# Relativity and simple algebra II

I don't really care this thread was demoted to alternative theories because the only person I was interested in brain picking was Janus58. However I do object to being accused of misrepresenting SR and would like to see some evidence that I misrepresented it. I disagree with its math and its explanation of the facts but I never disagreed with any of the facts and it would be counter productive for me to set up straw man arguments against relativity. For example c constant from all perspectives is a fact but time dilation and length contraction are just devices to explain those facts.

I don't really care this thread was demoted to alternative theories because the only person I was interested in brain picking was Janus58.
I'm glad I got out, then, because it is clear I was wasting my time on you.

However I do object to being accused of misrepresenting SR and would like to see some evidence that I misrepresented it.
We only have to look back one page in the thread to find one example, and there are many more like this:
Despite Einstein's attempt to establish a present based on perspective, there are only 2 instances in SR that are a true shared present without delay.
The concept of a "true shared present" does not exist in SR, other than in the notion of simultaneity in a particular frame.

You claim that there are two distinct concepts of simultaneity: the "true shared present", represented by your mistaken belief that proper times in different frames are comparable to one another, and "perspective simultaneity", which is your own dismissive term what was is actually rigorously defined as "simultaneity" in special relativity.

One is when two clocks are side by side either stopped or moving past each other. The other comes from the main equation in SR (ct′)2=(ct)2−x2(ct′)2=(ct)2−x2(ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 that establishes hyperbolic lines that intersect all velocity lines at the same present time.
There are many misrepresentations of relativity here. The first one is this idea of a "main equation". If SR has to have a "main equation" at all, the Lorentz transformation equations would be the best candidate for that, because all of the other results of SR are derivable from them. But the Lorentz transformations themselves are derived - from the postulates of SR. There are only two: the constancy of the speed of light in different inertial frames, and the invariance of the laws of physics in different inertial frames.

I spent a number of posts explaining the spacetime interval to you, including providing you with a proof of the invariance of the interval in different frames. Obviously, all of that went in one ear and out the other, for you, because here you are, pages and pages later, still spouting off about one "special case" of the more general relationship, and erroneously referring to that as the "main equation" of relativity.

The fact is: you don't even seem to be aware of what a reference frame is. You appear to think that there are certain special frames that give a "more real" picture of what is happening. You are apparently unable to understand what happens when we transform a spacetime diagram from one frame to another, except in very limited cases, which is why you think that SR is "broken" when it comes to doing that. Your "Loedel lines" don't actually mean anything useful; as we previously established, only the end points actually represent anything physical, and even there they only do the simplest numerical comparison between two clock readings.

Einstein didn't know if atoms existed let alone atomic clocks and their universal accuracy that did not require sync.
Einstein wrote his PhD thesis on Brownian motion, which was based on a belief that atoms existed. His theoretical explanation of that effect explicitly relied on an atomic theory of matter.

Atomic clocks are not "universally accurate", and they do require synchronisation. Einstein's synchronisation method for clocks in any given frame is a rigorous method for reliably synchronising clocks. In contrast, you apparently have no method for synchronising spatially separated clocks in a single reference frame.
----
ralfcis said:
I disagree with its math and its explanation of the facts but I never disagreed with any of the facts and it would be counter productive for me to set up straw man arguments against relativity. For example c constant from all perspectives is a fact but time dilation and length contraction are just devices to explain those facts.
You claim to agree with the postulates of SR - or at least with the speed of light postulate (probably you don't understand the significance or importance of the other one). But you then go on immediately to disagree with basic results that follow rigorously from those postulates. That is a hopelessly inconsistent position for you to hold.

As I noted previously, your own ideas are completely dependent on piggy-backing on the mathematics of special relativity. Every correct result you derive is found by using the mathematics of special relativity. Nevertheless, you spend almost all your time pretending you've invented a superior theory all of your own.

It is very clear that you're uninterested in learning the actual science. You're stuck your own constrained little world, with its mistaken idea of a "true shared present" - a world that can only really handle a handful of limited special-case situations from special relativity, and then only by misinterpreting what the mathematics is saying.

You are so far off I'm not even going to begin to correct you. I'm not misrepresenting SR by stating my theory which you seem totally unable to read with any comprehension. This leads to your confusion of when I'm talking about one separately from the other. Hopefully I now no longer have to answer the rest of your questions because that seems to be a waste of time in repetition. I probably will though just for completeness. Please, I beg you, unless your name is Janus, just leave me here in no man's land to finish my work without any more "help". I don't need it, I don't want it. You all, however, should really brush up on your knowledge of SR in the Brian Greene course I keep linking. I think you'll be surprised.

You are so far off I'm not even going to begin to correct you. I'm not misrepresenting SR by stating my theory which you seem totally unable to read with any comprehension.
Your theory is your own - correct in the parts it steals from relativity, and wrong in the few "original" parts that are yours alone. But from time to time you're also prone to making incorrect statements about what relativity says, what kinds of problems relativity can and can't solve, what Einstein said, and other matters. It is in those statements that you sometimes misrepresent relativity. It is clear that you don't have a good understanding of the theory, so your misrepresentations might be unintentional. Still, that's no excuse. You've had plenty of time to learn the theory that you're trying to criticise.
Please, I beg you, unless your name is Janus, just leave me here in no man's land to finish my work without any more "help". I don't need it, I don't want it.
I asked you right at the start, when we first started conversing, whether you were actually interested in having a discussion. At that time, you said you were. Now, it turns out that you really aren't, after all. You're here to preach your Truth.

That's fine. I might pop in occasionally to correct some of your errors, but since your "work" is a waste of time (yours and mine), I'm quite happy to leave you to it, for the most part. Enjoy!

You all, however, should really brush up on your knowledge of SR in the Brian Greene course I keep linking. I think you'll be surprised.
I'm confident that Brian Greene would be teaching relativity in one of the standard ways. He doesn't claim to have a replacement for relativity. In fact, he has spent most of his career working on how to bring relativity (general relativity, not just special rel.) together with quantum mechanics. I doubt I would find any disagreement with Greene about the basics of special relativity that you're stuck on.

But from time to time you're also prone to making incorrect statements about what relativity says, what kinds of problems relativity can and can't solve, what Einstein said, and other matters.
I am totally open to where you think I'm doing that. I'm willing to compromise. Since it makes no difference to my math whether length contraction exists or not, I'll redo the entire argument as if I've seen the light and fervently preach the gospel of length contraction. This will eradicate most of what you object to and for me it will move the grouping of Y with v to grouping Y with x and/or t in my equations. They're mathematically equivalent but depending on which grouping you chose the results are totally philosophically different.

I asked you right at the start, when we first started conversing, whether you were actually interested in having a discussion. At that time, you said you were.
I came here to preach my truth but you guys have had significant impact on it so I was willing to answer all your questions. I thought I had tied up all the loose ends and was going to start to succinctly summarize my conclusions from the 77 pages I wrote on another forum. I was going to do it there but realized there was no one there to discuss it with. I have had to rethink a lot of it here.

If I suppress my objections to length contraction the only remaining objection concerns how the twin paradox ends up in permanent age difference. I'll use the term non-reciprocal age difference if that makes a difference. Qreeus may be correct in his criticism using the examples of circular motion and I might agree if someone could show me them depicted in an Md.

I'm confident that Brian Greene would be teaching relativity in one of the standard ways.
I'm not saying Greene would support anything I have to say and I'm confident his relativity is standard but I don't see that standard on physics forums. I end up disagreeing with a lot of different interpretations and I'd like to end up only disagreeing with his.

I'm back guys here to show you the new me. Length contraction is real and I'm going to mathematically prove it to you via Md. And it's not just due to relativity of simultaneity as most people in the know say, space itself actually contracts. Well not all of 3D space (like in general relativity), just one dimension in the direction of motion which we'll label x or length. It's the exact same as the single dimension of time slowing except, for some reason, no one applies relativity of simultaneity to time to conclude it doesn't actually slow the same way those experts conclude space doesn't actually contract. That seems counter-intuitive which means it must be correct not to mention it's been done that way for more than the last 100 yrs which makes it doubly correct. When I did the math, there was no denying that SR can have no other explanation for the constancy of the speed of light unless 1 dimension of space contracts and the time dimension mutually dilates in support. I'll illustrate that very slowly in my subsequent slide show of Md's.

Last edited:
I'm back guys here to show you the new me.
Does the new me still talk to himself with the most of his postings?

Unless there are cats here.

Ok pusses, here we go with our first Md.

It's a picture of Bob sending a yellow light signal to Alice speeding away from him at .6c. From Bob's perspective, the light signal travels 1.5 ly in 1.5 yrs which makes c=c. The blue square is Bob's eye diagram. The shape of this eye diagram will change as I introduce other perspectives. Bob left a note with Alice to send him a pink light signal when her clock says .8. From Bob's perspective this is simultaneous when he sends his yellow signal but from Alice's perspective, he sends his yellow signal when her clock is at 1.25 according to SR. Alice is .6ly away and from Bob's perspective her pink signal will reach him in .6 yrs which proves to him that Alice is verifying he sent his signal at yr 1.

To Alice the .8 means nothing according to SR. Even when she receives the yellow signal from Bob in which he says her pink signal was sent at the start of his yellow signal, she can't use her clock and Bob's star charts to say the yellow light travelled 1.2 of her yrs to cover 1.5 ly. That would be some sort of scalar speed of 1.25c or Yc. From her scalar speed of Yv = 1.25 x .6c = .75c, her relative velocity to light would still be c but SR doesn't work this way. It deals with separated clocks using Einstein's clock sync method to define how simultaneity from different perspectives works even though his clock sync method would be difficult over such vast distances. Maybe Earth would need to broadcast an oscillation and each ship would use counters to construct Earth time clocks.

Next we'll see how Alice calculates the speed of the yellow light signal from her perspective.

Here's Alice's perspective of the speed of the yellow light signal. Her Cartesian coordinate system is crushed into rhombic units as her eye diagram shows. Her perspective of Bob's length is contacted and so is his time. She measures the yellow light signal travelled .75 of her ly in .75 of her yrs which confirms c=c from her perspective (even though it is calculated by half of Bob's time and distance measurements). That would just not happen if length contraction wasn't real. Time dilation is real because time itself slows and since length contracts under the same coordinate forces, then length contraction is equally real.

In celebration of this confirmation of Einstein's theory and clock sync method, Alice sent out a pink light signal when, from her perspective, Bob sent his yellow signal. Bob would receive it at 2.5yrs his time and since Alice was .9375 ly away from Bob when she sent it, he could calculate that he sent his signal at 1.5625 yrs. But he sent it at the 1 yr mark. Alice had that correct when she sent her signal at .8 yrs but now the sync was way off. Easy to see why, her simultaneity was different from Bob's so sending light signals to establish times is unreliable unlike sending signals to sync times. Again, that seems counter-intuitive so it must be right.

Next we'll see how the Loedel perspective handles the measurement of the yellow light signal.

Last edited:
The Loedel technique is really quite different. It preserves proper time and proper distance for both of the other perspectives. The speed of light for both yellow and pink light signals are 1ly per 1 yr.

The yellow line has a length from -1/3 to +2/3 in one proper time yr while the pink line has a length from -2/3 to +1/3 in one proper time yr. Does anyone need help seeing that?

Does the new me still talk to himself with the most of his postings?

Apparently.

I know this is a SCIENCE forum (given the preponderance of god threads ??? valid)

Nevertheless a SCIENCE forum is not the same as a forum for SCIENTISTS

I promise I won't be insulted

Ok Mikey, here's what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

Saying there's no such thing as length contraction or time dilation is a no sale to the SR crowd (of which I'm a firmly devoted convert (for now)). So I showed how those two concepts worked in classical SR fashion, from Bob's and Alice's individual perspectives, to make the speed of light the same value from all perspectives. From all perspectives? Well what about from the Loedel half speed perspective. By doing that I cleansed out Alice's and Bob's perspectives of time and space and removed the concepts of individual length contraction and time dilation and put them into a 3rd party perspective. I turned that perspective into a currency exchange booth where Bob and Alice didn't have to worry about anything but universal proper time and proper space between them. Now there are no more Alice yrs or Bob yrs, they now use the same proper years and proper light years while the Loedel booth handles all the time and space conversions in the background.

So now the problem of Alice's perspective where the pink light signal didn't reach back to the start of Bob's yellow light signal is solved. Although one would assume the pink light signal would propagate back to Bob at c unaffected by Alice's speed, it is affected by Alice's universe, her coordinate system as shown in this Md:

The two diamond shaped eye diagrams are not the same size for the pink light as they are for the yellow light from her perspective. The distance the pink light moves is 1.875 of her light yrs in 3.125-1.25= 1.875 of her yrs. In Bob yrs that equals 1.875/Y = 1.5 yrs which Bob can now confirm is the time 2.5-1.5= 1 yr when he started the yellow signal. Even though the velocity of c is c from all perspectives, the duration of c, its length and time components, is not the same. You can't assume light works the same way in the diagrams as it does physically travelling through space.

The problem I've had from the beginning with SR is how it woefully inadequately handles relative velocity in its Md's. One is not stationary while the other is going at .6c. That is a depiction of absolute motion. Relative velocity has both going at .6c relative to each other yet that is impossible to draw. The Loedel diagram makes a valiant attempt with its inherent symmetry but as I showed, it also has its problems. But I noticed that the pink and yellow light signals were always the same duration while they were not in Minkowski equivalents. This was a problem for me as the meaning you derive from the diagram should be the same no matter if it's Loedel, Minkowski or Epstein. (Epstein is highly underrated because it clearly illustrates problems with SR's interpretation of relativity.) Now using the Loedel perspective on a Minkowski diagram, I have corrected the apparent difference in light signal lengths and can now use light signals to pass reliable information without using Einstein's clock sync method on which Bob and Alice's individual perspectives depend.

The other problem I had with SR is how can both participants use the same proper time and proper space in their own frames yet see the other frame flattened and slowed. SR insists reality is subjective but I say what they calculated was illusion of perspective. Overlaying the Loedel perspective on the Minkowski diagram was like applying glasses to focus blurry vision. Now Bob and Alice can deal with each other only using the true universal reality of proper time and proper space. I guess now I have to explain where apparent time dilation and length contraction actually come from. (hint: relativity of simultaneity between clocks measuring the stop and start times of events).

Ok Mikey, here's what I'm doing and why I'm doing it
So you don't talk to 5 year olds?

Unless they've already taken high school algebra and already understand the basics of SR.

Ok, let me try again. I'll assume you know nothing about algebra or SR but I have to assume you at least know how to read to make this work. Even this is not a good assumption as most 5 yr olds can't read and most people on physics forums replace what is written with what they think is written so they technically can't read either.

At first I'm trying to measure a yellow stick from 2 different perspectives. This is still unclear as I'm actually trying to measure its slope which is a ratio of distance units to time units. This ratio results in a velocity c which must be the same from all perspectives. This is the major goody bag that arises from SR. Nobody cares what size the units are so long as the ratio equals 1. So long as the slope is 1, any units will do. If you can only read pictures, the slope of the yellow line is always drawn as 1 so most of your work is already done.

Take a look at the first diagram. The yellow line's slope is 2.5-1=1.5 distance units over 1.5 time units which equals 1 from the blue perspective. But I also said something very puzzling so skip over the next few sentences as they are not for 5 yr olds.

There's another velocity line in the picture. It is .6c. It has the ratio of .9 blue distance units over 1.5 blue time units. In a ratio, you can multiply the top and bottom units by the same factor so .9Y/1.5Y = .6cY/cY. So another way to express that c is the same from any perspective is to state that the ratio of v/c is the same as the ratio of Yv/Yc. v=x/t and Yv = x/(t/Y) and (t/Y) is the units on that .6c velocity line. We can use these units to compute the slope of the yellow line with the knowledge that the ratio of the .6c velocity line to the yellow line will remain the same as the ratio of the blue distance units to the blue time units to the yellow line is the same. So v/c = Yv/Yc means c is the same from any perspective.

So from the blue perspective the time units (t/Y) extend from .8 to 2 which is 1.2 units. For the velocity line, the blue distance units remain unchanged at .9 units so x/(t/Y) = Yv = .9/1.2 = .75c. For the yellow line the (t/Y) units are still 1.2 but the distance units are 1.5 and x/(t/Y) = Yc = .9/1.5 = 1.25c but remember the ratio of Yv/Yc is preserved as v/c which really means c is preserved even though on its own it looks like c is 1.25c. No Yc is 1.25c. But all this, while keeping faithful to the meaning of c being the same from all perspectives, is not part of SR so let's ignore this for now.

Ok back to the 5 yr old stuff. Now we want to measure the slope of the yellow line from the red perspective. Its coordinate system has been sat on by a giant Minkowski. Its units are (t/Y) and (x/Y) of the blue x and t units. c = (x/Y)/(t/Y) = x/t because you've multiplied both top and bottom by 1/Y. (t/Y) = 2-1.25 = .75 in red time units. x= .9375 in blue distance units which converts to .75 red distance units. So the slope of c=.75/.75 = c. Notice the red time and distance units are half of the blue ones yet the length of the yellow line still looks the same and its slope is still 1.

We've introduced a pink line which SR says was sent simultaneously from the red perspective as the yellow line. It's slope is 1 from either the blue or red perspective but the red and blue units are wildly different from each other and from the red and blue units that determined the slope of the yellow line. I leave that as an exercise for you to determine the pink line's units that result in a slope of c=c. I know that's impossible for a 5 yr old to do.

Overlaying the green Loedel perspective has the same distance and time units for either red or blue perspectives or pink or yellow light lines. All the units are 1 and so are both slopes and so are both pink and yellow lengths. This is intuitively what you'd expect which, since it's not counter-intuitive, must be wrong as anything right in SR must be counter-intuitive as I've been told so many times.

Now just ask specific questions of where you're stuck with this. Don't ask general questions like why is the sky blue as a 5 yr old would.

Nevertheless a SCIENCE forum is not the same as a forum for SCIENTISTS

Truer words have never been spoken. I don't particularly like Michael 345 for his trolling but I must admit he has caused me to re-think at least twice. I thought what I wrote above was brilliant which makes me feel incredibly good so I ran down this morning thinking I'd either get a compliment or some scathing criticism or maybe someone had found a mistake which would make me think even deeper. But it was crickets. I guess I lost everyone at the word "ratio". People have said for years I'm wasting my time. I think they're right but not for the reasons they suppose. Michael 345 hit the nail on the head, none of the forums I've been on are science forums, they've all been philosophy forums. People read books, are told what to think and just recite whatever makes them feel clever or reinforces their religious beliefs. This is why I've only met 4 people I respect for their true scientific knowledge. There's only 1 left that I could contact if only Dywyddyr would let me back on his forum. I don't feel like continuing my quest for truth otherwise. It has been a waste of time except when I discover something on my own just bouncing around in a vacuum.

Last edited: