ever claim that we are stationary. So we cant claim that our second is the correct second. We have no idea if we are moving or not, we could be the "moving twin" that aging slower, or we may be the "home twin" that's aged more.. My second is not your second, therefore my meter is not your meter. Thanks Einstein. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

OceanBreeze 395 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Ok, But in the usual example involving a right angled triangle, where you mix distances (clock height) with the distance traveled vt, with another distance traveled over another time, ct, what I want to see is you immediately calculate the three distances of that triangle, expressed in meters, BEFORE you try to use any algebra or Pythagoras theorem.So get the length of the hypotenuse by measurement of ct, and calculate the length on meters, move on to the distance traveled vt and calc that distance, and we already have the height of the triangle, so now that you possess all 3 lengths of that triangle, NOW show me how you can come up with time or length dilation. Trig relationships, such as Pythagoras theorem, are not used on the standard space-time diagrams developed by Minkowski. The applicable function is hyperbolic. The velocity of the moving object is expressed by the angle of the path it takes with respect to the vertical ct axis. Light makes a 45 deg angle to that axis. Real objects move slower than light and the angle they make to the ct axis is less than 45 degrees. Please read up on the way space-time drawings are made and used. I cannot write out an entire description for you here, sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Mutex 34 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 I agree, so now please just DROP the use of light velocity x time (ct) from those equations that are supposed to be deriving relativity, and work ONLY and exclusively from real distance measurements.No more ct, vt, and the twisted algebra, just d1, d2 d3. I bet you come up with nothing useful for relativity.This is because, in the Einstein derivation you BEGIN with distances, ct, vt, but then end up trying to deduct a time, t , from a distance. As far as I know, you cant take away 12 seconds from 18 meters.But we can with Einstein right? When it comes to speed of velocity, you can subtract time from distance, you do that with increased velocity I can subtract 30 minutes off a 100 mile trip if I go at 100 miles per hour instead of 50. But that really makes no difference to your argument. The thing you have to get your head around with relativity is that the distance does not change! But the length of distance does change, so you could have a 100 meter distance, but the length of that 'distance' is dependent on the length of 1 meter. Relativity tells us, and its is confirmed with observations, that the length of 1 second varies from place to place (and not only from SR and velocity, but also from GR and gravity). The length of time varies, the speed of light is constant, so the length of space has to also vary. Space and time length gets longer in higher gravity or higher velocity, and shorter in lower gravity. In fact, gravity IS the gradient of that change in the length of space (and the length of time derived from the length of space). Matter wants or tends to 'fall' into longer space, or a lower energy space, (longer space is lower energy). That's why things fall down, and why it takes energy to put things 'up'. Up is shorter space (and time) and down is longer space (and time). Velocity in that space length makes the space in the direction of travel (and therefore you at that velocity) bigger, or greater length. (you 'consume' or experience more space length over time). Quote Link to post Share on other sites

marcospolo 26 Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Trig relationships, such as Pythagoras theorem, are not used on the standard space-time diagrams developed by Minkowski. The applicable function is hyperbolic. The velocity of the moving object is expressed by the angle of the path it takes with respect to the vertical ct axis. Light makes a 45 deg angle to that axis. Real objects move slower than light and the angle they make to the ct axis is less than 45 degrees. Please read up on the way space-time drawings are made and used. I cannot write out an entire description for you here, sorry.You don't understand. Its not your fault, its your education that's the problem. The triangle example I refereed to is regarding Einsteins light clock, and the use of Pythagoras theorem along with ct and vt to derive Gamma factor.Next, Minkowski is an idiot.Please stop drawing graphs where you make lights velocity vector a 45 degree line!Its MORONIC to do that. But its the only way you can do it if you want to make crappy graphs that are supposed to support the notion of spacetime or time dilation. Make the line for lights velocity almost horizontal, where it really should be, so we can plot useful information in the majority of the remaining graph area. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

marcospolo 26 Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 When it comes to speed of velocity, you can subtract time from distance, you do that with increased velocity I can subtract 30 minutes off a 100 mile trip if I go at 100 miles per hour instead of 50. But that really makes no difference to your argument. The thing you have to get your head around with relativity is that the distance does not change! But the length of distance does change, so you could have a 100 meter distance, but the length of that 'distance' is dependent on the length of 1 meter. Relativity tells us, and its is confirmed with observations, that the length of 1 second varies from place to place (and not only from SR and velocity, but also from GR and gravity). The length of time varies, the speed of light is constant, so the length of space has to also vary. Space and time length gets longer in higher gravity or higher velocity, and shorter in lower gravity. In fact, gravity IS the gradient of that change in the length of space (and the length of time derived from the length of space). Matter wants or tends to 'fall' into longer space, or a lower energy space, (longer space is lower energy). That's why things fall down, and why it takes energy to put things 'up'. Up is shorter space (and time) and down is longer space (and time). Velocity in that space length makes the space in the direction of travel (and therefore you at that velocity) bigger, or greater length. (you 'consume' or experience more space length over time).What you need to get into your head is that Relativity is all rubbish.Its NEVER been shown to work by any experiment. And it never will, because the hypotheisis and assumptions are moronic.You can not do this, 140 meters minus 39 seconds equals ?That is exactly what occurs hidden in the algebra when deriving lorentz transformation. If the distances change, then the distances change. If a meter shrinks, then that is now not a meter, Its moronic to claim that matter shrinks in one direction just because someone is watching it from a different location.Moronic. And even Einstein agreed in the end, that Light speed is NOT CONSTANT.Bang goes his theory of Special Relativity. Time has no relationship with space.Time is a concept, related to comparing the cyclical motions of objects with other objects. Space is not "curved" in any way. That is a mathematical construct, therefore its purely only a imaginary construct.Mathematics is NOT PHYSICS, and cant "explain" the Physical universe in any way.Math is merely a clever counting tool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

ralfcis 43 Posted August 5 Author Report Share Posted August 5 Sorry I did not read all these posts because I've blocked most of these people and I'm trying to get some time to finish a post I started 2 weeks ago. Anyway, Popeye, Zeno's paradox is solved (infinity removed) when you consider distance and time joined as velocity. I use the same technique in my math. I don't need to explain relativity using distance and time separately, I always use Yv. What's doubly interesting is how the half speed Loedel perspective fits into all this to cancel the infinity of Y (gamma) (and all the wrong physics interpretations that go with that infinity) as v> c. If v>c then it's half speed v_{h} also approaches c. You do not end up with two gammas that approach infinity because v and v_{h} are always together in formulas and approach a finite number because the infinities cancel out. Oops writing this blurb has deleted my previously saved work. Ok good I didn't have time to finish anyway. It looks like it will take me an infinite amount of time to get to re-writing that post. It was how to write the prime equation and make the invariant interval a time duration instead of a distance measurement. Simple at first as you divide both sides of the equation by c^{2} but then the fun starts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

ralfcis 43 Posted Monday at 03:20 AM Author Report Share Posted Monday at 03:20 AM I just popped in to see what was happening so is this the new Hypography? Was it sold? I don't know how to navigate this site. I'm dying to come back and write. Will I still have the leeway I once enjoyed or are things stricter now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

VictorMedvil 300 Posted Monday at 03:29 AM Report Share Posted Monday at 03:29 AM 8 minutes ago, ralfcis said: I just popped in to see what was happening so is this the new Hypography? Was it sold? I don't know how to navigate this site. I'm dying to come back and write. Will I still have the leeway I once enjoyed or are things stricter now? Ralfcis I think you are always welcomed, Go for it. OceanBreeze 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

OceanBreeze 395 Posted Tuesday at 12:11 PM Report Share Posted Tuesday at 12:11 PM You are always welcome to post here, Ralf. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.