in order for SR's explanation to be correct. This is a purely circular argument. The results bear out the hypothesis, therefore the hypothesis must have been correct all along and let's make sure of that by using the hypothesis for 116 years as if it's a genuine conclusion that now becomes fact. I can solve every example of relativity without once invoking length contraction. There is no physical experiment that has been performed to verify its existence. It even vanishes like a phantom effect once the velocity that creates it disappears. Yet age difference from the twin paradox persists as a measurable result even after the velocity is gone. How come one is persistently real and measurable and the other is not and yet you still insist it is. Length contraction is the result of conflicting perspectives of simultaneity. Perspectives are illusions just like mirages yet you say there must be water there because you can see it and there is no other possible explanation and if there is you don't want to accept it.Experiments show that time dilation and length contraction must be real effects.
James R said:It sounds like you don't believe that length contraction is a real effect, even though you accept time dilation. Is that a correct summary of your views?
Okay. We're going to keep playing a guessing game, are we, rather than you telling me what you believe?No. You tell me what I said.
James R said:Do you agree with me that, if she laid out one of her own metre rulers next to Bob's (as she watches Bob's one fly past), she'd measure two different lengths for the two rules, even though the rulers would be identical if brought to rest with respect to one another?
Okay. Let's get to the bottom of it this way:ralfcis said:No, that's what the philosophy of SR believes.
In relativity these days, we normally keep the symbol "m"for the rest mass of an object, which is a relativistic invariant quantity (same in all frames). The notion of "relativistic mass", $\gamma m$, often comes up in pop-science discussions of relativity, but it is generally avoided in the peer-reviewed literature these days.Einstein made the same mistake in E=mc^2 by embedding Y with m instead of with v in momentum and then he redefined what m means as pertaining to either matter or energy. There is no conversion of energy into matter when you push a car up a hill but the car gains energy which he defined as the car gains mass. Y is a factor that is grouped with variables and in my math it is always grouped with v. As Y approaches infinity in e1quations, the equations always approach a finite value. There are no infinities in physics (except wrongly in SR) as I will show over the next 2 years.
Imagine a bunch of metre rulers strapped to the top of Alice's spaceship and extending out into space for light years in her direction of travel and moving with the spaceship. That's conceptually what he reference frame is. No "odometer" is required. Distances can be read off the markings on the rulers. Simple. The Earth frame is no different. It's just that the Earth's rulers are strapped to the Earth instead of to the spaceship.Not relevant to my math. She has no odometer that can measure length contraction.
When you say "proper distance" you mean the "rest length" between the start and finish lines, which is the length that Bob would measure, because the start and finish lines are stationary relative to him. Assuming all the stars and planets on Bob's chart are stationary in Bob's frame, then his chart will indeed record the "rest distances" or "proper distances" between them. The "proper time" on any one of those stars or planets, however, is the time measured by a clock at rest on one of those planets. That time can be synchronised with Bob's clocks on Earth, because the planets are at rest with respect to Bob.She only has proper distance from the charts and proper time from her atomic clock.
Not because Einstein said so. Because length contraction is a logical, derived, consequence of a theory which has been directly tested in many other ways and found to be accurate. You can't just throw out one derived consequence of a self-consistent theory and keep all of the rest.You guys are so big on relativity's experimental results yet when you provide no tools that can perform the measurements you claim no tools are needed, we just know there must be length contraction because Einstein said so.
You'll need to cite where Einstein said there is "no such physical thing" as length contraction. It has been accepted by scientists for 116 year now to be a real "physical thing", understood as a effect related to reference frames.He actually said there is no such physical thing as it's due to relativity of perspective simultaneity. You can't say it's due to both actual physical contraction and also due to perspective simultaneity. Which is it? That's a contradiction in science.
That's geometry. Algebra doesn't use graphs; it is the manipulation of symbols.I'm just using slopes of lines and where they intersect. That's basic algebra.
We don't need calculus here.You're dragging in coordinate rotations and suggesting I should learn calculus. I haven't had to use calculus since university (nor algebra until SR came along).
What I want to do, eventually, is to show you that your theory - your maths - is inconsistent. Either inconsistent with your own postulates (which, by the way, you haven't listed yet), or else inconsistent with real-world experimental results, or both.But I'm getting a lot of repetitious questions or comments on how this doesn't fit what relativity says as if I'm ignorant of what relativity says.
I have asked a number of questions over and over, because you did not answer them the first time I asked.I want to have this discussion but I'm also hoping it won't drag on forever. Do you not think you're asking the same questions over and over?
I'm actually trying to save you some time and effort, by trying to root out where we disagree. If you feel like you have to teach me about relativity or spacetime diagrams from scratch, then you're wasting your time and mine. I only need to know about how your diagrams differ from the usual Minkowski diagrams. I think at this point, I understand well enough. The answer is that they don't really differ, except that you seem to think that "proper times" in different frames are somehow comparable by your method of "Loedel simultaneity", even though no measurable variable depends on that.Wait then. If you asked the question, I'll get around to it.
Yes you do. You calculate "proper time" in Alice's frame, for example, by using the Lorentz factor $\gamma$, or Y, if you prefer. In doing so, you implicitly recognise that Alice's clocks tick at a different "proper" rate to Bob's clocks, which means that you recognise that Alice's and Bob's "perspectives" on time are different.SR does that, I deal with proper time and proper distance and I don't care what the perspectives of that are.
It's interesting that you call this an "illusion of perspective". I'd say its a real effect of perspective. If you hold up a ruler in front of your eyes and measure the height of the person 100 yds away - or hold your thumb up next to him - then the person you see really is a tall as your thumb. Or, rather, the image of the person you see next to your thumb is really as tall as your thumb. But we recognise that distances on the image are not the same as distances 100 yds away, where the person is actually standing.Relativity is not based on the illusion of perspective despite what Einstein decreed. A person 100 yds away from you is not really as tall as your thumb. It would be wild if he walks up to you and he's still as tall as your thumb.
Yes. But those effects are the results of a history of accelerations, which all observers can agree on. In the twin paradox, both Alice and Bob agree that Alice felt all the effects of acceleration, while Bob felt none of them, for instance. Their respective reference frames are not symmetrical in that regard - unlike situations where Alice and Bob are travelling at a constant relative velocity at all times.There are real persistent relativistic effects, such as age difference from the twin paradox, that don't disappear when the velocity does.
Time dilation similarly disappears when there's no relative velocity. All clocks at relative rest tick at the same rate.There is no such thing as measurable persistent length contraction because it's only due to the relativity of perspective simultaneity which disappears when there's no relative velocity.
Both things are true. There are relativity of simultaneity effects as well as time dilation effects.We do not agree on this at all. The clocks do not tick off time differently, the timing started or ended at different times.
Special relativity is called "special" because it is a special case of the more general theory of General Relativity.I have not looked at general relativity but it looks devoid of controversy unlike special.
You're saying that Alice can't carry a regular ruler on her spaceship?No such ruler exists.
No. If it becomes important to our discussion, then I might.Did you google clock handoff in relativity yet?
You should explain what's wrong, and why its wrong.Absolutely wrong and completely false in every way.
Clocks that are stationary relative to one another tick at the same rate. If they display different times, then at least one of them must have accelerated since they were last synchronised.Do you have someone you could ask for the correct answer. If they are distance separated they are liable to perspectives that see different times on their clocks than they do even if they're in the same frame.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you claiming you have access to secret facts that only the experts know, but aren't telling?This discussion is devolving into an ignorance of facts instead of a difference of opinions. Unfortunately these facts don't appear in popular relativity and are only known by experts who keep a lot of secrets to themselves.
If Sr agrees with all the experimental results, then there must be something right about its "philosophy". Or are you claiming that its predictive power is just coincidence or something?That's why SR falls apart as a philosophy even though the math agrees with experimental results.
I found a couple of errors you made earlier in the thread. At one point, you were calculating speeds of light signals that were not equal to c in one or more of the reference frames, for instance.I will show you that's obviously not true as my math does not disagree with experimental results.
James R said:What are your core physical assumptions, which replace or alter the ones from special relativity?
That's a lot of axioms, assumptions. Is it the case that you're just assuming all these things? None of them is derived from any of the others? Remember, all of SR is derived from only TWO assumptions/axioms. (Arguably, we only need one of those two, if Maxwell's equations are assumed to be correct. Then, the other one follows automatically.)AA. Length is invariant, time does not slow in time dilation, perspectives are mirages, there is a universal proper time that beats within every frame in agreement with the principle of relativity, MMX is explained not by a lack of medium but by a lack of material medium to which there can be no relative velocity, light messages can establish times between frames so that and the universal accuracy of atomic clocks obsolete Einstein's clock sync method, there is a basic graphical building block that can be stitched together with light messages to explain all experimental results without the rules behind spacetime paths, permanent age difference in the twin paradox is created by an imbalance in relative velocity, reciprocal time dilation as defined in SR is the true paradox, time does not beat at different rates between frames, it is merely re-formatted by proper relativity of simultaneity. There are no frame rotations, only slopes of velocity lines the most important of them being Yv and the Loedel line of simultaneity. Is that enough for now?
So everybody in all frames agrees on measured lengths of objects?AA. Length is invariant
I don't understand. Are you saying time dilation doesn't occur at all? Everybody's clocks remain synchronised, in all frames? From what you have written previously, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.time does not slow in time dilation
That's an axiom? What does it mean?, perspectives are mirages
What is the "principle of relativity"?, there is a universal proper time that beats within every frame in agreement with the principle of relativity
Is the speed of light the same in all inertial frames, or not?MMX is explained not by a lack of medium but by a lack of material medium to which there can be no relative velocity
Tell me how you sync clocks in just one frame - Bob's frame, say. Please post your method for syncing two clocks separated by 1 light year, say. Since Einstein's sync method is "obsolete", tell me what you're replacing it with.light messages can establish times between frames so that and the universal accuracy of atomic clocks obsolete Einstein's clock sync method
That's an axiom? An assumption?, there is a basic graphical building block that can be stitched together with light messages to explain all experimental results without the rules behind spacetime paths
Again, an axiom? In SR, a "permanent age difference" is a derived result, not an assumption., permanent age difference in the twin paradox is created by an imbalance in relative velocity
Why are you referring to SR in stating the assumptions of your alternative theory? If SR is wrong, it's wrong. That doesn't affect your theory, does it?, reciprocal time dilation as defined in SR is the true paradox,
I don't know what that means. What does it mean to "re-format" time?time does not beat at different rates between frames, it is merely re-formatted by proper relativity of simultaneity.
That doesn't sound like an axiom. Are the graphs in your theory derived, or just assumed? What comes first? The graphs? The equations? This long list of assumptions/axioms? What?There are no frame rotations, only slopes of velocity lines the most important of them being Yv and the Loedel line of simultaneity.
Relativity is "about" taking measurements in one frame of reference and deducing how they would be perceived in some other frame.There are no coordinate frame rotations so there are no Lorentz transforms.
I think you're tying yourself in knots with the Epstein diagrams. In an Epstein diagram, if Bob's world line is represented by one ray, then Alice's ray will be at an angle $\theta$ to Bob's ray, where $\sin \theta = v/c$, where $v$ is Alice's speed relative to Bob. In Epstein diagrams, light rays are always at 90 degrees to the the "ray" of the person emitting the light.Depends on which stopwatch you wish to measure c because they differ on when the measurement started or stopped. v is measured by Bob's clock and Yv is measured by Alice's clock (both tick at the same universal rate but start and stop at different times). c is a velocity so it is also subject to a factor of Bob's c but it is not Y and I haven't yet worked out the math of what that factor is (probably some form of DSR). This doesn't mean either c is anything but c but there's no denying that c chasing Alice will chase her longer and farther than c returning to Bob. The Epstein diagram handles this by changing the slopes of c so this indicates to me a mathematical way around no velocity can be added or subtracted from c (hence its universal constancy) but there's still a need to somehow express the relative velocity has some marked influence on c that does not involve compromising its universal constancy.
Your hyperbolic lines are just lines of constant invariant parameter, $s$, for the case where $x'=0$, as I have shown. You're borrowing from SR again, maybe without even realising it.That stems from the hyperbolic lines generated by the main equation intersecting all velocity lines at the same proper times.
Actually, what I'm seeing is that, to a large extent, your maths borrows from the mathematics of SR. That means that a lot of your numerical results are correct. The main problem seems to be in how you interpret the results.I can see why you're having so much trouble with this. It is so drastically different from how SR explains experimental results both philosophically and mathematically. It's so different I don't think anyone will ever understand it. You're about the only person who has even tried so far and I'm being so mean.
Your Yv is the "proper velocity" that we discussed previously. It uses Bob's rulers and Alice's clocks.So Y = 7.0888 and Yv=7.018c =x/t' and x=100000 ly so t' =14249 yrs. Same answer without any need for length contraction.
Suppose that Bob sends out a light signal to the planet 100000 ly away, at exactly the same time Alice starts out from Earth at v=0.99c.Now if you take off for the planet you can't possibly beat light there but your Yv=7.018c so using the invariant distance of 100000 ly and your on-board clock, how fast is the light travelling measuring it using your clock from your perspective because the factor you multiply your light by must beat you to the planet when you go at Yv from your perspective. Is the factor Yc or is it some other factor like I was trying to figure out before I had to answer all these other questions.
And Alice's perspective of c is unchanged, too. From Alice's perspective, light travels at c relative to her. Bob sees light travel at c relative to him.Earth's perspective of c is unchanged because it takes earth's distance over earth's time.
You're using Einstein's philosophical assumptions, without even realising it.Relativity allows mixed perspectives of time and space because it allows Yv in the 4-vector, it allows Brehme's velocity and the concept of celerity as you pointed out. You factor Y with t and x, I only need to factor it with v to get the right answers and avoid all of Einstein's Philosophical assumptions.
We could equally look at it the other way round, and say that the "time function" is "solely the result" of length contraction. You can see this in how I calculated the elapsed time on Alice's clock, above, for instance.All Alice has to measure her Yv is her clock and invariant star charts because there is absolutely no physical proof of length contraction which even in relativity is solely the result of the time function in the relativity of perspective simultaneity.
You'll need to make a significant and original contribution to knowledge to get a Nobel prize, I'm afraid.Nobel prize please or maybe I should have stuck with chess.
I've told you over and over in plain language and you just refuse to let it enter. So you need to tell me what you're reading in your own words because it isn't what I'm writing. Time dilation is not due to the slowing of time, length contraction is a similar time illusion of the relativity of perspective simultaneity and is physically unmeasurable by rulers. The twin paradox is the only experimental result of persistent age difference where there is no example of persistent length contraction. Now, when you read these words over and over do you see a blank page every time? What have you just read in your own words?Here's my next guess: do you believe that neither length contraction nor time dilation are real effects? Is that correct?
Well if that's true and I proved you don't need length contraction to calculate Alice's time to cross 100000 ly in 14294 yrs, what is your rebuttal that it was done without any length contraction.What you don't seem to realise is that length contraction and time dilation are two sides of the same coin. If you want to have a constant speed of light in all frames, you're stuck with both effects, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter that you don't like the "philosophy" of length contraction.
It looks like you can't read even my non-technical text. I said I took calculus in university and it never came up once in my career as an electrical engineer. Where's your rebuttal to my 1 question I asked? Let's concentrate on the subject rather than baseless personal attacks. You don't know me and I don't know you beyond what we see in this thread. Stop making your irrelevant assumptions.People who have won Nobel prizes for relativity, by the way, could all do calculus. Just so you know.
Why would I care? Lorentz transforms only apply to the philosophy of SR. There is no x' in my math. Show me one physical experimental result where I would need x' in order to arrive at the correct result. As I feared your endless repetition of your questions without any rebuttal to my answers is swelling this thread to infinity. Your questions are good the first time around but what's the point of answering them if you refuse to show any indication you've even read the answers except for repeating the same questions. Where's your rebuttal to the most important question I asked you.If Bob observes coordinates (x,t) for a particular spacetime event, and Alice observes coordinates (x',t') for the same event, please tell me how I can calculate x' and t' from x and t, in general.
Remember, here x and x' are not "lengths" - they are position coordinates. A length requires two position coordinates, and is defined as the difference between those two coordinates. Similarly, t and t' are time coordinates, not time intervals.
I'm sure all of science would just love to get a hold of this magic thought experiment ruler you possess that spews out real experimental results.Sure she can. She can pull out a ruler and measure something that she sees flying past her, for instance.
real clocks are those beside you or are light signals that contain clock messages or are calculated from a DSR which is delayed light signal info so they're not really real in your present time. I use proper time and don't need a perspective on Bob's clock to tell Alice what time it really is in her frame.Alice has access to just as many "real clocks" as Bob does.
You still refuse to read about the clock handoff scenario and you don't understand that Alice and Bob can fly past or Alice can stop where Bob is and the determination of age difference is the same. Alice coming to a stop where Bob is does not cause any age difference but a stop or a clock handoff at a distance would. It's because age difference results from an imbalance in relative velocity when a frame jump occurs at separation. This isn't an opinion, do the math or you can wait until I show you the math.You wrote about permanent time differences between Alice and Bob which are discovered only after Alice and Bob are brought to rest relative to one another. That requires acceleration.
Completely false from an SR standpoint that's why my math is a total reversal of SR philosophy. You need to find an expert so you get this misconception out of your head. Even a stop at a distance (3 ly in my example) in the same frame (they're both relatively stopped), with all the light messages in the world does not establish permanent age difference between the two because other perspectives do not agree on that age difference. The clocks must be co-located for all to agree on the permanent age diff. This is what the prophet decreed but my math completely shows it's false, light signals are enough to establish permanent age difference.I agree with you that it is not necessary for Alice and Bob to ever meet again once Alice flies away. If you're not interested in comparing their clocks side-by-side and at rest, then nobody needs to accelerate.
I have asked you. I've asked you if you know about the clock handoff example in the twin paradox and I take your refusal to answer as a refusal to believe it's a fact.Please don't try to tell me what I refuse to believe. Not before you've asked me, anyway.
As I said, you need to educate yourself on this.You seem to be hung up on "permanent" age differences, for some reason. I agree that whenever Alice moves and then stops moving relative to Bob, there will be permanent time differences, due to Alice's accelerations. It doesn't matter whether Alice physically returns to Bob's location. She doesn't have to. She could, for example, just stop some distance away from Bob.
permanent age difference has one definition in SR, not two. I'm not even sure what SR calls permanent age difference but when I ask this question on real physics forums, they are only familiar with the term "age difference" and have no term for the results in age difference when the two participants co-locate at the end of the twin paradox. No term at all because SR only sees proper time at co-location and does not recognize a permanent scar on proper time outside of co-location. But you'd need to consult with an expert to find this out for yourself. Good luck on that but Janus58 sounds solid to me so try asking him. Just show him what I wrote and don't try to paraphrase it in your understanding.You're wrong. That would be a situation in which relativity could draw conclusions about their "permanent age difference". Also, once they were at rest relative to one another, every other frame would agree about their "permanent age difference" in the "stationary" frame.
I get around this problem by using the Loedel perspective for a peek at proper time which is a universal god's-eye instantaneous present that SR doesn't recognize at the decree of the prophet.If Alice never stops moving relative to Bob, then they are never again both stationary in Bob's frame. They can compare their respective clock readings in various ways (e.g. by sending each other light signals carrying the time), but they don't share the same notion of simultaneity, so while they can say things like "Your clock read X at the same time my clock read Y" they will need to keep in mind that "at the same time" doesn't mean the same thing for both of them.
You mean introducing a 5th frame to the other 4. Yes.introducing a third frame into the mix, alongside the original two?
half velocity as drawn on the spacetime diagrams using the relativistic combo equation.Remind me, though, because I'm not understanding yet: what is the "Loedel perspective"? Is that your "average velocity" (or "half velocity") frame, or something else?
All the disagreement stems from which subject are we going to discuss. You want to discuss SR and I want to discuss the topic of this thread which is relativity and algebra. You seem to treat them as the same topic and they are quite different.so far our disagreement seems to boil down to a few matters
AA Maybe you can repeat back in your own words what you think my definition is separately from SR's.I have already posted my definition. You have yet to post yours, but it is clear from a number of your posts that your definition is different from the one I'm familiar with.
The problem is you don't answer questions in any meaningful way. I can't figure out what your basic ideas are. You seem to be avoiding direct answers for some reason. Here is a case in point:Your questions are good the first time around but what's the point of answering them
You say, "Time dilation is not due to the slowing of time" but in the next sentence you say, "The twin paradox is the only experimental result of persistent age difference". So you say time dilation is and is not real. How are we supposed to understand what you're trying to say when you give obtuse answers like this??Time dilation is not due to the slowing of time, length contraction is a similar time illusion of the relativity of perspective simultaneity and is physically unmeasurable by rulers. The twin paradox is the only experimental result of persistent age difference where there is no example of persistent length contraction.
Time dilation does not cause permanent age difference in the twin paradox. This is your, and most other people's, wrong assumption because it looks like the numbers are the same therefore they must be related. When Alice continues without velocity change, the numbers at Bob=10 and Alice=8 in time dilation match the same numbers as when Alice returns to Bob which are permanent age difference numbers. They are not related at all and this can't be accepted by close minded people who only see the same numbers.So you say time dilation is and is not real
This is another in your continuing obtuse answers!Time dilation does not cause permanent age difference in the twin paradox. This is your, and most other people's, wrong assumption because it looks like the numbers are the same therefore they must be related. When Alice continues without velocity change, the numbers at Bob=10 and Alice=8 in time dilation match the same numbers as when Alice returns to Bob which are permanent age difference numbers. They are not related at all.
I explain velocity change at a distance is the cause of permanent age difference and go through the math of how that works. Until a velocity change or a frame jump happens, there is only the paradox or perspective illusion of reciprocal time dilation that is not due to time itself slowing but due to the relativity of simultaneity of when events are timed by the participants. There is a pandemic of not being able to read what I write and replacing that with the text of preconceived assumptions. They ignore what they don't understand instead of asking if they have the correct interpretation. James R does ask that question relatively often but then ignores the answer if it doesn't agree with what his preconceived notion of what the answer should be.
Most people have been fed comic book pop sci versions of relativity which are dead wrong. I've been fortunate to run into 3 truly and certifiably knowledgeable people on relativity in 10 yrs on forums which is why my views differ so wildly from those of pop sci and wikipedia. When they spoke, I listened because they made sense not BS..
I just explained time dilation is not due to time slowing and then I explain time dilation is due to time not being counted from the observer's perspective due to relativity of simultaneity. It's all in the explanation of the spacetime diagrams I posted which no one can read because they involve basic algebra and slopes of lines is an impossible concept to understand.which of course means time was passing more slowly for one person than the other. How is that not time dilation?
A clock handoff does not involve acceleration. An instantaneous acceleration at the start or end causes no age difference at all. Maybe if you'd read you could understand why (hint, there's no distance separation involved).So a velocity change (AKA acceleration)
Yes in the twin paradox PROPER time does slow during the period of relative velocity imbalance. You won't see that explanation in any SR book but if you're lucky you'll find out SR explains this using the Rindler metric which no one on a forum has ever heard of. In SR, time dilation is due to PERSPECTIVE time slowing which is not the same as PROPER time slowing. However, SR is wrong, reciprocal time dilation is not time slowing at all as I've said over and over.which of course means time was passing more slowly for one person than the other.