Relativity and simple algebra II

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by ralfcis, Feb 6, 2021.

  1. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    That's right, wait your turn as I've told you before. I'll get to you when I get to you. Use that time to read what I've written so you can understand the answer in my terms.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    That interesting choice of going suddenly from dealing with the post just before mine in #237 p12, to way back in p7, almost certainly means you will never work your way back to my #237.
    That's because going on past history here, you will become embroiled in an endless back and forth with just the first p7 recap. We shall see.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I announced my plans on how to tackle this mess long before you made your sudden re-appearance after you said your final goodbye. Maybe this time James won't be returning as he's maybe given up on trying to understand something outside his comfort zone. Even though I have no experience in circular experiments, I'm sure that the final answer is the same as the linear answer: anything you can explain with length contraction, even though no other explanation seems possible, can be explained purely using time dilation. (I'm using SR's terms, there is no time dilation as time slowing in my math.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    OK I'm guilty of breaking a pledge if you like to call it that. I first broke it owing to wrong claims made against me. The thing is a 'final goodbye' implicitly obligates the other party to respect that by avoiding thereafter making negative statements involving the departed party. If that is not respected, the implicit 'contract' is broken. Enough on that.
    And that highlighted in red dooms you to remain stuck in a mental rut imo. An unwillingness to countenance the possibility you have it wrong. IF you ever do actually study the circular motion situation, the spell may be broken. Maybe.
     
  8. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I've already performed five countenances. I was wrong about what SR's ' notation means making my wrong formula for length contraction as x'=Yx. I was wrong about my main equation not being the same thing as SR's spacetime path equation and I was wrong that dilation does not mean the same thing as contraction meaning my Md on that was completely wrong. But, to be fair, I blame Brian Greene for most of that.
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    As I understand both length contraction and time dilation have been confirmed to have occurred
    Two questions - YES or NO answers to each please

    Do you believe length contraction takes place under acceleration?

    Do you believe time dilation takes place under acceleration?

    Thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I'm currently busy with a whole heap of real-world work, which I'm actually paid to do.

    I will get back to this, but it's a lower priority. Sorry if that offends you.
     
  11. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    No
    No, not as SR defines those terms as being reciprocal during constant relative velocity. Any point along the acceleration curve is an instantaneous constant velocity which would have your reciprocal length/time contraction/dilation between the two participants except for the fact that changes in velocity are delayed which makes for non-reciprocal length/time contraction/dilation because the delay causes an imbalance in relative velocity.
     
  12. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    Our last correspondence suggested to me you might not be coming back; no offence involved.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Re the above

    What part of the below did you not understand?

    The YES?

    The NO?

    The please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    Here's a perfect way to make this clear to you but you need to brush up on the clock handoff scenario:



    We'll change the name Germaine to Muon.

    Muon comes in from deep space. His clock is not sync'd (proper times co-located) to Earth's clock until he either lands or passes close to Earth. Whether a clock is sync'd at the start or end of a journey doesn't matter to SR nor does his relative velocity to Earth at co-location. In this example, the clock units can be worked backward from the end to match Muon's incoming DSR. Muon had to have been transmitting a clock signal on his way in and it turns out his atomic clock was seen to run at double speed to the earth clock. So DSR=2 which means v=-3/5c and Y=5/4. In SR, this means time slowed in Muon's ship to 80% of our time rate (not to be confused with the double clock rate DSR was showing as I've explained earlier). This is the muon experiment where the clocks are sync'd to the same value at the end and the muon proper time ages at 80% of what he would have aged stationary on earth and he calculates earth aged 80% slower than he would have. This is reciprocal time dilation.

    But let's say Muon ran into Alice at 3ly away from Earth who had left Earth at 3/5c. As they pass in opposite directions, he syncs his clock to Alice's. He inherits Alice's sync to Earth from when she started. When he co-locates with Earth, he ends the spacetime path Alice started and it turns out in his comparison of his proper time to Earth's proper time at co-location, he has aged 2 yrs less than Earth. Alice had never changed her velocity so she remains the same proper time age as Earth but she has shifted her age difference onto Muon who will now be permanently 2 yrs younger than what Earth aged from when Alice took off. If he had not run into Alice, he will have aged at the same proper time rate as Earth and so there is no permanent age difference between them. There is no proper time age difference between participants engaged in constant relative velocity.

    In my non-SR explanation, there is no magical time slowing in reciprocal time dilation, only a difference due to relativity of simultaneity in when the two clocks start and end timing between events. The clocks all tick normally as the principle of relativity states but if you start timing from your perspective long after the other guy starts timing the event from his perspective, you're going to say time slowed for him. Not true at all. In my explanation of the twin paradox, proper time itself is imbalanced because of the imbalance of relative velocity because of the delay of velocity changes. It's absolutely crystal clear to me but not clear to anyone else and I don't understand why.
     
  15. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    What part of the yes or no answers did you not understand? You honestly wanted a blank no to all. So you would have not understood "No to all" because "to all" is too many words for you. Have you no ability to process answers? I don't play your games. Please don't ask any more questions. Actually I'll handle that by putting you on ignore. Buh Bye.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  16. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Well thanks for trying to explain it to me. In the scenario I gave in post #260, the two twins start in the same place (just like the first half of the basic twin scenario), so there is no way they can disagree on the time of the start of the journey. They both say it began at time zero, which is the birth of the twins. But in my #260 scenario there is no turnaround, the traveling twin simply decelerates quickly and stops at some point, so they are once again stationary with respect to the stay home twin, just some distance away.

    So, if you are saying there is no reciprocal time dilation, then the twins are both the same age at the moment just before the traveling twin decelerates quickly and stops. But it turns out, after the quick deceleration and stop, that the traveling twin is younger than the stay home twin. So which one of the twins would you say is the one who's age changes during the deceleration? And how do you explain it as "one guy started timing long after the other guy started timing" when they both agree that they started timing at their birth, which is time zero for both of them?

    If you could explain that, perhaps we could understand what you are saying a little better.

    -------------------

    For reference, the standard SR explanation is that in the stay-home twin's frame, no one's age has to change during the deceleration, because the traveling twin is already younger. And in the traveling twin's frame, the stay home twin is younger than the traveling twin in the moment before the deceleration, but the stay home twin becomes older as the traveling twin changes reference frames by quickly decelerating and stopping (due to relativity of simultaneity, ROS). The ROS effect is that the traveling twin would say that the Einstein synchornised clocks at rest in the stay home frame are not synchronised before the deceleration, but they are synchronised after the stop, and this change of the synchronisation of the array of stay-home clocks is the explanation for the age of the stay home twin increasing during the deceleration, according to the traveling twin.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  17. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    This is a common myth because the assumption is both are in the same frame and they can send light signals to agree on their ages. But SR is a stickler about having the clocks co-locate so not only do the twins agree on their age difference but every other perspective does as well. Mathematically you could say a stop is the same thing as taking an infinite amount of time for the clocks to re-unite and you could extrapolate that at 3ly apart from a 3/5c stop, the math shows the twin who stopped aged 1 yr less. SR says no and it says no for every velocity change between 0 and 6c and 6c to c because the clocks don't re-unite in those cases either.
    The age change doesn't happen before the stop, it happens afterward in the relative velocity imbalance period from when the reality of Alice's stop reaches Bob and their relative velocity eventually settles that they are both stopped. In my math the age diff is settled long before the clocks re-unite as can be seen in my Md with all the green Loedel lines changing slope in #49.
    I said the stop watch mismatch can happen at the start or end. In the muon example the mismatch is at the start because the start perspectives are separated by distance. The example you gave, if Alice didn't stop, the end times are separated by distance, it's like an upside down muon example. If Alice stopped, the permanent age difference is caused by the relative velocity imbalance period and has nothing to do with the stop watches. I've explained the same thing many times already so it probably won't be any clearer to you this time around either.
    Look at Greene's videos on the twin paradox and even those aren't the real explanation for the age diff in SR, the Rindler metric is. I don't need any of that. A theory must be as simple as possible and SR isn't.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Boo hoo I have been Iggied by ralfcis

    How ever am I going to live this down?

    Stand by for my upcoming book

    How I Was Unfriended by a Nobel Prize Winner - The Man Who Upturned Special Relativity - ralfcis

    Oh the shame

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    #173 page 9
    That sentence just proved my point, the definition of "absolute" is that it's not relative to anything. Saying relative to an absolute frame negates the absoluteness of that frame. Setting the Earth as the absolute frame means nothing else is moving relative to the Earth in the entire universe and according to my theory there is nothing that doesn't have a velocity relative to it. That nothing is the vacuum of space which the MMX proved that no material object can have a velocity relative to it.

    I'm totally comfortable with that but SR isn't. I do not have to produce reverse-Md's where Alice is stationary over some blank piece of space while Bob and the Earth are rocketing away from her. I'm comfortable with depicting the moving frame as reference and defining Alice's perspective as moving without switching her frame to being a stationary reference frame. SR just doesn't do that sort of thing.

    You have absolutely no ability to understand what I'm saying so I guess that's my proof for "absolute space".

    Yv > v.

    AA

    No. AA

    The 1st acceleration is done at close quarters so there is minimal permanent age difference and it's indeterminate in SR if Alice never returns to Bob. Alice does not have to decelerate at the end to establish permanent age difference so two of your 3 accelerations have no magical time powers associated with them. And as I keep telling you, the clock handoff scenario has no acceleration associated with it yet still generates permanent age difference at the turnaround point. So where does that put SR's claim that acceleration is the special sauce that creates permanent age difference?

    If you watch Greene's videos, he talks about all of space moving past a stationary Alice in a direction opposite to Alice. I conceive that as a record moving past a record needle but that needle is on an arm tethered to the record player which is outside the record. This would be analogous to Alice being absolutely tethered to something outside of space itself. Of course Greene must have misspoke. All of space can't move past Alice, in fact, space can't have any velocity relative to anything so her hovering stationary over a blank vacuum of space while Earth and Bob rocket away from her is really just an unrealistic way to describe their velocity relative to each other. Alice's rocket engines are on so the idea that she's the stationary one is physically ridiculous if you consider how much of a rocket engine it would take to move the Earth away from her. Stick with one Md, the one that actually makes physical sense.

    It's position is established. I meant to say wave/particle duality as it applies to Heisenberg. A particle's position and its momentum can't be simultaneously established. When the wave function collapses into a particle, the position is established. Photons are the particles indicating position of the wave function collapse. Light travels in wave form and stops in photon form. How do you count the number of photons in a wave? Does each wavelength define a photon somehow? That wavelength is actually a 3D spherical shell so those photons of yours get stretched pretty thin.

    No, in constant relative velocity the clocks still tick at the same rate, it's the relativity of simultaneity that determines where the counting of clock ticks starts thereby giving different different perspectives different tallies of clock ticks. Time itself does not slow reciprocally due to the illusion of perspective no matter what lunacy SR promotes.

    AA

    No. Cartesian coordinates are used in both. What you see as polar are what replace the hyperbolas in the Md. You don't say the Md uses hyperbolic coordinates.

    or vice versa. As I said, Minkowski had to take a straight coordinate rotation and make it match Einstein's philosophy mathematically.

    What came first, the chicken or the egg.

    The ct and ct' axes are just swapped in the Epstein (which is also called the proper time spacetime diagram). The reverse Minkowski additionally swaps the x and x' axes.

    As the mathematical cause of a phantom effect. That reminds me. Look at 14:40 of this video



    I've talked about Alice shrinking the entire spacetime path but this video is about how shrunk he would see Alice as she sped by him on her return to Earth. Bob can read her clock as having a permanent age difference and if she stopped, the age difference would remain permanent. Now if Alice flew past, he would be able to measure or see her length contraction but if she stopped, she would not remain permanently shrunk like her time is permanently shrunk. This is proof that length contraction is a phantom mathematical non-physical construct.

    Judging by how long this took to write, it's going to take me a long time to catch up answering questions on this thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  20. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Thanks for trying, but you are still not answering my question. Let me put some numerical ages to my scenario, so you can see what I am actually asking. Let's just say v=0.866c so that gamma=2.000 and the stay home twin is going to be 10 years old at the time when the traveling twin stops (so the traveling twin will be 5 years old then).

    This is what SR says the stay-home twin frame says is the case just at the start, which is the moment the twins are born:
    Stay Home Twin = 0 years old
    Traveling Twin = 0 years old
    Distance between the two = 0 light years

    This is what SR says the stay-home twin frame says is the case just before the stop:
    Stay Home Twin = 10 years old
    Traveling Twin = 5 years old
    Distance between the two = 8.66 light years

    This is what SR says the traveling twin frame says is the case just before the stop:
    Stay Home Twin = 2.5 years old
    Traveling Twin = 5 years old
    Distance between the two = 4.33 light years

    Note the reciprocal time dilation, by a factor of 1/gamma = 1/2:
    10 years old divided by 2 is 5 years old. <--> 5 years old divided by 2 is 2.5 years old.

    So, just before the traveler stops, the traveler would say that the stay home twin is 2.5 years old and the distance between them is 4.33 light years. But just after the traveler stops, the traveler would be at rest in the home frame, and so would have to say that the stay home twin is 10 years old and the distance between them is 8.66 light years. So the deceleration period is where the traveler changes frames, and ROS changes the age of the distant stay home twin from 2.5 years to 10 years, according to the traveling twin.

    I don't care if you don't use length contraction, you can just ignore the distances given. I also don't care if you think it takes time for the "I have stopped" information to reach the stay home twin, that is not at issue here.

    What I care about is how you can claim that both of the twin's biological clocks are always ticking at the same rate as each other, I think you say that don't you? If so, then justify it. Explain how one twin ends up being 10 years old and the other ends up being 5 years old if their biological clocks were ticking the same rate the whole time. What I specifically want to know is, are they both 5 years old before the stop, and then one becomes 10 after the stop? Or are they both 10 years old and then one becomes 5 after the stop? Which is it and how do you know? That is my specific question.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  21. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    In other words, what is the use of saying that you have a simpler way of doing SR where all clocks tick at the same rate as each other, if you then cannot explain how the twins end up with different ages?

    That is like saying, "I have an easier way of measuring the length of a tube, instead of running a tape measure from one end to the other I just measure the diameter, it is easier." Okay, but how does that tell you the length? Then you say, "Well it is hard to measure the length so I just measure the diameter because it is easier, but nobody seems to understand my method." Okay, so how do you get the length from the diameter? Then you say, "You're being a stickler about the lengths of tubes, but my way doesn't need that, I just measure the diameter, it is easier." Okay, but the question is about the length not the diameter...
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  22. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I will answer but I am particularly dreadful at punching numbers into a calculator so I will change your numbers just a bit with ones I've done in the past. I prefer dealing with prime numbers.
    v=15/17c = .8823c instead of .866c
    Y= 17/8 = 2.125 instead of 2
    Bob age at stop t=5.1 yrs roughly half of 10
    Alice age at stop t'=2.4yrs roughly half of 5
    Distance at stop x=4.5 ly instead of 4.33 ly

    I will plug these numbers into your original text

    Thanks for trying, but you are still not answering my question. Let me put some numerical ages to my scenario, so you can see what I am actually asking. Let's just say v=15/17c = .8823c so that Y= 17/8 = 2.125 and the stay home twin is going to be t=5.1 yrs old at the time when the traveling twin stops (so the traveling twin will be t'=2.4yrs old then).

    This is what SR says the stay-home twin frame says is the case just at the start, which is the moment the twins are born:
    Stay Home Twin = 0 years old
    Traveling Twin = 0 years old
    Distance between the two = 0 light years

    This is what SR says the stay-home twin frame says is the case just before the stop:
    Stay Home Twin = t=5.1 yrs old
    Traveling Twin = t'=2.4yrs old
    Distance between the two = 4.5 light years

    This is what SR says the traveling twin frame says is the case just before the stop:
    Stay Home Twin t''= 1.13 years old
    Traveling Twin t'= 2.4 years old
    Distance between the two x' = 2.11765 light years

    Note the reciprocal time dilation, by a factor of 1/gamma = 8/17:
    5.1 years old divided by 2.125 is 2.4 years old. <--> 2.4 years old divided by 2.125 is 1.13 years old.

    So, just before the traveler stops, the traveler would say that the stay home twin is 1.13 years old and the distance between them is 2.11765 light years. But just after the traveler stops, the traveler would be at rest in the home frame, and so would have to say that the stay home twin is t=5.1 years old and the distance between them is x=4.5 light years. So the deceleration period is where the traveler changes frames, and ROS changes the age of the distant stay home twin from 1.13 years to 5.1 years, according to the traveling twin.

    I don't care if you don't use length contraction, you can just ignore the distances given. I also don't care if you think it takes time for the "I have stopped" information to reach the stay home twin, that is not at issue here.

    What I care about is how you can claim that both of the twin's biological clocks are always ticking at the same rate as each other, I think you say that don't you? If so, then justify it. Explain how one twin ends up being 5.1 years old and the other ends up being 2.4 years old if their biological clocks were ticking the same rate the whole time. What I specifically want to know is, are they both 2.4 years old before the stop, and then one becomes 5.1 after the stop? Or are they both 5.1 years old and then one becomes 2.4 after the stop? Which is it and how do you know? That is my specific question.

    Here is the Md the above text represents:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm not going to show you how SR solves the problem because SR says the solution is indeterminate since the clocks don't co-locate. But in my math that doesn't matter. The green Loedel simultaneity shows that their proper times are the same up until the stop. Their clocks are ticking at the same rate even though there is reciprocal hysteresis of the perspectives around the Loedel lines. After the stop the changing slope of the Loedel lines means the clocks are not ticking at the same rate because there's no longer constant relative velocity between them.. The proper time of the stopped twin is gradually falling behind until the news of the stop reaches Bob and only at that point is the relative velocity settled on new blue horizontal lines of perspective simultaneity for both indicating t=9.6 and t'=6.9. The travelling twin has a permanent age difference of 2.7 yrs younger which doesn't change after this point. The age difference is not resolved at the stop but 4.5 yrs later for both of them.

    Oh in case you haven't read a word of this thread you're probably going to ask me where the .6c green line came from. That is the Loedel perspective velocity v_h or the half speed of 15/17c. The yellow light line back to Bob is the speed of reality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  23. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    You can do the same thing using SR's math without Loedel lines but you must deal with the hysteresis around the perspectives. The formula for RoS (relativity of simultaneity) in SR is RoS=vx/c2. So at t'=2.4, x=4.5 and v=15/17 , RoS= 3.9706. This is the total hysteresis around t=2.4 on Bob's ct axis. So how much of this total is due to Bob's perspective. When t'=2.4, Bob's t=5.1 and 5.1-2.4=2.7. The remainder from 3.9706-2.7= 1.2706 is Alice's part of the total. Multiply this by Y=2.125 and this equals Bob's part of 2.7. Subtract Bob's part minus Alice's part times Y and you get rid of the hysteresis due to perspective around 2.4 and this means there is no proper time age difference between Bob and Alice during their constant relative velocity.

    You can apply the same math after the stop and getting rid of the hysteresis around 2.9, 3.4, 3.9 etc, you should see that Alice ages .3 yrs less than Bob for every .5 increase in proper time after the stop until reality reaches Bob that Alice has stopped. (I have not checked this.) Then there will be no further progression of proper age difference and Alice will remain 2.7 yrs younger than Bob. So SR can arrive at the correct result so long as it gets rid of its rule that clocks must co-locate to establish permanent age difference. This would then open up the whole velocity spectrum past a stop to increases in Alice's velocities away from Bob. Alice will continue aging less than Bob until she passes the threshold in no change in velocity and then Bob will age less than her as her velocity away approaches +c. What's also surprising is that the age difference is limited to Bob aging a finite number less in this scenario as Alice approaches +c. (There are no infinities in physics.) Of course SR can't know this because this math is forbidden in SR.

    The Loedel lines not only automatically get rid of the fog of hysteresis around the proper times but also rid SR of the fog of basing the theory on the illusion of perspective and put it firmly on the basis of universal proper time.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2021

Share This Page