Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

It's an assumption that, if made, leads to all kinds of claims that are physically impossible.

 

I just want to try to understand what the majority of scientists see in relativity. I'd just like to see one explain away all the contradictions I see. I felt I was getting close until I saw how relativity defines time and so I'm very close to giving up on it forever. Maybe one of the other theories will satisfy my objections. I was doing just fine with my own theory until I hit that roadblock of Alice returning to earth at near c where she doesn't age while light takes 3 yrs to cover the distance back. There must be another explanation because that one leads to all kinds of claims that are physically impossible. Time expansion for Bob's frame sounded good and is still mathematically feasible but physically nonsense.

 

I see you've now added this.  I have explained before what they "see" in it. There are, btw, a good number of prominent physicists who reject it, including Nobel prize winners. In fact, as a matter of practice, everyone does, in every other branch of phsyics.  They all rely on the notion of absolute motion, which SR rejects.

 

You'll die before you ever see all the contradictions explained, because they can't be.  Of course you can always choose to accept, and believe in, some "explanation" based on specious reasoning.

 

Your last sentence is correct.  Mathematically it can work out just fine (as Greene is trying to tell you).  But math aint physics.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

So when you're across a football field from me and I measure you as only being a thumb tall and you measure me as being only a thumb tall, that's impossible. No it's perspective and it's reciprocal. How do you settle the reality? You walk over to me. But in relativity the paradox is when you reach me, you still remain only a thumb tall when right beside me. This is comparable to time dilation resulting in permanent age difference. If length contraction, which is related to time dilation, was as real, it would also result in you being permanently thinner but it doesn't. So one can only conclude that length contraction is not real but a fake mathematical convenience. I'll let you in on a little secret, time dilation is also an illusion of perspective. Permanent age difference is the result of the Doppler Shift ratio during the time of relative velocity imbalance between the two.

Edited April 12, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

If you go back to my football throwing example. If Bob yells at Harry as Harry is running toward Bob, the speed of sound is not dependent on Harry's or Bob's velocities but Harry's motion towards the sound is a closing speed which combines with the sound velocity to make a Newtonian relative velocity of 30 mph. 

 

Now if you impose a max velocity of 15 mph on the universe, you still get a closing speed total of 30 mph but now you get a relativistic relative velocity of only 15 mph because of the max relative velocity speed limit. Comprende?

 

Yeah.  Well, like I said, the assumption of an absolute speed limit is idiosyncratic to SR.  Other viable theories reject that assumption.

[ralfcis]

That's not the point. Your question is about explaining the diff between closing speed and relativistic relative velocity.

[ralfcis]

Without a speed limit on the speed of information, there would be no causality.

[Moronium]

No it's perspective and it's reciprocal. 

 

Yeah, and that's what SR has to rely to "sound" plausible.

 

But physics is based on matter in motion in the exterior world, not the internal subjective perceptions of every guy and his brother.  SR aint "science," it's (bad) philosophy.

 

That philosophy is known as solipsism.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You're preaching, I don't care. But here's an interesting story about speed of info and causality.

 

Say you knew about stock prices before anyone else because you had a lightning fast info conduit to the market and everyone else is much slower. You could make large buys that slower people would interpret as future trends. When they buy in, you sell at a profit. You do thousands of these lightning trades and get rich off a future you are creating. If you could mathematically model human reaction times to when you sell, you could bring down the market. Your speed of info being faster than anyone elses effectively circumvents causality and creates chaos. That's what would happen if the speed of info was infinite instead of limited.

[Moronium]

That's not the point. Your question is about explaining the diff between closing speed and relativistic relative velocity.

 

I think we all see that.  It's what I said in my posts.  

[Moronium]

You're preaching, I don't care. But here's an interesting story about speed of info and causality.

 

Say you knew about stock prices before anyone else because you had a lightning fast info conduit to the market and everyone else is much slower. You could make large buys that slower people would interpret as future trends. When they buy in, you sell at a profit. You do thousands of these lightning trades and get rich off a future you are creating. If you could mathematically model human reaction times to when you sell, you could bring down the market. Your speed of info being faster than anyone elses effectively circumvents causality and creates chaos. That's what would happen if the speed of info was infinite instead of limited.

 

 

And you think that requires a limit on the speed of light?  Why?  If the speed of light were infinite, then it would be "instantaneous"--to all.  Light is not "information," to begin with.  Light doesn't carry future stock prices with it as it travels. You think you could "go into the future" if there was no limit to the speed of light?  Why?

Edited February 20, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Alrighty then.

[Moronium]

Because SR says there is an absolute speed limit, it also says that, at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite, distances contract to nothing, and time stops.

 

So an elephant could go clean across the universe, and back many times, in nothing flat, even with infinite mass. Of course an elephant can't travel at the speed of light, let's just say.  But if light can, then why wouldn't it's speed be infinite?

Edited February 21, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Oh my GAHD! I will not be dragged into the void. I will answer a coherent question from time to time but will not engage in incoherent agenda banter.

[Moronium]

There must be another explanation because that one leads to all kinds of claims that are physically impossible. I just want to try to understand what the majority of scientists see in relativity. I'd just like to see one explain away all the contradictions I see.... Maybe one of the other theories will satisfy my objections.

 

 

Yeah, give it up, Ralf.  If you learn up on PFT's (preferred frame theories) you'll find that all the contradictions disappear (never arise).

 

As it stands, you can't begin to understand a PFT, because you're so wedded to SR.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 I will admit the argument Greene gives is very circular in that it's impossible to tell the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion. Did the combo law come first or did the Lorentz transforms or did time dilation? 

 

 

The two postulates come first.  Everything else (the LT, which includes time dilation, the combo law, and a whole lot else)  "follows" from them. 

 

If I say:

 

1.  All elephants are green.

2.  This animal is an elephant

3.   Therefore, this animal is green.

 

Then the logic is impeccable.  The conclusion follows from the premises, so the reasoning is logically "valid."

 

But that doesn't mean it's true as a matter of fact.

 

Math is just applied logic.  It too can be "logically" correct, but empirically unsound.

 

That's why I put the word "follows" in scare quotes in my second sentence.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok, so unless Popeye tells me different, I think I got it all straight now and can continue on with my quest  to see if light signals can be used to allow Bob and Alice to agree on the correct proper time between them. I'm hoping the answer will be yes.

[Moronium]

Ok, so unless Popeye tells me different, I think I got it all straight now and can continue on with my quest  to see if light signals can be used to allow Bob and Alice to agree on the correct proper time between them. I'm hoping the answer will be yes.

 

I'll give you the quick answer to that right now.  Yes they can.

 

But ONLY IF they agree on which one is moving.  SR requires them to disagree.  A PFT generates no such dispute.

 

Actually, in a PFT, whether they personally agree or not is irrelevant.  Such a theory does not concern itself with the personal opinions or perceptions of subjective observers.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok Moronium, I understand you don't like what I'm saying but are you going to try to drown out every post I make by repeating your mantra constantly. That's just rude. Why don't you set up your own ministry in the alternate theories thread. Quote my and others posts there and drown them out there with your repetition if that makes you happy. I'm not going to convert to your religion or try to convert you to mine so all you're effectively doing is trolling me. Maybe you could take a couple of other guys with you. I'm not against you asking questions here because they have led to positive results but your repetitive preaching is not welcome nor is Polly's word salad nor Marco's anti-science soap-boxing.

 

PS. Go and boost the readership on the post I abandoned due to your hijacking it. It's only about 1000 views short of the forum's all time record.

Edited February 21, 2019 by ralfcis