Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Luckily I had a major heart attack Jan 4 and can now go back on this physics forum which was the only one that allowed me to pursue my ideas without getting banned. I hope nothing's changed here as I plan to start over in this thread. My interactions with Popeye and Sluggo taught me that another's math is basically an impossible language to understand so I will restart at the most basic level. Relativity can be explained with basic algebra using only 2 formulae and without any of Einstein's circular arguments and constructs that proved relativity by assuming relativity was correct. Relativity is absolutely correct while none of Einstein's philosophical explanations are.

I spent years coming up with simple mathematical building blocks that can be put together without Einstein's cumbersome fine print rules for defining clock sync, spacetime paths, length contraction, and anything else he and Minkowski came up with. Of course all this has been claimed by countless people before me so just consider this as a purely mathematical exploration, beginning with two formulae (the one for gamma and the relativistic velocity combo formula) , that just coincidentally agrees with relativistic physical phenomena. There are no rotated frames here, only two types of lines v and vh (half speed velocity defined the relativistic velocity combo formula), their reciprocals and their behavior when multiplied by Y (gamma). The math also avoids square roots and squares in the equations to make them work using simple addition and subtraction. There is no clock sync, only light signals and the assumption atomic clocks all run at the normal clock rate within their frames.

In the next post I will print out forms of these equations that have proved most useful to me. Think of them as common phrases that are formed by the very few basic words in this language. The derivations are in my previous thread and I don't expect anyone to understand them but I'd like to keep them together in one spot so I can find, cut and paste them easily throughout this thread.

 

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ralfcis said:

Luckily I had a major heart attack Jan 4 and can now go back on this physics forum which was the only one that allowed me to pursue my ideas without getting banned. I hope nothing's changed here as I plan to start over in this thread. My interactions with Popeye and Sluggo taught me that another's math is basically an impossible language to understand so I will restart at the most basic level. Relativity can be explained with basic algebra using only 2 formulae and without any of Einstein's circular arguments and constructs that proved relativity by assuming relativity was correct. Relativity is absolutely correct while none of Einstein's philosophical explanations are.

I spent years coming up with simple mathematical building blocks that can be put together without Einstein's cumbersome fine print rules for defining clock sync, spacetime paths, length contraction, and anything else he and Minkowski came up with. Of course all this has been claimed by countless people before me so just consider this as a purely mathematical exploration, beginning with two formulae (the one for gamma and the relativistic velocity combo formula) , that just coincidentally agrees with relativistic physical phenomena. There are no rotated frames here, only two types of lines v and vh (half speed velocity defined the relativistic velocity combo formula), their reciprocals and their behavior when multiplied by Y (gamma). The math also avoids square roots and squares in the equations to make them work using simple addition and subtraction. There is no clock sync, only light signals and the assumption atomic clocks all run at the normal clock rate within their frames.

In the next post I will print out forms of these equations that have proved most useful to me. Think of them as common phrases that are formed by the very few basic words in this language. The derivations are in my previous thread and I don't expect anyone to understand them but I'd like to keep them together in one spot so I can find, cut and paste them easily throughout this thread.

 

Sorry that you had a heart attack, I hope you get feeling better.

20 hours ago, ralfcis said:

Where's the advanced editor gone that allows subscripts and superscripts?

I have run into the same issue Ralfcis, I do not know how to make subscripts and superscripts on this forum anymore after the update. I suppose change the size but I dunno.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ralf, welcome back and I hope you are OK now after your heart trouble.

The new forum software doesn't support superscript and subscript but if you create that in your word processor and copy it into your post, it will be displayed correctly, for example: 23 + A4

I am also trying to get LaTex to work here but so far without any success as I do not have access to all the admin functions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main equation of ralfativity:

The main equation (space and time velocity combination) is

 c2 = v2 +vt also written as the gamma function Y = c / sqrt(c2-v2) ( vt = c/Y and v = c/Yt)

Here is the relativistic velocity combo equation:

w =(v+ u) / (1 + vu/c2)

So here is a more universal universal equation that includes relativistic velocity combination with space and time velocity combination:

c2 = ((v+u)2 + vt2ut2 ) / ( 1 + vu/c2)2

The main equation is also written as:

or (ct')= (ct)2 - Yox2 (Minkowski hyperbolic (difference of squares) form where hyperbolas intersect the same proper time for all velocity lines)

or  (ct)2 = (ct')2 + Yox2  (Epstein pythagorean (sum of squares) form where circles intersect the same proper time for all velocity lines)  

Since I include both perspectives in a Minkowski diagram without coordinate transforms, Yo is the perspective's gamma constant. Relativity does this in a far more complex manner using a far stricter and impractical treatment of relative velocity.

v = vh(vt/c +1) and vt = vht(v/c +1)

v = 2c2vh / (c2 + vh2) and vt = 2c2vht / (c2 + vht2)

vh = c(c-vht ) / (c+vht ) and vht = c(c-vh ) / (c+vh )

v/(c-v) = 2cv / (c - vh)2

Y = 2Yh- 1 = (c2 + vh2)/(c2 - vh2) = c/v= (1/(1-vh/v))  -1 = 2c2vhv/(c2 - vh2) = 2Yhv/v 

vh=Yv/(Y+1) 

(Yv) = v2/(1-v2) 

v= c(Y2- 1)1/2/Y

vt  =  c / Y = DSR(c+v) vht (1 +v/c)

t'=x(vh +c)/c 

v' = Yv

Yv =x/t'

Yu/Yw=DSRv

 The formula for Proper relativity of simultaneity is t'(1-Y) (where t'=x/Yv) whereas the formula for "moving" perspective simultaneity was vx/c2

 the equation for proper age difference is tpad=t′−x/Yv

t'=sqrt(t2 - x2)

t' =xDSRo/Yv

tps= xvps = xYv/(1+Y) which is the new formula for proper simultaneity

wt = c / Yw = c / (YvYu(1 + vu/c2)) and w =(v+ u) / (1 + vu/c2)

Yww = (v+u) YuY

vht =cDSR (Doppler Shift Ratio)

 cDSR = ((c-v)/(c+v))1/2 

DSRv = Yu/Yw  where w is the combined velocity of u and v where u = c

Y(c-v) = c/DSR

Yww = (v +u)(YvYu) where Yw = YvYu(1 + vu/c2) and w =(v+ u)/(1 + vu/c2)

DSRw = DSRv * DSRu  where DSRw2 = (c-w)/(c+w) 

w = c(1-DSRvDSRu)/(1+DSRvDSRu)

DSR = Y(1-v/c)

The sign of the velocities is positive if the direction is positive where the distance increases in the direction of the vector. The velocity w is the relativistic combination of v + u.

A = (v+u)

B= (1+vu/c2)

sqrt(c2B2-A2) = c/YvYu =vtut

 

v                     Y           vh          vt             vht        DSR       v1 +v2 

1                     1              1           0               0             0      1+any

3280/3281 3281/81  40/41    81/3281 1/81       81          40/41+40/41

511/513     513/64       31/33  64/513  1/32        32

255/257     257/32      15/17  32/257    1/16        16    15/17+15/17

40/41          41/9         4/5         9/41       4/36       9         4/5+4/5

63/65       65/16  7/9      16/65      1/8          8      3/5+15/17 or 7/9+7/9

24/25         25/7         3/4          7/25        1/7         7

35/37         37/12      5/7          12/37      6/36      6         4/5+3/5

13/14       2.694     .677           .371         .192     5.19      4/5+1/2

12/13         13/5        2/3           5/13       1/5          5

77/85         85/36     77/121    36/85     8/36       9/2

15/17         17/8        3/5           8/17       9/36        4       3/5+3/5

11/12     12/sqrt23 11/(12+sqrt23)

4/5             5/3         1/2         3/5         12/36      3 

7/9   9/(4sqrt2)  7/(9+4sqrt2)  (4sqrt2)/9  sqrt2/4  4/sqrt2    3/5+1/3

3/5             5/4          1/3         4/5         18/36        2

1/2             2/sqrt3    1/(2+sqrt3)      sqrt3/2        1/sqrt3        sqrt3

8/17           17/15      1/4        15/17        3/5          5/3

5/13           13/12      1/5        12/13     24/36        3/2

1/3             3/(2sqrt2)  1/(3+2sqrt2)  (2sqrt2)/3  (sqrt2)/2  2/sqrt2

12/37         37/35      1/6        35/37     5/7             7/5

7/25           1/7           24/25    27/36     4/3

16/65         1/8          255/257 15/17  17/15

9/41           1/9        40/41     4/5    

0                0          1             1      

 

v c                             vh c                           vt c                     vht  c        DSR    t'

21523360/21523361 21523360/21529922  6561/21523361 1/6561

t' = X(c+vh)/c (vh is negative for v<0

So the formula for lost, evaporated, invisible age is t'(DSR - 1)

t' = X(-2vh)/(c+vh  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little relative about relativity.

First, the principle of relativity asserts: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. So when I say all atomic clocks are universally accurate in their frames, which is in keeping with this first principle, I get nothing but condemnation from relativists and non-relativists alike. Non-relativists, who believe in absolute motion, believe velocity physically affects clock operation and that motion cannot possibly have an effect on time itself. Relativists, who worship the prophet, don't question Einstein's clock sync method even though most believe there's some possible difference between one-way and two way speed of light (there isn't). They will not stray from his teachings even though atoms hadn't yet been invented when he made up his method which depends on his assumptions about relativity to prove his assumptions about relativity. Circular arguments abound in relativity.

Like the debate about one-way/two-way light speed, the debate about relative velocity and absolute motion is moot. Relative velocity cannot be drawn on a spacetime diagram. The closest approximation is in the Loedel diagram where both participants have the same velocity but it's depicted as half (eg 1/3 c) of the true relative velocity (3/5 c). In any spacetime diagram there is always a third element which is the stationary backgound. Whether you want to argue that it's not absolutely stationary or just chosen stationary relative to the two participants, it doesn't matter to the math of the spacetime diagram which is impossible to draw without it. Relativists seem to have no problem with these contradictions deeming they're ok because they're counter-intuitive which, by definition, makes them incontrovertible.

According to relativists, the only acceptable absolute motion is one that results in a force. They see no contradiction that both participants see the other as time dilating and length contracting while time ticks at the normal rate for both of them but seem to see a paradox that one can have time truly pass slower for the other if one of them feels a force. Actually this can happen without a force being involved.

If relativists had run the world, speed limit signs and speedometers (even odometers) would have been replaced by radar guns measuring relative velocity between every car. But practically, the world assumes absolute motion to a common reference frame to get practical results. There is no length contraction or need for reciprocal time dilation, no need for spacetime diagrams with coordinate rotations or imprecise depictions of relative velocity, and many other useless assumptions relativity foisted upon us for it to work. I have a much better explanation for relativistic phenomena and it's not newtonian or absolute. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does relativity break the rules of physics? No, but the misconceptions about it do.

The Sun does not orbit the earth, the entire universe does not pass by a stationary spaceship nor does it revolve around a proton in the LHC and it's not just because of the force imbalance. Even acceleration can be approximated as an average constant velocity or its duration ignored over a long journey. In fact, acceleration has negligible effect at the start of a journey but has seemingly huge relativistic consequences on age difference the further it is removed from the start. Acceleration actually has no magical properties imbued it by relativity. The same for relative velocity. Even though things appear to move away from you in the rear view mirror, the Earth is not one giant treadmill activated by the wheels of your car. Relative velocity does not care if you've expended energy to move relative to something, establishing who's actually moving is unimportant. Perspective is illusion, not reality even though it was incorrectly elevated to reality by relativity.

Despite all this nonsense, there is a scenario that doesn't seem to make sense but is true. If you take a giant glass vacuum bottle and launch it into space, it's relative velocity to the vacuum it contains is exactly the same as its relative velocity to the vacuum it's travelling through. It's like the bottle doesn't exist. Matter has no relative velocity to vacuum or light (vacuum's electromagnetic field determines c). The Michelson Morley experiment was wrong to conclude there's no medium for light, it's the type of medium that's important.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us begin to construct the mathematical framework for ralfativity. There are 3 axes ( ct, ct' and x) plotted on a Cartesian coordinate system. There is no 2nd Minkowski coordinate system so equations like the Lorentz transforms do not exist. Because the two time axes ct and ct' look  to be in distance units, relativists declare that time is a 4th spatial dimension. This is not true if you algebraically derive relativity's equations from the main equation which defines there is only one velocity in the universe (c) that has velocity through space (v) and velocity through time vt  components. The faster you are observed to go through space, the slower you are observed to go through time. The relativistic combo equation similarly limits the combination of any two relative velocities through space to c.

 c2 = v2 +vt also written as the gamma function Y = c(c2-v2)-1/2 ( vt = c/Y ).

https://photos.app.goo.gl/c864tipaU1ZLRGNX6

Ratios of the various axes define different types of velocity and the reciprocals of those velocities represent different types of lines of simultaneity (not shown and not important for now).

What is important is the 1/slope of the .6c line represents the velocity (x/ct) the stationary observer sees with his clock while x/ct' = Yv =.75c is the velocity the moving observer sees using his own clock. The distance common to both is invariant and proper and does not require any assumption of length contraction or reference to the stationary clock. 

Using this info about Yv, algebraically multiply both sides of Y = c(c2-v2)-1/2 by v

Yv = cv(c2-v2)-1/2  =x/ct'

and  v=x/ct and you get the main equation as

(ct')= (ct)2 - x

which represents all 3 axes.

It could have just as easily been written as

t'= t2 - x/cwhich would have led to the conclusion that all distance axes were really time axes according to relativist's logic. The time axis and length axes cannot be joined into the concept of spacetime because time does not behave like a distance axis and their lame logic does not make it so.

I will next show how the simple spacetime diagram I showed here can be combined with light signals to define the basic mathematical building block for relativity. Time slowing during constant relative velocity is an illusion. What causes that illusion is a mismatch in how start and end times are recorded differently from each perspective. Relativity of simultaneity causes the illusion of time dilation because perspective observations are illusion.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 I noticed something weird about my last diagram posted: the ct' axis is a line that represents 3 velocities and 3 different slopes. I'm no mathematician but is this some new form of algebra?

I discovered this while trying to figure out where my v(velocity through time line) would fit on the diagram. It turns out it's the same line as v and v' and the slope of each overlapping line is dependent  on what coordinates you assign to the ct' axis.

Let's look at the point labelled ct'=1.

The coordinates of the velocity line at this point are (1.25,.75) where v=x/ct =.6c and the slope of the line is 1/v = 5/3. The velocity is x-axis/ct-axis.

The coordinates of the v'=Yv line are (1,.75) where v'=x/ct' = .75c and the slope of the line is 1/v' = 4/3. v' is the x-axis/ct'-axis.

The coordinates of the vt=ct'/ct = c/Y line are (1.25,1) where vt=ct'/ct = .8 and the slope of the line is 1/vt = 5/4.  vis the ct'-axis/ct-axis.

Normal algebra would not have labelled that point as 1, it would have only labelled it with the cartesian coordinates of (1.25,.75). I'm adding a 3rd ct'-axis which not only allows all facets of the main equation to be seen on the diagram but it allows both perspective views to be seen on one diagram instead of 2. It also avoids the mistakes relativity makes when switching from one perspective to the other as I'll discuss in the next post.

But let's go back to basic normal algebra for now. The simplest equation is y=x (which comes from the equation for a line y=mx+y). This equation would define the speed of light c on a spacetime diagram. c has no coordinates in relativity because c is actually made up of overlapping lines due to a cheat Minkowski added to his diagrams to make c appear the same from all perspectives (which it is anyway). I put coordinates on my c lines and they are different depending on the perspectives viewing them.

In algebra, the equation y=1/x defines a hyperbola. The main equation of relativity creates straight lines and hyperbolas shifted 45 degrees from the simple equations of basic algebra. (This is not set in stone as the Epstein sum of squares version of the main equation uses circles that do not shift the velocity lines at 45 degrees or have an overlapping c line at 45 degrees.) The hyperbolas in relativity intersect the velocity lines at the same proper time. These hyperbolas connect a true, unseen, universal present at a distance and are not to be confused with the fake perspective present that Einstein invented in his clock sync method. In ralfativity, I replace the hyperbolic lines with straight lines of 1/vh  lines of proper simultaneity of the Loedel half speed perspective (my own term).

Ralfativity only cares about the slopes of key velocity lines (v, v', v,vh ,vht, ) and their reciprocals which are lines of simultaneity. It only considers velocities separated into their coordinates of time and space and perspectives at the end. All clocks beat at the same universal rate within a frame and while earth may measure a ship going at .6c using earth clocks, the guy in the ship measures his v' speed at .75c using his own clock. The lines of perspective simultaneity (also called now slices and x'-axes), arising out of Einstein's clock sync method, are illusory  curiosities. They do not define a perspective present because the distance between points negates the very definition of a shared present.

Any questions or is anyone out there able to follow this?

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have found a mistake, my formula c'=Yc is incorrect. I'm going to derive the correct formula in the relativity and simple algebra thread as I don't want to mess this one up with too much boring math. Then I'll come back here, correct my previous posts and carry on. It looks like I've only mentioned this formula once and so I've already deleted that sentence.

You know what would really blow my mind? If there was someone out there following my math closely enough that they could derive the correct formula independently. I imagine that would be impossible which proves how difficult it is to follow someone else's math even if it's just simple algebra.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralf, I have not been following your math (much too busy with other matters), but with even a cursory reading of your thread I should have noticed if you wrote that c’=yc. Even in Ralfitivity I would hope and expect c to always be constant and not subject to any sort of transformation.

 

Incidentally, I am moving this to alternative theories because that is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did relativity and simple algebra last this long and this thread is being moved to alternate theories when it's the same stuff. As I said this is a math thread that happens to look like a physics thread.  Even c'=Yc does not violate relativity because Yc includes perspective velocity. No velocity surpasses c but v'=Yv does. v' is not the same as v because there is a Y factor. As I've said many times, take a look at Brehme who is a relativist. It's all legal what I said. So like all moderators who have demoted me because they just don't or can't understand what I'm writing, you're going to take me off an already crazy forum and put me in the even crazier rubber room forum? I can get that treatment anywhere else.

Just answer 1 simple arithmetic question. Alice leaves Bob at 4/5 c to reach proxima centauri 4 light years away. According to her on board clock, she gets there in 3 years. Her v'=Yv = x/t' =5/3 * 4/5 = 4/3 c even though using Bob's clock her v = x/t = 4/5. But let's say a light signal coincided with her blast off. She got there in 4/3c using her clock so did she beat the light signal there? No because in her 3 yrs of travel, light has travelled 4 light years in 2.4 of her years so light speed using her clock is c'= x/t' = 4/2.4c =5/3c =Yc. Light speed measured from her perspective still gets there faster than she did. But I will show this math is not correct and calculating when light gets there is more complex and even faster.

Here's the Md:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZkqgLbFhZEUFgCzaA

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralf, it is no demotion to have your thread moved to Alternative Theories. If your Ralfitivity is not an alternative to Relativity, then what else would you call it?

We put the really weird threads in Strange Claims and the weirdest in Silly Claims. You will find there are some very good threads in Alternative Theories. You should feel right at home. None of your thread is going to be erased; feel free to continue or not; it is entirely up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...