Jump to content
Science Forums

Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Don't say I didn't warn. 

You will not agree with what I am going to do.

 

Please find it in your heart to forgive me.

 

Your a real sore loser. I don't care what you do.  I suppose you are going to ban me, which is the action of someone that has something to hide.  Enjoy your delusions, I'm just playing with you anyway. Ill go play somewhere else now, annoy other Einstein fan boys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT.  or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is

Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.  

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

That's a pretty bold claim to make.

Care to back that up?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Lord Neil Degrassi Tyson the Great of Africa

I just explained one small aspect of the lorentz equation development, as mainstream Physicists present it, and where it has become mathematical nonsense.

If lorentz fails, then so to does Minkowski and everything Einsteins said on Special Relativity and General Relativity.

As I recall, you never explained how its possible to use x=ct and x' =ct' as they always do.

So this is not an extraordinary claim, its just rather basic algebra and geometry.

and furthermore, I'm not making a claim that Time warps, Einsteins is making that extraordinary claim.

I am critically reviewing his claim, looking for the necessary extraordinary evidence, instead I just keep finding weakness of logic, and simple math errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

I have tried to help you. Now I'm leaving it to this good forums community to "correct" you in your ways. From now on, your failures will reflect on their inability to show you basic horse and buggy maths

so as far as you are concerned, the algebra is OK, even when its wrong?

You never countered my observation about x=ct.  not once. This should have been easy for you, but you end up using movie clips which have zero to do with the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Because x=ct as a variable equality has to equal zero in order to find to find t. It tells you your time can't be this or that if your distance is this or that. Also, it tells you your x can't be this or that if your time is this or that.

 

weak try, but still wrong. Sorry.

x ONLY EVER = ct  in ONE special case. That is when the velocity "c" is light speed.  But the moving observers x is then replaced for ct, even though  this observer is NOT moving at "c". 

x=ct can never be used for either the stationary observer or the moving observer, OTHER than when the experiment has not started!  when t  and x and x' and t' are all zero.  But this proves nothing, as no experiment has been done at t=0, there is nothing to calculate.

So after the experiment has run, and t is a positive value, its now an error to swap moving guys x for ct, do you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Amazing. Every single letter you just jotted was somehow incorrect in every single sentence.

x does NOT have to be c and t can be less than one (sec) so less than c

The moving observer is not in the x he is about the ORIGIN (0,0), or maybe he's at 10e-137474 or at googolplex^graham's number, while there's another observer about the origin if you wanted to compare what they see.

 

Wow you are turning into a babbling fool now.

Please revisit the actual scenario of the thought experiment.

x is the distance from the starting point to when light got to in time t.

vt is where the moving guy got to in that same time t.

x' is the distance that the moving guy measured from where he was at the conclusion of the experiment, to where light ended up along the horizontal axis at the conclusion of the experiment.

So given the above conditions, and the choice of scale used for the time axis and the distance axis, then the ONLY thing that matches the equation x=ct, is LIGHT. 

x=ct NEVER is possible in any circumstances for Obs1 or Obs2, ever.  (apart from when the experiment has not started. t=0)

remember x and x' are the distances from each observer's location to where the "photon" got to, at the conclusion of the experiment, when the clock was stopped.

So, please show me how x can ever = ct for the moving observer. or for the stationary observer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If time t is greater than 1 this means your light cone will appear in quadrant 1

This is crap. Please answer my question directly. T can be any duration we want, 1, 23, or 245... the universe is still going to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If you put another observer in quad 1 you can only express his light cone thru MSTD via ct+n and x+n and there relative to your light cone, that light cone will look different which is the only way to express how time dilation appears to each observer

Don't shove anyone in any quadrant. The MSTD is based on algebra, that begins with standard Galilean transform equation, but with gamma added as a factor due to the CLAIM that the moving guys time and distance wont be the same as the stationary guy. 

However, Ive just shown that in the derivation of the equation that is supposed to justify this gamma factor claim, well, the logic is incorrect, and it leads to an obvious mistake in the algebra.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If the second observer is not further ahead in time than the first observer than ct=/=x+n!

Ill try a different way.

What is the rationale for claiming that we are working with two different measures of time?

Its a postulate right?, a guess.

The correct equation is x' = ct - vt. (where x=ct)

This gives the correct verifiable result every time.

There is no reason to have two different times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If you're the observer, and the observer moves forward in space, than he must move forward in time. HOWEVER, if there's another observer, he can't occupy the same space as you so he won't move up along the y axis, so x=/=ct for another observer's light cone.

I'm getting bored now.

The whole thing boils down to the postulate that c will always remain the same regardless of the velocity or even direction of the one doing the measuring.

That's the most hugely extraordinary claim ever made, but I can't see any reason or evidence to even hint that it could be possible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence right?

Well to kick off, its IRRATIONAL.  This means, that it is an idea that is outside the bounds of rational intelligent thought.

Exactly like the ramblings of an insane person will never make any sense to an rational person.

Certainly everything we observe in Nature indicates that this postulate of Einstein is irrational.

Without accepting this as a agreeable postulate, I can't carry on to accept any of the hypothesis that relies on such a stupid claim.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

This fact was proven using a thought experiment,

 the effect of time dilation was observed in the Hafele–Keating experiment

Thought experiments are not examples of "PROOF"  .

"TIME" dilation was not "observed" by H&K... They may have detected clocks getting out of sync, due to various physical effects, but clocks changing sync is NOT DEMONSTRATING that TIME has WARPED!

Clocks changing sync is a reasonable thing to imagine, but Time warping or shrinking is fantasy land talk.

Occam's Razor must apply here. Clock processes were messed with due to physical forces.

Later Analysis was done on the H&K data, as well as others repeating this experiment, and the data was inconclusive, unless you were a die hard fanatic.  (they wont consider any alternative explanations)

Additionally, the results were actually counter to Einstein's required conditions for Special Relativity. i.e, the requirement of Inertial Motion. There was never a split second of inertial motion for the entire experiment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Such as?

In fact, two "identical" atomic clocks, sitting side by side, in the same room, don't stay in sync for long.

Time is NOT clocks.  Clocks give comparative platform for observations of motion.  TIME however is a CONCEPT of the comparison of motions.  Therefore you cant shrink a concept.  And your concept of time still maintains its theoretical stability even when your clock stops working.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If that were the case than no two clocks would ever give you precisely the same time whereas in the later experiments (that maybe had discrepancies from the first expirement they still had the same virtual conclusion that Einstein did) they were using atomic clocks which are much more accurate measurements.

 

Yes, but there are explanations that account for changes in clock sync that do not require Time and space to warp just because someone saw someone else move. (this is Einstein's contention)

Clock sync errors have been explained with classical physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

An adjustment in the numbers still confirms an effect, so each experiment contributed to making SR's approximations more accurate.

EXCEPT that the SR theory does NOT cover non inertial motion, or any of the other forces that were experienced, but magically none of these forces seemed to be playing that day... right? they went to lunch while H7K played on the planes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

What do you think these physicists just sit around doing really basic **** that could be disproved by someone whose as bad at simple algebra as you have proven to be, WHO ARE INDIAN, get handed 8,000 dollars IN A PLACE LIKE SAINT LOUIIIS?!?!? where I'm from, of they don't know what they're doing!?

So you are going to try racism now?  You have tried everything else, except to reply rationally to my criticisms of the theory of SR.

99.99 % or all Physicists NEVER have anything to do with SR once they get their degree.

The other 0.01% LIE to keep their positions in Academic institutions. Its a RELIGION, not a science.

I don't dream up my objections to Einstein, I read what other Physicists and Mathematicians have to say about it.

I go with the most rational and logical arguments.  Then sometimes, like now I try to put things into my own words, sometimes not too well.  If you had this discussion with a physicists versed or even INTERESTED in this topic, you would find it much better presented.  Most shy away because to cast doubt on Einstein is to end your career. And they don't use any of it in their work anyway.

 

 

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...