## Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

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

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ok Dave let's use some hard numbers.

The race course is 3 ly out and 3ly back. Ignoring turn around deceleration/acceleration, the people in the stands see the guy going at .8c cross the finish line at their 9 yr mark and the other guy crosses a year later. The guy going .8c ages 6.25 years and the guy going .6c ages 8 years.

Yup you're right Dave, my statement was way wrong. Nothing weird here, I don't know what I was thinking.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I also need to correct another statement. Whatever speed Alice chooses to start off has no effect on Bob's aging before the transition. But that initial speed does set the amount of time Bob ages between AFTER the transition and the time it takes for news of the transition to propagate to him. Alice's speed choice after the transition has no effect on Bob's aging during the relative aging transition time. Alice's choice of speed only affects Alice's relative aging after the transition. So what does all this mean for ralfativity?

1. The other statement I previously labeled "weird" is also not correct. If Alice returns to Bob at c, the conflict on how to interpret Bob's aging between yrs 2-4 doesn't exist. Bob's aging before the transition is not influenced by Alice's speed at all. His aging after the transition is only due to Alice's speed BEFORE the transition, not after. Bob ages 4 years during the transition/reception relative aging period and that can't be changed by Alice.

2. Ralfativity will now have to look at how Alice's velocity through time BEFORE the transition translates into Bob's aging AFTER the transition. This is a completely new wrinkle.

3. Alice's subsequent speed changes can't affect Bob's established aging but it is still unknown whether Alice's subsequent transitions during the 1st transition period can affect the amount of Alice's relative aging during the 1st year of the transition period. I must still prove this can't happen.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi ralfcis,

The aspect pushed by Classical Relativists is that two Guys traveling at relativistic speed will BOTH see the other guy as aging slower than themselves. (really?)

We know that Doppler Effects can created this illusion when they are heading away from each other, but it is reversed when heading towards each other. But these Relativists tend to avoid Doppler Effects and Distance. They also imbue their travelers with clairvoyant powers enabling said travelers to witness the aging effects for their counterparts.

I said the guy with the slowest clock will see the other as having a faster clock and the one with the fastest clock will see the other as having a slower clock. Or.. if both are traveling at the same absolute speed, then they will both witness the other has having the same clock timing. Again, I'm using this clairvoyant power that Classical Relativists prefer.. No Doppler Effects for simplicity sake.

So I'm told I am wrong.. even if both are going at an absolute speed of 0.8c.. both will see the other aging slower than themselves according to Classical Relativity. Since Classical Relativists are somewhat comfortable in ignoring acceleration and deceleration periods for the sake of simplicity.. I do the same.

I offer the case where both travelers are heading towards each other at 0.8c for a long journey as they started with a huge gap between them. If Classical Relativity is correct, then both will believe/witness themselves as aging faster than their counterpart.. Ie. Both started at the same age of.. say.. 25 years old. Both believe their personal journey has taken.. say.. 25 years to reach each other.

So if Classical Relativity is correct, both will witness the other as being much younger than themselves right up to the point they would pass close to each each other.. but I add a twist.. both stopped instantly next to each other and waved to each other out their respective windows. Both expected to see a much younger person waving back.

Both are shocked at seeing the other as being the same old age as themselves. WTF?

When did the other instantly catch up in real mutual old age? There is an Elephant in the Ointment here obviously.

Anyway, this example is right up there with the Twin Paradox in my eyes.

I think this case is resolved using Relativistic Doppler Effects, which means that if such is resolved.. why teach that both travelers view the other as aging slower than themselves? That has the feel of a flat out intentional deception.

The fatal flaw, IMHO, is that Classical Relativity avoids Absolute Velocities relative to Light Speed and instead focuses on the Relative Velocity differences in Travelers. It's about time to put Classical Relativity up on the shelf with Earth Centrist views. At least the Earth Centrist View made accurate real predictions and Classical Relativity has fatal flaws that produce Paradoxes.

The time has come for Absolute Relativity (IMHO). This means that all travelers are treated independently, as far as clock dilation's are concerned, and all velocities as being Relative to Light Speed only. Only then will all the paradoxes evaporate.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3220
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Dave,
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
 ronjanec liked this post

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ok, as promised so here are the new algebraic formulas to figure out relative aging based on the doppler shift method so you don't need to refer to the STD constantly. These new formulas are an improvement over the old ones as they allow real time aging comparisons and show how the true present, shared between the participants, can be calculated correctly.

The doppler shift formula is ttx/t'rx = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Graphically this relates the time t when the stationary frame transmits its spacetime info and the time t' when the moving frame receives it, each in their own proper time. (Relative aging is always a comparison of the frames' proper times.) V is negative if the frames are separating and positive if they're coming together.

Since the formula for gamma can be written as Y=c/sqrt((c-v)(c+v)), the doppler shift formula can be written as:

ttx/t'rx = Y(c+v)/c when considering the TV image speed the moving perspective sees of the stationary frame and

trx/t'tx = Y(c-v)/c when considering the TV image speed the stationary perspective sees of the moving frame.

An example of this is: up until Alice changes the relative velocity when she's 4, she sees Bob's TV image running at half speed and he sees the same from her. When Alice is 4 (t'rx) she gets Bob's age as 2 (ttx) and when he's 4 (trx) he also gets the message Alice is 2 (t'tx).

Couldn't finish today but I may continue from home.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ok I have a lot of writing to do and not much time to do it so I'm going to have to write a little each day. The danger is I don't exactly know where the math will eventually lead.

Again the basic theory is that relative aging happens in the delay between one participant changing relative velocity and the other receiving the info the relative velocity has changed between them. My math only considers the simple scenario of Alice doing all the changing. It's not important to derive the math for both altering the relative velocity (as in Bob also taking off from earth).

Alice can have any number of transition points at t'p1, t'p2, t'p3 etc.. t' signifies Alice's years she spends inside her own frame running at proper time. t is the proper time Bob spends inside his own frame. Both time rates are universal and identical and unchangeable no matter how many people have misconstrued relativity. Science is not run by popular vote, consensus or credentials.

Each transition duration generates its own relative aging. So the total T'a (time Alice ages) is a summation of aging during t' durations which , for the 1st duration, starts at t'p1 and ends at t'p1* Y1(c-v1)/c according to the formulas from the last post. So T'a =t'a0+t'a1+t'a2+t'a3 etc.

T'a0 is the time period before t'p1 where Bob and Alice age the same number of years (no relative aging because that only happens during transition durations).

Tb is also a summation of Bob's aging for each transition duration. For the 0th duration tb0 _< t'p1. Since Alice and Bob age the same, the relationship between tb and t'a does not involve Y. Any tb that is greater than the transition point crosses over into a new transition duration and the math for that is handled separately in that duration.

I made an STD (which I won't bother to include here because if someone were really interested they'd be able to draw it for themselves) depicting 3 velocities (-.6c, -.8c and -.8824c) from t=0 to t'p1 =3. I've chosen a random value of tb=3 to see what is happening for each velocity at that value. So far our 1st constraint has been met that tb is no greater than the transition point of t'p1. We also have a formula from the last post for

t'tx = ctb/(Y1(c-v1)) so tb= t'tx*Y1(c-v1)/c

We also know t'a = tb during this initial period so

t'a0 = t'tx*Y1(c-v1)/c

c/(Y1(c-v1)) = r.

R represents the ratio I had alluded to in prior posts. It represents the ratio of Bob's TV image speed to Alice's image speed she sees of herself. It's basically a speedometer that allows her to determine her velocity relative to Bob. The speedometer only tells relative aging during a transition period where each party is unaware that the other is seeing a different TV image speed than the other one is seeing. Otherwise it only reveals relative velocity where both parties are unaware that both their image speeds are the same.

So if Alice's stopped, r=1 and Bob's TV image of his clock is running at the same normal rate as Alice's clock. If r=4, Alice and Bob's relative velocity is .8824c (they are approaching). If r=1/4, Alice and Bob's relative velocity is -.8824c (they are separating). Alice would see Bob's rate of motion at quadruple speed or slow 1/4 speed depending on approach or separation at .8824c. If r=3 or 1/3, |v| =.8c. If r=2 or 1/2, |v| = .6c. If r= 3/2 or 2/3, |v| = .4c. Such nice clean numbers!

Ran out of time. My next post is a real mind blower and I hope I can verbally express what happens next.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I mentioned, "Otherwise it only reveals relative velocity where both parties are unaware that both their image speeds are the same."

Just to clarify, they cannot be aware of either their reciprocal image speeds any more than they can be aware of reciprocal time dilation. The speed of light delay makes it impossible. So what possible point can there be to reciprocal time dilation if it's impossible to measure in real time. The statement they can see each others clocks slow is false because even with post processing the clock data, their clocks are identical if no speed transition has occurred. Relativity seems to be unaware of this.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Damn I wish I could include an STD here but it takes too long to draw it so I'm going to have to go 100% algebraic.

There are 3 return velocities, .6c, .8c, .8824c with their t'p's (transition points) at 3 Alice yrs. So for .6c xp = 2.25, for .8c xp = 4, for .8824c xp = 5.625 ly, using the formula xp = Yvt'p. xp is the transition point space coordinate.

tb = 3 so using the formula t'tx = ctb/(Y(c-v)), for .6c t'tx = 1.5, for .8c t'tx = 1, for .8824c t'tx = .75. Using the formula xtx = Yvt'tx we get 1.125, 1.333 and 1.406 for xtx at .6c, .8c and .8824c respectively.

Using the above data, we need to reconstruct t'a = tb for any speed for the 0th transition duration (the time before Alice's 1st speed transition).

For v=.6c, it seems pretty obvious. In the time that it takes light to travel 1.125ly back to Bob, Alice will have traveled 1.5 yrs. At t'tx, she is 1.5yrs so in another she will be 3. So t'a = tb =3. But this logic falls apart for the other 2 velocities.

So I need to feel around until I see a pattern and then make sense of it. The math formula:

t'p/t'tx = 1/r

applies but I need to think what that means physically. I need to do that tomorrow because I've run out of time again.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: synchronicity

Well I've figured it out. Relativity should have been named the theory of synchronicity. It's like Bob and Alice are mirror images of each other except both can control the others image. A change in one will cause a change in the other. The farther apart they are from each other, the more lag they'll see between their change and the change in the image. The lag is where relative aging comes in until the images resync.

Relativity, on the other hand, has been the study of mirages; time dilation, length contraction, relativistic mass and relativity of simultaneity, all illusions. But the chief "mirageologist" of relativity was quite skilled. He was able to conjure up realities from the illusions: relative aging, the conversion of mass/energy, the nature of gravity, just to name a few. For me, the realities are what's important, not the illusions.

Synchronicity concerns itself with mirrors, not mirages. For relative aging, the mirror is the line of velocity. As soon as there's a change in the velocity of one there's a delay in the change of relative velocity between the two. Until the images re-sync, relative aging occurs.

So in my previous example, when tb = 3 and t'tx = 1.5, 1 and .75 (1/r=2,3,4) for .6c, .8c and .8824c respectively, synchronicity demands t'a = 3 for ttx =1.5, 1 and .75 (1/r=2,3,4) for .6c, .8c and .8824c respectively. Note ttx is the light line from Bob's velocity line (the vertical ct axis) to Alice's velocity line while t'tx is the light line from Alice's velocity line to Bob's. Perfect symmetry reigns until a change occurs and there's a speed mismatch for a while. The ratio of r's is always 1 before a transition but the ratio of r's is not 1 during the transition period and then returns to 1 after. The mirror gets fractured by the transition period so the light lines get shifted. I need to go through an example to show what this means as it's new and quite complex.

For example, Alice leaves at .6c and returns after 4 of her years at .6c. We know the transition period lasts from t'p = tb = 4 (they age the same before the transition) to tb = t'pY1*(c-v1)/c =8. So Bob ages 4 yrs during the transition. Now we need to figure out how Alice's relative aging unfurls during the transition per each of Bob's 4 years in real time.

Although it looks like Bob's aging at the same constant rate, what causes his aging during his 1st 4 years is different from what causes his aging during the 4 yr transition period. For the 1st 4, tb = t'a up until t'a = t'p. The derivation of Alice's age from Bob's age is the same for each year. We've already done it for tb =3 but now we'll do it for tb=4 which is right at the transition point.

At .6c and tb=4, t'tx =2. The mirror move happens when you make ttx = t'tx and derive the corresponding t'a using the formula t'a = cttx*Y1(c-v1). So if tb =4, t'a =2*1.25(1.6) =4. The mirror also works in reverse for finding tb from t'a.

The next 4 years for Bob are derived from the remaining 2 years for Alice before the transition. For Alice 2 to 4, Bob ages 2 years for each year Alice ages. Let's go through the analysis year by year to understand how the mirror is fractured by the transition. The fracture forces a shift of the results of t'a for tb=2 to 6 to tb=4 to 8.

t'a =4.5 ttx = 3 but ttx can't be equal to or below tb=4 so it must be shifted to tb = 5.

t'a =5 ttx = 4 but ttx can't be equal to or below tb=4 so it must be shifted to tb = 6.

t'a =5.5 ttx = 5 the shift continues so add 2 to 5 and you get tb =7.

t'a =6 ttx = 6 the shift continues so add 2 to 6 and you get tb =8.

tb=8 is the upper bound of this transition period as calculated before. So for this period, Bob ages 4 years while Alice ages 2. You can see for each year Bob ages, Alice ages half a year. That is how the universal present is decided, not by the formula t=t'Y as it is for relativity.

Luckily I finished on time today. I'll go through another more complex example tomorrow which will help me derive a formula that governs this nature of relative aging.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Before I go on with more examples, I need to figure out what this math is telling me about the nature of time and reality.

Let's take .8c. At 1 yr Alice time, she sends out a signal to Bob which he receives when he is 3 his time. She is at the 4/3 ly point when she does this so it takes her signal 4/3 yrs to reach Bob. So light has taken 4/3 yrs, Alice has taken 1 Alice year and Bob has taken 5/3 Bob years to reach to this point. So you'd expect once light reaches Bob that Alice has moved the same distance and another of her years. But that's not the case, Alice has moved twice the distance and she has spent double the time in the time it took for light to reach Bob as it did to get to the point to send the signal to Bob. Somehow the doppler shift ratio (r=1/3 at -.8c) has warped time.

It must have something to do with the fact the light is approaching Bob while Alice is going away from Bob. If instead of light, Alice sends a probe back to Bob going at .8c (r=3). Bob will get the message that Alice =1 when Bob is 3.3333 yrs. I have a gut feeling that in this case Alice WILL only age another year by the time Bob gets the message. Somehow taking less time to return the message to Bob results in Alice being able to travel further. That is counter intuitive but let's explore that possibility.

Let's add a .4c (r=2/3) velocity line to our STD. This velocity has the opposite problem of the .8c velocity. When Bob=3, he will receive a signal that Alice =2. In the time it takes light to travel back to Bob, Alice can only travel half the distance. So taking more time to return the message to Bob results in Alice being able to travel less distance. At least the counter intuitiveness is consistent.

Ok let's look at the problem from another angle. Let's say v->-c (r->0). t'tx= 3c/1(2c) = 1.5 but it's in Bob years because as v->0 Alice years -> 0. Time may nearly stop for Alice but Bob will age nearly 2 years for every ly Alice travels near the speed of light. So when he's 3, Alice has traveled 3 ly. At light speed she no longer has a velocity through time, it's all through space so her aging is, in a sense, expressed in ly rather than years. (As a side note, at v=0 her travel can only be expressed in years rather than ly.)

So what's happening here? As velocity approaches -c, the slowing of Alice's time by the doppler shift ratio, gets converted into matching the amount of time it takes for her signal to reach Bob to matching Bob's age. Wow, mind blown! This has definitely never been thought of before.

Conversely as velocity approaches 0, the doppler shift ratio approaches 1 and hence there is no need to convert the very little signal delay back to Bob to match Bob's age using the slowing of Alice's clock. However, over very long distance separation achieved over many millennia of slow speed, Alice's slower time will become a factor in matching Bob's present age to hers. This is the proof I've been looking for to support ralfativity over relativity. I hope someone out there will be smart enough to understand this someday because this really opens up a whole new understanding of time and reality.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I wrote:

So what's happening here? As velocity approaches -c, the slowing of Alice's time by the doppler shift ratio, gets converted into matching the amount of time it takes for her signal to reach Bob to matching Bob's age. Wow, mind blown! This has definitely never been thought of before.

Conversely as velocity approaches 0, the doppler shift ratio approaches 1 and hence there is no need to convert the very little signal delay back to Bob to match Bob's age using the slowing of Alice's clock.

It's not enough to say it, I must quantify it in a formula. I find the terms velocity, distance and time are no longer adequate for the math that is to come. When v=0 it doesn't mean you've stopped moving, all it means is you've stopped moving through space relative to something else. At the limits of v=0 and v=c, the velocity is actually the same, distance and time are interchangeable. The math has to reflect this in order for me to quantify how the speed of information returning to Bob interacts with the process of how Alice's speed keeps Bob and Alice's aging in balance for constant relative velocity. Now that I think about it, that seems to be the function of the doppler shift ratio which is never zero so it does not breed mathematic infinities. Expressing all the formulae using that ratio will quantify how this balance between velocity through space and velocity through time always yields a non-zero, non-infinite value.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I've been following the math and learning a lot of things but mostly things I can't accept yet.

I have figured out that velocity needs to be always split up into its constituents of velocity through space (v) which is the light years Alice travels in Bob years and the velocity through time (w) which is the number of Alice years Alice travels per Bob year. As you'll see later w=c/Y which means the velocity through time is also expressed as a fraction of c (not years). When v=0, v is not really 0; only the velocity through space = 0 but the velocity through time is c; there is no zero velocity, nothing stands still. Conversely when v=c, the velocity through time is zero but the velocity through space is all c.

This info subdivides the time-like spacetime interval into 3 velocity sub-intervals: low, mid and high. The low interval is arbitrarily chosen to be between -.4c and +.4c. The velocity through time is very near c for this range (reduced to .91c at the max velocity through space of .4c). Remember, the faster the velocity through space, the lower the velocity through time. The midpoint of the low interval is where the velocity through time = c and 0 velocity through space. The low interval depends on the use of atomic clocks to be studied.

The mid interval is between |.4c| and |.8824c|. It is where the velocity through time ranges from .9c to .5c which is reciprocally equal to the range for the velocity through space. The midpoint of this interval is where v = w = .707c. The mid interval is where the effects of relativity can be seen on a cosmic level.

The high interval is above v= |.9c| with a velocity through time range of 0 to .5c. There's no midpoint and Colliders are the choice of tool to investigate the high range.

For example, at v=.6c, Alice's velocity through space is .75ly/Alice yr (or .6ly/Bob yr) while her velocity through time is .8 Alice yr/Bob yr (or 1.25 Alice yr/Bob yr). At v=.8c, Alice's velocity through space is .8ly/Bob yr while her velocity through time is .6 Alice yr/Bob yr. At v=.8824c, Alice's velocity through space is .8824ly/Bob yr while her velocity through time is .47 Alice yr/Bob yr.

So it does look like c2=v2+w2 is the formula that defines velocity through space and velocity through time. It looks like relativity was right all along.

But here's a little fun math trick to define w:

w2= c2-v2
and Y2=c2/(c2-v2)
so w =c/Y

So it looks like there's no such thing as relative velocity. It looks like all velocity is fixed at c; an absolute velocity. That number is always maintained by the fact the faster one moves relatively through space, the slower he moves relatively through time so that his and everyone's velocities remain fixed at c. Maybe this is what Einstein really meant when he proposed the constancy of the speed of light and not the current idea that as time dilates, length must contract.

This idea that everyone is always moving at c is evident in the STD. Bob is not moving through space but he is moving through time. There's nothing in his vertical axis that gives any hint of whatever Alice is doing, even though they supposedly share a relative velocity, because she too is moving at c.

In my previous post, at velocities above .6c Alice seems to be able to move much farther after she sends a signal back to Bob than before she sent that signal, it's because in order to maintain her velocity as c, her dilated time allows her to move much further than can the signal moving back to Bob.

It all makes sense now except I think this interpretation stems from the mathematical assumption that the range of velocity in relativity is from 0 to c. I think a different assumption, based on a hybrid space/time definition of velocity that can't be 0, would we be able to rid relativity of infinities without resorting to discontinuities.

I'm exhausted for today, it's too difficult to concentrate on relativity while being continually interrupted by work.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

So using the conclusion of the "Space is absolute and immutable" thread I can now attempt to mathematically incorporate Yv into relative aging and figure out how it compensates for the imbalance introduced by the STD that allows Bob and Alice to age at the same rate when engaged in constant relative velocity. The key is in the fact that although Alice and Bob share the same quantity of years, they do not share the same quality; Alice is able to travel much farther in the same number of years. The imbalance is that for speeds higher than .6c, she can travel much further after she sends a signal to Bob than she traveled before she sent the signal to Bob. I must work out the math without having to invoke the doppler shift ratio fudge factor.

I also need to work out the math that describes the shift that predicts relative aging after a change in relative velocity. These are just reminders to myself.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

New postby ralfcis on March 1st, 2017, 5:14 am
Mod note: this post is split off from the "One-way Speed of Light" thread under physics, because it is getting into false physics.

I don't know how "false physics" can be backed up by relativistic math and not refuted on the basis of that math when I was told as long as I get the right answers any interpretation is allowable. Anyways, I'll move my latest discussion back here.

Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

How are you disappointing me by confirming what I said? Normally there are political considerations when supporting me (as in my harsh criticism of Brian Greene.)

"You are free to decide which ones you want to use in your relativistic calculations."

Yes as I said they are all the same thing so you can do all your calculations without ever bringing length contraction into any consideration. None of them are real, they are illusions of perspective because they evaporate once the conditions under which they exist are removed. Only relative aging is real and that is where I start. I keep hearing, "show me the math" but no one wants to spend a second looking at it because that's just too time consuming. As Don said, it's only algebra for crying out loud.
Last edited by ralfcis on March 1st, 2017, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on March 1st, 2017, 10:56 am
The purpose of this math is to again prove length contraction is a mirage and a convenience of relativistic math.

I have resolved the conflict between the 2 equations of relativity c2 = v2 + w2 and ralfativity (Yv)2 = v2 + w2. w is the velocity through space but obviously my w did not agree with relativity's w. Relativity won, it's a beautiful concept and I'm totally on board with it.

If you solve for w from the above equation w=c/Y (my w was v*sqrt(Y2-1) or v2Y/c but we'll come back to the significance of that later). I'm not sure if you want me to go through my simple math step by step or not. Just give me a holler if you do. It's easier to check the equations by just plugging in numerical values.

The result is everything is always moving at the speed of light which is comprised of a velocity through space and a velocity through time. In fact if you graph the points on w vs v as fractions of c:

v w
0 1c
.4c .917c
.6c .8c
.8c .6c
.8824c .471c
1c 0

you get a quarter circle (as expected because the radius is always c) in the positive quadrant.

Now hold onto your hats because the math becomes a beautiful symphony from here on out until the ultimate prize in that time dilation, length contraction, simultaneity and relativistic mass (done previously and mass is a ridiculous choice of words btw) all don't exist except as mathematical conveniences (and more importantly Einstein (wrongly) based his theory on the assumption that if time dilates, length must contract in order to maintain compatibility with the Lorentz mindset).

If w=c/Y, so wY=c no brainer, replace c in the primary equation and multiply both sides by v2

so w2Y2v2 = v4 + v2w2

so Y2v2 = v4/w2+ v2.

now put this aside for just a second and draw another right angle triangle with Yv (or as I like to call it, gamma v) as the hypotenuse and v (the velocity through space) as one of the sides. The other side must therefore be v*sqrt(Y2-1) which reduces to v2Y/c. Well low and behold when you align the two equations together you get v2/w = v2Y/c.

Well this could have been predicted because substituting w=c/Y into v2/w you also get v2Y/c.. Ralfativity has now been fully integrated into relativity but what does the equation

Y2v2 = (v2Y/c)2 + v2

physically mean?

v means Bob sees Alice's velocity through space in his time. Alice's velocity through space can't exceed the speed limit c from Bob's perspective.
Yv means Alice's velocity through the same space in her time. She can cover much more space in her time from her perspective than the speed limit c would normally allow (ie from Bob's perspective).

(Please don't bore me with pointing out that relative velocity is reciprocal from each perspective.)

So what does that mysterious middle term (v2Y/c) physically mean. This is the mind blowing part if you've fallen asleep thus far.

I need a break so I'll continue in the next post.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Hey Mr moderator, you've stuck my responses on a very old thread. I've transferred them to my Ralfativity the final summation thread so you can put the one you transferred them to back where it belongs. I've moved on since that old thread.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

ralfcis » 01 Mar 2017, 11:14 wrote:Yes as I said they are all the same thing so you can do all your calculations without ever bringing length contraction into any consideration. None of them are real, they are illusions of perspective because they evaporate once the conditions under which they exist are removed. Only relative aging is real and that is where I start.

In the simplistic cases that you are considering, yes, but have you ever tried to analyze real physics?

E.g. the case that Lincoln referred to in his "Electricity is magnetism" expert post? And especially the .pdf that he is referring to in his attachment?

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Oh so there are 2 flavors of relativity for simplistic and real physics? I was not aware. So you're saying in the real physics relativity, there are examples that cannot be solved in the purely time domain, one must consider length contraction as being real. But in simplistic relativity, reciprocal time dilation, relativity of simultaneity and length contraction are all the same thing as you and I stated. So there must be two sets of math to handle simplistic and real physics. Sounds unlikely but I'll have to take your word for it as I only know simplistic relativity. You always said no matter how far down you go, there is always another floor to crash through. I guess I'll never be privy to real physics relativity.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

There are more than 2 'flavors' (whatever that may mean) of relativity, because we normally use a subset that fits the problem at hand. But we carefully check that the subset is appropriate for the physical conditions, in other words, we do not ignore effects like gravity or quantum scales if they might give significant errors.

ralfcis wrote:I guess I'll never be privy to real physics relativity.

It comes with many years of experience, both in the theory and in practice.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ok but does that answer my question?

So you're saying in the real physics relativity, there are examples that cannot be solved in the purely time domain, one must consider length contraction as being real?

In Don's example there is no gravity or other conditions to consider.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

ralfcis » 02 Mar 2017, 11:34 wrote:In Don's example there is no gravity or other conditions to consider.

And you cannot solve it with time dilation or simultaneity! it is a direct measurement of Lorentz contraction.
Which was the point...

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ok a challenge.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

So you're saying if I can prove the same relativistic effect using only time then I will have forever disproven the existence of length contraction? Can I hold you to that or will you be drawing another ace from your sleeve at the moment of truth?
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ralf, you seem to very rapidly forget what was said before (and not long ago):

BurtJordaan » 01 Mar 2017, 07:41 wrote:Sorry to disappoint you Ralf. Once the isotropy of space is proven (which is the topic of this thread), relative time dilation, Lorentz contraction and relative simultaneity all follow from it. If one is true, all are true, because they are equivalent.

You can't have one without the other two. It is so that you can't always observe all of them - it depends on the test.

Example: if Alice has no visibility of Bob's clocks, she cannot observe relative time dilation of Bob's clocks. But, using her own ruler and coordinate clocks, she can measure the length of Bob's standard spaceship and confirm relative length contraction 'on the fly'.

Do I need to say more?

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Naw, it's just that I didn't understand or accept something the first time around. I understand relativity is absolutely dependent on length contraction balancing out time dilation to maintain the constancy of c for all observers. So yes, from your standpoint you can't have one without the other.

But I view it differently. I see the assumption of time/space balance coincidently happens to be circularly verified by the isotropy of space. You make the assumption that the constancy of c is maintained by the balance of time dilation and length contraction and then you see that there is a constancy to c so you conclude it must be due to your initial assumption. This is as circular an argument as the existence of god. You must exist because god created you and your existence therefore confirms the existence of god.

I have gone to great lengths to show a different explanation for the constancy of c. One you won't consider because you think it is outside the theory of relativity and can't be bothered to take the time to look at every crackpot theory. Understandable. But I have a twist, my math does not stray outside of relativity and it predicts relative aging on the fly which relativity currently doesn't (it could if it just adopted my math). It currently states no call can be made on relative aging until the end of the spacetime interval. This is just an incidental to whet your appetite. The real crux is understanding my explanation for maintaining the constancy of c without needing the crutch of length contraction. You cannot see how this is possible so you consider it would just be a waste of your time to find the flaw in my math to prove me wrong. These are the real issues.

I know at this point you'll throw your hands in the air and say, "Oh I give up, there's no reaching you." That too is a matter of perspective.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

First I need to wrap up my math tirade and a few other things.

From the last post we have the equation
Y2v2 = (v2Y/c)2 + v2

So what does that mysterious middle term (v2Y/c) physically mean?

If you re-write it as v * Yv * 1/c, you will get a velocity that is an amalgamation of the other two terms. Since the two velocities are expressed as fractions of c, c2 would appear as a result of the multiplication so the 1/c ensures that the result is some sort of velocity. But what is the physical meaning of this velocity which is the product of Alice's velocity through space in Bob's time and Alice's velocity through the same space in her time?

Multiplying 10 mph by 20 mph will net you 200 (mph)2 which really means nothing. At least the relativistic addition of velocities gives you the relativistic combination law which is useful. I will show that the multiplication of v and Yv is related to time dilation and relativity of simultaneity. These terms have an effect on the conversion of Alice's gamma velocity and Bob's velocity to determine relative aging.

Ran out of time, see you next post.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

ralfcis » 02 Mar 2017, 19:01 wrote:From the last post we have the equation
Y2v2 = (v2Y/c)2 + v2

So what does that mysterious middle term (v2Y/c) physically mean?

Just before you mislead other readers to believe that you have 'discovered' some relativistic effect that nobody knew about, I want to point out that rearranging the equation for gamma and multiplying through by the relative velocity 'v' squared, does not give anything new. If we simplify your equation, you end up with the standard gamma definition again.
$\large\gamma^2 = \frac{1}{1-v^2/c^2}$

This means the equation is valid, but it gives a reciprocal, relative effect which makes your claims unphysical. More specifically, you have left out some words in "Alice's velocity through space in Bob's time". Since there is no "absolute space", it should rather read "Alice's velocity through her own space, but in Bob's time." And vice-versa, of course.

Add to this that gamma dictates both relative time dilation and relative (Lorentz) length contraction, and everyone should get the point: Ralf makes unsubstantiated claims in Ralfitivity.

And BTW Ralf, the constancy of 'c' in all reference frames (isotropy of space) is not due to the fact that time dilation and length contraction cancel each other out. The (independently) experimentally proven isotropy of space dictates that they cancel out. Your reasoning is just a philosophical point.

But do not despair - I also reasoned like you did when I started to learn relativity, but eventually the inevitable truth of spatial isotropy dawned upon me.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

"Alice's velocity through her own space, but in Bob's time." And vice-versa, of course.

And that's the part we disagree. When I get to the punch line in the next post there is no x' anywhere to be found. Alice's velocity is Yv= x/t'. Bob's space in her time. Of course Yv also equals x'/t which is Alice's space in Bob's time but since the two versions of the formula are identical I choose to ignore the latter version.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Ralf, I think you have it the wrong way around. Yv is a defined concept in physics, called "rapidity", but is highly complex and I did not want to bring it into a "beginner's class". If you want it the way you stated, then call it something else, because it then not the standard gamma that you are talking about.

But then your equation is false. If you want to rescue it, use the right words to describe it. Or make a new (unconventional) definition of what "Bob's space" means. It has a standard meaning in physics.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

My Y is gamma like your gamma. My Yv just means Y * v. Do you want me to change it to vY? I don't understand what anyone's telling me anymore. I thought I had this relativity thing all wrapped up. I just want to make it to the end before I start changing things.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013