Relativity of simultaneity in motionless frame and factor of motion.

[Bignose]

That is genius method.

I am not a genius, therefore I use random math. But random math has more chances than nothing.

Even if you are not a 'genius', you can still do good science. You are still responsible to see if your model is actually any good. You get measurements, you see what your equation predicts, and see how well they match.

 

This is elementary stuff.

 

Just posting yet ANOTHER random mishmash of t and gamma and v (at least the 6th one recently, much less the rest of the thread) is literally MEANINGLESS.

 

Is that what you are aiming for, meaninglessness? If so, what is the point?

[DimaMazin]

• Bignose, on 17 Sept 2016 - 7:05 PM, said:

• Even if you are not a 'genius', you can still do good science. You are still responsible to see if your model is actually any good. You get measurements, you see what your equation predicts, and see how well they match.

This is elementary stuff.

Just posting yet ANOTHER random mishmash of t and gamma and v (at least the 6th one recently, much less the rest of the thread) is literally MEANINGLESS.

Is that what you are aiming for, meaninglessness? If so, what is the point?

Yes. My method is very bad. Then let's use your.

Rocket x1 simultaneously accelerated on x1, rocket x2 on x2.

The observer simultaneously emited photons to the rockets. After reflection of the photons, by the rockets, the observer resieves them and markes times with atomic clock.(The rockets are running away from the observer.)

t₁=2x₁/(c-v)

t₂=2x₂/(c-v)

Distance between the rockets is contracted by gamma factor, therefore :

t₂-t₁=2(x₂-x₁)/(gamma_*c)

then

(2x₂-2x₁)/(gamma_*c)=2(x₂-x₁)/(c-v)

-v=(gamma-1)c

We have defined real speed, which is contracted as v due to contracting distance.

[DimaMazin]

Let's consider such mathematical idea:

Rapidness creates length contraction. Acceleration creates derectional simultaneity.

t_d=t+(gamma-1)x/(gamma_*|v|)

Speed on directional simultaneity is gamma_*v then.

There later time(clock indication) on bigger x is simultaneous to earlier time(clock indication) on smaller x. Therefore traveling object has less time for travel in derectional simultaneity than in clocks simultaneity.

Clocks simultaneity isn't proven because approaching clock can have another tick rate than runing away clock.

Can rapidness be a reason of length contraction?

[DimaMazin]

Of course you can choose any directional simultaneity, then tick rate of clock ,which is moving for sinchronization, depends on your choice.

Length isn't contracted in corresponding directional simultaneity, but it is contracted like velosity in clock simultaneity,which is real only for zero speed.

[DimaMazin]

And so traveling object is contracted in clocks simultaneity, but isn't contracted in directional simultaneity. You can check it if your photons attack traveling object at directional simultaneity.

Directional simultaneity of unaccelerated twin is clocks simultaneity of just accelerated twin. Therefore accelerated twin will have less time at meeting. But directional simultaneity always exists as increasing x at increasing time, even accelerated twin sees directiomal simultaneity of unaccelerated twin as increasing x at increasing time.

Still my model looks mathematicaly correct . I see no meaninglessness.

[DimaMazin]

t'_d=t'+(gamma-1)x'/(gamma_*|v|)

x'= - x

Then clocks simultaneity in S' is:

t'=t - 2(gamma-1)x/(gamma_*v)

We can use it for definition who is accelerated relative to each other. For example if Andromeda age exactly defined and distance is exactly defined then we can define who is accelerated , Milky Way or Andromeda Galaxy.

I think SR can not make the same.

[Mordred]

One day you will show how you derived the equations your posting. One doesn't just willy nilly new equations by simple replacement. Every equation you have posted for several months now is useless without showing how you derived them.

 

In other words its been useless to merely post new equations. They have no meaning until you perform the taylor series expansion using kinematics and freefall motion. You have not shown a single corresponding geodesic equation of motion to even define your geodesic path. Which is of fundamental importance to relativity of simultaneaty.

 

So how can you possibly conclude the above as being accurate?

Even if you are not a 'genius', you can still do good science. You are still responsible to see if your model is actually any good. You get measurements, you see what your equation predicts, and see how well they match.

 

This is elementary stuff.

 

Just posting yet ANOTHER random mishmash of t and gamma and v (at least the 6th one recently, much less the rest of the thread) is literally MEANINGLESS.

 

Is that what you are aiming for, meaninglessness? If so, what is the point?

This has already been pointed out by Bignose. Try listening to what is being told to you.

t'_d=t'+(gamma-1)x'/(gamma_*|v|)

 

Do you even understand what |v| means ? it has specific meanings which you obviously ignored. As I cannot determine which usage your using.

 

Choices are

1) absolute value: the magnitude of a real number without regard to its sign. Speed is the absolute value of velocity. If you have |v| as an absolute value then it has no direction. no longer a vector..

2)determinant: determinant of matrix V

3)parallel: self explanatory

4)cardinality: the number of elements of set V

 

none of these makes sense in your equation above

 

Which is it? as your definetely not using the inner/outer Minkowskii dot product. Which you should be using.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mordred

[DimaMazin]

One day you will show how you derived the equations your posting. One doesn't just willy nilly new equations by simple replacement. Every equation you have posted for several months now is useless without showing how you derived them.

 

In other words its been useless to merely post new equations. They have no meaning until you perform the taylor series expansion using kinematics and freefall motion. You have not shown a single corresponding geodesic equation of motion to even define your geodesic path. Which is of fundamental importance to relativity of simultaneaty.

 

So how can you possibly conclude the above as being accurate?

This has already been pointed out by Bignose. Try listening to what is being told to you.

Do you even understand what |v| means ? it has specific meanings which you obviously ignored. As I cannot determine which usage your using.

 

Choices are

1) absolute value: the magnitude of a real number without regard to its sign. Speed is the absolute value of velocity. If you have |v| as an absolute value then it has no direction. no longer a vector..

2)determinant: determinant of matrix V

3)parallel: self explanatory

4)cardinality: the number of elements of set V

 

none of these makes sense in your equation above

 

Which is it? as your definetely not using the inner/outer Minkowskii dot product. Which you should be using.

Minkowski cannot be mate when we try to solve Bell's spaceship paradox. Clocks go at the same rate in S and S'. Only they have different readout of simultaneity on distance with speed. Mathematically : simultaneously dt=dt' in both frames but t doesn't equal t' at relative speed due to different simultaneity after acceleration on distance.

 

dt=t-t₀

dt'=t'-t₀'

then t₀=t-t'=(r/v)_*((gamma-1)/gamma)

or t₀=t₀'+(gamma-1)r/(gamma_*v)

then r/dt=gamma_*v

[Strange]

"simultaneity"

 

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes?item=qt0482717

[DimaMazin]

"simultaneity"

 

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes?item=qt0482717

Simultaneity is just choice of math with clocks.

[Strange]

Simultaneity is just choice of math with clocks.

 

 

So I was right.

This does help make sense of a huge number of your posts. Now I know that you didn't mean "simultaneity", some of the things you have written in the past might make more sense. (Still not much sense, but a little more.)

Edited June 11, 2017 by Strange

[Mordred]

Simultaneity is just choice of math with clocks.

Definetely not. It is a very specific synchronization procedure (Einstein synchronization).

 

In all the time you have been posting on this forum on trying to rewrite relativity.

 

Have you spent any of that time studying the subject you are trying to rewrite? I mean intensive study.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred

[DimaMazin]

Then two accelerating rockets should have enough gravitational link for length contraction between them, because cosmological force grows between rockets,accelerating in one direction.

[DimaMazin]

On 28.06.2017 at 5:16 AM, DimaMazin said:

Then two accelerating rockets should have enough gravitational link for length contraction between them, because cosmological force grows between rockets,accelerating in one direction.

Then redshift of light communication exists between rockets, simultaneously acceleratings in one direction, . And it is bigger on longer distance. Scientists can check it.

Edited August 1, 2017 by DimaMazin

[DimaMazin]

Let's define  cosmological force of rupture of thread between accelerating rockets.

uncontracted distance=(gamma-1)x/gamma

increased distance between accelerating rockets=uncontracted distance * gamma=(gamma-1)x

dv=(gamma-1)x/dt

a'=dv/dt=(gamma-1)x/dt²

a'  is cosmological acceleration between accelerating rockets

a  is acceleration of the rockets relative to us

gamma=1/(1-a²dt²/c²)^1/2

F_c=a' * (m₁+m₂)=(gamma-1)x *(m₁+m₂)/dt²

F_c={1-(1-a²dt²/c²)^1/2}x*(m₁+m₂)/[(1-a²dt²/c²)^1/2*dt²

F_c  is force of rupture of filament between accelerating rockets

Edited November 25, 2017 by DimaMazin

[DimaMazin]

 

I am bad in math therefore I can't correctly define the force. But physicists can experimentaly define the force.

Two weights are connected by two long bars and a force gauge between them. We should measure force when the back weight is accelerating and pushing the forward weight.And we should measure when the forward weight is accelerating and pulling the back weight. In the first case cosmological force doesn't increase a pushing force . In the second case cosmological force increases a  pulling force.