Neddy, unfortunately I have to stop posting for the next few months but your ability to recognize words and post articles that also contain those words doesn't replace understanding what those words mean and how they apply to a specific reasonable discussion. The vertical mirror plates are initially separated by a unit distance in my Md yet I'm seeing that separation, perpendicular to the direction of motion, is subject to perspective once they start moving. No matter what the velocity, the Loedel perspective will always see a unit separation between the plates. In this particular example of .6c, Bob's stationary perspective will see length contraction between the moving plates by a factor of 1/Y and Alice's moving perspective of Bob's stationary clock will see his unit length separation between his plates actually expand by a factor of Y. Now since you can't do pertinent searches on the word "Loedel", you can't reasonably discuss this question as it's far too deep for your brainwashed, superficial parrot mind. I need someone who understands how perspective works, apply a half speed perspective to my example and explain why my result shows both length contraction and expansion seems to be happening to the separation of plates travelling perpendicular to the direction of motion. Janus could give me a specific answer to my specific question because his knobs go to eleven. Now I don't really need a Wiki article from you on how plates are made and have your parrot friends agree in unison on how that's indeed an answer to my question. See y'all in a few months.
Relativity and simple algebra II
- Thread starter ralfcis
- Start date
Don't worry there plenty of cranks ready and willing to step right up and fill the gap. Enjoy your time away, I know all the people here who like science will enjoy your absence.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Well, in special relativity (as opposed to ralfcis cranktativity) there is no length contraction/expansion perpendicular to the direction of motion. So once again I have no idea what you think you are doing, but I know it is not SR. Enjoy your time off!
Oops some free time opened up. Once again Ned can't understand what I just said because he has no ability to. I'm asking a question. Anyone familiar with perspective will either agree with my Md or point out where I went wrong. I don't see where Janus mentioned where the aberration of light fits in with the light clock angle and yet Master Bate hasn't defended his position with reason instead of ridicule. He just slinks away with no admission he was wrong. What makes this objectionable to me is dealing with people who have no integrity. Maybe the aberration of light or the relativity of reflectivity are connected to theta which would be nice to see mathematically but he can't show me how unless he finds a Wiki article on it. Another thing I find objectionable is how theologians, philosophers, and graduates of the mathless sciences like biology and earth sciences come on the physics forums with no abilities to understand the math involved and feel qualified that they have something important to say. Now don't panic, I'm going to write down some equations.
$$ c^2 = v^2 + v_t^2$$ where v_t = c/Y and the equation can be re-written as
$$ c^2 = Y^2c^2 - Y^2 v^2 $$
So the top equation which really defines where the angle theta comes from (hint: pythagoras), is the same as the bottom equation. In words, the top equation says everything goes at c but the faster you are observed to go through space, the slower you are observed to go through time. The equation for relativistic velocity combination also backs up this concept that even the combination of two velocities through space can't exceed c and also equal c if you throw in the corresponding velocities through time as I showed what that combined equation looks like early in this thread. This is how c is kept constant, not primarily the interaction of length contraction and time dilation which are just side-shows.
In words, the bottom equation uses the terms Yc and Yv which I've been using to explain how c is kept constant in the same primary way as the top equation. (This is why I left my previous forum because the moderator who knows some math disagreed with even the mention of c being written with a factor.) Perspective or length contraction or time dilation doesn't even come into play. It's the same interpretation as Brehme and Epstein came up with which no one understood. It's an emphasis of the importance of objective proper time and proper space over Einstein's emphasis on subjective perspective time and perspective space. I view Einstein's emphasis as philosophically inferior but I can't say that so long as length contraction can't be explained away in every instance by time dilation.
In post 409, it is all apparent to me but will never be seen by the rest of you. I can't even use the insight of that post because as I state quite often there, it is way outside of how SR explains things. Maybe when I come back it will explain away the problem I'm having with my Md and the perspective length I'm seeing between the plates. Please feel free to ignorantly chuckle amongst yourselves when you can't even understand what you're chuckling about. Embarrassing.
$$ c^2 = v^2 + v_t^2$$ where v_t = c/Y and the equation can be re-written as
$$ c^2 = Y^2c^2 - Y^2 v^2 $$
So the top equation which really defines where the angle theta comes from (hint: pythagoras), is the same as the bottom equation. In words, the top equation says everything goes at c but the faster you are observed to go through space, the slower you are observed to go through time. The equation for relativistic velocity combination also backs up this concept that even the combination of two velocities through space can't exceed c and also equal c if you throw in the corresponding velocities through time as I showed what that combined equation looks like early in this thread. This is how c is kept constant, not primarily the interaction of length contraction and time dilation which are just side-shows.
In words, the bottom equation uses the terms Yc and Yv which I've been using to explain how c is kept constant in the same primary way as the top equation. (This is why I left my previous forum because the moderator who knows some math disagreed with even the mention of c being written with a factor.) Perspective or length contraction or time dilation doesn't even come into play. It's the same interpretation as Brehme and Epstein came up with which no one understood. It's an emphasis of the importance of objective proper time and proper space over Einstein's emphasis on subjective perspective time and perspective space. I view Einstein's emphasis as philosophically inferior but I can't say that so long as length contraction can't be explained away in every instance by time dilation.
In post 409, it is all apparent to me but will never be seen by the rest of you. I can't even use the insight of that post because as I state quite often there, it is way outside of how SR explains things. Maybe when I come back it will explain away the problem I'm having with my Md and the perspective length I'm seeing between the plates. Please feel free to ignorantly chuckle amongst yourselves when you can't even understand what you're chuckling about. Embarrassing.
Last edited:
A complete lie made up by exchemist on another forum. He then quotes his own lie as if he heard it somewhere.
No delusion involved, I have no delusion SR is correct, I point out the problems I see with it and have found many answers on my own which I would like verified or disproved. Science is about not knowing, knowing is the delusion of minds who believe in the edicts of a higher authority. My math is totally exposed yet no one has the tiniest amount of math knowledge to challenge it. Is that somehow my fault? It's clear where the delusion lies.
I don't know what shirty means but I've seen no valid criticism of my math presentation and lacking the ability to give any valid criticisms, they turn to personal attacks which warrant "shirty" responses.
Here's something I wrote the first time I encountered Janus. I didn't know anything about him but knew right away he wasn't like you charlatans pretending he knew something about SR.
"Janus58, I'm going to butter you up before I get into this. I've only met 2.5 other people like you before, those with a clear (non-wiki) understanding of relativity. I don't think you're a hobbyist because it's difficult to maintain such a clear understanding without being a professional or a teacher in it."
I would never say something like this about the rest of you which is probably a pretty shirty thing to say.
Would your totally exposed maths appear on any these list perchance or some other lists?
List of abstract algebra topics
List of algebraic structures
List of Boolean algebra topics
List of category theory topics
List of commutative algebra topics
List of homological algebra topics
List of group theory topics
List of representation theory topics
List of linear algebra topics
List of reciprocity laws
Last edited:
Don't know what you're saying, donot English you know either?
Oh you left out the word "appear". Are those lists the results of you googling totally exposed maths? Trying to sound informed again? No the totally exposed math is simple algebra. It's right in the title of this thread. You may not have taken it as you're always asking for explanations only geared to a five year old's level of education.
Keep trying guys. Maybe one day, with practice, you'll score a point but not today. g'nite.
Keep trying guys. Maybe one day, with practice, you'll score a point but not today. g'nite.
Last edited:
Thanks for the letting me know in time to correct my mistake
And no-one on a maths forum understands?
Also true about the amount of physics on a physics forum they understand. But why would you expect different from a bunch of SR philosophers? Maybe, one day, dicklicious dwyyydr duck will let me back on his forum if I keep asking real nice.
Last edited:
There are two easy ways to "remove" length contraction from special relativity. One is just to mess up the maths so you're not actually doing SR. The other is to just pick a frame and divide the Lorentz transforms out of this frame by gamma and multiply the inverse transforms by gamma (that does also lead to "length contraction" perpendicular to the velocity direction). I think ralfcis is also requiring everybody to use his chosen frame's natural simultaneity rule, but I'm not completely certain. I can't be bothered to wade through all this confused mess to find out exactly what he did.
Obviously option one is wrong, and wrong is wrong. On the other hand, option two isn't wrong if it's been done correctly, although given ralfcis' hilarious failure to follow Greene's derivation of the light clock I'd tend to doubt he did it correctly. And it doesn't actually remove length contraction parallel to velocity or actually create length contraction perpendicular to velocity. It just disconnects the coordinates used in all frames (except the arbitrarily chosen half-speed frame) from what clocks and rulers at rest in those frames actually measure, so Alice and Bob need rulers and clocks and pre-computed velocity, position, and orientation specific lookup tables to determine the "easy" coordinates they "should be" using. The whole point of the Lorentz transforms is that they, uniquely, don't do this, so everyone can use their clocks and rulers for their own measurements without worrying about where they are and which way they're facing.
So this makes the maths easier as long as you are only ever interested in two inertial observers who never do anything. As soon as you want anything more complex there is a steep increase in the complexity of the maths Alice and Bob need in order to relate their measurements to the "simple" maths, because they aren't allowed to work with an orthonormal basis and the modified Lorentz transforms aren't transitive. Since most physicists are interested in using relativity in arbitrary circumstances rather than just one specific scenario, this method isn't likely to gain much traction.
Obviously option one is wrong, and wrong is wrong. On the other hand, option two isn't wrong if it's been done correctly, although given ralfcis' hilarious failure to follow Greene's derivation of the light clock I'd tend to doubt he did it correctly. And it doesn't actually remove length contraction parallel to velocity or actually create length contraction perpendicular to velocity. It just disconnects the coordinates used in all frames (except the arbitrarily chosen half-speed frame) from what clocks and rulers at rest in those frames actually measure, so Alice and Bob need rulers and clocks and pre-computed velocity, position, and orientation specific lookup tables to determine the "easy" coordinates they "should be" using. The whole point of the Lorentz transforms is that they, uniquely, don't do this, so everyone can use their clocks and rulers for their own measurements without worrying about where they are and which way they're facing.
So this makes the maths easier as long as you are only ever interested in two inertial observers who never do anything. As soon as you want anything more complex there is a steep increase in the complexity of the maths Alice and Bob need in order to relate their measurements to the "simple" maths, because they aren't allowed to work with an orthonormal basis and the modified Lorentz transforms aren't transitive. Since most physicists are interested in using relativity in arbitrary circumstances rather than just one specific scenario, this method isn't likely to gain much traction.
Yes, I see I'm doing all that but where did I fail to follow Greene's derivation? What statements or math are wrong?
P.S. I'm re-reading your post for a 2nd time and your comments are bang on. So you just joined today? I can tell you have something to teach me.
P.S. I'm re-reading your post for a 2nd time and your comments are bang on. So you just joined today? I can tell you have something to teach me.
Last edited:
So you see that Alice and Bob need metric tensors and general coordinate transforms and most of the machinery of general relativity just to measure up their bedrooms for a carpet? And knowing all that you still called this "simple algebra"? Pull the other one.
Saying that Greene said that $$D=c$$ (in #462) was probably where it started to go wrong. All he says is that $$L/D=\sin\theta$$ and $$v/c=\cos\theta$$. His diagram isn't particularly clearly labelled, but I think he assumes that his audience will recognise a vector component when they see one.
Who are the other 2.5 people apart from Janus you think have a clear understanding of relativity? I use different names on different forums and this is not the first time we've "spoken", so I suspect you've already written me off...
No of course I don't see any of that. I see i stepped outside of relativity when I began to use some sort of scalar conversion of time and space coordinates without considering perspective in post 409.
Okay obviously you did not look at the video. He absolutely did say that.
If your name is WillO then yes I have written you off. The .5 is Jorry or Burt Jordan my mentor on the Science Philosophy Chat Forum. He knows his stuff but was unwilling to answer my questions at my initial stages of interest so he gets a .5 for all his work with me. KJW was the other on dicklicious's forum. Dale on the PSX. I have no access to them on the Physics Forums because i was banned forever for not knowing much in those days.
Then when you said "Yes, I see I'm doing all that" in #494 you were... what? Mistaken? Completely failing to understand exactly how much mathematical complexity you're brushing under the carpet? Assuming you aren't just wrong, of course.
Greene's popularisations frequently miss the mark in my opinion, but he is a competent physicist. Equating a distance and a speed is idiotic. When you find yourself thinking that a competent professional in any field has done something in that field that is so stupid even a child should know better (find one and ask: is six feet the same as thirty miles per hour), you need to check your thinking. Greene drew the distance triangle with hypotenuse $$D$$ and vertical $$L$$ and then used that it is a similar triangle to the velocity triangle with hypotenuse $$c$$ and horizontal $$v$$ to avoid drawing a second triangle on his diagram. I guess he did that because the user interface on the drawing program he's got looks painfully clunky. He was a bit lazy, and that's why I said his diagram wasn't clearly labelled. But he's clearly not equating a length and a speed because he's not an idiot.
None of the above, so alas....
Anyway, I think I've said my piece here. The best possible interpretation of what you are doing is storing up complications for anything except your simple narrow scenario. The more likely interpretation is that you're either flat out wrong or else blundering around combining bits of maths without understanding the reasons why physicists do what they do.
I clearly said it was weird. I'm looking for guidance as I'm trying to make sense out of what I see as contradictory statements. I need to iron out all the wrinkles I see with this simple scenario. Other people just don't see any wrinkles.
My scenario contains of a lot of unanswered questions and it's my best guess on what the answers are. Asking the questions themselves has led me nowhere.
But he did say it. Maybe he assumes we're the idiots and he can draw lights following a triangular pattern because that's what lights do when we're running with sparklers. SR is popularized and dumbed down and I want to understand the reasons why physicists do what they do, not the dumbed down version as is gospel here. This is what physics forums are supposed to be, not some cockfight between parrots reciting what they've read. Sure I could go read a book but I can't ask a book questions.
So your question was a rhetorical game of guess what number am I thinking. You asked me who were the other 2.5. Your vibe didn't match theirs because they were kind and helpful nor did it match the morons I've sparred with at length so we must have had a brief contact and you lost patience quickly and bowed out. How am I supposed to remember you from that? People must view this thread as a soap opera.
Last edited: