# Relativity and simple algebra II

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by ralfcis, Feb 6, 2021.

1. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,411
SR has no problem with you choosing a "3rd party perspective" assuming that means a "third inertial reference frame that is neither Bob's nor Alice's". But if you want to claim a universal currency on space and time, you are going to have to standardize on using the same "third inertial reference frame that is neither Bob's nor Alice's" for every scenario. If not, you are just trying to indirectly peddle the concept of a "preferred" inertial reference frame, but without actually choosing one that applies to all possible scenarios. If I am wrong, please tell me earth's current velocity relative to your preferred third inertial reference frame that is neither Bob's nor Alice's. Thank you.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,947
If you can't manage the above can you present your ideas more like this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to hide all adverts.
5. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
The third frame is always half the relative velocity of Alice and Bob's relative velocity. Hence at .6c, half the relative velocity is 1/3c so Earth and Bob are moving at -1/3c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +1/3c. If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was .8c, half the relative velocity is 1/2c so Earth and Bob are moving at -1/2c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +1/2c. I can go on and on with other examples that prove this is not absolute motion but relative velocity. Here are some more examples:

If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was 511/513c, half the relative velocity is 31/33c so Earth and Bob are moving at -31/33c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +31/33c.
If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was 3280/3281c, half the relative velocity is 40/41c so Earth and Bob are moving at -40/41c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +40/41c.
If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was 40/41c, half the relative velocity is 4/5c so Earth and Bob are moving at -4/5c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +4/5c.
If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was 15/17c, half the relative velocity is 3/5c so Earth and Bob are moving at -3/5c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +3/5c.
If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was 1/3c, half the relative velocity is 1/(3+2sqrt2)c so Earth and Bob are moving at -1/(3+2sqrt2)c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +1/(3+2sqrt2)c.
If the relative velocity between Bob and Alice was .5c, half the relative velocity is 1/(2+sqrt3)c so Earth and Bob are moving at -1/(2+sqrt3)c relative to this third party and Alice is moving at +1/(2+sqrt3)c.

Need I go on? Can you see the Loedel half velocity is a relative velocity? Can you see how it applies to all possible scenarios?

Last edited: Apr 18, 2021

to hide all adverts.
7. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Yes I understand 5 yr olds can't read but enjoy looking at colorful pictures. This is one reason I provide colorful pictures with my explanations. This is the story of the yellow light line. One day it met a pink light line and didn't understand why it looked shorter than him. So he put on some magic green glasses and saw they were actually the same height. The end.

8. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,947
You cannot be comparing your line drawings with a professional video with a audio explnation

Produce your ideas to THAT standard you will get more interest

It appears that point I was making went like this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

File size:
60.8 KB
Views:
1
9. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
I don't think you understand sarcasm. I also don't want interest except from those who can understand Md's or who can muster a specific question. I bemoan the lack of those people, not the lack of interest. In fact whatever forum I've been on, the interest is always the highest judging by the concentration of views I get. People are dying to understand relativity. Why would it be consistently controversial if all the power of the greatest minds with all the videos at their command don't provide that understanding. They can't even answer the simplest question. I know I've been trying for years but the answers just don't exist. Where's my answer to my circular motion question? Rarely do I get an answer and it usually takes years of endless repetition to get it and the answer never comes from Wiki. Just look at my history on the Physics Stack Exchange. The same question over and over in different forms and I'm mostly ignored, ridiculed and banned for asking it. Finally Benrg partly answered it but no one is supporting that answer. I'm still banned for asking it. Why was I banned from DyWyddyr's forum? Because I complained about his troll buddies continually trolling me over my conversation with KJW. This is the way science philosophy forums are run and I have to get past the philosophers and moderators to get to the people who actually know something.

Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
10. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,947
I don't think you understand

By jove I think they are on to something

Never mind you will get a sympathetic hearing here. Your among friends. Can't you hear the music

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Has it ever occurred to your brilliant self the common denominator in all your rejections in forums is YOU?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Try and make the connection please

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
To be 5 and already need remedial reading courses. Read it again. No one is supporting Benrg's answer. Also I'm not a common denominator if I can communicate with some intelligent people on forums. If it was no one, then there might be a connection. No one can see you as the sharpest tack in the box if you're always thinking outside the box.

Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
12. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,697
In general I skip over your posts, I just read the rebuttals from our resident experts. That is my normal MO for cranks.

13. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Uh huh, that's interesting, I'm glad you chimed in.

14. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,411
In that case, I don't think you have turned anything into a "currency exchange booth" for "universal proper time and proper space" as you had claimed. I think you are simply choosing a third frame which happens to be the one that Loedel diagrams need, and so it works for your purposes. But Alice's and Bob's own frames are just as valid as the third one you are choosing.

For example, why not let the stay-home twin use their own frame? They have never even accelerated, so they can do all of the calculations of the other twin's age quite easily. But you want to force them to use some other frame, making their calculations more complicated, just because the traveling twin would already have more complicated calculations.

As an analogy, imagine two field workers are each assigned a section of a field in which to labor. One section happens to be in the sun, and the other section happens to be in the shadow of a tree. So one worker is sweating and getting sunburned, but the other worker is more comfortable in the shade. In order to make things equal for both workers, your solution is to cut the tree down so that they both have to sweat equally in the sun. Not a great achievement, if you ask me!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

15. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Neddy do you want to work with me to understand what I'm saying because you seem to be under the impression that I'm proposing an alternative to SR that is trivial, inferior and has no real purpose? If so, let's discuss one point at a time. Have I mathematically misrepresented how SR uses length contraction and time dilation to explain how c=c from all perspectives since I have blindly come on the side of length contraction being real? The coordinates I came up with, are they any different from what the Lorentz transforms would give? Are the Md's incorrect in any way? If you're unsure of giving a blanket approval, I'll go into far more specific questions.

Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
16. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,411
You're right, that is pretty much the impression that I am under. Choosing a third party inertial reference frame where both the stay-home twin and the traveling twin have velocities of equal magnitude (but in opposite directions) is certainly something that SR allows, but it doesn't really shed any light on what SR says is going on in the other inertial frames of interest. Doing so specifically shifts the attention away from the very inertial frames about which the twin scenario was meant to be instructive.

For example, the stay-home twin would insist that their velocity relative to the ground they are sitting on is always zero, (the scenario assumes the stay-home twin never accelerates, so they would say that they are just sitting still, waiting for the traveling twin to return). That twin should not have to consider a different reference frame in which their own velocity is not zero. Indeed, if you want to know what SR says about the timing of events according to the stay-home twin's own inertial rest frame (where their own velocity is zero), then you really should consider that reference frame! But you want to disregard that, and instead consider a different reference frame where the stay-home twin's velocity is not zero. Very strange.

I was glad to see it when you started accepting that length contraction is a necessary part of SR. I was also glad to see it when you started accepting the constancy of c in all inertial frames as part of SR. But I am still not sure how many other aspects of SR you have yet to come to terms with.

It seems bizarre to me that you would spend so much time and effort to build a whole model which you thought was equivalent to SR, and yet not realize that something must be wrong as soon as it resulted in the non-constancy of c in all inertial frames. The constancy of c was known experimentally before SR came along. One of the reasons SR was developed was to tease out all of the ramifications of that. You should have known that it was one of the most important things to maintain, if you thought you were doing SR. And yet you decided it was okay to continue on without it. Likewise with length contraction, which although it had not been known experimentally, by the time SR was developed it was clear that length contraction was required in order to maintain the constancy of c in all inertial frames. And yet again you decided it was okay to continue on without it.

I am also leery of your terminology. You never seem to speak in terms of inertial reference frames, but rather you speak of "perspectives". Using the word perspectives sounds vaguely like you might be considering only what observers can see with their eyes. Of course the speed of light being finite will result in delay times as light signals travel from emitter to receiver, but SR is supposed to be what remains after those types of delays are factored out.

Even if you are finally doing the maths of SR properly, but just using a particular third party reference frame, (I honestly have not checked the maths or diagrams lately), and if you are obtaining the correct time and space coordinates in your chosen third party inertial reference frame,, unfortunately those are still not going to be the correct time and space coordinates in any of the inertial reference frames which were of interest in the twin scenario to begin with.

Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
17. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
I said something quite different. I said it makes no difference to me with what variables x, t or v you group gamma. The added advantage of apparently converting to length contraction is that I could no longer be accused of misunderstanding or misrepresenting SR but I continued to snipe at the idea. I explained how SR's concept of constancy of c was inadequate. The slope of c is always at a 45 degree angle except in Epstein diagrams and even then the constancy of c is not in question. But it's inadequate if x/t =c and the units of x and t aren't the same from all perspectives because if you transmit light signals to sync clocks, you should be able to receive light signals to tell the time at a distance. This is what the Loedel perspective allows which other perspectives don't. I also carried the definition of constancy of c to mean the ratio of v/c. If v=x/t them Yv/Yc = v/c but you understood nothing of that whole discussion that I briefly summarized now. My theory, as I've said many times, does not dispute the constancy of c. Now do you want to understand why or put words in my posts?

Absolutely clear that SR's constancy of c can't exist without length contraction but my model does not require it because length contraction is not due to any real contraction of space as time dilation is not due to any real dilation of time. They are two sides of the same coin and what explains one explains the other and no one can deny length contraction is due to relativity of simultaneity.

C'mon, you haven't read a word I've written, you just picked out the words you recognized and re-ordered them to suit your understanding. We can weed all this out if you let me explain point by point.
Look again. I'm only talking about my posts since I've supposedly seen the light. They have nothing to do with the twin paradox. I'm just trying to measure the light signals. So do you want to find out what I'm saying or just keep re-writing everything I say? I think you're being thrown by too many sentences to read and you can't see the meaning for the sentences. We can go back and forth over one sentence at a time.

18. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,947
Does this help?

Einstein's elevator

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

19. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Why would it? It has nothing to do with the subject matter except for the word Einstein. It does help me in understanding the psychology of science forums though. You taught me science forums are mostly about science philosophy but they're also about psychology. I wonder constantly why people can't read what I write. It's because reason can't supplant belief based thinking. Belief is very tied to emotion so if they see something that challenges their beliefs, their defence mechanisms kick in. They re-interpret what they don't understand to conform with their beliefs. One of those techniques is to read scanning for words they understand and reprint anything that contains those words. I'm always harsh and ungrateful for that effort which further injures their pride. This makes me highly unpopular with the old-man-yells-at-cloud crowd. As men grows older, their faculties fade but their pride, their very definition of what it means to be strong physically, emotionally, intellectually, makes them try to prove they're as sharp as ever. And this is what forums are all about, to provide an arena for those battles. I love to fight too but there is no greater emotional wound to me when I feel frustrated that I can't seem to explain my theory in a way that anyone has yet understood. That is my motivation to do battle and one day convert a believer with reason.

20. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,947
There is no seem - you just can't

Again the common factor is you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

21. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
The common factor is the old-man-yells-at-cloud crowd but I still have time. Maybe Neddy will be my salvation.

22. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,411
Highly doubtful. I don't understand most of what you say, unfortunately. I think Michael 345 is correct, a large portion of the underlying problem is that you speak in terminology that you alone understand, as no one else really does. But scientific communication requires much more accuracy than that. That is why I complained about your "perspectives" terminology.

You also say things like, "I can't explain my theory" and yet you also seem to want to say that your theory is exactly the same as SR. You can't have it both ways, because SR is not your theory. It is impossible to communicate that way, sorry.

Sure, some of the problem is that people such as myself tend to pick up on words we recognise, and then assign to those words the meanings that we are used to for those words. We have no choice, because we can't change the word's meanings to be what you think they should be, because we can't read your mind.

I would suggest trying to make every single phrase in every single sentence as clear as possible, not only in your mind, but to a total stranger's ear. Best of luck to you going forward, I'm probably out, but will try to read on when time allows.

Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
23. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
No it's not. That's why I differentiate SR from relativity. SR is nothing without length contraction which I'll show doesn't exist but will use to connect to believers in SR. SR is a theory that explains the facts of relativity, I have a different explanation. I'm sure you've redacted what I just said because how can relativity and SR not be the same thing in your terms. I've explained how it differs but you've probably redacted out those explanations as well. I don't work that way. When I don't understand what someone is telling me, I repeat back to them what they said in my own words until the sentences and meanings eventually match.

Everyone has different interpretations on SR and different terms. I use the terms and interpretation Brian Greene uses in his video course.