Ralfativity 3.0a

ADMIN: Deleted Post

Rude Behavior: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the Rules of Conduct.

Just wait, it gets worse, much worse. A lot of math. And the pace will be inexorably slow as I'm really busy right now. I'd avoid this thread if I were you. Thanks for stopping by and making your announcement though.

ADMIN: Redacted content

Rude Behavior: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the Rules of Conduct.

....rest assured you will be able to post here in obscurity and ignored mostly, to your hearts content...

Thank you, my most stimulating conversations are with intelligent people. I look forward to some really good debates.

so get on with it. Many words to say nothing.

So far this thread hasn't attracted the usual number of trolls and the mods don't do anything about them anyway so I will answer your question.

Ralfativity began June 2016. Since then, I've had over 204000 views over various locked posts and banishments. Ralfativity 3.0 had 8000 views in only a month of life and I was "drop-kicked" at a time I was getting nearly 300 views per day. The mod felt the only person qualified to respond to the thread was unavailable but Jorrie did respond saying Ralfativity "does not enhance the understanding of SR - on the contrary, I think it will seriously hinder the progress for serious students." That's pretty high praise thinking my arguments could be so compelling that I could mentally cripple "serious" students (of which there didn't seem to be any on the forum).

I did have 1 troll and I was drop-kicked at the same time I commented about how the black symbols (text) and line filled graphs were probably upsetting his view of large blank spaces on the forum. I was also suspended for 2 days for saying the forum's #1 genius was parroting relativity terms (he learned in relativity grad school) without understanding what they meant. (I said it in a very humorous way though.)

So yeah, it looks like here, 200 views in total would be a major milestone and Ralfativity will die in obscurity and mostly ignored.

"Welcome back Cr4 forum." The forum has always been here, it is you who left.

"Sadly I've been kicked off the SPCF forum." Sadness to one man is glee to another.

and will continue with my latest exploration of special relativity here. I know, neither one of us is happy about that but as the forum moderator told me as he showed me the door, it is what it is.

"Luckily, I learned a lot there and and this forum will get the latest, error free version right here." Oh joy.

"I'd love to post on the prestigious physics forum but they don't tolerate new ideas or people's over-confident presentation of them." New ideas they are probably OK with, it's the other which may vex them.

"Maybe my Eddington will be found here after all." I'm hoping he is too, and soon.

Welcome back.

The forum has always been here, it is you who left.

Sadness to one man is glee to another.

-Perspective, that's the first topic.

Ok I'd like to start with a quote from Dr. Don Lincoln

"The really fundamental insight into relativty and its most interesting property is that each and every object is always travelling through spacetime (not space) at the speed of light. The more velocity it has in space, the less velocity it has in time. And that's the fundamental crux of the whole thing."

Here is what everyone's own frame looks like from their perspective:

Not a whole lot seems to be happening within your own frame. According to the above quote, c²=c_t ² +c_x ² where c_t is the velocity of light through time (depicted by the blue line) and c_x is the velocity of light through space (which is non-existent within a frame).

c would have been depicted as a 45 degree line but it is purposely left out of the STD for reasons which will become clear later. c has no velocity through time component and is all velocity through space c_x.

The universe within your own frame is motionless except for your ageing which goes at the velocity of light through time c_t. But if that were strictly true, you'd show no signs of ageing as none of your biological functions would move. 0c velocity through space (c=c_t , c_x =0) is just as impossible to reach for matter as 0c velocity through time (c=c_x , c_t =0).

So, to allow the discussion to continue, the motions within your frame would be limited to a small percentage of c_x. Most of the universe can fit into this approximation except for colliders, muons and GPS where you need to get out the time microscopes (accurate clocks). The speed of light through time would manifest itself as normal ageing and normal movement; you'd see no one around you ageing or moving at fast forward or slow motion. This is the universal rate of time.

If you want to depict two frames in relative motion, this is where the velocity through space c_x comes in. Here is what a relative velocity of .6c would look like between two frames.

It looks like two sheets of graph paper rotated around a common origin. In relativity it's slightly different in that the top graph paper is folded up along the x-axis line to form rhombic Minkowski coordinates. In ralfativity, the top graph paper is cut away, not folded over, at the x-axis line to allow for a common space between the two frames during relative motion. Notice there is only 1 line for c. The truth is there are three lines superimposed on each other. More on that later.

Here's what .8c would look like:

The grid on the top graph paper gets larger and larger as its tilt gets closer and closer to c.

More later when I have time.

If you can't read STD's, you're going to be SOL here. I tried to teach that on the previous forum and it's hopeless. However it did give me an idea to write a children's book on ralfativity preliminarily titled, "See Dick see Spot run at .6c." Subtitled, "Run Spot Run."

I am curious, please enlighten.

Is this thread intended to be a question, a discussion, or a lecture?

It used to be a question but now it's more a lecture unless the discussion leads to new questions. It is definitely not relativity but arose out of questions I had about relativity. If you need more detail and wish to read ahead, it's all spelled out in a meandering exploration on the science philosophy chat forum under personal theories. I wanted to clean up the meanderings into a cleaner version but they said no thanks to that, they had enough. So here I am.

please define your TLA's.

Spacetime Diagram

What is a TLA?

A TLA is a Three Letter Acronym, and it was a reference to the STD you referenced. STD is more accurately a Three Letter Initialism, but TLA is a fairly common reference to either shorthand usage.

I covered it for you already in post #16, the subsequent comment.

I didn’t bother with SOL, this TLA being more common.

At least you didn’t reference a duckdo.

Oh no, I've already spotted a typo. c² =v_t ² + v_x ² . Everywhere I put c_t or c_x , it should have been v_t or v_x . Bad start.

<face palm>

Well, you made me smile on a Friday, so not a total loss.

Just try and be as clear as possible when you post something so it is clear and doesn't look like someone rambling to themself. This will help as there are a few high level Physics minds on CR4 that may be interested, but likely won't bother if you are not clear and succinct in you postings.

So many times we have seen lunatics post their thoughts on CR4 and dress them up as real theory or science, don't fall into the same trap as them and get tarred with the same brush.

Perhaps you don’t remember our OP.

From his most recent thread: Hoo boy, if I am wrong I will totally apologize for my ignorance, arrogance and terrible treatment of my fellow man. Unfortunately I love fighting with people and it has not done me one bit of good, ever.

https://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/1242446/Re-Relativity-Example

I've obviously been somewhat wrong since 2008 as this last iteration is quite different. But I have kept some concepts from the beginning. I can't find what specifically I'm supposed to be wrong about. Please tell me so I can fulfil my promise. I am trying to be a better person but eventually I will crack again.

Impossible to escape that tar as legitimate new ideas are for a time seen as lunatic ideas. One sign of a lunatic is they either speak or think in word salad.

The next two STD's show 5 different ways .6c relative velocity can be depicted. The first shows the difference between Loedel and Minkowski depictions.

Here is an example of depicting .6c relative velocity as two .33c velocity lines (blue) separating from each other (Loedel depiction). The crossed blue lines represent reciprocal time dilation. .6c relative velocity is also depicted between 0c and .6c red lines (Minkowski depiction). The crossed red lines represent reciprocal time dilation.

This next STD shows 3 Minkowski depictions of .6c. First between 0c and .6c, then .6c and .8824c and finally between .8824c and .967c. The crossed lines represent reciprocal time dilation.

As you can see, there are many ways to depict .6c relative velocity and all of them fail at doing so. In relative velocity, both participants must see the other as moving at .6c relative to them. The first Minkowski depicts one as stationary and the other as going at .6c. All have the numerical values of their velocities relative to a hidden common background frame. Their relative velocity of .6c must be calculated and is not readily visible in the depiction. The one that is closest to showing both frames moving relatively to each other, albeit at a numerical value of .33c relative to the common frame, is the Loedel depiction.

There is a way to show that in all the depictions they are moving at .6c relative to each other but there is no escaping the implied common background frame. This is not the same thing as the forbidden preferred frame. It's merely a drawing tool to compensate for the limitation of STD depictions.

The thing you must abandon is the notion that there are stationary and moving perspectives; there are only stationary and moving depictions. The two participants are always moving at a relative velocity to each other. They are also moving relatively to a depiction of a common stationary background frame. For simplified calculation, one of the participants can also be depicted as stationary. This does not mean his perspective is stationary. Perspective belongs to the participants and is independent of being depicted as stationary or moving. A hard concept to grasp but I'll illustrate it with some examples.

Why is this important? I want to avoid being called an absolutist. I'm a relativist but as soon as you draw the standard Minkowski STD, it looks as though you are advocating an absolute stationary perspective when you're actually adopting a stationary/moving depiction of relative velocity.

The next post will take some time to simplify the STD's. It will show how to reveal relative velocity in STD depictions that hide it well. Of course the simplest way is to use the doppler shift ratio but since most people use that term, reciprocal time dilation and age difference (from the twin paradox) interchangeably, it's too early to introduce it. I am really rushing to complete this thread but I have too many obstacles right now.

Shouldn't this be drawn in a 3D graph? ....Maybe if you could figure out the shape of the graph, you could better visualize the landscape....

Shouldn't what be drawn in a 3d graph? My graphs? No. Relative velocity? What does your graph represent? Landscape of what? If I draw a graph isn't that visualizing it? An STD is in 2D. A 4-vector light cone is probably in 3d but why would i use that when most people can't even understand an STD? Are you just parroting this drawing or is there a point here?

Well, so much for a kinder, gentler ralfativity.

[unsubscribe]

Why don't you wait for solar eagle's answer. He won't and it's wrong for me to call him out on it? You know randomly guessing at the right answer is not the same thing as knowing the right answer. It's funny as he was the 1st person to respond to my first post in 2008 in the same way, trying to be helpful with some random unrelated answer. Of course people's feelings get bruised when I bluntly say thanks but no thanks. I'm very appreciative of straight talkin' good answers though.

If you don't know the "right" answer, how do you know that's not it? I haven't seen a valid question yet...only confused rambling, with a butt-hurt attitude...You sound a lot like the over-unity wacko's we used to get here, preaching 'free energy for all' nonsense, because they refused to understand the nature of a magnetic field...

What question? What answer? Random is the only appropriate response...I do recognize you don't have a clue about that which you speak...You are so entrenched in your own microcosm of reality, you can no longer communicate effectively with the outside world....In my opinion what you are searching for is not answers, but a way out of the corner you have painted yourself into...

"... What sparks the intelligent, inflames the ignorant. ...."

.

You seem to be implying that being intelligent and being ignorant are mutually exclusive.

Being ignorant is not a condition of lacking intelligence. Ignorance is a condition of not knowing something.

Being intelligent is definitely not a conditoon of being free of ignorance. One component of intelligence is the ability to learn, which itself is predicated on some understanding of one's own ignorance.

Then, by your logic, your very moniker is a logical fallacy. Everything that's not a compromise is the truth?

Nope.

Solar Eagle did accidentally bring up a good point. Looming over ralfativity is advanced math beyond the simple algebra I'm using. There are hyperbolic functions, calculus, 4-vector matrices and even tensors from general relativity. Since special relativity is a special case of general relativity, there could be locks on how creatively I'm allowed to use basic algebra which is all STD's are. I doubt it because advanced math can't contradict basic math; math is math. Basic relativity is taught using algebra, is that a 113 yr old con job?

I will prove algebraically that length contraction is not needed in SR, any problem can be solved with space itself being invariant. But in GR, space contracts under gravity and in SR only length contracts due to perspective of relative velocity. In ralfativity, perspective is separate from reality while in relativity it's not. (Unfortunately relativity doesn't have a comprehensive definition of reality.)

I welcome anyone who can step forward and show how the math from the future, translated into simple algebra, can falsify ralfativity. Showing me a picture of a 3d light cone isn't going to cut it. Promising aliens or scientists from the future will one day visit us and throw all our math in the garbage, well, I'm not going to stop everything waiting for that day.

P.S. I'm only interested in the truth and those people who want to derail that by making this thread about ego, personality, etiquette, or saving face are not really welcome.

Ok, I was working on showing how to reveal relative velocity as distance over time in any STD depiction. I was going to show how rotation of the entire Loedel STD is equivalent to the minkowski depiction. I've found both as too difficult.

The Loedel is not two pieces of graph paper rotated with respect to each other, it is 3. And when you rotate the whole thing, a fourth background piece is introduced. So forget that whole thing.

From now on there is only 1 depiction that counts: Bob will be depicted as stationary on a stationary earth frame and Alice will be the rotated frame sharing the same x-axis with Bob's frame. In case you're wondering, this is not the classic Minkowski STD found in relativity. There is no reverse analysis where Alice is depicted as stationary and Bob is moving because true perspective is independent of depiction. This is not a preferred frame, it is a depiction of a selected perspective from a common background reference frame. A lot of text will be devoted to show the difference between the two.

This new type of STD, which includes the concept of space invariance and excludes length contraction from relativistic reality, alters and simplifies relativistic formulae. It also provides a description of reality that is way beyond relativity's bending of space and time to keep c constant from all perspectives; nice but doesn't really matter to a whole lot of people.

My statements will set off alarm bells in any students who have worked hard to memorize relativistic concepts to get A's and B's in school. They will also scare off people who could possibly challenge these concepts because their religious fervour in relativity will force them to preclude that any challenge is a waste of their time. I'm looking for a third option, someone who knows so much about the subject matter that my challenge can be easily brushed aside by them.

I just thought of a great example to go through where I'm not sure what the answer will be. Two ships separate from earth away from each other at .33c relative to earth and therefore .6c relative to each other (Loedel depiction). A third ship takes off from earth at .6c relative to a 4th ship on earth (Minkowski depiction). Both are examples of .6c separation but which example will end up with a greater total distance separation from earth perspective between the two ships after 2 earth years travel in each example? I think the answer will be more than just compensating perspectives to length contraction and time dilation. I think the earth perspective in the first example is not the same as the one in the 2nd. The common frame is not rotated in the first and it's rotated to .33c in the second. I'll have to work out the answer.

Ok, here's the monolith. Everything you need to know about ralfativity is contained in these 2 STD's. It's a conversion from Loedel to Ralfski (Minkowski without length contraction) showing at t=2 yrs earth time (green line), the two examples show both sets of ships have achieved the same separation of 1.2 ly.

Notice how the x-axis remains invariant for both examples and how it is shared by all 3 participants (earth green, Bob blue and Alice red). Also notice how the common earth frame green line takes on the time units of the t-axis whether that line is vertical (1st STD) or slanted (2nd STD). Another thing to notice, if you can spot it, is how Alice's perspective of Bob can bring out a distance/time .6c velocity through space reading for Bob even though he is depicted as .33 c in the first and 0c in the 2nd STD. I know I said it was too difficult to do but I was wrong. I'll leave you to ponder it before I start writing reams of text explaining it. I know you can't wait, I'll try to hurry.

Before I continue with the long boring verbal description of the two STD's I have to establish some concepts that will be used to explain them.

First is the speed of empty space. Let's say you launch a tube of water at .1c with a laser inside and outside the tube and a time comparator at the end to measure the speed difference between the two beams of light. The speed of light through water happens to be .75c so the combined velocity of the tube will bring the speed of light within the tube wrt the outer laser to .8c using the velocity combo law.

But the tube has a small leak and as it evacuates, the speed within the tube gets closer and closer to the outside c. When the tube is evacuated, both the light within and without the tube are at c. The vacuum sealed in the tube is the same as the vacuum outside the tube which means space can't move or be moved. The sealed tube is not moving the vacuum within it.

This is crucial to understanding what happens to Alice when her depiction changes from moving to stationary in an STD. The standard twin paradox STD's will be used:

Bob depicted as stationary:

Alice depicted as stationary (using relativity):

Strictly speaking the correct depiction is a mirror image of this one but just put a minus sign in front of the x-axis units.

You mean they actually had cans of spray paint in those days?