# Relativity and simple algebra II

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

1. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
I briefly scanned the aberration of light article and I've formed some uninformed opinions. It looks like while trying to measure the distance to Polaris using the parallax view, they came up with an extra angle of light in their measurements that didn't match the parallax angle over time. In the 1600's their instruments were sensitive enough to measure this tiny aberration of the angle just using the miniscule Earth orbit compared with the distance to Polaris. Assuming the Earth adopted the stationary frame, Polaris would have looked like a light clock in the sky bouncing between two invisible plates that were due to Earth's orbit. I suppose if Polaris is speeding away from Earth, it would have caused Earth to observe the phenomenon of a light clock speeding away from it et voila the gamma function and time dilation and the entire theory of relativity could have been discovered in the 1600's if only there were competent mathematicians able to solve this simple problem. The thing is there were plenty of competent mathematicians and no one was able to solve this "simple" problem until relativity came around. So there's very little chance Greene started with the aberration of light to prove SR when it is far more likely he worked backward from SR to prove the aberration of light and then reversed the proof. That's all fine. But to present the assumption of the aberration of light to derive SR without mentioning it is just fraud. I'm going to use the same tactic to show how the aberration of light is solved by relativity. I've done it but it is so complex with a new caveat learned in drawing the Md, I need verification for the math from an expert or anyone who might know high school algebra. I'm sure Mr. Bate is going to have a good laugh when it took me days to figure out how this works when I could have just got the info from any book. I'm being sarcastic of course. Can't figure out how this thread is still in the alternate theories sub-forum.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2021

3. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Oh why did I listen to Neddy B? I tried to hook up my new Md to see if I could extract the angle theta from it so I went back to Greene's derivation to find out how he did it. It has nothing to do with aberration of light or what D or L are as distances. Greene starts off his derivation by saying D = c where D is supposedly a distance light travels to catch up with the top plate. But c is a velocity. c cos theta is also a velocity equal to v which means that L is also a velocity which is my velocity through time $v_t = c/Y$. This leads to my first formula in this thread
$c^2=v_2 + (v_t)^2$ which means D/L = c/(c/Y) = Y. Big deal. He proved absolutely nothing about the comparative lengths of how the distance between the plates L in the stationary perspective gets stretched out to D which is how far the light travels in the moving frame from the stationary perspective.

5. ### river

Messages:
17,307
So mathematical non-sense .

7. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
I hope Neddy will at least admit Greene`s derivation is nonsense or somehow defend it and not slink away as a brainwashed disciple of this religion.

river likes this.
8. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,548
Religion?

Come on, man. This is fucking GEOMETRY. Angles and straight lines. Please try again.

9. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Then why are you so completely unable to understand it? You see the word "theta". Your wiki mind says you've seen that word under "aberration of light" so that's what Greene must be talking about. This is your blind religious mind. D is a distance and so is L, c is a velocity and so is v. You telling me, as a legend in your own mind, that Greene derived anything pertinent to my question of what is theta, how light physically follows it due to a ratio of distances and how it has anything to do D/L and Y? Try to think man. Answer my questions, not just cherry pick words you recognize. You must have graduated in something other than philosophy. You must have done math at some point in your life like maybe tax returns.

My separate derivation and concept of $c^2=v^2 +v_t^2$ at the start of this thread makes perfect math sense that James R couldn't grasp because he said I was mixing units but I haven't heard a peep from him about Greene's nonsensical derivation. I must admit you guys are so lost that you make me think harder about trying to understand why and it forces me to question the self-evidence of my concepts. So yeah, I need to keep you around but it's so frustrating like beating a pan on my head. Stop playing your games and try to focus on some honest discussion towards arriving at the truth. If you can't and continue on a self-delusional ego trip to nowhere, I'll just continue talking to myself because I like getting closer to the truth and learning new things. Maybe theta is somehow related to aberration of light and I'm trying to work out how.

10. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Let's try again, maybe it will finally sink in on the 20th explanation.
c is the pythagorean composite of two components, the velocity through space v and the velocity through time $v_t$. The faster you are observed to move through space, the slower you are observed to move through time according to the formula
$c^2=v^2+v_t^2$
Simply solving for $v_t$ without any mention of theta we get

$v_t = sqrt(c^2-v^2)$ = c/Y

c,v, v_t are all velocities of units x/t. Can you see that or not? I'm not claiming c to be a distance D or v_t to be a distance L. No? Too confusing? The right angle triangle does not just construct itself because light is seen to take off from the bottom plate at some angle theta. Greene just draws a line that if the stationary light bounces up and down, it must be observed to leave at an angle theta to catch up with the top plate and that angle is due to the distance D and the distance L which is the proper distance between the plates. If you're brainwashed there's no reason to even question this reasoning, the distance the light travels must be observed to be longer because the top plate has moved. This isn't true. If you look at the correct Md for the stationary clock and an identical moving clock from the stationary perspective, the distance the light travels is 1.5s from top to bottom plate and .375s from bottom to top plate. Not symmetrical as Greene drew it. The diagram on the right compares Bob's blue clock to how he would "see" Alice's red clock in his time using light signals from Alice's clock when it hit Alice's plates. The top diagram shows the distance separation increasing between the peaks of Bob's clock going up and down and Alice's clock peaks. No angle theta comes out of that where D/L = 1.25. L = .9375ls and D = 1.09. So maybe neddy can point out my math errors once his buffoonish belly laugh subsides.

I'm going to explain how this Md is constructed using SR but after this I'm not going to carry your water anymore explaining how SR works to you guys. I'm not here to teach SR, I'm here to show you how much better my math is at explaining relativistic phenomena.

11. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
What Greene tried to show while mislabelling all his terms is that c is an unchanging radius, always a hypotenuse of mathematical length 1 and the velocity is a percentage of that. Since that mathematical length is always constant, it does not get longer while it is chasing the top plate as he showed. The L he was talking about was not the proper distance between the plates. It shrinks so the light can reach the moving plates. So at .6c, the "length" (which has nothing to do with distance) of the horizontal line is .6c and the hypotenuse is always length 1 for any velocity so L must be .8 in this instance. His math derivation made no sense and had nothing to do with aberration of light, time or distance. So me dealing with real lengths in my Md would have never figured out what he was talking from his use of mathematical lengths which was really just an exercise in pythagoras and polar coordinates. For sure neddy was just about to tell me this if he had any idea of what I just explained. More likely he was probably thinking of how running with a light wand going up and down generates a sawtooth pattern for those watching it. Even Greene was saying that's how theta was being generated which is completely unrelated nonsense. Boy, you relativists would make good cult followers because you believe anything without question. Don't feel bad though, every science philosophy forum is like this except my last one, which as exchemist would often describe, was "barking mad". Maybe you guys should check it out.

Last edited: May 1, 2021
12. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,889
Still making crap up after 24 pages.

13. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Another useless uninformed opinion from Origin. Why not show me where I've gone wrong? Oh I forgot you just don't have the basic math skills to do that. At least you know how to type.

Oh no, I've just taken a look at your other posts. You're a resident member of the old man yells at cloud crowd. You don't belong on this thread, you have nothing of value to contribute, go away.

Last edited: May 2, 2021
14. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
I decided not to waste my time explaining how the light clock scenario works using SR so I went back to using the Loedel perspective of proper time and proper space. I drew the Md and right in front of my eyes is the first legitimate proof to me that length contraction is indeed necessary. The Md shows both perspectives have clock ticks in unit proper times and unit separation between the plates but in the top right corner are a red, a green and a blue line that prove the plate separation is subject to perspective. There must be some misunderstanding as the separation of plates is not subject to length contraction as they are perpendicular to the direction of motion.

The Md below shows two identical light clocks from the stationary clock's perspective of the moving clock at .6c. I have not yet drawn the moving clock's perspective of the stationary clock.

Ok I figured it out. The Loedel perspective only reveals an Md using proper time and proper distance. Those time and distance units are still subject to other perspectives when those perspectives need to be considered. Makes perfect sense except why would plates perpendicular to the direction of motion be subject to perspective length contraction? I wish there was an expert I could talk to about this because I'm sure the answer is mind blowing.

Messages:
421
deleted

16. ### river

Messages:
17,307
What is deleted ? and

Why ?

17. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
My fault. I couldn't post the Md so I tried to post it in the next post but then I could post it but couldn't delete it in the next post.

Messages:
17,307

Messages:
17,307

20. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Which? My problem with SR or the post? If post, yes.

21. ### river

Messages:
17,307
Your problem with SR is ?

22. ### ralfcisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
421
Hmmm this finding is a very serious challenge to my theory. I always said any length contraction can be expressed purely as time dilation yet I have to explain how to do this wrt the separation of the mirror plates and why they even contract or expand at all when they are perpendicular to the direction of motion. I didn't see this coming so a lot to think on.

23. ### Neddy BateValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,548
Hi ralfcis,

How are you? I am fine, thank you. Today is your lucky day, because I happened to be reading a different forum, and I saw a very nice animation by Janus. Yes Janus, the guy you want to speak to so badly!

In this animation, we see that when the length contraction is parallel to the direction of motion (as SR says it should be) not perpendicular (why are you trying to explain length contraction that is perpendicular when that is not part of SR? Oh yeah, because you are anti-SR), everything works out perfectly:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/length_con2-gif.282366/

I want to give Janus credit, so this is from his post #10 in this thread: