Relativity Example

Anyway if you want to read the entire theory of Ralfativity 2.0, I'm in the rubber room (Personal Theories) in the Science Philosophy Chat forums. I take a few wrong turns along the way and haven't quite reached the end so it may actually be more comprehensible reading it back to front. I'm just here in case there's a relativist who wants to engage whereas none will engage me there.

I'm afraid I have a hard time following the example. I couldn't tell if you kept your velocity comparisons in the same plane or not. I would expect that the vectors would have to be in a single plane. Why is it not a function of acceleration that makes the difference? Or does it?

The history of how the sound barrier was broken is really cool in that a lot of people said it was impossible. And then a British movie make a lot of people believe that the trick was to throw the controls into reverse as they did in the movies. Right!?!

Lots of people also thought the British were the first to break the sound barrier but that is just wrong. Heck, cracking a whip is a tiny break in the sound barrier. Does the average person know this? Heck no. I don't know how some people find their way home some days.

Yes the velocities are in the same plane. The slope of the lines is 1/v. I've modified the last STD to keep the same distance traveled in both perspectives. The red numbers are for Alice and the blue are for bob in an earth-centric reference frame.

There are examples of clock handoffs where there is no acceleration. Alice can accelerate from earth to a constant relative velocity and there would be no age difference between her and Bob. To me this disqualifies acceleration as an explanation for age difference.

To me it is the delay of information. If the sun suddenly vanished, we'd continue orbiting nothing for 8 minutes. There are 2 realities, 2 presents. Ours is the delayed version of the one we can't see, only known through post processing. The sun is there in our reality for 8 minutes after it's really not there. This is the source of age difference, not the magical pill of "acceleration" that relativists want you to swallow because it's "different" from constant velocity. Actually it's no different because it's a summation of instantaneous constant velocities.

You know what else the average person doesn't know, the explanation of why light travels slower through mediums other than vacuum.

I believe that about 80% of the population missed the intelligence bus. Need I say more?

It has been the bane of my existance to drag certain managers up to the level of my understanding of certain processes. All too frequently, I have had to prove a theory by asking for forgiveness for being right. One can never get the appreciation that they deserve because even if you prove something previously thought impossible, they just hate you more for being right.

It is really cool that the satalites that provide GPS signals have to update their clocks every day because they run at a different speed in space than they did on the ground. Gravity has been discussed several times on this forum. It usually degenerates into sillyness but it can be quite entertaining.

People value omerta, the code of loyalty and silence, over ability, talent, creativity or intelligence.

The Hafele-keating experiment is when they took an atomic clock in a plane to test if it would run slower than one left on the launchpad. Relativists love to redirect and obfuscate conversations with irrelevant details so I'm going to idealize the experiment by having the plane do a pole to pole to pole orbit, linearize the motion and ignore gravity. This will result in the standard Bob/Alice roundtrip STD I presented earlier. (That's the triangular picture.)

If the plane starts at the north pole, the turnaround point is the south pole; turnaround being defined as the transition from receding to approaching with a instantaneous zero velocity in between. Now most people think the plane is aging slower while it's traveling when actually the two clocks are reciprocally time dilating. The age difference begins at the south pole as clock data is shared and compared at the turnaround point. My contribution is that age difference starts occurring incrementally between the turnaround of the plane at the south pole and the news reaching the clock at the north pole. Most relativists believe all age difference is restricted to occurring during the plane's turnaround time.

Let's add a bit of spice to an old example and throw in a second plane. If that plane takes off in the same direction and speed of the 1st plane you'd naturally assume there is 0 relative velocity between the planes, near zero separation, and at no time a change of velocity between them so there would be no age difference or reciprocal time dilation between the planes and they would have the exact same age difference and reciprocal time dilation relative to the clock at the north pole.

But what if I told you they took off in opposite directions. The relative velocity should be double, and you'd assume there would now be an age difference between the planes. There certainly is a reciprocal time dilation and there are even 3 turnaround points between the planes but there is no age difference. There can't be because independently they must have the same age difference wrt the clock on the pole so they can't be different from each other.

I could provide an STD but no one understands what the lines mean so what's the point.

I'm always left wondering when people leave the conversation have they been convinced or just give up.

"... have they been convinced or just give up...."

False dichotomy. The answer in not necessarily only one or the other. Both and neither are also options.

A form of 'both' is likely in this case. They have given up on the idea that you might be open to suggestions, evaluating alternatives in earnest, and here for an meaningful discussion, AND remain unconvinced of your assertions having any utility or even basis in this reality.

You have spent 2+ years preaching this drivel and everyone disagrees disable with you. Beyond that, your method of preaching has not just failed to convice others, the reaction is so bad that you have been banned from forums.

The time is long overdue for you to consider the possibiility that perhaps, just maybe, it isn't everyone else in the world that is wrong. Perhaps, just maybe, you are the one that is wrong.

I am open to suggestions, evaluating alternatives in earnest, and here for an meaningful discussion and i have addressed your criticisms.

If they remain unconvinced of my assertions they should just say so. My question was I'm not aware of this if they just walk away.

it isn't everyone else in the world that is wrong. Perhaps, just maybe, you are the one that is wrong. That's why I keep asking questions albeit in a confrontational manner by stating in no uncertain terms what I'm pushing. I don't want wishy washy responses and nobody wants to be bothered answering wishy washy questions. Have you given me any answers except that you don't like mine? No. So what is your choice in interpreting the muon example and can you knowledgeably defend that choice? I doubt it. So who are you to tell me to stop asking and to alternatively stop trying to figure it out on my own?

I've been focusing on the relativistic caveat that clocks can only be compared in a zero velocity frame. I've been trying to shoe-horn that concept into explaining why instantaneously co-located clocks speeding past each other can be validly compared. I said this must somehow be a zero-velocity frame. I now see the caveat is wrong. It's not about velocity, it's primarily about separation. The endpoint of a spacetime path is the co-location of clocks. If the clocks stop at a distance from each other, the co-location of clock info (the light signal from one reaches the other) also establishes the end of the spacetime path between the two participants. I think, though, the separation leaves others traveling wrt the two participants open to seeing a different age difference than the two experience wrt each other. I need to think on that more.

The start of the spacetime path is also about separation but unless there is a valid endpoint, the start is not the start of age difference, only reciprocal time dilation. So my theory now changes from velocity change starting the age difference process to separation change starting it so long as there is a valid spacetime path endpoint. This means that the example of Alice coming in from deep space is not an example of reciprocal time dilation but is an example of age difference so long as you set a distance marker of where you want to start counting the age difference. Hmm, I'm not sure relativists will buy that idea either. So who said I'm not open to suggestions, evaluating alternatives in earnest, and here for an meaningful discussion?

I'm not telling you to stop asking. Heck, I'm not convinced what you are doing qualifies as asking in earnest.

Asking (in earnest) implies being open to evaluate answers you receive, even if the answers aren't fawning admiration rallying to support your conjecture.

Merely saying people aren't understanding what you are saying and then lamenting a lack of any true 'relativists' (who would surely grasp your brilliance and be awestuck at the insight you arrived at apparently totally without any advanced maths, and since that has not occurred in two years of being kicked off forums, the true relativists can only be being purposefully kept separate frpm your paradigm shifting daydream.....or some such nonsense) does not qualify as evaluation in earnest of the responses (criticism).

Read up on muons and how they cpme about. There is no significant change in velocity upon formation and decay does not have any reason to coincide with interaction with a detector.

I was thinking this morning that saying age difference begins with "a change in separation so long as it ends with co-location" sounds too complicated and contrived. I was thinking what if the muon passed through a barrier of red paint in the upper atmosphere and the color would disappear after a known time of contact with oxygen. Yet splooches of red paint were hitting the earth long after the paint should have faded away.

It's not about change of velocity or change in separation or even about muons themselves, it's about the clocks the muons carry, how long the coat of red paint lasts. The clocks they carry is their half-lives before decay. Those clocks start when the muons are brought into existence, anything before that is irrelevant. If the clocks allow the muons to reach the detector, the clocks have measured a slowing of time. But I think it's more than just a detector's perspective of reciprocal time dilation, I think the co-location of the muon and the detector qualifies as a permanent age difference scenario. If so, the creation of the clock is a valid start to the spacetime path and is where age difference begins.

I still don't know what relativity says about Alice coming in at .6c from deep space, though. If she turned on her clock at the 3ly mark from earth, would that be a valid start of age difference between her and earth? Would her later co-location with earth validate she had indeed aged less from the time her clock was turned on? This would be disastrous for both relativity and my theory because it would mean valid age difference, not just reciprocal time dilation, could be counted from any point of the journey in.

In my theory the age difference is settled long before the co-location in the same way it's settled when there's no co-location, when both participants have stopped at a distance from each other. But if Alice turned on another clock after she knew Bob was now aware of the change in velocity she made earlier, that clock would now be counting a 2nd separate age difference wrt the start of that 2nd clock when the 1st clock, right beside it, is saying there is no subsequent age difference going on. But there must be because Alice is still going at .6c and she's still a distance from earth. I don't know how to get myself out of this one. I need to know relativity's perspective on this because, in the end, if relativity can come up with an answer, my theory must agree with it or it's wrong.

Hoo boy, I'm not going to waste any more time on this; I'm going to waste your time instead. I'm going to describe how my theory, ralfativity, solves the problem. You guys find a relativist to go through your interpretations because you won't believe what I say anyways.

In ralfativity, there is no real need for length contraction, Einstein's clock sync method, relativity of simultaneity, spacetime paths, or even time dilation. They're way in the background as part of the math but don't warrant mention as physical phenomena because they're not. Even the constancy of the speed of light for all frames is true within a frame but is dependent on outside perspective according to the formula c'=Y(c-v).

Before all your brains explode in outrage, let's consider how the train through the station example would be handled in ralfativity. Those of you who can read an STD (lol) will recognize the train example is exactly like relativity's ladder paradox. What really happens when a 2.5ly long train can fit perfectly in a 2ly long train station from the train station's perspective? Is there really length contraction or is it only about perspective and the effects of separated clocks at a relative velocity? Hint: the times the ends of the train are within the platform are dependent on perspective, the train never physically fits into the platform.

I'll leave you with this cliff hanger so you can have time to collect your splattered gray matter.

I meant scattered.

"... I'm not going to waste any more time on this ..."

How is it that you maintain any expectation that people might give your ideas serious consideration/ suspend their disbelief in your explanations when you continue to condition readers against accepting anything you say by writing statements like the above that you immendiately contradict?

.

"....I'm going to waste your time instead. I'm going to describe how my theory, ralfativity, solves the problem ..."

This last one is noteworthy because it does contain some truth: describing your theory, much like reading said description, is a waste of time.

.

Aftet you fantasize about brilliantly splattering grey matter around, do you get sleepy?

This will save me some time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C16ye0SagI4&index=59&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc

Notice there's no length contraction. Also notice at no time was there an age difference between one end of the train (I mean pole) and the other. Also there was no age difference between the barn and the pole, only reciprocal time dilation and relativity of simultaneity.

Now go to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJLWOt4LzM&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=63

Go to all the twin paradox videos. He states clearly age difference is when both agree one ages less than the other. Reciprocal time dilation is when each sees the other as having aged less. If he had applied this to the pole and barn video, neither the barn or the pole's lengths are permanently altered but their age is different which proves length contraction has no form of persistent reality as time dilation has.

Unfortunately he did not discuss what happens in the twin paradox when the twin stops at a distance from the other. The age difference is established when the info that the twin has stopped reaches the other one. Take that diagram and copy the same one a distance away. Both twins will have the same age difference relative to the earth and no age difference relative to each other. I'm hoping you guys can connect the dots but as the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.