Relativity and simple algebra II

Here's the Md on how SR would solve the problem (if permitted) using lines of perspective simultaneity. Doesn't really look all that fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The vertical red lines are the accumulating proper time age difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to SR's math, reciprocal time dilation is due to an actual mutual slowing of observed time while within your own frame there is no observed slowing of time. I say the tic toc is not dilated in the observed frame, it's counting the number of tic tocs that is skewed by the relativity of simultaneity giving different totals of tic tocs that looks like the time total is slowed. So what gives in the twin paradox? It looks like the proper time is indeed dilated by time itself slowing. Proper time is immune to perspective so the difference can't be due to relativity of simultaneity. The apparent time dilation is the same on inbound and outbound journeys and I'm saying the reciprocal time dilation is the same and can't result in proper time age difference. While Bob and Alice can compare clocks and determine time dilation has nothing to do with time slowing contrary to what SR decrees, there is no evidence during the period of velocity imbalance that the time rate in each frame has changed at all. Yet the result is that Alice loses time anyway. Alice may not be able to compare her clock to Bob's during the imbalance period that gives her any indication that her time is running at anything but the normal rate, there is one thing she can compare her clock rate after the turnaround to her clock rate before the turnaround and that's her past performance. If reality is the flow of information and her rate of information broadcast is slowed going out and sped up coming back, the rate of information creation must be slowed during the velocity imbalance period otherwise there will be a backlog of information upon co-location of clocks. This means her rate of time can be any multiple of the normal rate of time and still look like the normal rate of time to her in her frame. Bob can't see her DSR flip during the velocity imbalance period but her rate of time through time must increase by a factor of DSR otherwise there would be too great a backlog of her history to unload to Bob by the time they re-unite. This can't happen so the only solution I can see is that she gets less done than she normally would during the velocity imbalance period. Would she even be able to determine she gets less done by comparing her performance during the outbound leg? No because that would establish a preferred frame which is impossible. Her playback of her performance during the outbound leg would be affected by her sped up time rate during the velocity imbalance period. If my thinking is wrong here, I can't see it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

???? First highlighted text seems to clearly contradict the second highlighted text. Please explain! Have you shifted position or what? Can't follow the rest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SR math says one thing, I say another. I showed my way using proper time not perspective time. The permanent time difference happens at the proper time level while SR's time dilation happens at the perspective time level. Where do you see a contradiction? You seem to be complaining about the stuff you're not reading.

 

Maybe it's just your way of putting thoughts together that confuses. First highlighted passage claims apparent time dilation (perspective time in your parlance) is purely down to nonsimultaneity. Yes? Second highlighted passage claims 'the difference' i.e. proper time vs coordinate (perspective) time can't be due to nonsimultaneity. Yes?
How is there not obvious contradiction between the two statements?

 

I'm confused by what you're saying I'm saying. Time dilation reciprocal time difference in SR is due to perspective at a distance and the twin paradox permanent age difference in SR compares non-separated clocks so there's no room for perspective. In my math, the perspective time at a distance does not dilate the clock period, the clocks differ when the counting of the clock periods starts or ends due to relativity of simultaneity. I also say that the twin paradox permanent age difference can directly compare the proper time of clocks at a distance when I get rid of the hysteresis of simultaneity surrounding the Loedel lines of simultaneity. Each perspective can still calculate time dilation but they're no longer reciprocal during the time of relative velocity imbalance, a small permanent time difference creeps in. Are you trying to tell me that I can still use my method of determining time dilation caused by where the stops or starts of counting the number of tic tocs affects the difference in time and apply that same method to the twin paradox age difference but now that tally is further affected by tic tocs disappearing in Alice's tally? Hence the clock periods are also not dilating causing time to slow in the twin paradox. Time is as invariant as space, clocks aren't measuring slowed time, they're measuring disappearing clock ticks in the twin paradox. I can still use the lines of simultaneity to mark the stops and starts from each perspective but now between that difference in total time, there are even fewer clock ticks. Well if that's what you meant, I didn't see it and it solves the problem I was having in my last post. Thanks. I have to think what this means physically.

Ok I've thought about it and see what's happening. It's like two movies filmed in different frame sizes. Even though they both run at the same speed, you can't fit all the information of the bigger frame into a smaller frame so there's a constantly building backlog of information. During the relative velocity imbalance period, the building or releasing of backlog is no longer constant, it accelerates. Now the backlog grows at a rate that the smaller frames can't handle it so film information must be dumped. I believe it's dumped by Alice being unable to accomplish as much in a day thereby she's not creating as much new info during the velocity imbalance period. Her time looks normal to her but she is shut off from comparing it to anything to detect that she is actually going faster through time than normal. Ok I have the proof of that mathematically but it never hit me before what the math meant or whether I had made a mistake.

This means time itself doesn't slow, it speeds up to keep information in balance.

 

I had prepared the following before you posted #306.

"Going back over ralfcis's #303, it kind of dawns after several reads, unless I have missed something, he is really plumping for the Doppler interpretation as given here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#What_it_looks_like:_the_relativistic_Doppler_shift
It certainly works for any situation, but why not just give credit to a well established viewpoint instead of claiming it as a new insight by substituting the words 'information exchange' for 'Doppler counts'?
Regardless, one still has to face the fact that as per #237 orbiting circular motion of one twin results in an arbitrarily long period of steadily growing age difference that has zero input from nonsimultaneity."

Two issues there.
Are you actually arguing via Doppler interpretation under a different guise in #303?
Are you finally prepared to consider steady circular motion of one twin, where if you do, it should quickly dawn nonsimultaneity cannot be invoked at any stage to explain the nonreciprocal time dilation applying there?

 

Ideas can dawn on people independently. Yes in my math, DSR turned out to be the factor of time speed up. I derived that by myself after years of asking unanswered questions and bumping around blindly. I'll read your article and see if it matches up. I already revealed the sum total of my studies in SR. Greene's course and 32 pages of Relativity for Engineers $10 on line. The rest was getting kicked off forums as a crank, having a bad temper and disparaging Einstein. My journey is fully documented and I stole no one's ideas. There are dogs on here who can attest to that but thankfully they have not engaged me here.

 

What's the rush? I have been going off on tangents but if I take time to study this, my backlog of questions will only keep building. I want to get them under control because they are indeed helpful to me understanding why I can't be understood.

I know you'll tell me to cut my losses now but my math is so complete and all encompassing, I can't believe it can end with your example. I don't want to get into a discussion until I've actually looked at it.

 

Are you kidding me? I glanced at this for about 10 seconds. This is like accusing me of stealing the concept of words to write sentences. This isn't an idea, it's a method that I also came up with independently because Greene kept using a telescope instead of a broadcast TV signal in his videos. This is trivial although I must admit no one understood the connection between this method and how it showed what my velocity through time would look like slowed down or sped up using the DSR. Man, I was expecting my entire theory to be laid bare and this is what I got? You're still on square zero if you think this is significant.

 

Wait my problem is still not fully answered. If Alice kept a tape of herself before the turnaround and compared it to one after the turnaround, everything would look normal except she would see a difference in the number of tasks she could accomplish in a day at normal speed. This establishes to her the nature of her motion which means she can tell she's in a preferred frame which is absolutely impossible. The only way around this would be her new time rate would affect the playback of her tape making it look like she's accomplishing the same amount in a day. I guess I said that already. I'm trying to get used to the new theory which really sounds bizarre.

 

I haven't read your example but if you're at the center of the earth, the satellites circling the earth would have no velocity relative to you. It would be the same closing speed phenomenon as watching two light beams collide at 2c or tracing a laser pointer from earth across the surface of the moon at closing speeds greater than c. There would be no time dilation or permanent proper time age difference. What is the difference between that and your example that continually generates proper time age difference which it wouldn't anyway in SR unless the clocks co-locate at some point.

 

It's exactly the case of circular relative motion you need to tackle. You've devoted 15+ pages of back and forth dealing with strictly linear in out twins scenario. With scant advance and with you still insisting nonsimultaneity is the sole cause of relative aging upon reunion. Here's a starter where everyone understands transverse Doppler shift applies to the circular motion case:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...of-light-in-uniform-circular-motion-of-source
Your claim there is no relative motion is just wrong. There is always relative velocity of v = ω × r between the orbiting twin B and stay at home twin A located anywhere on the orbit axis z. Whats more it's obvious that relative motion is always exactly normal to the radius line r connecting B to A. Which if you stop to think about it, is the very reason nonsimultaneity cannot exist in that situation. And it's irrelevant that the twins are not finally colocated. The aging differential is continuous and just keeps accumulating indefinitely. And it has been experimentally verified - as per limk supplied in #237.

 

I went to the link in #237 and it's about electricity and magnetism proving there's length contraction and I fully addressed that in my first response to you which you probably did not read. The gist of it is a length is dilated to expose more charge per length and I say the time of the charge exposure is dilated so the time the charge hangs around is longer. There are no experimental results explained solely by length contraction that can't also be solely explained by time dilation.

Now you're saying your link on circular motion shows an example using electricity and magnetism that can only be solely explained by length contraction. Or are you now saying your link on circular motion shows permanent age difference accumulates
1. Only with time dilation, no twin paradox effect required?
2. It's purely due to time slowing and not due to nonsimultaneity of relativity of stops or starts?
3. Stop barking, start answering my questions, start reading what I write instead of complaining about how long it takes to read and start discussing?

I'll go to this link now
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...of-light-in-uniform-circular-motion-of-source

 

From that link
"It turns out that the time dilation of the circling body is the same as if it was moving in a straight line i.e"

Ok, let's assume that's true even though time dilation or length contraction requires some angle of the vector of the velocity to be in the same line. That angle can't be 90 degrees because there is no vector at that point.
Anyway, let's still assume his statement is correct because he's John Rennie for crying out loud. In a straight line, Time dilation does not accumulate for constant relative velocity, only permanent age difference accumulates due to velocity (directional) changes in the twin paradox effect. So where in this short link does it state the permanent age difference accumulates when he states circular motion can be normalized to linear motion? It must be due to directional changes in circular motion. How are these instantaneous directional changes not the same as my linear changes causing permanent age difference in the way I described it?

 

That continuous aging differential cannot be established without co-locating the clocks. Please ask this question on the PSX. Someone on there knows the correct answer although you'll get a lot of incorrect answers. The reason co-location is required is because permanent age difference cannot be subject to perspective in SR. It's not enough the twins agree on their age difference but as long as they're separated, other perspectives don't agree on it.

It's ok, I posted the question myself.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...me-comparison-of-the-clocks-require-co-locati

 

My frustration with you is that you keep editing your posts fairly drastically. Hence the effort I put into responding to your initial posts above is largely lost. It wears me out and really there is just this for you to ponder on - various diverse experiments all confirming SR's prediction of differential aging. Entirely consistent with just transverse Doppler shift applying nonreciprocally between stay-at-home twin A and the orbiting one B:
Additional to particle accelerator muons time dilated decay rates already linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
http://www.ijpot.org/papers/pdf/1514611612-3411.pdf
(you might save some time by reading the conclusion there first)
Only logical possibility: Accumulating age difference in circling twin 'paradox' is for sure not a 'perspective' artifact but physically real. SR theory predicts it. And nature/experiment confirms it!

PS - It's a trivial and essentially 'ceremonial' task to, after an arbitrarily long period of steadily accumulating age difference, spin the orbiting twin down to a stop, then slowly bring him/her down to check clocks in coincidence. But utterly redundant.

 

You should see me when I have unlimited time. Yes I hit the post button too fast but the rules allow it so if you don't want to be frustrated, wait until my edit window runs out.

 

Please post the correct link for this as I can't see this info in the link I followed unless it's there and i just can't recognize it.

 

Not really because that action turns reciprocal time dilation age difference into twin paradox permanent age difference. The two have different causes even in SR. Look at Greene's video I linked where in reciprocal time dilaltion each observer says the other one has aged less where in the twin paradox both can agree on who aged less. They are not the same thing and different math must be used to determine the answers.