Ralfativity 2.0

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on November 4th, 2017, 6:12 pm 

This is not a thread on the special theory of relativity. I'm abandoning anything I said on my previous threads. Ralfativity has alternate explanations for relativistic phenomena and the following explanations should not be confused with SR.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Here's what pushed me over the edge

Postby ralfcis on November 6th, 2017, 11:07 am 

What pushed me over the edge to reject the teachings of relativity was the discussion on reciprocity.

Here's a picture of reciprocity at a relative velocity of .6c where Bob and the Earth are the stationary reference frame.

dilation3.jpg


In the next STD you can see how the crossed colored lines of reciprocity close on each other for subsequent .6c relative velocities that approach c. The first is where Bob is at .6c relative to the earth and Alice is at .8824c relative to the earth which maintains .6c relative to each other.

dilation4.jpg


The next superimposes Bob = .8824c relative to the earth with Alice at .969c relative to the earth to maintain .6c between them.

dilation45.jpg


People who don't understand what relative velocity means will not understand these STD's. That's because they have the idea that .6c is like a setting on the spaceship's speedometer. You want to go .6c? Just step on the gas until the needle hits .6c. These STD's show .6c relative velocity between Bob and Alice can be any velocity relative to earth. The confusion stems from relativity's STD's having a hidden implied reference frame which is the Earth, not Bob or Alice.

The Minkowski STD attaches Bob to the Earth which is stationary. In the reciprocal analysis, Alice is stationary and Bob and the Earth are moving. The only useful STD where Bob and Alice are both moving and the Earth is stationary is the Loedel STD:

recipL2c.jpg


The question that made me throw relativity out the window was which one of the 4 labeled points occurs 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in time. The next post will show relativity has no idea because it depends on an observer's perspective. Ralfativity will show that as soon as you set up your 1st distance marker, you have chosen your preferred frame and there is no ambiguity due to reciprocity. Reciprocity still exists but it doesn't stand in the way of determining unambiguous answers.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on November 7th, 2017, 9:45 am 

Crap I just got laid off. Don't know how I'm going to squeeze in physics anymore.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby phyti on November 7th, 2017, 1:08 pm 

ralfcis » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:45 am wrote:Crap I just got laid off. Don't know how I'm going to squeeze in physics anymore.

Is there an unemployment system in Canada?
phyti
Member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: 04 Jul 2006


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on November 7th, 2017, 5:03 pm 

Yes and I`m now in it.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests