Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

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

Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on March 27th, 2017, 8:06 pm 

Ok I've finished the math but I don't yet have an understanding of what it's telling me. This is what it's saying in a nutshell; hopefully I'll understand it once I write out all the details:

The doppler ratio R for separating velocities is 2/3 for .436c, 1/2 for .6c, 1/3 for .8c and 1/4 for .8824c. The ratio is inverse for approaching velocities. For example:

Alice separating from Bob at.8c
If Alice sends a signal to Bob at her 1 yr mark, the assumption is that if Bob sends a signal to Alice at his 1 yr mark, those signals are simultaneously sent. That assumption is based on the fact that in constant relative motion, there is no age difference between the two regardless of what the coordinate translation of time says. For me all that coordinate stuff is no different from time zones; my present is common to everyone else's present no matter how our clocks differ due to time zones.

It can be shown that Bob and Alice will both be 3 when the signals arrive. This time is equal to 1/R. Yv for Alice will be 4/3 which also the point in space from which she sent her signal and how many yrs it'll take her light to reach Bob. When Alice receives Bob's signal, her point in space will be 4. 4/3 is Yv so the point where Alice gets Bob's signal is Yv/R. This Yv/R is a magic number so we'll call it X. Remember X=4 for this example.

Now the point t'=1 where Alice sends her signal back to Bob is analogous to a doppler point where a car is blaring its horn approaching you, then passing you. The light signal going back to Bob is analogous to the car (light) approaching him. The freq of its horn (time compressing) will be higher at XR. Alice will be receding from that point so the freq she'll hear is lower (time stretching) at XR/R. In my last post I said the doppler ratio for light is indicative of time itself being stretched or compressed; this is what's happening here except it's the time for light travel that seems to be stretching and compressing. What does that mean?

What I can't understandi is light takes 4/3 years to get back to Bob who is 4/3 ly away. Bob ages 2 yrs in the time it takes for the light to hit him. Alice also ages 2 yrs for the light to hit her but she has a head start on Bob's light signal of 4/3ly. Light has to travel 4ly to hit Alice, that's 4 years. The two lights start out simultaneously and they hit simultaneously but one travels for 4/3 yr and the other travels for 4 yrs yet somehow they pull off the magic feat of starting and stopping simultaneously traveling for different amounts of time. I just don't understand how yet but it's definitely due to R. Put R in and all the math works out but what is the physical meaning of R?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on March 29th, 2017, 4:36 am 

Ralf, there is so much verbiage that it is very tedious to read. You should know that the meaning of your R (the Doppler Factor) is just the ratio between source and observed frequencies,

, where , valid for both observers, and v is an opening speed.

I think your problem is 'Ralfativity' and not relativity.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on March 29th, 2017, 7:38 am 

Ralfativity? never heard of that. Just wanted to give a heads up of where the math leads but maybe it would have been less confusing to just start the math and surprise everyone at the end.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


What is present time.

Postby ralfcis on April 4th, 2017, 12:29 pm 

Ok let's start simply with an STD depicting c and .6c relative velocity:

[img]Sorry%20I%20don't%20remember%20how%20to%20move%20an%20image%20into%20this%20post.[/img]

scan0007.pdf
(142.61 KiB) Downloaded 34 times


Yes this diagram is a little busy so let me break it down for you. The slope of the .6c line is 1/v. Bob and Alice start at the same point where they sync their clocks at -5 yrs for Bob and -4 for Alice as she passes Bob. It doesn't matter what the clocks say as there is no universal clock network to sync to or track Alice through space. The accuracy of the two atomic clocks is enough to determine any time discrepancies or any developing aging difference between the two.

You'll notice the horizontal dotted line that represents a line of sync'd clocks at time 0 through space. This is called a "now" slice that is supposed to represent a universal "present" for all points in space near the clocks. The clocks do not share a present (because they are separated by distance) but are used by Bob to form a picture of what was going on when the time on each clock was 0 for each point in space around the clock. Bob has to wait for the delayed info from each clock to make it back to him so he can form that picture of a time slice through space.

I don't use this concept at all except to illustrate that I can set any time at the beginning of the trip, for any speed Alice chooses, to make her clock say zero at the same time Bob's clock says zero to give the false impression that they somehow share the same present. They only share the same present with that same time on their clocks if Alice becomes stationary with respect to Bob at some distance from Bob. As soon as someone gets moving, the true lines of present move from horizontal to diagonal.

The diagonal dotted lines are the true present that Bob and Alice share because so long as they are in constant relative motion, they are aging at the same rate. The lines are parallel to each other showing for each year Bob ages, Alice also ages 1 yr. As you'll see, parallel lines on the STD represent the doppler ratio formula which allows one to determine the relative rate of time the other participant appears to be aging. In this case the ratio between the parallel lines is 1, indicating Bob and Alice are aging at the same rate. If they were stationary with respect to each other, the ratio between the horizontal parallel lines would also be 1.

Relativity did not adopt this simple concept as the basis of its timing determinations. Instead it uses a different system of sync'd clock networks and reciprocal time dilation calculations from two perspectives while aging difference is relegated to the special case of the twin paradox. Instead, I'm making the twin paradox the norm and the rest as curiosities.

You'll notice the dashed parallel lines from Alice to Bob and from Bob to Alice. Both see each other "aging" 2 years for every year they themselves age. Except this is not really aging, it is how time for each appears to be stretched by the doppler ratio. At .6c, their transmitted TV image will appear to move at half speed slow motion while in actual fact they are both aging at the same rate. The discrepancy is caused by the delay of info reaching them. They must either stop or pass close to each other in order to collect all the info so that they can make an aging difference determination. But even a slight change in relative velocity is enough to establish a partial age difference up until the change of velocity. The math for this will be shown in a future post.

In the top right hand corner of the screen is a key to relate the STD to the two main equations of c2 = space component 2 + time component 2 and (Yv)2 = (Yv2)2 + v2. x/t = v = space component. t'/t = c/Y = time component. x/t' = Yv.

This key should be applicable to any velocity including c. If you draw points on c that correspond to 1 ly per yr, you will get the space component of x/t = c but you'll also get a time component of t'/t = c which does not equal c/Y which is zero. Light has no time component unless at v=c, Y =1 somehow. As v -> c, Y -> infinity but maybe there is some sort of discontinuity at c. This would change the equation to 2c2 = space component2 + time component 2 where the two components are c at v=c.

This seems to be supported in the STD by the dashed lines from c to Bob's timeline. Bob "ages" 2 years for every light year light travels. Again, this does not mean Bob is seeing light travel away from him at twice the speed of light, he would see light recede from him with a red shift of half the light's frequency. If this doesn't happen then my conjecture that Y=1 for v=c is totally wrong and the doppler ratio formula does not apply to light.

The math here would physically correspond to an experiment where transparent light sensors would be placed at 1 ly intervals from earth. A laser would be aimed at this row of sensors which would transmit a signal back to earth once the laser hit them. The return signal would hit Bob every 2 years. This implies light would be hitting a sensor per year but Bob would be receiving conflicting information that the light is hitting a sensor every two years. Bob would wrongly assume he is seeing light going at twice light speed but in fact he would still be seeing light go at c but its frequency would be halved due to the relativistic doppler effect.

As you can see from the STD, if Alice and a light beam left earth at the same time, Alice would be able to see the light with no frequency shift. If she was traveling at .8824c, she'd see the light at twice its frequency (she'd "age" half a year for each ly light travels). I'm just following the math, I don't know if any of this is physically true or not and I have no idea where it leads if this is true. But apparently it seems to mean that the shift in light frequency is a shift in time for any velocity when compared to light. This would suggest this is the mechanism used by light to remain constant c relative to any frame. I don't know, this is up for open-minded discussion so no need to kick me off in case I made a wrong interpretation of the math.

That's all I could write today.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 5th, 2017, 4:28 am 

Ok here's the STD. I had to convert pdf to jpg


img6.jpg
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 5th, 2017, 12:26 pm 

Despite using the doppler ratio formula (which is 100% relativity approved) I managed to come up with some conclusions that I don't know how to jive with relativity. This next one really steps off the reservation even though it's a direct result of the STD. Ok follow along closely because the logic here can be very convoluted.

When Alice is at -2 she sends a signal which reaches Bob when he is at -1. We've already established that since there is no aging difference between Alice and Bob, in the 1.5yrs it took her signal to reach Bob, she must presently be the same age as Bob. When they started the journey, Alice's clock was 1 yr ahead of Bob's so if Bob is presently at -1 yr when the signal hits him, Alice's clock must read 0.

Now if Alice sent a signal to Bob when her clock says 0, he would receive that signal when he's 3. He would conclude that since the light took 3 ly to reach him and he was at zero 3 yrs ago, then his clock must have been at 0 when Alice's clock was at 0.

So this analysis points to Bob's clock being 0 when Alice is at 0 while the other says Bob's clock reads -1 when Alice is at 0. How does the doppler ratio method support that Bob's clock should be at -1 when Alice sends a signal to Bob when she's at 0? Well from the time Bob receives the first signal from Alice, he sees Alice age 1 year for every 2 yrs he ages. When he receives Alice's signal when her clock is at 0, he has seen Alice age 2 years while he has aged 4. 3-4= -1 which was Bob's clock reading when Alice's was 0. This contradicts what relativity considers to be the "now" slice which is horizontal from Bob's perspective. It is actually diagonal and the same from both perspectives.

Keep in mind that although Alice and Bob see each other aging 2 yrs for every year they age due to the doppler ratio, they are both actually aging at the same rate of 1 yr per yr. Relative velocity, depending on direction, can make the others observed time appear to go faster or slower than the observer's normal rate without affecting their speed of aging. Similarly, the doppler effect for relative velocity can make light's frequency go faster or slower without affecting the speed of light. Hence relative velocity does not impact the speed of light, it impacts and is seen in its frequency.
Last edited by ralfcis on April 5th, 2017, 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 5th, 2017, 12:42 pm 

ralfcis » 05 Apr 2017, 18:26 wrote:Despite using the doppler ratio formula (which is 100% relativity approved) I managed to come up with some conclusions that I don't know how to jive with relativity. This next one really steps off the reservation even though it's a direct result of the STD. Ok follow along closely because the logic here can be very convoluted.

Sorry Ralf, this is where I stop reading, because we have SR and GR that do not have 'convoluted' logic - just physical and mathematical truths. Why would anyone need this?

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to get the truths over to the interested general readership, but do you really think that this 'convolution' will help?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 5th, 2017, 1:21 pm 

I would think that someone who lives and breathes relativity would have have seen everything by now and would have ready made answers to what I've come up with. So all you can say is that it's just all wrong with no explanation. I've presented nothing but math. Should be easy to point out where you disagree. Oh yeah, everything so there's no point to start. Fine I'll just keep writing until the whole thing is presented. Maybe you'll see something specific to critique by then or not.

PS. If you want to ignore at v=c, Y=1 that's fine, it does not add anything but confusion anyway. I can ignore it too. It will either enhance or destroy this whole endeavor at some future point. It's not at all important now so no convolution remains. Sorry I ever mentioned it.

PPS Oh I forgot I removed the convoluted logic before I posted but left the statement warning of it in. So which part of what remains did you find convoluted exactly?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 6th, 2017, 5:30 am 

Ok looks like the point where I add units of 1ly per yr to the light line is where all the trouble starts. The light line has only 1 unit and that's infinity. However consider this lab experiment.

If transparent light sensors were placed 3m apart and a laser was shone through them, without looking at my STD you'd think that the signals returning to the origin from the sensors would be spaced 10ns apart. Yet my STD suggests the signals would return 20ns apart. So something looks really wrong here. I know, no point in asking, the answer can't be looked up.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 6th, 2017, 7:05 am 

ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:Ok I've finished the math but I don't yet have an understanding of what it's telling me. This is what it's saying in a nutshell; hopefully I'll understand it once I write out all the details:

The doppler ratio R for separating velocities is 2/3 for .436c, 1/2 for .6c, 1/3 for .8c and 1/4 for .8824c. The ratio is inverse for approaching velocities. For example:

Alice separating from Bob at.8c
If Alice sends a signal to Bob at her 1 yr mark, the assumption is that if Bob sends a signal to Alice at his 1 yr mark, those signals are simultaneously sent. That assumption is based on the fact that in constant relative motion, there is no age difference between the two regardless of what the coordinate translation of time says. For me all that coordinate stuff is no different from time zones; my present is common to everyone else's present no matter how our clocks differ due to time zones.

Except that events simultaneous in one time zone remain simultaneous in another time zone. But this is not the case with different inertial frames. Thus when you say there is no age difference between the two, the obvious question to ask is, according to who (i.e. in what inertial frame). The answer is they are the same age in the inertial frame where they always have the same speed (call it frame E for Earth). In their own rest frame, their ages are not the same.

To separate at .8c means they are traveling at .5c in opposite directions in frame E. Alice's 1 year mark occurs when 1.155 years has passed in frame E, when she sends the signal to Bob.

ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:It can be shown that Bob and Alice will both be 3 when the signals arrive. This time is equal to 1/R. Yv for Alice will be 4/3 which also the point in space from which she sent her signal and how many yrs it'll take her light to reach Bob. When Alice receives Bob's signal, her point in space will be 4. 4/3 is Yv so the point where Alice gets Bob's signal is Yv/R. This Yv/R is a magic number so we'll call it X. Remember X=4 for this example.

Once again, you have to ask, according to who. Only in that inertial frame where they have the same speed (call it frame E for Earth), can you speak of a time when both the signals leave or arrive simultaneously.

Since both have traveled the distance 1.155(.5c), the light has to travel 1.155 light years plus the distance Bob travels in that time. This takes 2.31 years, thus it happens at the 3.465 year mark in frame E, when they are at a distance of 3.465 light years from each other (in frame E).

ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:What I can't understandi is light takes 4/3 years to get back to Bob who is 4/3 ly away. Bob ages 2 yrs in the time it takes for the light to hit him. Alice also ages 2 yrs for the light to hit her but she has a head start on Bob's light signal of 4/3ly. Light has to travel 4ly to hit Alice, that's 4 years. The two lights start out simultaneously and they hit simultaneously but one travels for 4/3 yr and the other travels for 4 yrs yet somehow they pull off the magic feat of starting and stopping simultaneously traveling for different amounts of time. I just don't understand how yet but it's definitely due to R. Put R in and all the math works out but what is the physical meaning of R?

The problems is you are mixing up inertial frames. You cannot do that. These things only happen simultaneously in the E frame where both are traveling at .5c in opposite directions so that is the frame you need to calculate in if you make such an assumption.

Light takes 2.31 years to get to Bob and during that time he ages 2 years due to time dilation. Alice also ages 2 years. The light from Bob sent at his 1 year mark likewise travels 2.31 years to get to Alice when she is at her 3 year mark. In both cases the light travels a distance of 2.31 light years.

If you want to do this in the rest frame of Alice then not only are all the times and distances different, but the light signals are not sent at the same time and do not arrive at the same time. In that case, Bob has traveled .8 light years away in her first year. But it takes 4 years in her inertial frame for light to catch up to Bob. In her frame, Bod is at the .6 year mark and ages an additional 2.4 years so he is at the 3 year mark when the light reaches him (same as in our frame E calculation). But in her frame this happens when she is at her 5 year mark. The light from Bob sent at his 1 year mark happened at a later time (1 2/3 year mark) in her frame, when he is at a distance of 1 1/3 light years. The light takes 1 1/3 years and thus reaches her at her 3 year mark, which is again the same as in our frame E calculation.


Of course, I am ignoring all this non-scientific alternative stuff and doing this according to proper relativity, because that is what works out correctly.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 6th, 2017, 7:57 am 

No, I'm not talking about reciprocal time dilation or even what each participant sees of the other on his TV monitor. Age difference, as is seen in the twin paradox, is a reality not dependent on perspective or simultaneity. The rules for relativity to establish age difference are that one of the participants must re-enter the same inertial frame (stop relatively) at a distance and then compare ages once the notification of the stop reaches his partner, or the two must cross each other in space so that the age difference can be compared.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 6th, 2017, 12:24 pm 

Jorie said

we have SR and GR that do not have 'convoluted' logic - just physical and mathematical truths. Why would anyone need this?


These physical and mathematical truths are so well established and self-evident that Jorrie, in his book, stated the twin paradox will probably never be satisfactorily resolved right after he completely discounted another respected relativist's interpretation who proposed age difference was due to acceleration's equivalence to gravity. When it came to age difference he said it can't be a sudden process while here he seems to believe that if a participant instantaneously stops then starts again, all his pent up aging difference, due reciprocal time dilation, will also manifest itself as age difference relatively instantaneously.

For such an established theory, I've found almost no one, on the forums I've been on, to have a coherent grasp of even the basics. 99% have no idea there's even a difference between time dilation and age difference. They just recite the tired old popular science party line. Yet my interpretation is apparently convoluted. Why would anyone need it? see above.

Anyway the title of this thread says "alternate relativistic method". This means discussing the topic at hand and not pulling a Dave and changing the discussion to some other interpretation or theory. So to say dump this and let's talk about classical relativity only is off topic unless it specifically pertains to the topic of this thread.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 7th, 2017, 6:03 am 

So we have two different relativistic math methods to determine age difference: the classic reciprocal time dilation method which is the standard for popular science and the less known doppler ratio method. Both should arrive at the correct result. But we haven't even begun on the math required to determine age difference, we're still stuck on constant relative motion that, from each perspective, generates the illusion that time slows for the other participant while both are aging at the same rate.

One main difference between the two methods is how the present is defined. The difference is best described by the analogy of the sun being knocked out of the solar system like a billiard ball. The earth's present, for 8 minutes, will still orbit a sun that isn't there in the real present. The doppler ratio method uses the real present while the time dilation method uses multiple presents from every frame's perspective. So the present from the earth's perspective is that it is still orbiting the sun but the reality (that hasn't yet caught up with the earth) is it's orbiting nothing.

I didn't think this difference was a really big deal but it has repercussions down the road. The doppler shift method is direction dependent while the time dilation method is not. Whether Alice is going towards or away from earth, both Bob and Alice will see the others time slow. (Remember relative time is not really slowing so long as they remain in constant motion.) The doppler ratio method will see time reciprocally slow (slow motion) when they're separating but, like a true doppler effect, they will see each others time speed up (fast motion) when coming together. It doesn't mean either method is wrong as they are both valid in relativity, but interpretations will differ. But it is hard to accept that clocks slow in either direction when the received TV signals from each show time reciprocally slowed down when separating and sped up when coming together. (Again, not real because they are not aging differently from each other in the real present.) I don't know how the classic method can compete with this potentially observable fact. Mic drop.

PS. Here is the STD of Alice going towards earth at .6c. Notice the dashed lines. Bob ages 1 yr but he sees 2 yrs worth of TV transmission from Alice in one year. He sees the picture in fast forward double speed. When Alice ages a year from 0 to 1, she also sees 2 years of Bob's TV transmission in fast forward double speed.

img6 (4).jpg
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 7th, 2017, 6:34 am 

ralfcis » April 6th, 2017, 6:57 am wrote:No, I'm not talking about reciprocal time dilation or even what each participant sees of the other on his TV monitor.

No such TV monitors are possible unless what they display is simply a simulation based on the proper calculations. In other words, it is not about observation but about calculation, for the point is that the calculations of SR are what works to give consistent answers matching all the evidence. If you want to talk about what they actually see then you have to include the aberration of light due to the fact that all seeing requires light to travel from what is seen to the observer. The results of that are even more unexpected.

For example, while relativity says that as you accelerate to relativistic speeds the distance to your destination shrinks. But what you actually see due to the aberration of light is that the distance to your destination stretches to much farther away -- almost like you are going backwards. This is because you do not see things where they are but where they were when the light you see them by left them. And at higher velocities moving toward them, where they were was much farther away.

ralfcis » April 6th, 2017, 6:57 am wrote:Age difference, as is seen in the twin paradox, is a reality not dependent on perspective or simultaneity. The rules for relativity to establish age difference are that one of the participants must re-enter the same inertial frame (stop relatively) at a distance and then compare ages once the notification of the stop reaches his partner, or the two must cross each other in space so that the age difference can be compared.

Incorrect. Relativity does not require both to be in the same inertial frame for a comparison of their ages. They only need to be in the same inertial frame if you want them both to get the same answer at the same time for such a comparison. This is because "at the same time" only has meaning within a single inertial frame and not between different inertial frames. Relativity requires us to let go of this prejudice that reality must a fixed ordering of space-time for all observers (all inertial frames). Instead, you can say what is fixed is a more general ordering which varies according to the inertial frame, and within it there is complete consistency of events as we see in the above example by getting the same answer in different inertial frames for events at particular points in space-time
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 7th, 2017, 6:40 am 

No such TV monitors are possible unless what they display is simply a simulation based on the proper calculations.


Transmission of TV signals is at light speed. So often relativity depends on the old Galileo telescope to peer at what's going on in the other participant's frame. But there are so many physical limitations to that method. TV transmission has no limitations. In either case the signals received are delayed by the speed of light, they are both not in real time. So your idea that these monitors are impossible is because you assume the signal is in real time. I haven't read past this 1st sentence.

PS Ok I read it now, the rest is wrong, sorry we don't have an arbiter on this thread. There are too many popular misconceptions of relativity so I recognize whatever I say will be in the minority opinion.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby Positor on April 7th, 2017, 8:06 am 

ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 11:40 am wrote:
No such TV monitors are possible unless what they display is simply a simulation based on the proper calculations.

Transmission of TV signals is at light speed. So often relativity depends on the old Galileo telescope to peer at what's going on in the other participant's frame. But there are so many physical limitations to that method. TV transmission has no limitations. In either case the signals received are delayed by the speed of light, they are both not in real time. So your idea that these monitors are impossible is because you assume the signal is in real time.

I thought mitchellmckain was saying the opposite, i.e. that the signal is not in real time. Relativity depends not on the 'raw' observations but on their adjustment for Doppler effects. Once these effects have been taken into account, the 'true' time dilation (relative aging) can be calculated.

mitchellmckain wrote:This is because "at the same time" only has meaning within a single inertial frame and not between different inertial frames.

This seems to be a major point of difference between relativity and your (ralfcis's) theory. Is your idea of a single 'real present' based on scientific considerations, or is it rather a philosophical commitment?

Can you also please clarify what, in your view, is the actual physical mechanism that creates the final age difference.
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 7th, 2017, 9:51 am 

As I said I responded before I read the rest. So you're saying the TV monitors are impossible why? I don't understand what's your definition of raw and post doppler effects to arrive at true age difference.

I gave a heads up some posts ago where the thread is heading. It will take months to get there but the jist of it is this: Age difference occurs between the time a participant makes a change in the velocity and the time it takes for that change to work it's way back to the observer. Until that change is seen, the observer still experiences an unchanged relative velocity because the time rate on his received TV signal is unchanged. Once the info works its way back, the observer's received signal will reflect the new relative velocity. Age difference is caused during the time it takes for the real present to catch up with the observer. You can see the details in my personal theories thread on ralfativity which will eventually make their way here.

The real present is mathematically shown in my STD and how it differs from classic relativity. My next posts will show a detailed mathematical derivation for it. It starts as an idea, then math but finally makes a connection with the physical world. Already it's connected by TV signal image speed as I said in my last post.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 7th, 2017, 4:38 pm 

Oh oh I'm seeing more deviation from classic relativity and I need Jorrie again. Here's the issue. Classic relativity only cares about the absolute value of the relative velocity (v2 is in the equation). But I remember something about "leading clocks lag" meaning the direction is relevant to whether the relative clocks are advanced or retarded. But surely a spaceship buzzing close to the earth at .6c is quite different from one buzzing the earth at a distance of 1ly with its engines having burnt the same amount of fuel from a relative standstill. My doppler ratio method would be highly affected by this because the doppler effect would be very pronounced close to the earth and not pronounced far away. It would be like a car blaring its horn right past you and one passing you several streets away (you'd hardly notice the change in pitch). So I must assume, in classic relativity, if the ship does not start or end at the earth, its relative velocity is just a small vector of what it would be if it buzzed close to the earth. So the relative velocity must be a vector and not an absolute value despite all I've heard.

It's important to remember a spacetime path that results in age difference has several components. For example if the start and end are separated by distance between the two participants, that separation figures into the calculations. Also, there must be a stop at some point, where the two participants are in the same inertial frame, even for a split second. So for a spaceship buzzing the earth at .6c, the stop point is at its closest to earth because that is the transition between approach and separation which is zero relative velocity. The same is true for a buzz at 1 ly away but the relative approach and separation is just a tiny fraction of what it would be if the ship buzzed the earth. I think I'd hate to calculate all this out using the reciprocal time dilation method but with the doppler ratio method it would be easy.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby Positor on April 7th, 2017, 7:52 pm 

ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 2:51 pm wrote:I don't understand what's your definition of raw and post doppler effects to arrive at true age difference.

See this part of the Wikipedia article on the twin paradox ("Calculation of elapsed time from the Doppler diagram"). Note in particular the section headed: "The distinction between what they see and what they calculate".
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 7th, 2017, 10:02 pm 

I see no disagreement between us so far but there will be disagreement coming up. It's difficult to separate how I use the doppler ratio and how your wiki article uses it because it gets subtle and therefore complex. It's easier to show the difference between the reciprocal time dilation method and a doppler ratio method because the time dilation method's aging progression is not symmetrical from both perspectives.

For example at .6c, Alice going out 4 yrs and returning will not yield the same order of aging difference as Bob going .6c and Alice waiting for 4 yrs before she takes off at .8824c and chases Bob down. These are the two equivalent perspectives. This whole analysis was done at length in the ralfativity threads. It's not important to go through it again but you can look it up where you'll see similar STD's to the ones in the wiki article.

But I'll just skip ahead to the answer of why this is not important. My whole focus in the initial part of this thread is to show that no aging difference can occur so long as there is constant relative velocity between the two participants. I will show that those intervals do not directly figure into the age difference calculation, something that the wiki article does not pick up on. The age difference only comes from the imbalance in the relative velocity due to the info delay when a velocity change is made. This is how my method differs. So you can wait for me to present it here or go back and watch me stumble about finding it in the ralfativity threads with all their dead ends and restarts. But if you wait here for the sanitized version, it will take months for me to write it out.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 8th, 2017, 1:33 am 

Thanks for posting this. It legitimizes what I've been saying and makes me wonder why Jorrie is freaking out.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 8th, 2017, 3:49 am 

ralfcis wrote:There are too many popular misconceptions of relativity

That is certainly the truth. One of them is that the limitation to less than the speed of light is anything like a speed limit. It is not. On the contrary you can get anywhere as fast as you like if you spend enough energy. The funny thing about Star Trek like fantasies is that the so called "warp speed" which bends space to bring two points closer together doesn't require any fancy technology. That is exactly what happens in relativity already. The problem with the fantasy however is not a speed limit but the very structure of space-time itself.

ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:As I said I responded before I read the rest. So you're saying the TV monitors are impossible why? I don't understand what's your definition of raw and post doppler effects to arrive at true age difference.

I think the point was that the calculations of special relativity takes what you call "doppler effect" into account already. Thus trying to use this effect to explain away relativistic effects is nonsensical, even more so because these have an opposing effect anyway. The TV monitors are impossible because information cannot get from one place in space-time to another faster than the speed of light. This is not simply a matter of technology either but of logical inconsistency. Put it this way, the information simply doesn't exist, because the Euclidean picture of space-time, as a sequence of instances of 3d-space in series, is jut plain wrong. That may be how movie films are put together but it is not how space-time is put together. So there is no simultaneous information elsewhere.

ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:I gave a heads up some posts ago where the thread is heading. It will take months to get there but the jist of it is this: Age difference occurs between the time a participant makes a change in the velocity and the time it takes for that change to work it's way back to the observer.

Incorrect. There is no change in age due to acceleration. That doesn't really make any sense, does it? What changes are simply the measures of space-time. In particular, it is the arbitrary idea of what is simultaneous elsewhere which has to change. In Alice own inertial frame, this idea of what is simultaneous elsewhere leads her to think that Bob has aged 3/5 as much as she has. But if she accelerates to match Bob's inertial frame her measures of space-time have to change so that this idea of what is simultaneous elsewhere leads to her to the different conclusion that Bob as aged more 1 2/3 times as much as she. In truth nothing has changed for this idea of simultaneous elsewhere is figment of our abstract calculations anyway.

Of course this is very different if they are in the same point in space-time. For this we can set up a different situation. What if Alice and Bob start in locations 1 light year away from Earth in opposite directions and both travel toward the Earth at .5c at the same time according to the E frame? Of course if both stop at the Earth then both will have aged the same amount. But what instead it is Alice turns around and accelerates to Bob's inertial frame to join Bob just as he is passing the Earth.

Let's take this according to Alice's inertial frame traveling toward the Earth. According to her, the Earth is traveling toward her at .5c and Bob is traveling toward her at .8c, right? But length dilation tells us that the distance are .866 light years for earth and 1.2 light years for Bob. But does that make sense since they are at equal distances? The solution as usual is in the timing, because they only leave at the same time in the earth frame not in Alice's rest frame. From this we can conclude that Bob must start out a bit later when Alice has reduced the distance to Earth. But lets use the Lorentz formulas.

Ok Alice will arrive at Earth in tE = 2 years, so need xE = 0, tE = 2 to give xA = 0, tA = 1.732
xE= 0 tE= 2y vA= +.5c SO xA= 1.1547 ( 0 - .5 2) and tA = 1.1547 (2 - .5 0) -> xA = -1.1547 tA = 2.31
What if we make the arrival at earth the tE=0? then xE=0 tE=0 would give xA=0 tA=0 as before
With arrival being the 0,0 reference point Alice's starting point comes from xE = -1, tE = -2
xE = -1 ly, tE = -2, vA= +.5c SO xA = 1.1547 ( -1 ly + .5 2) and tA = 1.1547 ( -2 + .5 1) -> xA = 0 tA = -1.732 (i.e. 2 times .866)
Thus we see that while the journey takes 2 years for people on earth it only takes 1.732 years for Alice
Suppose we ask about xE = 0 when tA = -1.732, what then is xA and tE?
vA= +.5c SO xA = 1.1547 ( 0 - .5 tE) and -1.732 = 1.1547 ( tE + .5 0) -> xA = .866 , tE = -1.5 y
This means that the distance to Earth in Alice's inertial frame is contracted to .866 and an Earth which is 1.5 years before their arrival
So what about Bob? In Earth frame he left at the same time as Alice and the same distance but in the other direction
xE = 1 ly, tE = -2, vA= +.5c SO xA = 1.1547 ( 1 ly + .5 2) and tA = 1.1547 ( -2 - .5 1) -> xA = 2.31 ly tA = -2.88675y
Thus we see that in Alice's inertial frame Bob begins his journey 1.1547 years before Alice and at a distance of 2.31 ly from her
Does this check out? how far does Bob, going at .8c, get in 2.88675 years? He goes 2.31 ly and thus arrives at Earth along with Alice.

So how about their ages? For Alice the trip takes 1.732 years. But since Bob starts earlier, so in Alice's inertial frame that trip takes 2.88675 years. But in her inertial frame Bob also has time dilation factor of .6 so it turns out that Bob has only aged 1.732 years the same as Alice. And this is before Alice accelerates to Bob's inertial frame and the acceleration does not make any difference while they are both in the same place back at the Earth. Thus, time dilation has nothing to do with acceleration. It is about the calculations we make and this idea we have concocted of a simultaneous elsewhere.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 8th, 2017, 7:37 am 

mitchellmckain » 08 Apr 2017, 09:49 wrote:
ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:I gave a heads up some posts ago where the thread is heading. It will take months to get there but the jist of it is this: Age difference occurs between the time a participant makes a change in the velocity and the time it takes for that change to work it's way back to the observer.

Incorrect. There is no change in age due to acceleration. That doesn't really make any sense, does it? What changes are simply the measures of space-time.

I think you two are not referring to the same thing. The part that I underlined in the Ralf quote is where his whole misunderstanding lurks. This thread is a futile attempt the reconcile his mistaken understanding with SR.

The only sensible interpretation is that "differential aging" happens progressively over the entire "twin paradox" scenario, but that it only becomes observable once one (or both) of the inertial frames experiences a change in inertial frame. And it is then immediately observable in every inertial frame, but not immediately to all observers in those inertial frames - only to observers in such frames that are right there where the change in frame occurs. Other observers can only know the fact later, but that does not change the fact that the differential aging happened during the time from the start of the experiment until the change in frame.

As you have hinted, Ralf fails to appreciate the fact that there is a good part of the Doppler ratio that is pure Newtonian and has nothing to do with differential aging. In fact, for the relative speed of 0.6c (Doppler factor 2) which is often used, it is 1.6 part Newton and 1.25 part Einstein. The Doppler ratio explanation of the scenario is only a crutch to help people see that there must be differential aging in SR - it is not a good way for calculating relativistic effects. The proper time between events is the only 'proper' method for calculating it. The rest are all just analogies with various (lesser) degrees of clarity / consistency.

The proper math for any "twins scenario" is as given in the finals parts of the Wiki article, i.e.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Difference_in_elapsed_time_as_a_result_of_differences_in_twins.27_spacetime_paths
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 8th, 2017, 8:59 am 

Before I respond to your this mornings posts, I woke up today with a question. My concept is not about the doppler frequency which may get red shifted or blue shifted but about the time content of the TV signals. Are you guys saying the TV monitors won't work because they need to be tuned to the carrier wave frequency of the TV signals which gets blue shifted or red shifted? I'm sure that is not a problem.

If you look at the two STD's I've included, you'll see that when separating at .6c the two participants will get 1 yr of TV image content but they'll receive it spread out over 2 yrs. Hence the content image speed must be halved. When they are coming together at .6c, they transmit 2 yrs of image content but receive it in 1 yr. Hence the image speed is doubled. I'm not talking about the carrier wave frequency, I'm talking about how relative velocity affects time itself is seen as is experienced by the speed of the image content. Again, this is how time is seen not how it's actually progressing.

Ok now to the posts:

On the contrary you can get anywhere as fast as you like if you spend enough energy.


Correct, I never claimed anything to the contrary. The speed you'll travel using your own dilated time and un-length contracted space is Yv.

The TV monitors are impossible because information cannot get from one place in space-time to another faster than the speed of light.


I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. The entire point of this thread is about how the information delay when a change in relative velocity causes the age difference. Yet you just keep repeating over and over that the information delay makes the monitors impossible. I can't make it any clearer, the monitors are playing delayed information. The monitors are playing delayed information just like your TV is playing delayed information due to the delay in transmission from the broadcaster to your TV set. Are you saying all TV monitors are impossible?

There is no change in age due to acceleration.


Again how many times do I need to repeat myself? Are you engaged in some sort of monologue with me. If you're not going to take the trouble to read what I've written I'm just going to put you on ignore.

No need for all your calculations in your scenario. The answer is no matter what spatial orientation between two participants equidistant from the earth and traveling that distance in the same time, the two participants won't experience any reciprocal time dilation or age difference because they will have the exact same time dilation and age difference relative to the earth. I went through the scenario at length in my ralfativity threads. I think you're just too late to join this convo and I'm really trying to finish this thread as quickly as possible.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 8th, 2017, 9:28 am 

Ok, now onto Jorrie's post, welcome back.

The only sensible interpretation is that "differential aging" happens progressively over the entire "twin paradox" scenario, but that it only becomes observable once one (or both) of the inertial frames experiences a change in inertial frame.


Well let me fully present my case and then point out specifically where I go wrong and then you can talk about whether there is only 1 sensible interpretation or not. But in order to do that you need to stop proof-reading and start reading for comprehension. Yes I use similar words that trigger different meanings for both of us. This is a very difficult problem to overcome. But it is overcome by not just ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative because if you just use your rose colored glasses to filter out the red text then you are left with a story full of holes. This is what I think is going on. There can be only one interpretation and any interpretation outside of this can't be considered. Again, let the math do the talking. The topic of this thread is exploring an alternate interpretation using relativistic math. I have clearly revealed parts that I'm seeing problems with. This should be a great place to attack my math but I'm getting no response. The only response I get is that I'm breaking relativity rules 1 and 2.

but that does not change the fact that the differential aging happened during the time from the start of the experiment until the change in frame.


Yes this is where we disagree and I just can't jump ahead without setting the foundation first. If this was after August, I could write every day but I can't right now.

As you have hinted, Ralf fails to appreciate the fact that there is a good part of the Doppler ratio that is pure Newtonian and has nothing to do with differential aging.


The problem here is the difference between my words "doppler ratio" replacing frequency in the formula with 1/t and relativity's meaning. I'm talking about the content of the TV signal and you're talking about the carrier wave frequency.

Oh crap I'm out of time, sorry. I'll finish later.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 8th, 2017, 11:01 pm 

ralfcis » April 8th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote:No need for all your calculations in your scenario. The answer is no matter what spatial orientation between two participants equidistant from the earth and traveling that distance in the same time, the two participants won't experience any reciprocal time dilation or age difference because they will have the exact same time dilation and age difference relative to the earth. I went through the scenario at length in my ralfativity threads.

And thus you miss the point entirely.

The point of the calculation was to show how everything matches up to what we know should be the case. And I started participating in the thread precisely because you couldn't make things agree. The point is the relativity of simultaneity -- unlike different time zones the order of events is not the same in different inertial frames. Until you get that you will never be able to make things work out. So yes there is an inertial frame where Alice and Bob age the same but there is nothing special that makes this frame more valid than the rest frames of Alice and Bob where they do not age the same. But as the calculation shows this is ONLY because the events in Alice's inertial frame are not simultaneous. Yes there is an inertial frame where events are simultaneous and yes there is an inertial frame where they do age the same, but there is nothing more valid about that inertial frame than any other.

ralfcis » April 8th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote: If you're not going to take the trouble to read what I've written I'm just going to put you on ignore.

I frankly don't see you making much effort to read what I have written but ok, I will go back and evaluate some of your previous posts.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 9th, 2017, 2:11 am 

ralfcis » March 13th, 2017, 5:56 am wrote:
The doppler shift ratio 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 as kept by on-board atomic clocks which are sync'd at the start of a journey and whose accuracy precludes the need for any sync'd distributed clock network.) v is negative if the frames are separating and positive if they're coming together.

So this is based on the assumption that you are doing everything with respect to particular inertial frame like that of the earth, which means you are requiring the traveler to return to that inertial frame? Otherwise I don't see how this makes any sense.

So... the time it takes light to catch up is v ttx/(c-v)
Adding the transmission time again to get the time it arrives then applying time dilation...
trx = ttx + v ttx/(c-v) = ttx (1+v/(c-v)) = ttx c/(c-v)
now time dilation noting that sqrt(1-v2/c2) = (c-v) sqrt[(c+v)/(c-v)] / c
t'rx / ttx = (c/(c-v)) x = c/(c-v) times (c-v) sqrt[(c+v)/(c-v)] / c = sqrt[(c+v)/(c-v)]
ttx/t'rx = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))
But the sign difference from yours is just a matter of how the velocity is defined and now I see that I did define my velocity in the opposite direction as positive when they are separating.


AND I can see where the misunderstanding is coming from for this certainly does not try to explain time dilation as a consequence of Doppler shift. It is just that this formula already has the time dilation built into it. After all, this is a formula from SR and nothing like the classical Doppler shift.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 9th, 2017, 7:57 am 

ralfcis » 08 Apr 2017, 15:28 wrote:This should be a great place to attack my math but I'm getting no response. The only response I get is that I'm breaking relativity rules 1 and 2.

I have not said that your math is wrong - I just never saw anything in it that supports your premise that (paraphrased) "all the age difference happens after the inertial frame change".

The proper math that mitchellmckain and I have pointed you to, clearly refutes your premise. The simplification that you use does not support it, so why should anyone bother to read pages of verbiage in support of an invalid proposition?

Yes, the math in the section that we refer to is not simple, but its interpretation is inescapable - the proper time difference integrates (accumulates) progressively throughout the whole time under consideration.

The reason why we usually do not refer to these equations is because they are a little above beginners level science, but then, if anyone wants to play at this level, they must learn the math. But even without fully coping with the specific math, a careful reading should make the correct premise clear.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 9th, 2017, 9:38 am 

so why should anyone bother to read pages of verbiage in support of an invalid proposition?


It takes time to build my argument, I'm not going to jump ahead and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head to read this thread. Certainly I don't have the time to engage in Relativity 101 with Mitchellmckain or formulas from Relativity 3001 yet.

Right now this thread's at a significant crossroads: what is the present. Positor asked if my definition is philosophy. Philosophy happens as soon as one starts to use words to describe ideas. Science happens when you start to apply math which is supported by experimental physical reality.

Relativity is based on many philosophical statements and assumptions that were born out by the math and physical experimental results. This is a confirmation of the philosophy but it doesn't mean another interpretation can't also be confirmed by the same results. In science, it's the simplest explanation, not the one that's been around the longest, that wins.

One of Einstein's most philosophical statements is, "Time is what a clock measures." So coffee is what a cup measures? I couldn't disagree with Einstein more on this because it spawns a bunch of complex barnacles that are required to make relativity work. The one we are discussing at this point in the discussion is relativity of simultaneity or sync offset.

Einstein's statement spawns the subsequent idea that if you get your clocks sync'd up according to his method, and they both read the same time, then you're they're both sharing the present at the same time. But this doesn't quite work out as you then have to introduce a correction for sync offset based on perspective and then you have to introduce 2 sync'd clock networks and delayed clock comparisons between local clocks and those clock networks. Then, as discussed in reams of previous posts, I started to see cracks in this scheme and none of my objections were being addressed so I made up my own explanations and came up with a different mathematical interpretation which also happens to be from relativity.

The present, as I will continue to mathematically derive in subsequent posts, is time itself; beyond what clocks have to say about it. It is true simultaneity, even though it is also a calculated one; because the true present cannot be read off a clock face.

In the math Jorrie referenced, t=Yt'. That is the clock face comparison of time to define a common present between two participants for those who follow Einstein's philosophy about clocks and time. At its extreme, that philosophy has led Brian Greene to declare past, present and future all equally exist simultaneously because he believes the time read off the face of a clock is time itself. I have a different formula for defining the present and this is what I'm deriving for you now. If you don't want to discuss this now, tough titties, I'm not jumping ahead to the end and not going to engage in battles from relativity 101 which were already fought ad nauseum in my posts going all the way back to the CR4 forum from 2008.

In the meantime, while I'm waiting for that one person to stumble onto this thread with an open mind, I don't mind answering questions or discussing the topic at hand. Do I understand relativity? Does anyone? Because if they did they would have been able to specifically answer my specific questions that started all this way back when.

P.S. If you go back to my sun bumped out analogy, relativity would declare so long as our sun dials still work, the sun is presently in the sky. I say, after post processing, the sun was presently not there even though the clock present said it was. Clock "present" is not time "present"; clocks are not time.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 9th, 2017, 11:14 am 

ralfcis » 09 Apr 2017, 15:38 wrote:In the math Jorrie referenced, t=Yt'. That is the clock face comparison of time to define a common present between two participants for those who follow Einstein's philosophy about clocks and time. At its extreme, that philosophy has led Brian Greene to declare past, present and future all equally exist simultaneously because he believes the time read off the face of a clock is time itself.

These erroneous statements of yours indicate gross ignorance of what was said. Or is it perhaps an inability to comprehend what was written?

As you know Ralf, I have been there when you started your questioning of relativity in 2008 on CR4. As far as I can remember, many, many people answered all your scientific (non-philosophy) questions, but you have never accepted answers as valid, even when coming from experts in the field. Or you have twisted answers into something that is not valid or applicable.

Now you have some mathematical variant of relativity, of which you yourself said (not too long ago): "Ok I've finished the math but I don't yet have an understanding of what it's telling me. This is what it's saying in a nutshell; hopefully I'll understand it once I write out all the details:" We are now about 2 weeks and 40 screens later, and it seems you have neither completely stated, nor even developed your case yet.

In the light of this, your thread has had its stay in Physics and is going to Personal theories.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests