I'm not talking about the spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime paths and causality. In my Md, Bob and Alice are programmed to send a light signal at t=2 (proper time on their on-board clocks). From a Loedel perspective, those two events are simultaneous (and at the same proper time no less). From Alice's perspective, her signal is sent at t'=2 but Bob's signal is sent at t'=2.5 according to her line of perspective simultaneity so her signal is first. From Bob's perspective the opposite is true by the same amount of time (.5 yrs.) Where relativity failed, is to say it can't make a call who sent the signal first where it's obvious from the Loedel perspective that both were simultaneous and it's also obvious from each perspective because they both agree their signal was sent .5 yrs earlier than the other guy's. This hysteresis of perspective can only point to one conclusion, both were simultaneous to both of them because the time difference was the same from both perspectives. A call can be made but Einstein decreed perspective trumps the Newtonian concept of a universal present. But he ignored relativity has an underlying universal proper time present that is not like the Newtonian one. He relegated relativity's present to co-located clocks, such as when Bob and Alice re-unite in the twin paradox. But the Loedel perspective shows that the underlying universal proper time present exists even when the clocks are separated and is what defines causality and an order to events that is independent of perspective. Two opposite views from two different perspectives are not both right. Reality is not subjective even though it's not always readily apparent. His decree is irredeemably flawed but that isn't even the worst assumption he made. Is that brave enough? Release the hounds!You're right that two observers in different frames won't always agree on which of two events happened first, or whether they both happened simultaneously
That (slowly separated the clocks at a constant velocity - slowly) was covered at about the 10 min 40 sec mark to about 11 min 40 secCan you not see the difference between how I slowly separated the clocks at a constant velocity that was maintained during the measurement and how he moved one clock and stopped it?
Sorry being COVID-19 stranded in Bali my free time is highly variable.Michael345 you asked an important question and don't seem at all interested in the answer. Did you get your answer? Your question and answer was a real eye opener for me. It taught me a lot.
I don't really understand what use your straight green "Loedel lines" are, since only the endpoints of those lines have "equal proper time", as I'm sure you'll agree. Intermediate points have no special significance, as far as I can see. Is that correct, or do intermediate points on those straight green lines mean something in particular to you?
Ok you understood the guy in the video that basically there's no way to verify c is the same in both directions. I say by knowing relativity, you can shine a light between two separating atomic clocks (not subject to Einstein's faulty clock sync method) that gets over the question of whether light is the same speed in opposite directions. If it wasn't, the two separating clocks would not receive the light at exactly the same time. And using relativity, you can set the time of the center clock to shine the light bulb to calculate how far and how long the light travels in each direction then multiply by 2.if you can dumb down any further information to 146 if possible
In this example it just happens to be. If my Loedel diagram was about Bob and Alice leaving Earth in opposite directions, Bob and Earth would be separate and the Minkowski translation would have Bob as the reference frame with the Earth speeding away from him at 1/3c.The Earth frame is the same as Bob's frame, isn't it?
No. That is just basic use of the relativistic velocity combo equation. Get a calculator and punch in those numbers.Can you please show me how you calculate 3/5c from -1/3c and +1/3c?
It is the diagram I labelled as the Loedel diagram.What is the frame of the "Loedel diagram". Can you show me a "Loedel diagram"? What is a "Loedel diagram"?
That's why you can choose any frame as absolutely at rest because they're all equal choices.We also both seem to agree that there are no preferred frames - no frame is "absolutely" at rest.
It is absolutely stuck on that because it doesn't want anyone to say the CMB is the preferred reference frame but it is, just like the earth is, just like Bob's spaceship is just like a proton in the LHC is. Relativity's paranoia is mind-boggling and it will make idiotic claims to refute the existence of absolute time or space. If any choice is valid then a preferred frame is one of the valid choices. It makes no difference to the math. You can't depict relative velocity without a reference frame. In the muon experiment there is absolutely no need to calculate the results by considering the perspective that the muon is stationary and the Earth is moving towards it at .994c. This is not physics, it's lunacy although technically correct in every way but who cares?No. It's not stuck on that
Of course I do and I can point to anything as absolutely relatively at rest.All I'm saying is there's nothing in the universe we can point to and say "that's absolutely at rest". You agree with that, don't you?
Put more effort into your thinking because you're advocating relativity being stuck on every example is just Bob and Alice floating in a featureless space that isn't even allowed being a background frame.It seems to me that in your Alice and Bob example, we only need Alice and Bob. Why do we need two more "participants"?
Ok you unknowingly advocate depicting relative velocity as requiring two Md's but I guess you've never seen what that involves. Alice changes velocity in the regular Md so she must also be the one who initiates the change in velocity in the reverse Md. She can't remain stationary while Bob initiates the change in velocity because that will mean Bob ages 2 yrs less than Alice which is a completely different scenario. So really? You've done spacetime diagrams before?But your red "Alice" line in that diagram is in motion in the 'x' coordinates of your diagram, so this diagram doesn't show Alice as "stationary".
Yeah but math is great ain't it. You're free to do whatever is allowed without being thrown for a loop.Yes, because most diagrams like this are drawn with the x coordinate increasing to the right, whereas yours increases to the left. Yours is a kind of mirror-image diagram, compared to what we usually see.
More thinking please. Who or what is your graph paper attached to? It's blank until you start drawing on it and those lines are relative to the lines on your graph paper.All of space is "blank" in this scenario, except for Alice and Bob (or Earth, if you prefer). It's not clear what your "background coordinates" are attached to. Who or what is stationary in your "background" coordinates? Is there anything?
No you can't but space contains stuff. The space between them doesn't move but they move, not relative to the space, but to each other. In my reverse Md scenario, Alice would have to orient her stationary position in blank space relative to a receding Earth which would have to maintain an absolutely constant relative velocity away from her. No perturbations from other space objects allowed. A completely impossible scenario so why even consider it.pace isn't a substance. You can't measure the speed of "space".
Photons do not move. Photons are the position part of wave/particle duality. The waves are the motion part. A wave collapses into a photon which can't move because if it does, it is no longer a photon, it's a wave. No one seems to understand this.Light, on the other hand, can be thought of as little particles: photons. Those are things that can move from one place to another.
Space has things in it but the vacuum doesn't move. There can be no relative velocity to a vacuum or to the light that propagates through it.Relative to the blank space? The blank space is not a thing. You just said that, didn't you?
Not relative to themselves. They always tick at the same rate within their own frames.Clocks in different frames tick at different rates
If Bob is the stationary frame his clock becomes the clock of the stationary frame replacing the Earth clock. In my reverse Md I showed that I chose to maintain the Earth clock even when Alice had control of the stationary frame. I went to some length to explain how that works (it's not in relativity).I don't know what you mean by that
Relativity does that. I don't have transforms between coordinate systems because there is only 1 coordinate system and a bunch of lines that relativity chooses to make entire frames out of and rotate. I don't do that. There are no Lorentz transform equations in my math.Could you please supply the equations or transformations you use to convert to a "Loedel" diagram or frame, or whatever it is?
Well you didn't see my Epstein diagrams. Yes they are fully consistent except the light lines have any possible slope so they are not the same from every perspective.As far as I can tell, Epstein diagrams are fully consistent with the "assumptions of relativity".
He took a normal frame rotation (two pieces of graph paper attached at the origin and rotated past each other) and made it look like he rotated the x'-axis in the opposite direction to the ct'-axis so that c would be constant from every perspective according to Einstein's decree. What he really did was fold the graph paper along the x-axis so that the x'-axis would appear above the x-axis. Perfectly legal mathematically but the Epstein diagram can't do that because the x-axis is also c. The x'-axis would then be the same as the ct'-axis. This is actually a more accurate rendering of what's really happening in that whatever happens to the units of the ct'-axis also happen to the x'-axis which Minkowski fraudulently uses as proof that length contraction separately exists rather than being a phantom mathematical construct of his diagram.In what way was it "doctored"?
What do you mean by "co-located frames"? Frames that have no velocity relative to one another? And what "value" are you referring to, that might not be the same?
It does not have a universal present based on proper time because it focusses on perspective time and hence proper times separated by distance are subject to perspective. I'm proposing perspective time is illusion and subject to proper time.Relativity has no problem dealing with proper times; it doesn't "forbid" any consideration of them.
That's philosophy, it has not been proven. Even a parallax measurement of length to a star is independent of time but as soon as you do the measurement from from two moving spaceships you invoke the relativity of simultaneity but that is still a time measurement of distance is not the actual distance shrinking. Look a Greene's video of what length contraction would look like and then look at his contradictory video explaining length contraction is not physical, just measurement due to the relativity of simultaneity of clocks. I doubt eyes are able to see that.Yes she can, in principle. Her destination would physically appear closer to her, if she was moving fast enough to notice (3/5c would do the trick).
No such thing as rulers or odometers independent of clocks being able to measure length contraction.If she put a whole bunch of her metre rulers end to end, the number of metres she'd measure between Earth and the destination planet or "finish line" would be less than what Bob would measure with his rulers, in your example.
They are based on relativistic math and assumptions and adequately agree with the experimental results limit the results to what the math can apply. I don't have perspective relativity of simultaneity or length contraction or time slowing in my math so Lorentz transforms are irrelevant to me.You're not saying the Lorentz transformations are incorrect, though. Or are you?
No. I'm using the two main equations and I'm altering the first so that I can depict relative velocity in one spacetime diagram instead of 2.To me, it looks like you're mostly using the equations of special relativity
Well, no. If I stand on a football field and kick a football, obviously the velocity of the football in the Earth frame is non-zero while it is in the air. How, if I run along the football field and watch the football in flight, then in my running frame (which is not the same as the Earth frame), the football has a different velocity to what it has in the Earth frame, but in both frames its velocity is non-zero. This is exactly the kind of situation the velocity-addition formula is made for:
u′=u−v1−uvc2u′=u−v1−uvc2u'=\frac{u-v}{1-\frac{uv}{c^2}}.
Here, uuu might be the velocity of the football in the Earth frame, u′u′u' is its velocity in my running frame, and vvv is the speed of my running frame, relative to the Earth frame.
SR is a philosophy and length contraction is an absolutely necessary philosophical part of that philosophy. That philosophy is based on the subjective illusion of perspective for both time and space. Space is invariant for me and so is time rate which differs between frames due to relativity of proper simultaneity. I can also base the math on the relativity of perspective simultaneity but why add the complexity (I've done it, it's ugly). Relativity is a collection of physical facts the philosophy tries to explain supported by math. I use a different math for the same facts and my math applies to facts SR won't recognize because its math is philosophically restricted from going into those places as I've listed before.I'm glad you clarified that. So you accept that length contraction is required in SR
No. You tell me what I said.It sounds like you don't believe that length contraction is a real effect, even though you accept time dilation. Is that a correct summary of your views?
Yes.Do you think that you can make or that you have made a self-consistent theory of relativity that assumes that lengths are invariant in all frames?
Yes.If she's using Bob's star charts, then she's using Bob's rulers. Agreed?
No, that's what the philosophy of SR believes. I have Y embedded with v not x or t. Einstein made the same mistake in E=mc^2 by embedding Y with m instead of with v in momentum and then he redefined what m means as pertaining to either matter or energy. There is no conversion of energy into matter when you push a car up a hill but the car gains energy which he defined as the car gains mass. Y is a factor that is grouped with variables and in my math it is always grouped with v. As Y approaches infinity in e1quations, the equations always approach a finite value. There are no infinities in physics (except wrongly in SR) as I will show over the next 2 years.Do you agree with me that, if she laid out one of her own metre rulers next to Bob's (as she watches Bob's one fly past), she'd measure two different lengths for the two rules, even though the rulers would be identical if brought to rest with respect to one another?
Not relevant to my math. She has no odometer that can measure length contraction. She only has proper distance from the charts and proper time from her atomic clock. You guys are so big on relativity's experimental results yet when you provide no tools that can perform the measurements you claim no tools are needed, we just know there must be length contraction because Einstein said so. He actually said there is no such physical thing as it's due to relativity of perspective simultaneity. You can't say it's due to both actual physical contraction and also due to perspective simultaneity. Which is it? That's a contradiction in science.I showed your explicitly how the relevant events transform between the two frames in post #72, using the Lorentz transformations.
Sure, which of the overlaying spacetime diagrams would you like to use?Maybe it would be useful if you could specify the spacetime coordinates of those same two events in the two frames, according to your calculations/theory. Then we can compare.
More thinking required on your part. I provided the information but the understanding is ultimately up to you. The only time my former mentor would answer a question was after I stumbled around in the dark trying to make sense of what he said, I'd put what he said in my own words. Then he'd show me his next card. Pain is the best teacher.You avoided my question, there.
I'm just using slopes of lines and where they intersect. That's basic algebra. You're dragging in coordinate rotations and suggesting I should learn calculus. I haven't had to use calculus since university (nor algebra until SR came along).Notice that I have done nothing but "plain old algebra", just like you.
I have provided a preliminary list but the actual list is much longer and it will be revealed as the topics come up.how your "theory" of relativity differs from SR, or even if it differs.
I'm not sure what this forum tolerates. So far it seems more tolerant than most. I want to concentrate on the math differences because if they're disputed then the philosophy has no foundation. I try not to discuss the philosophy or history because then it moves from discussing facts to discussing opinions and my opinions are objectionable to everyone.It's almost like you're not sure, yourself.
No your questions need to be asked and no one has ever shown enough interest to ask this many questions. But I'm getting a lot of repetitious questions or comments on how this doesn't fit what relativity says as if I'm ignorant of what relativity says. Yes I'm frustrated because I thought the questions would come at the end and the whole theory needs to be presented as a whole jigsaw puzzle rather than just a box of pieces to see the whole picture. Your trying to piece it together yourself into a picture that you think it should be.You seem to get angry when I ask you questions, like it's a waste of your time to try to answer me, or something.
I want to have this discussion but I'm also hoping it won't drag on forever. Do you not think you're asking the same questions over and over?We don't have to have this discussion, if you think you have better ways to use your time. Just let me know if you want to stop.
Wait then. If you asked the question, I'll get around to it.Remember, that was back at post #71. There have been 50 more posts since then.
SR does that, I deal with proper time and proper distance and I don't care what the perspectives of that are. Relativity is not based on the illusion of perspective despite what Einstein decreed. A person 100 yds away from you is not really as tall as your thumb. It would be wild if he walks up to you and he's still as tall as your thumb. Then the physics all changes. There are real persistent relativistic effects, such as age difference from the twin paradox, that don't disappear when the velocity does. There is no such thing as measurable persistent length contraction because it's only due to the relativity of perspective simultaneity which disappears when there's no relative velocity. These are the facts and they are undisputed but always ignored.Relativity is all about translating their different coordinates from one frame to another.
We do not agree on this at all. The clocks do not tick off time differently, the timing started or ended at different times.You and I seem to agree that two observers who use identical clocks can have those two clocks tick off different amounts of time between a specified pair of spacetime events.
Bob at x=2.5 "sees" Alice at x"=2 but Alice sees Bob at x"=1.6. Bob at x=2.5 would look through Alice's perspective of him as being x"=1.6. Length contraction is Alice at x'=2 sees Bob contract to x"=1.6. Length dilation (borrowed from the term time dilation) is Bob's view at x=2.5 of Alice's dilated length of x'=2. Basically "dilation" and "contraction" are from different perspectives.I don't understand what you're saying about "the reference frame's perspective through the moving frame's perspective".
This is my in #84 response to your question what is YvDon't be silly. It was me who pointed out exactly what the difference is, in the first place. You're responding to my post #98, where I explained exactly what the difference is, and even put a label on the quantity γvγv\gamma v.
Yes that's the only place Yv is seen in relativity and it's the entire basis of my math. Brehme is mostly unknown and Loedel lines are my term so it's completely unknown in relativity.r in the 4-vector formulation of special relativity
The slope of c light message lines is dependent on Y in Epstein diagrams. Also the lengths of the light lines are the same in constant relative velocity regardless of whether they're chasing moving Alice or going back to stationary Bob. This does not happen in Minkowski diagrams.I do not believe that Epstein supports/supported the "non-constancy of c as a velocity".
Your question was what's a participant and I provided examples from the different types of spacetime diagrams.Above, you claimed you were responding to my post #27, but then you went off onto this tangent about "reverse Minkowski" diagrams and then Epstein, so that you didn't really respond to my post at all.
AA recently.Minkowski didn't fudge his diagram. What are you talking about?
I have not looked at general relativity but it looks devoid of controversy unlike special.forget about general relativity completely at first
Oh you were referring calculus to general relativity. My bad.you need to be very familiar with calculus
Partly answered, more details as the discussion progresses."stuck" on something or can't deal with some problem you think you've cracked
AASo what? Yv isn't physically meaningful. What is it the velocity of? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Alice needs 2 ships or she can travel in a corkscrew affecting he relative velocity to the distance she's trying to measure using parallax.Similarly, if Alice wants to use parallax, she needs to observe from two different locations in her frame.
Earth does move but if you're setting up a reference frame, Earth is far more applicable to a bunch of ships or satellites that choosing a single travelling satellite to be the reference frame for time and distance.You're essentially claiming that nobody anywhere can make a map.
AA No.All of them make physical sense.
Technically yes, practically no. Just look at the reverse- Md compared to the standard Md.There are no preferred reference frames in relativity. Alice's frame, in which the Earth moves away from her and Proxima Centauri approaches her, is just as valid a Bob's frame, in which Alice moves between a "stationary" Earth and Proxima Centauri.
Stick with me and I'll show you the opposite is true.they are unlikely to relate to anything that's meaningful physically.
false. Again I ask have you never heard of crossing the universe in a very short time on a ship? Please answer.When you ignore it, you get wrong answers, like those speeds of light that you obtain that are greater than or less than c.
The opposite is true.Your theory fails to accurately describe reality. SR succeeds where you fail.
AASo, what is your alternative theory derived from?
It's not part of my theory to explain the constancy of c nor is it a physical phenomenon of space or matter actually shrinking. I don't care about perspective views of time or space so I ignore them and still get the correct answers,.you said you "ignore" length contraction, but here you admit that "of course their lengths measurements are different".
It's derived from the relativity of simultaneity which is a time measurement of distance. Is there a pure distance derived postulate? Even if you derive it from a horizontal light clock example, it's still due to measuring distance with a clock. Any example you do, the muon example or the equivalence of electricity and magnetism, all of them can be solved without depending on length contraction. I will show this as part of this thread.It's not assumed; it's derived from the postulates.
When I see that I will respond as I go backward through this thread.So far, I have pointed out a number of errors in your calculations, but you have not responded.
Which "extra physical phenomena" can you predict, that relativity cannot? Please give one example, at least.
AA. Two examples. Relativity does not allow you to postulate how age difference progresses from Alice's velocity change to the final value of how much she ages less than Bob. Due to SR's definition of proper time, that determination can only be made upon co-location of Bob and Alice. As such, relativity cannot calculate permanent age difference for any velocity changes where Alice stops or leaves Bob faster than a stop or leaves Bob faster than her original velocity away from Bob.Please give one example of something that relativity calls "indeterminate" but your math is able to determine. Be sure to choose something that is physically testable, at least in principle.
A star chart provides proper distance and an on-board clock provides proper time.It is impossible to measure a velocity using a clock by itself.
You are yet to define "proper time" or "proper distance", as you understand them, and I won't be commenting on those until you do.
Wrong. Alice uses her star charts drawn from Bob's frame and her clock to measure Yv. She has no possible instrument to measure if her path has length contracted due to her motion. This is Einstein's philosophy without any experimental verification except if Einstein said it, it must be the only possible explanation. I have a much better one which, if I ever get done with these questions, maybe you'll understand.Neither of them measure anything as travelling at 3/4c.
It is not randomly calculated and is totally physically meaningful. Again, answer my question. Have you never heard of a ship crossing the universe in very little of its time? Once you answer this, all your objections will crumble into dust.Yv is just a randomly calculated quantity. It is not physically meaningful.
No such ruler exists.Sure she can. She can pull out a ruler and measure something that she sees flying past her, for instance.
Did you google clock handoff in relativity yet?That requires acceleration.
Absolutely wrong and completely false in every way.You seem to be hung up on "permanent" age differences, for some reason. I agree that whenever Alice moves and then stops moving relative to Bob, there will be permanent time differences, due to Alice's accelerations. It doesn't matter whether Alice physically returns to Bob's location. She doesn't have to. She could, for example, just stop some distance away from Bob.
Do you have someone you could ask for the correct answer. If they are distance separated they are liable to perspectives that see different times on their clocks than they do even if they're in the same frame.You're wrong. That would be a situation in which relativity could draw conclusions about their "permanent age difference". Also, once they were at rest relative to one another, every other frame would agree about their "permanent age difference" in the "stationary" frame.
In this case extremely good as you have no idea of what is the correct answer.If "everyone" except for you reaches one conclusion and you reach a different one, that should be food for thought, at the very least. What are the chances that you're the real expert?
This discussion is devolving into an ignorance of facts instead of a difference of opinions. Unfortunately these facts don't appear in popular relativity and are only known by experts who keep a lot of secrets to themselves.It may be simpler, but that's no good if it's wrong.
nonsenseyou don't start mixing different frames (e.g. using distances from one frame and times from a different one). That way only leads to error.
AARemind me, though, because I'm not understanding yet: what is the "Loedel perspective"? Is that your "average velocity" (or "half velocity") frame, or something else?
That's why SR falls apart as a philosophy even though the math agrees with experimental results.It is impossible to take it out of relativity while leaving everything else intact.
I will show you that's obviously not true as my math does not disagree with experimental results. You keep saying I've made errors but where have you seen my math come up with numbers differently from relativity. It certainly comes up with a different philosophy which you assume must be therefore wrong.And if you don't have all three of them, then you won't be able to account for experimental results
Where have you done this?For now, it is sufficient that I have shown that your math does not even produce self-consistent results.