Math error in Relativity
Page 1 of 1 • Share •
Re: Math error in Relativity
Jon. It's more a matter of how we think the world than a matter of physics but it's very much a matter of language. If I'm standing at the roadside and watching a car driving away from me am I watching a car driving away from me or am I watching the space between me and the car expanding? Both statements are true but the first is a physical statement whereas the second is not.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
Gee, Leo, you had my brain going until the sunrise yesterday with that one.
Thanks a million.
Wonderful how its a matter of millimeters in relation to the whole universe.
Much respect.
Thanks a million.
Wonderful how its a matter of millimeters in relation to the whole universe.
Much respect.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
@Obvious Leo wrote:
The moon moves away from the earth by a distance of about 4cm per year, in accordance with the conservation law for angular momentum and several pages of inscrutable mathematical equations.
...
but if you prefer to think of the space between the earth and the moon as expanding then be my guest. I personally reckon that to think of these bodies as moving apart in time only is far more logically coherent.
I do certainly DO NOT in any place say that expanding space causes the moon to recede.
But I am glad you brought up the reason why:
This link:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/whymoonrecedingfromearth.htm
demonstrates how simple the answer is.
The gravity of the Sun is pulling it away.
That image was a screenshot taken from this simulation:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/orbitgame5.exe
It shows the model in realtime. Or just look at the image and think about it.
How can the orbit of the moon NOT be affected by the gravity of the Sun???
My first solar system simulator had just a sun and one planet.
The next step was to add a moon.
But the gravity of the Sun kept messing the the moon's orbit!
After building this simulator
I read a newspaper article stating that the moon was receding from the Earth,
but that all the reasons given were not acceptable.
I already had the answer before I had the question.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
My model does produce a stable solar system.
It is how the solar system FORMS that is the question.
It can only be FORMED if it starts out as a pair of orbiting objects,
and one of them disintegrates because its spin overpowers its gravity.
IE it spins apart  not explodes.
(This is also how Saturn's rings formed, and Iapteus' wall formed and much more)
The going theory is that the debris from a chaotic explosion like the 'big bang'
acting only under the force of gravity,
will form a solar system.
Unless the object spins apart uniformly under spin
the solar system will have planets orbiting in contrary directions,
Planet's orbiting in opposite directions I have totally proven
to be far more stable than planets orbiting in the same direction.
A chaotic explosion will also produce planets orbiting at right angles to one another,
and in highly elliptical orbits, like comets orbits.
Spin is the only force that can counteract gravity uniformly
so that everything is going in the same direction
on the same flat ecliptic plane.
Spin is the reason why the most massive objects have the most axial rotation.
:Because the always had it.
Random collisions will give the most massive objects the least axial rotation.
It is how the solar system FORMS that is the question.
It can only be FORMED if it starts out as a pair of orbiting objects,
and one of them disintegrates because its spin overpowers its gravity.
IE it spins apart  not explodes.
(This is also how Saturn's rings formed, and Iapteus' wall formed and much more)
The going theory is that the debris from a chaotic explosion like the 'big bang'
acting only under the force of gravity,
will form a solar system.
Unless the object spins apart uniformly under spin
the solar system will have planets orbiting in contrary directions,
Planet's orbiting in opposite directions I have totally proven
to be far more stable than planets orbiting in the same direction.
A chaotic explosion will also produce planets orbiting at right angles to one another,
and in highly elliptical orbits, like comets orbits.
Spin is the only force that can counteract gravity uniformly
so that everything is going in the same direction
on the same flat ecliptic plane.
Spin is the reason why the most massive objects have the most axial rotation.
:Because the always had it.
Random collisions will give the most massive objects the least axial rotation.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
I have only a vague idea of what you're trying to do with your realtime algorithm but I think I can see why your gravity won't work to produce a stable solar system. In the real world gravity and time are two different expressions of the same thing which bear a precise and inversely logarithmic relationship with each other which means that somehow you'll have to integrate your gravity and time functions together in this way. How one would choose a value for the logarithmic function is a question way above my pay grade but a good approximation may be calculable from the GR field equations, which incidentally are the sort of nonlinear equations you must be using.
Emmy Noether was a lot smarter than any of the physicists of her era but because she was a sheila she remains largely ignored in the history of 20th century physics. It was she who came up with the conservation laws which form a central plank of all the modern mathematical models in physics. However my spaceless universe model has a far simpler and more intuitive way of dealing with the conservation of spin angular momentum than Emmy cooked up for spacetime physics. In my model this conservation law is a perfectly natural emergent property of the gravity/time asymmetry. Consider this:
The moon moves away from the earth by a distance of about 4cm per year, in accordance with the conservation law for angular momentum and several pages of inscrutable mathematical equations. However in the spaceless paradigm the same effect can be accounted for far more simply. Time passes more quickly between the earth and the moon than it does on either body therefore the two bodies are moving apart in time. Although performing the calculation is beyond me I'm willing to bet that the relativistic increase in temporal separation between these two bodies in the course of a year will turn out to be the length of time it takes a beam of light to travel a distance of 4cm.
There's an easy way of looking at things and a hard way of looking at things. The "expanding space" way of looking at things is the hard way, in my opinion, but if you prefer to think of the space between the earth and the moon as expanding then be my guest. I personally reckon that to think of these bodies as moving apart in time only is far more logically coherent.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
Great topic for discussion.
In computers, we have a tool called the 'random' function. (spelled 'RND')
It is quite different from 'true' randomness.
It is entirely determined, but follows such a complex labyrinth of computation,
that no person would ever be able to predict what the next value will be.
Typically it is a number somewhere between 0.00000000000001 and 0.99999999999999.
So if I want to put 9 planets in the computer program onto the computer screen,
I multiply the screen.width by the RND function:
The line of code looks like this:
x=screen.width*RND
y=screen.height*RND
then I put the planet into position like this:
planet.left=x
planet.top=y
When I do this 9 times, I get 9 planets at 'random' positions on the screen.
They could be anywhere on the screen.
If I run the program a second time, I can get another 9 random positions.
I do the same with the angle of momentum for the planet,
and the amount of momentum too.
Of course I have run the program thousands of times.
Each time the model has different origins for the planets.
It mimics the chaos of an explosion: like the big bang.
But unless I specifically angle the planets into something similar to an orbit,
the randomness descends into more chaos than it started as.
Even if I introduce the planets into nice neat orbits,
one planet going across the screen will disrupt their orbits,
and the model descends into randomness and chaos.
(IE, NOT a solar system.)
But the existing theory,
is that solar systems and galaxies, and the orbit of the moon, etc
will form out of gravity alone,
and no other existing force.
Apart from the chaos (complex unpredictable order)
of an explosion like the big bang.
But only if the starting positions
are circular to begin with can we SOMETIMES
get a solar system to form.
Such that I can safely say
that a fundamental force of 'spin'
is required to counter gravity.
Or else no celestial structures can form
such as we know them.
This force of 'spin'
must have been stronger than gravity
at the start of the universe.
Spin is dark energy.
In computers, we have a tool called the 'random' function. (spelled 'RND')
It is quite different from 'true' randomness.
It is entirely determined, but follows such a complex labyrinth of computation,
that no person would ever be able to predict what the next value will be.
Typically it is a number somewhere between 0.00000000000001 and 0.99999999999999.
So if I want to put 9 planets in the computer program onto the computer screen,
I multiply the screen.width by the RND function:
The line of code looks like this:
x=screen.width*RND
y=screen.height*RND
then I put the planet into position like this:
planet.left=x
planet.top=y
When I do this 9 times, I get 9 planets at 'random' positions on the screen.
They could be anywhere on the screen.
If I run the program a second time, I can get another 9 random positions.
I do the same with the angle of momentum for the planet,
and the amount of momentum too.
Of course I have run the program thousands of times.
Each time the model has different origins for the planets.
It mimics the chaos of an explosion: like the big bang.
But unless I specifically angle the planets into something similar to an orbit,
the randomness descends into more chaos than it started as.
Even if I introduce the planets into nice neat orbits,
one planet going across the screen will disrupt their orbits,
and the model descends into randomness and chaos.
(IE, NOT a solar system.)
But the existing theory,
is that solar systems and galaxies, and the orbit of the moon, etc
will form out of gravity alone,
and no other existing force.
Apart from the chaos (complex unpredictable order)
of an explosion like the big bang.
But only if the starting positions
are circular to begin with can we SOMETIMES
get a solar system to form.
Such that I can safely say
that a fundamental force of 'spin'
is required to counter gravity.
Or else no celestial structures can form
such as we know them.
This force of 'spin'
must have been stronger than gravity
at the start of the universe.
Spin is dark energy.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
As a wordsmith I am something of a pedant when it comes to language usage, Jon. Every time I see the word "random" in a scientific article I reach for my gun because a random event is an uncaused event and an uncaused event is a metaphysical absurdity. I assume that I can give you the benefit of the doubt and merely hold you on a charge of careless language usage when you use the word "random". If what you really mean by "random" is in fact intended to mean "unpredictable" then you have uncovered a profound truth about the universe which the priesthood of physics is unable to accommodate with Newton's classical mathematics and Minkowski's clever handiwork with these tools. This is the truth which Poincare was working on at the time of his death with the threebody problem, which is nowadays more generically known as the nbody problem. The words "randomness" and "unpredictability" have two distinctly different meanings. The former refers to a reality which is nondeterministic but the latter refers to a reality which is completely deterministic but nonlinearly so, such as you would represent in your realtime algorithm. A nondeterministic reality is a logical nonsequitur but a nonlinearly deterministic reality is what every scrap of evidence shows our universe to be. It is a realtime event and the spacetime paradigm is simply unable to model such a thing. The universe is only definable in the language of its continuous changes but the spacetime paradigm concludes that there can be no metaphysical distinction between the past, present and future, which effectively makes change illusory.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
Well, yes.
The software demonstrates how a solar system will not form
under gravity and randomness even though gravity will sustain
an existing solar system. The orbits move and you can pause it,
alter the position, mass and momentum of each planet; as well
as alter other features.
Only if the planets start in positions and momentums that are mostly
nearcircular orbits (like the debris from a partner star going nova)
will a solar system form.
Even if a solar system has already formed, if one body of a large mass
enters the system at a random direction, there is a significant chance
that the solar system will be destroyed.
A solar system is such a delicate structure. Easily disrupted.
In fact the least stable type of solar system is once
with all the planets orbiting in the same direction in orbits
that are nearcircular ellipses.
It is far easier for eccentric orbits to form: IE orbits that
are elongated  like those of comets.
The only conclusion is that the planets must have had a
common origin that was already on the ecliptic plane:
a single star or very large planet that was destroyed.
They are free downloads here:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm
The software demonstrates how a solar system will not form
under gravity and randomness even though gravity will sustain
an existing solar system. The orbits move and you can pause it,
alter the position, mass and momentum of each planet; as well
as alter other features.
Only if the planets start in positions and momentums that are mostly
nearcircular orbits (like the debris from a partner star going nova)
will a solar system form.
Even if a solar system has already formed, if one body of a large mass
enters the system at a random direction, there is a significant chance
that the solar system will be destroyed.
A solar system is such a delicate structure. Easily disrupted.
In fact the least stable type of solar system is once
with all the planets orbiting in the same direction in orbits
that are nearcircular ellipses.
It is far easier for eccentric orbits to form: IE orbits that
are elongated  like those of comets.
The only conclusion is that the planets must have had a
common origin that was already on the ecliptic plane:
a single star or very large planet that was destroyed.
They are free downloads here:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
Jon. I'm a bit of technomoron when it comes to the specifics of computation although I am well schooled in the philosophies of both computation and mathematics in general. When you refer to a realtime algorithm are you speaking of an evolutionary algorithm?
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
It amazes me how in this era
there are people 'considered highly qualified' in
math and physics, who could not be bothered
to learn how to program a realtime algorithm.
They would soon see relativity for the medieval sophistry
that it surely is.
Sadly, I have yet to see or even hear of anyone even try to build
a realtime visual algorithm that can demonstrate relativity operating
without contradiction for 3 or more bodies.
Pencilandpaper mathematicians, make less sense in the 21st century,
than illiterate philosophers did in the last century.
A few put some numbers into the calculator, and get their results in numbers,
and feel that they are now 'programming the computer'.
Sorry if this sounds condescending.
Its just painful when people use words only
to disagree with the realtime calculations of the computer algorithm.
Like the other day on another forum the disagreement began something like:
"Well I don't know how to program, but I know that your results are wrong..."
or
"I don't know how to program, but I know what the model will look like..." 
and then he proceeds to tell me how the ecliptic plane can form without
spin as a fundamental force. Then he tells me that the planets will all start
orbiting in the same direction in nice neat round orbits purely as a result
of random starting positions under the force of gravity.
Hell I have run many such programs, literally thousands of times.
And, under randomness and gravity, at best one gets planets orbiting in opposite
directions because they spend less time in the stronger areas of each other's
gravity fields. So collisions are less likely when every second planet is in the
opposite direction.
Often I started the programming process from scratch purely for the sake of objective precision.
I really hoped that the results of the models would appear as obvious
in retrospect to others as they do to me.
These algorithms
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm
work.
But people start 'thinking' like this:
"That is not what I was taught, therefore it is wrong...
... therefore just disagree... just say the things 'taught'...
... don't bother to read, or download the program..."
I mean Einstein, Feynman, Newton  even Hawking
never had a programming language with an event timer  they can be totally forgiven.
och.
there are people 'considered highly qualified' in
math and physics, who could not be bothered
to learn how to program a realtime algorithm.
They would soon see relativity for the medieval sophistry
that it surely is.
Sadly, I have yet to see or even hear of anyone even try to build
a realtime visual algorithm that can demonstrate relativity operating
without contradiction for 3 or more bodies.
Pencilandpaper mathematicians, make less sense in the 21st century,
than illiterate philosophers did in the last century.
A few put some numbers into the calculator, and get their results in numbers,
and feel that they are now 'programming the computer'.
Sorry if this sounds condescending.
Its just painful when people use words only
to disagree with the realtime calculations of the computer algorithm.
Like the other day on another forum the disagreement began something like:
"Well I don't know how to program, but I know that your results are wrong..."
or
"I don't know how to program, but I know what the model will look like..." 
and then he proceeds to tell me how the ecliptic plane can form without
spin as a fundamental force. Then he tells me that the planets will all start
orbiting in the same direction in nice neat round orbits purely as a result
of random starting positions under the force of gravity.
Hell I have run many such programs, literally thousands of times.
And, under randomness and gravity, at best one gets planets orbiting in opposite
directions because they spend less time in the stronger areas of each other's
gravity fields. So collisions are less likely when every second planet is in the
opposite direction.
Often I started the programming process from scratch purely for the sake of objective precision.
I really hoped that the results of the models would appear as obvious
in retrospect to others as they do to me.
These algorithms
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm
work.
But people start 'thinking' like this:
"That is not what I was taught, therefore it is wrong...
... therefore just disagree... just say the things 'taught'...
... don't bother to read, or download the program..."
I mean Einstein, Feynman, Newton  even Hawking
never had a programming language with an event timer  they can be totally forgiven.
och.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
Jon. You're probably aware that Henri Poincare rejected the Minkowski spacetime for much the same reasons that you and I have. He didn't live long enough to see the publication of GR but he would have recoiled in horror from it as well. In fact at the time of his death he was working on a solution to the threebody problem of gravitational motion using nonNewtonian mathematical tools but it's fair to say that he didn't get all that far with it. However he did lay the preliminary groundwork for an entirely new nonlinear mathematical system which evolved throughout the 20th century into the sophisticated modern tools of fractal geometry. Interestingly Einstein worked for almost 40 years in his efforts to unify gravity with electromagnetism but when he finally hoisted the white flag and conceded defeat he made a startling revelation to John Kemeny. By this time he felt certain that all along he had been using the wrong mathematical tools for a unification model and his original deep suspicion of Minkowski's mathematical chicanery resurfaced in his later years. By this time it was all too late because spacetime had been adopted by the priesthood as canonical doctrine while Einstein had long been dismissed as a tired old hasbeen.
It's funny how silly little accidents of history can change the course of science because Einstein was a very mediocre mathematician in his early days. He didn't even like Minkowski and he had deep misgivings about the block model from the outset but he needed help with the maths and he took what he thought was the best he could get. If he'd sought out Poincare as his mathematical mentor instead then a century of heartache could have been avoided.
It's funny how silly little accidents of history can change the course of science because Einstein was a very mediocre mathematician in his early days. He didn't even like Minkowski and he had deep misgivings about the block model from the outset but he needed help with the maths and he took what he thought was the best he could get. If he'd sought out Poincare as his mathematical mentor instead then a century of heartache could have been avoided.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
Well I think that the universe should be able to be explained to a computer.
Specifically in the mathematical terms of the realtime algorithm.
The realtime algorithm must be calculated in the 'now'.
As opposed to simply using the computer's calculator to 'do some math'.
That is:
It must demonstrate the equation and the system evolving in a visual graphic.
It needs to do this with multiple bodies, and without contradiction.
All of Newtonian math passes this 'minimal benchmark' of internal logical
and mathematical consistency.
Relativity fails this except for 2 of its premises: e=mc^2, and the limit on the
velocity of light. These both work.
I never intended to prove relativity wrong,
but in trying to prove it right, I was forced to abandon most of its premises
when I felt compelled to delve into the reasons for their errors
in order to find an ontology which was able to be computed without contradiction.
I had already built a number of Newtonian gravity simulators
(http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm)
whereby I inadvertently solved the manybodyproblem
before I realized it was a major problem in physics.
It took me about 2 minutes to solve, largely because
I saw it as a programming problem and solved it instinctively.
I assumed many others had solved it.
Hence there was no psychological block to doing so.
It was 5 years later that I realized what I had done, and was so awestruck
that I used that confidence to tackle relativity.
After all, math is purely logical, as is physics, and the only thing
preventing one understanding it, is the psychological confrontation
with one's own selfesteem.
Here I calculate that the solar system can only form due to
the planets being the debris of the Sun's twin star going Nova:
That is not just a graphic, but screen shots taken from the algorithm
which iterates under strict Newtonian laws of physics.
This entails accepting that time has to be 'quantum time'. (As from Planck)
So time cannot be infinitely divisible.
A notion that becomes clear when solving Zeno's paradox.
The ancient Greeks had a clearer understanding of logic than the relativists.
I estimate that the Sun's twin, 'Lucifer', went nova about 10 billion years ago
by reversecalculating the rate at which the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth.
Specifically in the mathematical terms of the realtime algorithm.
The realtime algorithm must be calculated in the 'now'.
As opposed to simply using the computer's calculator to 'do some math'.
That is:
It must demonstrate the equation and the system evolving in a visual graphic.
It needs to do this with multiple bodies, and without contradiction.
All of Newtonian math passes this 'minimal benchmark' of internal logical
and mathematical consistency.
Relativity fails this except for 2 of its premises: e=mc^2, and the limit on the
velocity of light. These both work.
I never intended to prove relativity wrong,
but in trying to prove it right, I was forced to abandon most of its premises
when I felt compelled to delve into the reasons for their errors
in order to find an ontology which was able to be computed without contradiction.
I had already built a number of Newtonian gravity simulators
(http://www.flightlightandspin.com/gravitysimulators.htm)
whereby I inadvertently solved the manybodyproblem
before I realized it was a major problem in physics.
It took me about 2 minutes to solve, largely because
I saw it as a programming problem and solved it instinctively.
I assumed many others had solved it.
Hence there was no psychological block to doing so.
It was 5 years later that I realized what I had done, and was so awestruck
that I used that confidence to tackle relativity.
After all, math is purely logical, as is physics, and the only thing
preventing one understanding it, is the psychological confrontation
with one's own selfesteem.
Here I calculate that the solar system can only form due to
the planets being the debris of the Sun's twin star going Nova:
That is not just a graphic, but screen shots taken from the algorithm
which iterates under strict Newtonian laws of physics.
This entails accepting that time has to be 'quantum time'. (As from Planck)
So time cannot be infinitely divisible.
A notion that becomes clear when solving Zeno's paradox.
The ancient Greeks had a clearer understanding of logic than the relativists.
I estimate that the Sun's twin, 'Lucifer', went nova about 10 billion years ago
by reversecalculating the rate at which the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth.
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Re: Math error in Relativity
@Mayflow wrote:I am personally a bit of a fan of Leibniz. Monad theory is intriguing.
I acknowledge Leibniz in my own philosophy by using the term "monad" to define the fundamental unit of an informational reality in my "it from bit" paradigm. Interestingly John Archibald Wheeler, one of the greatest minds in 20th century physics, was convinced that the holy grail of a unification theory would take the form of such a paradigm and that the universe would thereby reveal itself to be an entity of the most sublime austerity. Einstein was rather more prosaic in his prediction for such a model but effectively said the same thing when he said that it should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid. My own experience with barmaids is quite extensive and this experience tells me that in general they know a hell of a lot more about how the universe works than most physicists do. For a start they know that it exists only in the moment NOW.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Re: Math error in Relativity
I am personally a bit of a fan of Leibniz. Monad theory is intriguing.
Mayflow Admin
 Posts : 131
Join date : 20150526
Re: Math error in Relativity
Jon. Maths is not my long suit but I encountered this tautology in physics almost from the outset when I first tried to figure out why physics makes no sense. In the end I decided that the easiest way to make the whole problem go away was simply to define the 3D space as an observer effect, as Leibniz did. I've never lost another wink of sleep over it ever since.
Obvious Leo Forum philosopher
 Posts : 48
Join date : 20150527
Math error in Relativity
So
Leading into where the relativists made their math error,
we have to look at how Feynman misuses the Lorentz formulae:
Simply put:
We obtain the reduction in velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light
by combining the 'dilation of time' and the 'contraction of space'.
Or
we derive the 'dilation of time' and the 'contraction of space' from
the reduction in velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light.
Just note the highlighted bits:
now when we say:
x+y = z
or any other such formula
that which is on the left of the '=', and that which is on the right of the '='
are the same thing.
We cannot have x+y AND z
So it seems clear that if the reduction in velocity is true,
then we cannot ALSO have a contraction in space and a dilation in time.
Because
the contraction in space and a dilation in time are
the mathematical equivalent of
the reduction in velocity.
Let me put this in a simple example:
If an object moves 4 units of space in 1 unit of time.
And then we 'slow time down'
so that it now moves 4 units of space in 2 units of time,
all we have done is slowed down the velocity so that it now
moves 2 units of space in 1 unit of time.
It makes no sense to do both the slowing of velocity AND the slowing of time.
They are the same thing!
Thus the 'dilation of time' must fall away as redundant!
Its like in its simplest form he is saying:
1 apple + 2 apples = 3 apples
therefore
we now have 6 apples.
= means 'equal'. It does not mean 'as well as' or 'in addition to'.
(Incidentally this does not effect e=mc^2)
Seem more on the full chapter here:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf
Leading into where the relativists made their math error,
we have to look at how Feynman misuses the Lorentz formulae:
Simply put:
We obtain the reduction in velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light
by combining the 'dilation of time' and the 'contraction of space'.
Or
we derive the 'dilation of time' and the 'contraction of space' from
the reduction in velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light.
Just note the highlighted bits:
now when we say:
x+y = z
or any other such formula
that which is on the left of the '=', and that which is on the right of the '='
are the same thing.
We cannot have x+y AND z
So it seems clear that if the reduction in velocity is true,
then we cannot ALSO have a contraction in space and a dilation in time.
Because
the contraction in space and a dilation in time are
the mathematical equivalent of
the reduction in velocity.
Let me put this in a simple example:
If an object moves 4 units of space in 1 unit of time.
And then we 'slow time down'
so that it now moves 4 units of space in 2 units of time,
all we have done is slowed down the velocity so that it now
moves 2 units of space in 1 unit of time.
It makes no sense to do both the slowing of velocity AND the slowing of time.
They are the same thing!
Thus the 'dilation of time' must fall away as redundant!
Its like in its simplest form he is saying:
1 apple + 2 apples = 3 apples
therefore
we now have 6 apples.
= means 'equal'. It does not mean 'as well as' or 'in addition to'.
(Incidentally this does not effect e=mc^2)
Seem more on the full chapter here:
http://www.flightlightandspin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf
_________________
www.flightlightandspin.com
Jonathan Ainsley Bain forum physicist
 Posts : 188
Join date : 20150524
Age : 49
Location : Africa
Similar topics
» All A class models Error code 29
» HTTP 500 Internal Server Error.
» Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics
» What is significant about fractions in a dream?
» User error or offpeak not working?
» HTTP 500 Internal Server Error.
» Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics
» What is significant about fractions in a dream?
» User error or offpeak not working?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

