Relativity and simple algebra II

ralfcis,

As usual, I can't make much sense of what you've written. You claim SR is different than relativity, you still have problems with length contraction, it's a mess as usual.

But if you will indulge me, I can give you some constructive ideas that you can think about in your spare time. All of this will take place in an inertial frame of reference, (that means a non-accelerating reference frame, with no gravity -- I'm sure you know that, but you never seem to mention it, so I am trying to be very clear).

Now, you know that the speed of light is constant in that reference frame. So if you were to send a very short pulse of light from one mirror to another mirror a known distance away (both stationary with respect to our inertial reference frame), you would know how much time would be required for the light to travel that distance, and how much time would be required for the light to reflect back to where it came from.

That could be considered to be one complete cycle of a clock, let's call this a "light-clock" since it uses light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors to count a repeating time interval. For simplicity, let the light clock be in a vertical orientation, so that if we consider another reference frame that is moving horizontally with respect to the first reference frame, we will not have to consider length contraction of the distance between the mirrors. Makes sense so far?

Okay, so let's do exactly that and consider another reference frame that is moving horizontally with respect to the first reference frame. The speed of light is also constant in this second reference frame, but in this new frame the light clock is moving horizontally at constant speed, so as the light inside it travels up and down between the mirrors, it also has to take a diagonal path that is longer than the light path was in the other frame where it only moved straight up and straight down.

Here are some crude diagrams made using text: In the first reference frame we have light following this type of path || over and over (because the light-clock is stationary), and in the second reference frame we have that same light in that same light clock following this type of path /\/\/\/\/\/\ (because the light-clock is moving horizontally. You should be able to use the Pythagorean Theorem to determine exactly how much slower the rate of the light clock is in the second reference frame, compared to the first. That is time dilation.

Now, earlier in the thread you were claiming that time dilation can be explained by different start and stop times, or some such nonsense that never made any sense. Do you now understand that time dilation is a direct result of the constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames, as shown by the above light-clock exercise? And if so, why did it take you this long to even understand what time dilation is? Is it because you "learned" SR from Brian Green videos and he never mentioned light clocks?

If you had wanted us to believe that you have a good understanding of SR, then you should have covered these simple basics long ago. Now do you see why you should probably be studying SR, instead of trying to teach it "your own way"?
 
You mean like this?


I've mentioned all these basics every time I post the link to Brian Greene's course. You don't even need to look at all the videos, just scan your eyes across the pretty pictures that appear with each module title. Then there's no mystery about what I basically know and don't know. So quit speculating and do a minimal amount of work. Neddy, I'm going to have to let you and the rest of the people here go. Since none of you are interested in discussing a different point of view or enhancing your own understanding of SR, I'm not going to engage in pointless, time-wasting dialog or answering questions you have no interest in reading the answers. I have work to do.
 
ralfcis said:
You mean like this?


I've mentioned all these basics every time I post the link to Brian Greene's course. You don't even need to look at all the videos, just scan your eyes across the pretty pictures that appear with each module title. Then there's no mystery about what I basically know and don't know. So quit speculating and do a minimal amount of work. Neddy, I'm going to have to let you and the rest of the people here go. Since none of you are interested in discussing a different point of view or enhancing your own understanding of SR, I'm not going to engage in pointless, time-wasting dialog or answering questions you have no interest in reading the answers. I have work to do.
Click to expand...

ralfcis

I encourage you to keep at it .
 
ralfcis said:
You mean like this?


I've mentioned all these basics every time I post the link to Brian Greene's course. You don't even need to look at all the videos, just scan your eyes across the pretty pictures that appear with each module title. Then there's no mystery about what I basically know and don't know. So quit speculating and do a minimal amount of work. Neddy, I'm going to have to let you and the rest of the people here go. Since none of you are interested in discussing a different point of view or enhancing your own understanding of SR, I'm not going to engage in pointless, time-wasting dialog or answering questions you have no interest in reading the answers. I have work to do.
Click to expand...

And the forum disappoints another brilliant potential Nobel Prize Winner

Oh when will this madness end?

:)
 
ralfcis said:
You mean like this?


I've mentioned all these basics every time I post the link to Brian Greene's course. You don't even need to look at all the videos, just scan your eyes across the pretty pictures that appear with each module title. Then there's no mystery about what I basically know and don't know. So quit speculating and do a minimal amount of work. Neddy, I'm going to have to let you and the rest of the people here go. Since none of you are interested in discussing a different point of view or enhancing your own understanding of SR, I'm not going to engage in pointless, time-wasting dialog or answering questions you have no interest in reading the answers. I have work to do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I made that point because earlier in the thread you had claimed that the twins' clocks both tick at the same rate in all reference frames, (you probably didn't say reference frames, probably perspectives or something), and you tried unsuccessfully to explain that the reason they disagree at the end is because they didn't start and/or finish at the same time. From an SR point of view, that is completely wrong, as it flies in the face of everything that is being shown in the video which you just linked to. Now, how are we supposed to know if you think that it is SR or "your theory" that has everything wrong like that? I was just trying to show that your bizarre and unexplained claims inevitably derail any hope of us ever understanding each other.

I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of what ever it is you are trying to do, (I can't figure out what that is unfortunately).
 
Neddy Bate said:
earlier in the thread you had claimed that the twins' clocks both tick at the same rate in all reference frames, (you probably didn't say reference frames, probably perspectives or something), and you tried unsuccessfully to explain that the reason they disagree at the end is because they didn't start and/or finish at the same time.
Click to expand...
So you can read, the first part is exactly what I said and the 2nd part is almost except you left out the most important part "from each perspective". The principle of relativity on which SR is based is that physics is the same in every inertial frame. (I extend that to any frame not just the inertial ones.) This means all clocks tick at the same rate in every inertial frame. Something happens between the frames and it's actually a bunch of things (explained at length) but it's impossible that time ticks at the same rate in both but each sees time actually slow reciprocally. That's an illusion of perspective but the reality is time does seem to slow non-reciprocally in the twin paradox scenario. Now one is in a non-inertial frame so SR implies the age difference is permanent because time is allowed to tick differently in each frame because the principle of relativity no longer applies. Funny thing is there is absolutely no proof of that time is slowing in the returning frame because there is nothing to measure that against. A clock comparison can only be made after the fact at re-unification. Of course you will redact all of these words because they will make no sense to you.

Neddy Bate said:
From an SR point of view, that is completely wrong, as it flies in the face of everything that is being shown in the video which you just linked to.
Click to expand...
Again you confuse the theory of SR with the physical facts of relativity (not the principle of relativity I mentioned earlier). SR is an interpretation of how relativity works. You can't understand my explanation of how the relativity of simultaneity explains why one clock looks slower than the other. Yes I totally disagree with SR's explanation which gives the same results as my explanation. You've just completely redacted any of my arguments especially the one where relativity of simultaneity must equally apply to explaining length contraction as it does time dilation. There is no actual slowing of time as there is no actual contraction of space. But your brain can't even register any of these sentences. It's like in WestWorld, anything the androids can't process, they dismiss its existence.

Neddy Bate said:
your bizarre and unexplained claims inevitably derail any hope of us ever understanding each other.
Click to expand...
If you admit you can't fathom what I'm writing, how can you possibly conclude that it must be wrong. You lack the math skills to join my words to my math so of course it's unfathomable to you. This is why I provide the math so anyone with math skills would be able to prove me wrong. Philosophical differences are not facts, they are just opinions and are proof of nothing no matter how many people back them for how many decades. Definitely a small part of my math I'm not sure of but there's no one here with the skills to enlighten me just as there's no one here who can produce an Md explaining the differences in circular motion between the centrifuge and HKX. This is why Queerius ran away.
 
Last edited:
Neddy's brain is going what's wrong with this guy Ralf. He can see Greene's video yet must be unable to understand it. It's incontrovertible proof that time dilation is time itself slowing and not whatever he says it is. Now he's going to show me some Md that I have no clue how to read with a bunch of text that has no meaning and expect me to abandon 116 yrs of our great prophet's teachings.

Thank you Neddy. You're the first person to almost confess you think you know math but can't actually apply it to relativity and you have no idea how to read or draw an Md or understand text that describes it. In fact the only person on any forum who has ever drawn an Md is Phyti or Sluggo or whatever name he goes by here. Truthfully I can't read his Md's because they have a bunch of arcs and lines I don't know what they mean because he doesn't describe them verbally. I think he just copies and pastes them from a book but I don't really know.

I'm going to tell you Greene's derivation of time dilation is a fraud presented as a miracle. In fact it breaks several basic rules of SR and if you could have understood my last few posts on how to measure a light line in SR, you'd be able to see for yourself which rules he broke. I can waste time telling you which ones but you'd only mentally redact that because you don't have the math tools to understand.

I am looking for some champion on this forum of "experts" to go into the arena with me. All they have to do is find a flaw in my recent light line measurements from perspectives posts. I want them to commit to saying they found no flaws because I don't want them to back track when I use them to reveal the lies in Greene's presentation of the mathematics of slowing time. Yes this is a trap and I've never met anyone with any guts or true conviction in their beliefs to step into this trap. It's because maybe deep down they know their knowledge borders on superstition or that somehow I'll confuse them with my own mathemagic. Once I defeat them I expect this thread will go back under the physics forum as it's far more about physics than the butterflies are angels stuff that appears there currently.

James R, Qreeus, Origin, even Janus58, any takers? I know exchemist won't take me on directly, he just hides and snipes from the background pretending he knows something but he's already admitted to me he's no expert in relativity. Ooops I forgot to include Micheal 345. No I didn't.
 
Last edited:
ralfcis said:
Neddy's brain is going what's wrong with this guy Ralf. He can see Greene's video yet must be unable to understand it. It's incontrovertible proof that time dilation is time itself slowing and not whatever he says it is. Now he's going to show me some Md that I have no clue how to read with a bunch of text that has no meaning and expect me to abandon 116 yrs of our great prophet's teachings.

Thank you Neddy. You're the first person to almost confess you think you know math but can't actually apply it to relativity and you have no idea how to read or draw an Md or understand text that describes it. In fact the only person on any forum who has ever drawn an Md is Phyti or Sluggo or whatever name he goes by here. Truthfully I can't read his Md's because they have a bunch of arcs and lines I don't know what they mean because he doesn't describe them verbally. I think he just copies and pastes them from a book but I don't really know.

I'm going to tell you Greene's derivation of time dilation is a fraud presented as a miracle. In fact it breaks several basic rules of SR and if you could have understood my last few posts on how to measure a light line in SR, you'd be able to see for yourself which rules he broke. I can waste time telling you which ones but you'd only mentally redact that because you don't have the math tools to understand.

I am looking for some champion on this forum of "experts" to go into the arena with me. All they have to do is find a flaw in my recent light line measurements from perspectives posts. I want them to commit to saying they found no flaws because I don't want them to back track when I use them to reveal the lies in Greene's presentation of the mathematics of slowing time. Yes this is a trap and I've never met anyone with any guts or true conviction in their beliefs to step into this trap. It's because maybe deep down they know their knowledge borders on superstition or that somehow I'll confuse them with my own mathemagic. Once I defeat them I expect this thread will go back under the physics forum as it's far more about physics than the butterflies are angels stuff that appears there currently.

James R, Qreeus, Origin, even Janus58, any takers? I know exchemist won't take me on directly, he just hides and snipes from the background pretending he knows something but he's already admitted to me he's no expert in relativity.
Click to expand...
Correct. But Ralf, you never learn and you never change, so there would be no point, even if I were a relativity expert like some of the others.

How many years have you been doing this, now? How many science forums ave you been thrown out of? Why do you think Janus doesn't respond to your posts any more?

There's a pattern to it, you see.
 
exchemist said:
How many years have you been doing this, now?
Click to expand...

My first post was in 2006 and I quickly made enemies. What's sad is how many years it took me to realize I've almost never been on any science forums.

exchemist said:
Why do you think Janus doesn't respond to your posts any more?
Click to expand...

I don't know do you? I thought we got along very well on the angled takeoff question.

exchemist said:
you never learn and you never change
Click to expand...
My theory certainly changes and I discover new things with each post. What doesn't change is the writ responses I get with quoted Wiki articles. What doesn't change is the menagerie of types of word/math salad cranks and liars that inhabit science philosophy forums. What doesn't change are the biologist and earth science moderators pretending to be physicists who I manage to offend. Nobody likes a wiseguy. What doesn't change is my use of Md's and math that goes unchallenged from forum to forum. As Jerry MacGuire said, "Show me the Md" which means put up or shut up. I'm no great intellect but being on science philosophy forums really makes me feel like one.
 
Last edited:
ralfcis said:
...you think you know math but can't actually apply it to relativity and you have no idea how to read or draw an Md or understand text that describes it.
Click to expand...

Below is an MD I made for a light clock permanently located at x=0.0 in the unprimed frame (t, x, y, z). The mirrors are permanently located at y=0.0 and y=0.5 in the unprimed frame, so it takes one unit of time for the light to complete one full cycle (up and down) in the unprimed frame:

2rUp7q0.png


I used v=0.866c so that gamma = γ = (1 / √(1 - (v²/c²))) = 2.0. So, of course that light clock clock would tick at half the rate in the primed frame (x', y', z', t') as per the Lorentz transformations:

t' = γ(t - (vx / c²))
γ = 2.0
t = 0.5
v = 0.866
x = 0.0
c = 1
t' = 2.0(0.5 - (0.866*0 / 1²)) = 1.000
x' = γ(x - vt)
γ = 2.0
x = 0.0
v = 0.866
t = 0.5
x' = 2.0(0.0 - (0.866*0.5)) = -0.866
So (t, x) = (0.5, 0.0) transforms to (t', x') = (1.000, -0.866) which is exactly what is shown on the MD above.

t' = γ(t - (vx / c²))
γ = 2.0
t = 1.0
v = 0.866
x = 0.0
c = 1
t' = 2.0(1.0 - (0.866*0 / 1²)) = 2.000
x' = γ(x - vt)
γ = 2.0
x = 0.0
v = 0.866
t = 1.0
x' = 2.0(0.0 - (0.866*1.0)) = -1.732
So (t, x) = (1.0, 0.0) transforms to (t', x') = (2.000, -1.732) which is exactly what is shown on the MD above.


ralfcis said:
I'm going to tell you Greene's derivation of time dilation is a fraud presented as a miracle. In fact it breaks several basic rules of SR and if you could have understood my last few posts on how to measure a light line in SR, you'd be able to see for yourself which rules he broke. I can waste time telling you which ones but you'd only mentally redact that because you don't have the math tools to understand.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, so you think a simple light clock breaks several rules of SR, but you are the only one smart enough to see it in over 100 years of people studying it. In other words, you are an anti-relativist crank, as we all suspected. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Last edited:
Fap, fap, that's the sound of 1 hand clapping for you Master Bates, Master of the Md. I seriously underestimated your abilities. Here's what I drew up using a light clock travelling at .6c.

6c11bc.jpg

Don't know how you suppose I'm a crank if I came up with a better Md, with top and bottom travelling plates, and you haven't even heard my explanation of why Greene's video on the light clock is a fraud.

1. What relativistic phenomenon causes the light to bounce off the top and bottom plates at an angle? Greene suggests it must be so due to the principle of relativity, that if the photon is hitting the plates in the stationary reference frame, it must also hit them in every other frame. Since the mirrors are moving from the stationary perspective, the light has to leave one plate at an angle to meet up with the other one. Sure but how does this principle enact this physically? Greene suggests the photon acts like a ping pong ball when he knows that the speed of light can't be altered by the speed of the source like a ping pong ball being hit sideways by a racket. I've seen other explanations that length contraction affects the angles of the flat mirrors. There is no physical angle, it's all due to relativity of simultaneity. The position and time the photon hits the plates differs from each perspective. The speed of c remaining constant is dependent on length contraction and time dilation working together. He never mentions any length contraction in his derivation and he proves time dilation by assuming time dilation.

It's obvious from the Md that the speed of c is always depicted as a 45 degree angle (nothing to do with Greene's theta) but the distance and time the light travels differs between perspectives. I tried to show in my previous Md of Alice's perspective that the pink light returning to Bob is under the control of Alice's rhombic coordinate system not Bob's Cartesian coordinates. This is opposite to how light self propagates independent of the source because it's a wave, not a ping pong ball. On top of that, the resulting Alice units must be converted to Bob's units by factoring in Y. Let's see where the Md does this.

In the lower left corner, 0 on the upper plate of the moving depiction is co-located to the moving upper plate and sync'd by the red line of simultaneity (also known as the x' axis) to establish the lower plate's 0 time. The green light leaves the upper plate and in one stationary time and distance unit, hits the lower plate. It also simultaneously from the moving lower plate's perspective hits at t'=1.25 which is converted by Y to be 1 distance/time unit from the stationary perspective. The stationary perspective's green and yellow light segments are the same unit length in the stationary perspective but not so in the moving clock from the stationary perspective. This is just an illusion as they look the same duration within the moving perspective. There is no time slowing, there is no symmetrical angle like Greene depicted.

2. Length contraction only occurs in the direction of motion so the light going up would have no length contraction like the light tube in the MMX going perpendicular to the motion of the Earth. In fact the light clock is exactly the Michelson Morely Experiment MMX in disguise. Greene assigns a cos theta factor to c in the horizontal direction but just assigns L to the vertical direction. The Md un-muddles all this because there is no real angle, it's all relativity of simultaneity. A horizontal component to c would have had a length contraction Y function assigned. But how do you derive Y without knowing Y already exists, you make up fake math with a fake angle (or you just show the true Minkowski diagram of what's happening).

3. If you want to derive Y, you derive it from the main formula of relativity:
$$(ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 $$
and avoid all the hocus pocus of a staged derivation that doesn't give any insight of how length contraction and time dilation work together in SR to keep c constant while the time and distance units from each perspective don't match.

Of course Master Bates, you have no idea of what I'm talking about.
 
ralfcis said:
1. What relativistic phenomenon causes the light to bounce off the top and bottom plates at an angle? Greene suggests it must be so due to the principle of relativity, that if the photon is hitting the plates in the stationary reference frame, it must also hit them in every other frame. Since the mirrors are moving from the stationary perspective, the light has to leave one plate at an angle to meet up with the other one. Sure but how does this principle enact this physically?
Click to expand...

Hilarious. This is a sticking point for you? Aberration of light was discovered and understood before SR. "Bradley eventually developed his explanation of aberration in about September 1728 and this theory was presented to the Royal Society in mid January the following year. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

Maybe I will read more of your comedic post when I stop laughing.





It's obvious from the Md that the speed of c is always depicted as a 45 degree angle (nothing to do with Greene's theta) but the distance and time the light travels differs between perspectives. I tried to show in my previous Md of Alice's perspective that the pink light returning to Bob is under the control of Alice's rhombic coordinate system not Bob's Cartesian coordinates. This is opposite to how light self propagates independent of the source because it's a wave, not a ping pong ball. On top of that, the resulting Alice units must be converted to Bob's units by factoring in Y. Let's see where the Md does this.

In the lower left corner, 0 on the upper plate of the moving depiction is co-located to the moving upper plate and sync'd by the red line of simultaneity (also known as the x' axis) to establish the lower plate's 0 time. The green light leaves the upper plate and in one stationary time and distance unit, hits the lower plate. It also simultaneously from the moving lower plate's perspective hits at t'=1.25 which is converted by Y to be 1 distance/time unit from the stationary perspective. The stationary perspective's green and yellow light segments are the same unit length in the stationary perspective but not so in the moving clock from the stationary perspective. This is just an illusion as they look the same duration within the moving perspective. There is no time slowing, there is no symmetrical angle like Greene depicted.

2. Length contraction only occurs in the direction of motion so the light going up would have no length contraction like the light tube in the MMX going perpendicular to the motion of the Earth. In fact the light clock is exactly the Michelson Morely Experiment MMX in disguise. Greene assigns a cos theta factor to c in the horizontal direction but just assigns L to the vertical direction. The Md un-muddles all this because there is no real angle, it's all relativity of simultaneity. A horizontal component to c would have had a length contraction Y function assigned. But how do you derive Y without knowing Y already exists, you make up fake math with a fake angle (or you just show the true Minkowski diagram of what's happening).

3. If you want to derive Y, you derive it from the main formula of relativity:
$$(ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 $$
and avoid all the hocus pocus of a staged derivation that doesn't give any insight of how length contraction and time dilation work together in SR to keep c constant while the time and distance units from each perspective don't match.

Of course Master Bates, you have no idea of what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
 
Wrong. It's 100% and it's all forums, not just this one. Where do you see an angle theta in the Md? You don't even know enough to ask that question yet you're sure Greene's explanation makes perfect sense to you because it's an answer experts have known to be correct for 116 years. Greene is trying to say the derivation is only dependent on c being constant yet I know D and L are dependent on perspective and he doesn't say whose. The Md is heavily dependent on D and L's perspective to create theta. So where is it in the Md?
 
Neddy Bate said:
Aberration of light was discovered and understood before SR
Click to expand...
Hmm I must have missed where he ever mentioned that in his course. So you think it's a failure on my part asking where theta came from since it's critical to his derivation. Maybe you can show me where it is in the Md.
 
ralfcis said:
Hmm I must have missed where he ever mentioned that in his course. So you think it's a failure on my part asking where theta came from since it's critical to his derivation. Maybe you can show me where it is in the Md.
Click to expand...

Theta came from the geometry. This /\/\/\ has different measurements than this ||

Really?
 
I hope you realize this fraud goes much deeper than I had initially imagined. I don't even think my Md is correct and must rethink it from the perspective of received light rather than using lines of simultaneity. I've figured out why the Md looks nothing like Greene's derivation, he is not using time, he is only using distance and possibly presenting the math for deriving the aberration of light as a proof for time dilation. I don't yet know, I have to familiarize myself with the math proof for the aberration of light which I really wasn't aware of. He draws a nice symmetrical sawtooth for the observed light path and there is no observed symmetry of that path in my Md which is probably incorrect anyway. Of course you can't understand any of what I just said because you are what passes for academic intellect. You probably sought good marks in school being able to recite whatever you were told to recite without question. This is the type of intellect schools produce. I thought you were just being wilfully dishonest to protect your pride but you are not responsible for the brainwashing you've received. This explains to me why no one who learned SR in school can process or even see what I write. Anyway I have to go much deeper to expose what Greene is actually presenting in his video. Much of SR exists as circular arguments where the results are stated as hypotheses which proves the hypotheses were correct. Greene must sneak in Y hidden as an assumed aberration of light angle, that no one questions, to derive Y. I hope I can work this out on my own because lord knows there's no one here with a Wiki article where this fraud has already been exposed. I say fraud because he's presenting something as something else without telling you what he's really presenting. Too early to tell for sure. Sorry I got your name wrong, I see it's Bate not Bates.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top