Ralfativity 2.0

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

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 11th, 2018, 1:09 am 

I'm just going to jump ahead to the answer and show how to get it if someone asks. In the example I gave, Alice's handoff is irrelevant. Charlie has already executed his change of velocity which will initiate his age difference. Alice's flyby will just confirm Charlie will age another year less than Bob on top of the one he will have aged less than Bob after he made his transition at t'=4.

Alice's action is significant if Charlie started from deep space towards Bob. Any signalling between the two would not establish any aging difference between them until Alice's flyby. Although Charlie did not initiate a change of velocity, the flyby would and the age difference of 1 yr less for Charlie could unfurl during the info delay to Bob. Relativity would conclude no age difference was occurring before the flyby point but I see no reason why one couldn't extrapolate that the same incremental age difference after the flyby point could have also been occurring before it. Other research teams could have sent out other pilots to flyby charlie before Alice and those teams would have revealed the same incremental age difference occurring before Alice would conclude its indeterminacy before her flight. Certainly, if there had been no flyby point, age difference between Bob and Charlie due to charlie's journey could not have been established when they met.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 11th, 2018, 10:02 am 

Ok here's a very deep question. When charlie comes in from deep space, Bob and he are aware that their relative velocity is .6c through their mutual doppler ratio. They are able to send light signals of their clock readings which are unsync'd and therefore useless to establish incremental aging during charlie's approach. But once charlie meets with Bob, the clocks are sync'd and wouldn't it be possible to post process charlie's incremental age difference during his journey in? Now you might say there has been no frame jump during the journey, it's all been constant velocity so age difference can't have occurred. But that's not true. The instantaneous moment between approach and separation is 0 velocity. The moment charlie passes bob at .6c, he is relatively stopped for an instant. But was it charlie or bob that initiated this 0 frame jump, relativity dictates you don't know because of reciprocity. But if an earth-centric network of milestone markers had been distributed along charlie's path, you would know he was moving through space and therefore he was responsible for the frame jump when passing Bob and post processing would show he aged less than Bob. At their meeting, they wouldn't have aged at the same rate and at a relative velocity closer to c, Bob would have been a grizzled old human compared to charlie. The alternative would be they were both around the same age, it's only one or the other and the result is determinate. But this means only 1 frame jump at the end is sufficient to establish age difference and 1 at the beginning is not. I wonder what relativity's take is on this. It's the same annoying question I thought I had resolved but here it is back again in another scenario.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 12th, 2018, 11:05 am 

I just recognized this morning that this is not a new scenario at all, it's the muon experiment. Let's get rid of all the statistical averaging and simplify the experiment to fixed lengths, times and speeds. The muon is a little atomic clock with a fixed half life. It is created a fixed distance from the surface of the earth by cosmic ray collisions. It travels at a fixed percentage speed of light. But we don't know when it'll be created so our clocks are not sync'd. According to relativity, there is no way to determine age difference as there is no start to the spacetime path. Also there is no way to establish if the muon is stationary and the earth moves towards it at near c or vice versa. If muons were created on the surface of the earth and beamed into space, these muons would be able to visit their space cousins instead of dying early on the surface of the earth if they popped into existence with 0 relative velocity wrt earth. So the muon experiment is relegated to an example of time dilation reciprocity.

But let's put the entire experiment in a collider. Suddenly the exact same experiment is an example of age difference because we can establish a valid spacetime path. We create a muon at a certain time and a certain fixed distance from a detector and we get a signal from the detector the muon has been detected. We have a legitimate spacetime path and can establish the moving muon has aged less than a stationary one. The only difference between the two experiments is the space muons are created randomly wrt our clocks. That could also be repeated in the lab, thereby negating a valid spacetime path, yet the age difference results would remain statistically identical. They are not indeterminate as relativity would claim. All we have is an endpoint and an invisible start point but the only way the muons reached the detector is the same reason the ones with a known start point do, they age less. It's not a time dilation problem just because you close your eyes.

So charlie coming in from space with no known start point is aging less because he is not at constant relative velocity throughout his journey. At the point he meets bob he does an instantaneous frame jump which can be used to post process any age difference from any arbitrary point in his journey just like the muon experiment. This point has been brought up many times in the past but has never received a rebuttal except the standard attacks on my general inability to memorize scripture correctly.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 12th, 2018, 12:46 pm 

The companion question to this is what's so different from a start together and an end together. They are symmetrical. Leaving a start is the opposite in direction, time and increasing relativity of simultaneity of going towards a stop. Would that not make it possible to extrapolate the age difference based on a start and on the fact that one of the parties is passing by milestones while the other is not. That concept would devastate both relativity and ralfativity but I don't see where it's wrong except that it would mean there's no such thing as purely relative motion without a background space reference frame. Well, here I am again, full circle, right back at the beginning. I was making such nice progress too.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 13th, 2018, 6:34 pm 

Ok I guess I'm going to have to reason my own way out of this dilemma. In a normal example, the start is known, a transition occurs and during the delay of that info to the other party, age difference unfurls. Jorrie said there was some sort of subtle difference between the info reaching the other party and the two participants re-uniting physically. The info does reach the other party long before they re-unite. No further word on that though.

In this muon example, whether the muons decay, crash into the detector or pass through it unimpeded; that constitutes a stop. But there is no propagation delay of the info which occurs at the same time as the physical reunification of the muon and the detector. So age difference can't unfurl, it is suddenly established. Or is it?

The start point is unknown and distance separated from the end. All that has been occurring during the journey is reciprocal time dilation. We use that in the GPS and don't really care if it's reciprocal because establishing age difference doesn't really matter nor does the fact the satellite sees us time dilating. In many ways the muon example is the opposite of a typical twin paradox example. In the muon example, the relativity of simultaneity is donated as a lump sum of time the muon depletes as it approaches the detector. In a typical example, the relativity of simultaneity is built up from the start.

The placement of the transition point is also odd. In the muon example, there's no space between the transition point and the end point and in the typical example there is. It's almost as if you took a slider and moved the transition point, the start point would move towards the t-axis and you'd get one or the other typical example. The age difference that occurs before the transition point in the muon example and is established at the transition, gets split for the typical example just like the relativity of simultaneity and part of it is banked before the transition and the other part is counted after the transition. Yes, this is a logical explanation of what's happening wrt age difference in both examples and I'm sticking to it. Ralfativity is saved and I can move on.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 14th, 2018, 2:55 pm 

Nope, still not right, age difference can't manifest itself instantaneously at the end nor could charlie have been aging slower on his way in at constant velocity unless there is some significance to age difference being caused by the start point's initial distance separation from Bob. It's as if an imbalance in the relativity of simultaneity causes age difference, not the imbalance in relative velocity due to the delay of info after a transition. That's what I need to look at further.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 14th, 2018, 9:48 pm 

I just figured out the answer so I rushed back here to make sure no one else had so I won't have to share my Nobel prize with anyone. The answer is where and when or what relative velocity was first established between charlie and bob is only relevant in so far as how much distance there is between charlie and Bob when the transition occurs to establish age difference. Age difference only accumulates during the info delay after a transition. Charlie and Bob could be at constant relative velocity forever before one of them makes a change and that time before the change has no influence on age difference. So the Bob and Alice .6c example of Alice stopping at 3ly will yield the same result as charlie coming in from deep space at .6c with no start point or clock sync also stopping at the 3 ly mark.

Bob will have established their relative velocity through the doppler ratio between them prior to Charlie stopping. Bob will think the relative velocity is still at .6c for 3 yrs after the stop which results in Charlie aging 1 yr less than Bob. If Charlie had not made a change, there would have not been any age difference between them even when Charlie met Bob. This must mean the muon experiment is about time dilation from the earth perspective and is not an example of age difference as I had said.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 15th, 2018, 6:15 am 

Hold on, the muon example is not the same as the Charlie coming in from deep space example. Muons pop into existence a fixed distance from Earth`s surface. The analogous example for Charlie would be he`s parked on a planet 3ly from Earth and then blasts off towards Earth at .6c. This would be a transition from 0v to .6c so he would age 2 yrs less than Bob during the 3yrs the velocity change propagates to Bob. The muon experiment is an example of age difference and not time dilation as the Charlie deep space example was. Sorry, this is an investigation, I think about things as we`re going along.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 15th, 2018, 9:25 am 

Oops I said 2 yrs less and, I`ll have to check, but I think it should be 1 yr less. The relative velocity before the transition sets the foundation for age difference. Alice`s relative velocity in the turnaround example would yield an age difference of 2 yrs but a transition from stop to .6c back in Charlie`s case should only yield a 1 year age difference with Bob on the return journey. I`ll have to verify with an STD because I have been wrong before. Anyway, this all is a very sharp departure from relativity`s strict spacetime path method with a well defined start to determine age difference.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby Positor on February 15th, 2018, 9:51 am 

ralfcis » February 11th, 2018, 2:02 pm wrote:The instantaneous moment between approach and separation is 0 velocity. The moment charlie passes bob at .6c, he is relatively stopped for an instant.

But to 'stop' is to remain stationary for a duration of time. An 'instantaneous moment' has no duration. Even light travels no distance in no time, but we would not therefore say it 'stops'; that would violate the universality of c.

Also, if it were legitimate to say that Charlie is "stopped" at the moment he passes Bob, then we could equally say he is "stopped" at the moment he passes any arbitrarily chosen point in space. Therefore any supposedly continuous motion would consist of a virtually infinite number of stops.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 15th, 2018, 10:43 am 

Thanks for your reply. I wrote a list of reasons why this instantaneous moment is a zero velocity common frame but can`t find where. I don`t think you`re disputing that anyway. So what is an adequate duration to establish a valid stop? According to the formula for relativity of simultaneity = vx/c2, either 0 velocity or 0 distance separation means a shared instantaneous present without any relativity of simultaneity. When Alice's ship passes closely to Bob's distance marker, she knows immediately what proper distance she has traveled, length contraction due to her velocity flies out the window. The spacetime path endpoint does not require Alice to stop for a minimum duration with Bob. She can fly right past at full velocity and that's considered by relativity to having both in the same 0 velocity frame. When you hear a car pass by you with its horn blaring, you stop hearing a frequency shift at its closest approach meaning its relative velocity to you is zero. I had more reasons but I hope these are enough?

P.S. If you look at my STD's comparing Alice stopping for 1 year as opposed for 3 years, you'll notice the shorter the stop, the more irrelevant it becomes to age difference. So every point can be a stop but its effect is completely drowned out by subsequent points. Unfortunately there is a common misconception that a stop mathematically causes a swing in the line of present that causes age difference. Relativists try to slow down the swing which is cut off by shorter durations of a stop. There's no need for that mathematical complication as ralfativity has no limit on the speed of the swing as it puts it at the end of the prop delay of the velocity change from Alice to Bob. The swing cuts off age accumulation not starts it so it can be an instantaneous change in line of present.

PPS Also I do not hold with relativity's idea that light travels in 0 time. I have shown c'=Y(c-v) just like v'=Yv. The speed of light through a relative velocity frame adjusts to that frame. Don't buy this argument on the basis of a 1 sentence explanation, go back to where I thoroughly discuss this idea and submit your counter-arguments based on that discussion. Relativity is no longer the law for me so I don't often agree with its assumed statements of fact and explain at length why.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby Positor on February 15th, 2018, 10:27 pm 

Thanks. I will think further about this.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 16th, 2018, 1:00 pm 

A circular orbit like the Earth around the sun means they share the same 0 velocity frame but the distance separation means they do not share the same instantaneous present. With the relative velocity =0, there should also be no relativity of simultaneity but that is not true of GPS satellites so there must be something different about angular velocity that makes the relative velocity not zero. I'm not at this level of SR. Maybe someone knows the answer, I think is is what Dave Oblad was on about.

Maybe I should steer clear of this for now but a far away ship moving perpendicular to you will at some point be at 0 relative velocity but at a distance so it will not share an instantaneous present but will share a horizontal line of present with you.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Postby ralfcis on February 16th, 2018, 7:20 pm 

I think I'm just going to skip forward to the final push, the end of the need for the 0 velocity frame to establish age difference. Relativity can't do this. This is going to be tedious and long. I'm dreading it and I don't really have the time for it.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron