Master Theory

[uncool]

So. Simpler, easier.

 

Let: time of your interlocutor slow down.

 

Are your time slowed-down or accelerated? (Interlocutor's opinion.)

Because of the space that is growing between you two, slowed down. There is no contradiction. Read through the whole post to see why.

 

Now will you answer my question?

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

 

Then if we take a transform, the light ray must reach the point x' at time t' if (t', x') is the transformed version of (t, x), correct?

 

In that case, since the speed of light is c in all frames, we then know that x'^2 - (ct')^2 = 0, correct?

=Uncool-

Edited September 11, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

Because of the space that is growing between you two, slowed down. There is no contradiction. Read through the whole post to see why.

A distance between the observers of Transverse Doppler effect is constant.

In that case, since the speed of light is c in all frames, we then know that x'^2 - (ct')^2 = 0, correct?

The collision takes place:

 

1. Time is absolute.

 

2. The boundary between a facts that "can happen" and that "can not happen" should not depend on the acrobatics of the observer.

 

What to prefer? Third?

Edited September 12, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

A distance between the observers of Transverse Doppler effect is constant.

We're not talking about the transverse doppler effect - we're not talking about any doppler effect. I was answering your question.

The collision takes place:

 

1. Time is absolute.

 

2. The boundary between a facts that "can happen" and that "can not happen" should not depend on the acrobatics of the observer.

 

What to prefer? Third?

I have no idea what post you are responding to, because this has nothing to do with my post.

 

Answer one at a time:

 

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

=Uncool-

[Alexander Masterov]

A distance between the observers of Transverse Doppler effect is constant.

We're not talking about the transverse doppler effect - we're not talking about any doppler effect. I was answering your question.

What does your sentence mean?:

..space that is growing..

[uncool]

What does your sentence mean?:

I mean that the distance between the two is becoming larger over time. Because space mixes with time in relativity, in another frame that means that time slows down.

 

There is no contradiction between both thinking that the other has slowed down.

 

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

=Uncool-

[Alexander Masterov]

I mean that the distance between the two is becoming larger over time.

It is not true.

 

When moving across a view axis the distance does not change (d|r|/dt=0). Nevertheless: the time dilation takes place. (Einstein allege.)

 

Einstein allege: time can slow down (by acceleration), but time can not accelerate (by acceleration). If time slow down, then - it can not accelerate, can not return back. Traveler will have its own (slow) time on Earth. How can this be?

Edited September 13, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

It is not true.

The two are moving away from each other. By definition the distance between the two is increasing.

When moving across a view axis the distance does not change (d|r|/dt=0).

That is not the situation being discussed here at all. We are talking about two people who are moving away from each other at velocity v - which means that the distance between the two is increasing.

Nevertheless: the time dilation takes place. (Einstein allege.)

 

Einstein allege: time can slow down (by acceleration)

Not quite. Time is no longer an object by itself.

, but time can not accelerate (by acceleration).

Again, not quite. What he says is that time can only be dilated in one way - that is, while in an inertial frame, time for another observer can only move more slowly than in one's own frame.

 

Look up the twin paradox.

=Uncool-

[Alexander Masterov]

The two are moving away from each other. By definition the distance between the two is increasing.

No!

 

[math]\frac{d|r|}{dt}=0[/math]

 

[math]\frac{d\phi}{dt}=const[/math]

Not quite. Time is no longer an object by itself.

It is self-explanatory. Need explain it.

time for another observer can only move more slowly than in one's own frame.

It violates the principle of causality.

 

If one observer sees time dilation, other observer is required to see the time acceleration. No options.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

No!

 

[math]\frac{d|r|}{dt}=0[/math]

 

[math]\frac{d\phi}{dt}=const[/math][/QUOTe]

You are talking about two observers that are moving at constant velocities relative to each other. For that to happen, you cannot have those two equations true except momentarily.

It is self-explanatory. Need explain it.

In relativity, the important point is that a spatial displacement in one frame becomes a displacement both in space and time in another frame. That is why time-ordering need not be consistent between frames.

It violates the principle of causality.

Actually, it doesn't. Relativity is entirely consistent with causality. Event A can only cause event B if event B is in the future light-cone of event A. As the light-cone is invariant, if it's true in one frame, it's true in every frame - which means that causality is entirely consistent with relativity.

If one observer sees time dilation, other observer is required to see the time acceleration. No options.

False. Do you know how matrices work? If so, I can explain the math via matrices.

 

Now, will you finally answer the questions:

 

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

=Uncool-

Edited September 13, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

You are talking about two observers that are moving at constant velocities relative to each other. For that to happen, you cannot have those two equations true except momentarily.

Yes! Everyone satisfied to the fullest of it.

 

I recall (for example) simple pendulum. ([math]T=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{L}{g}}[/math])

In relativity, the important point is that a spatial displacement in one frame becomes a displacement both in space and time in another frame. That is why time-ordering need not be consistent between frames.

You offer to take into account the longitudinal Doppler effect?

But this effect is complementary to the slowing of time, but - not cause of it.

False. Do you know how matrices work? If so, I can explain the math via matrices.

Your math is based on the dogma of Einstein's theory and vote self-explanatory.

Now, will you finally answer the questions:

 

If [math]x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0[/math], then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

The origin of [math]x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0[/math] is not obvious. At the beginning of this theme I have shown that: order to meet the absoluteness of light speed no needs for it. Edited September 14, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

Alexander, I've been waiting for you to answer the question:

 

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

=Uncool-

[Alexander Masterov]

If x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0, then a light ray sent from point 0 at time 0 will get to point x at time t, correct?

Yes, if the observer is stationary.

 

then a flight time is independent of direction: [math] T_1=T_2=\frac{L}{c} [/math]

 

If the observer moves:

then the flight time in different directions will be different for all theories (Einstein's theory included).

 

[math] T_1=\frac{L}{c+v} [/math]

 

[math] T_2=\frac{L}{c-v} [/math]

 

[math]x'^2 - (ct')^2 = 0[/math] - is not correct.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

So you believe that light can travel at different speeds in different frames? For example, if you are moving at velocity v, then light will move v slower?

=Uncool-

[Alexander Masterov]

So you believe that light can travel at different speeds in different frames? For example, if you are moving at velocity v, then light will move v slower?

Yes, accurate within inside out. (I.e. - no: light speed id absolute always.)

 

We have cases: light catches up with the mirror(1) and a light runs to the mirror(2).

Which gives we two different flight times.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[Alexander Masterov]

In Master Theory:

[math]T'_1+T'_2=T_1+T_2[/math]

 

[math] \frac{L'}{c+v}+\frac{L'}{c-v}=\frac{2L}{c}[/math]

______________________________________________

 

Einstein theory:

[math](T'_1+T'_2)\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} =T_1+T_2[/math]

 

[math] (\frac{L'}{c+v}+\frac{L'}{c-v})\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} =\frac{2L}{c}[/math]

______________________________________________

 

Both cases: [math]T'_1\neq T'_2[/math]

Edited September 15, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[Alexander Masterov]

Essence of Master Theory are reduced to a simple idea: the absoluteness of a cross-scales of SRT is not justified. Therefore: we obtain opportunity deprive the cross-scale of this quality, that is, cross-scale can be relative. Thus get a free parameter for each value that you can build a separate theory of relativity, each of which will have as much right exist, as special relativity Einstein's theory has.

 

Then I prove rigorously that time must be absolute (otherwise violates the principle of causality). So (of the entire infinite set of alternatives SRT) remain in force only one a theory which I called Master Theory.

 

 

[uncool]

Yes! Everyone satisfied to the fullest of it.

 

I recall (for example) simple pendulum. ([math]T=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{L}{g}}[/math])

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You offer to take into account the longitudinal Doppler effect?

But this effect is complementary to the slowing of time, but - not cause of it.

Again, this seems like gibberish.

Your math is based on the dogma of Einstein's theory and vote self-explanatory.

No, the math is based on an understanding of Einstein's theory. Do you understand matrices? If you do, then I can explain Einstein's theory. If you disagree with Einstein's theory, then the point where you disagree can be pointed out in the math just as well.

The origin of [math]x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0[/math] is not obvious. At the beginning of this theme I have shown that: order to meet the absoluteness of light speed no needs for it.

Actually, you have not shown that. All you have done is claim it repeatedly.

 

Then I prove rigorously that time must be absolute (otherwise violates the principle of causality).

 

Please demonstrate that the principle of causality is violated in special relativity.

=Uncool-

Edited September 18, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

- This equation true except momentarily.

 

 

Again, this seems like gibberish.

My english is poor. I'm sorry.

Do you understand matrices? If you do, then I can explain Einstein's theory.

I'm physicist and had a good math basis (programming mathematician, specializing in developing very sophisticated algorithms), I understand the matrix, but rarely use them.

 

Matrix is a shortened way of writing linear equations (no more than).

 

I think: long bed-sheet, filled formulas, not to do clear, but it to do muddle for me.

 

The answer to my question on the surface. If you knew him you would not have to write long formulas.

 

Long formulas are needed in order to confuse and deceive.

Actually, you have not shown that. All you have done is claim it repeatedly.

Do not need the expression to obtain the relativistic formulas for me.

Please demonstrate that the principle of causality is violated in special relativity.

In our reality is really a rule: if my interlocutor detected slow down of my time, then: I must an acceleration of see time of my partner. Einstein's theory argues that in such a situation, you (both) can watch the slowing of time.

 

This ambiguity is impossible.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

My english is poor. I'm sorry. I'm physicist and had a good math basis (programming mathematician, specializing in developing very sophisticated algorithms), I understand the matrix, but rarely use them.

 

Matrix is a shortened way of writing linear equations (no more than).

 

In our reality is really a rule: if my interlocutor detected slow down of my time, then: I must an acceleration of see time of my partner. Einstein's theory argues that in such a situation, you (both) can watch the slowing of time.

 

This ambiguity is impossible.

OK.

 

So all of the theories (including your "Master Theory" and Einstein's special relativity) that you mention are linear theories, and can be described by transformation matrices.

 

Do you agree that your statement about slowdowns is equivalent to saying that if the transformation matrix A for a velocity v is such that [math]A^v_{0,0} > 1[/math], then [math](A^{v^{-1}})_{0,0} < 1[/math]?

 

On another note, what is your transformation matrix?

=Uncool-

Edited September 18, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

OK.

I see no need to use a matrix.

 

You are trying to confuse the debate by scarce (insufficiently plain) mathematical notation.

 

It's not OK.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

I see no need to use a matrix.

 

You are trying to confuse the debate by scarce mathematical calculations.

 

It's not OK.

I am not trying to confuse the debate. I am trying to illustrate my point in a different way because you have not understood the other ways, and because this way can (to some people, including myself) be simpler. I am more at home with the matrix calculations here than I am at the word problem version of this that you are trying to use.

 

The advantage of writing it mathematically is that it makes it abundantly clear what questions and answers are saying. That is the major problem with your assertions - they are not clear. By writing it mathematically, everything becomes clearer.

 

The matrix is easier because the idea of an inverse happens to be important here. That is why I am trying to use it.

=Uncool-

Edited September 18, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

I am not trying to confuse the debate. I am trying to illustrate my point in a different way because you have not understood the other ways, and because this way can (to some people, including myself) be simpler. I am more at home with the matrix calculations here than I am at the word problem version of this that you are trying to use.

 

The advantage of writing it mathematically is that it makes it abundantly clear what questions and answers are saying. That is the major problem with your assertions - they are not clear. By writing it mathematically, everything becomes clearer.

 

The matrix is easier because the idea of an inverse happens to be important here. That is why I am trying to use it.

I'm in the firm belief that: if you are unable to understandably communicate your idea to any student, then you poorly understand your idea.

 

Mediocrity of Russian Academy of Sciences often use this method: they create pseudoscientific language, full of obscure concepts and notation that allows them to create the appearance of science value of their work.

 

We will not follow their example.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

I'm in the firm belief that: if you are unable to understandably communicate your idea to any student, then you poorly understand your idea.

 

Mediocrity of Russian Academy of Sciences often use this method: they create pseudoscientific language, full of obscure concepts and notation that allows them to create the appearance of science value of their work.

 

We will not follow their example.

I have a good understanding of the idea. However, I cannot communicate it to you because of the inability to translate. Therefore, I am trying to write it in mathematical terms which translate more easily. That is the other advantage of math - it transcends language much more easily.

 

If you cannot understand the math, then you have no place claiming to understand the physics. You say that the matrices are equivalent; then you should find it easy to translate from what I am saying to something you can easily understand.

 

If you really want me to write it out without the matrices:

In our reality is really a rule: if my interlocutor detected slow down of my time, then: I must an acceleration of see time of my partner.

Why?

 

Why must you see an acceleration of time? Please give a precise reason why.

=Uncool-

Edited September 18, 2011 by uncool

[Alexander Masterov]

If you cannot understand the math, then you have no place claiming to understand the physics. You say that the matrices are equivalent; then you should find it easy to translate from what I am saying to something you can easily understand.

I understand the matrix. I understand what it means to multiply a matrix by another matrix. I understand that means the inverse matrix. (AA^-1=1)

But I prefer to communicate in the forum, using the language by which writed physical handbooks. This language is understood by all and it does not require knowledge of matrices. And this language is sufficient to describe any idea.

The introduction of little-known concepts will not give us anything but - confusion.

 

My question: Einstein bestowed the absoluteness to the cross-scale (but not for time) - what basis?

It's simple question. If you have answer, then it's simple.

 

If you really want me to write it out without the matrices:

In our reality is really a rule: if my interlocutor detected slow down of my time, then: I must an acceleration of see time of my partner.

Why?

 

Why must you see an acceleration of time? Please give a precise reason why.

I could write that this is obvious. That would is sufficient. It really is obvious, since this is consistent with everyday experience.

 

But we can conduct a thought experiment: both the observer to do a project of a movie on a screen.

 

If one sees an acceleration, and second sees a deceleration, then they will see a frames by equal sequence.

 

If both the slowdown seen, for each of them will have private sequence of frames. It's impossible in our reality.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Alexander Masterov

[uncool]

I understand the matrix. I understand what it means to multiply a matrix by another matrix. I understand that means the inverse matrix. (AA^-1=1)

But I prefer to communicate in the forum, using the language by which writed physical handbooks. This language is understood by all and it does not require knowledge of matrices. And this language is sufficient to describe any idea.

Actually, it really isn't sufficient. There are many ideas which can only be described mathematically. You are correct to say that this isn't one of them, but this is one of those ideas which is simpler to describe mathematically.

The introduction of little-known concepts will not give us anything but - confusion.

You are trying to discuss physics. Matrices are not little-known to physicists - they are everywhere in physics.

My question: Einstein bestowed the absoluteness to the cross-scale (but not for time) - what basis?

It's simple question. If you have answer, then it's simple.

The basis was the assumption that the speed of light was absolute - that it was the same in every frame. It is possible to derive that the "cross-scale is absolute" from that assumption.

I could write that this is obvious. That would is sufficient. It really is obvious, since this is consistent with everyday experience.

 

But we can conduct a thought experiment: both the observer to do a project of a movie on a screen.

 

If one sees an acceleration, and second sees a deceleration, then they will see a frames by equal sequence.

 

If both the slowdown seen, for each of them will have private sequence of frames. It's impossible in our reality.

Why would it be impossible for each of them to see a different sequence of frames? What precisely is wrong with that? And where does causality, which you invoked, come into it?

=Uncool-