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 mitchellmckain on April 9th, 2017, 12:33 pm 

BurtJordaan » April 9th, 2017, 10:14 am wrote: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.

Since I have verified at least one of his claims, I am a little less certain of what is going on. Poor communication seems to be involved and I am not seeing a lot of effort on his part to do so. Whether this is inability, unwillingness, frustration on his part, or some other cause, I am less able to judge.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

With a masters degree in theoretical physics and a specialization in special relativity, any claim he needs to educate me is absurd. I am left (aside from personal character issues) only with the conclusion that his unwillingness to engage in Relativity 101 is a refusal on his part to completely learn the basics himself.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

Science requires objectivity and that objectivity requires communication with other people. It is not just pinning math on things which makes something into science.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

Incorrect. There is absolutely nothing simple about Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity -- not by a long shot. What wins in science is what works -- what is actual able to predict experimental results.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

I am reminded of when I hear creationists attacking evolution based on a critique of statements in "Origin of the Species." It is like they are treating this book like some kind of Bible and if they can find some sort of flaw in the text then it will disprove everything. That is, of course, laughable, because science doesn't work even remotely like their Bible bashing sessions. I think it is a mistake to take this statement of Einstein as an absolute philosophical statement. Rather it is a way of making time more concrete, especially in a universe where the Euclidean picture of things is wrong and time is something much more local. If there is a philosophical statement here it is that the traditional presumption that time is an absolute universal measure has to be abandoned. Everything we have discovered since has borne out this conclusion completely.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

As far as I can tell the cracks here are in ralfcis' understanding NOT in the scientific community. Establishing that the entire scientific community is wrong and has been for the last century requires considerably more work that he has put into this.

ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote: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.

Ok, here I see good cause for putting this into the personal theories section... it bears out my first impressions as well... oh well...
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 9th, 2017, 3:43 pm 

Nope that's just not going to happen. You gave me your word that you were going to give me some leeway. I told you many times I just don't have the time to fully present all aspects of the math at this time in one shot. I'm really tired of having my threads cut in half. Have you even lodged one specific objection to any part of what I'm proposing or specifically answered one of the questions I've asked. You seem to think, like many do here, that a specific question is answered by "go read a book". I'll just lodge another complaint and you'll have to reverse yourself again. I won't be bullied into acquiescence. Remember what happened to Toronado on the CR4 forum?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 9th, 2017, 4:31 pm 

Ralf your thread is not cut in half - it was just shifted to the subforum where it belongs. And despite your appeal, I think it will stay here, because you are transgressing the "leeway" proviso that it must not bring the Physics Forum into disrepute. Your last two posts (at least) did exactly that.

You are welcome to continue your development in this subforum - it may actually solicit more reaction here in any case.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 9th, 2017, 5:00 pm 

Jorrie wrote

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".


He also wrote

Ralf, I haven't commented on someone else's private theory for a month now. i have told you that I'm out of here too some posts back, with the reason.


D'ya think the two statements are related; he hasn't seen anything because he hasn't been reading anything? I have already presented most of my case in the ralfativity thread in personal theories but it's difficult to discern what is still valid because it has evolved so much. Same with the questions that were supposedly answered over the years. Answers that are unrelated to the question are not answers at all. I only came up with ralfativity a few months ago which caused my ejection from the CR4 forum. So whatever questions were not being answered before my ejection are not at all the same questions that were not being answered after my ejection. If I'm being thrown out again because of my last two posts you can delete them and put me back on the physics forum. Being put in the rubber room forum will not garner the type of serious readership I require to either gain credibility for or judicial rejection of my interpretation.

PS. My point about me have both your and Toronado's decisions reversed is that the moderator community cannot have arbitrary absolute power. That's why there's an administration to arbitrate disputes.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 9th, 2017, 7:09 pm 

Which decision of mine (in terms of where a physics topic belongs) have you got reversed in the past?
Maybe you are referring to a temporary ban from this forum in the past?

My advice to you is to not waste your time complaining and rather use it more productively towards learning proper relativity. You have come quite a long way already...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 9th, 2017, 10:09 pm 

You locked my ralfativity thread sept 01 2016. I complained and Braininvat unlocked it 16 sep 2016 and it continued unlocked until 17 nov when I decided it got too fragmented and I would open up the final summation thread. At some point you asked me back on the physics thread to discuss my ideas but I am having trouble finding on what thread that happened. But it did happen because here I am kicked off again. If you want I'll keep looking for that.

Which were the two posts that got me kicked off for bringing the forum into disrepute. I suspect they were the two posts after I got kicked off because I see nothing wrong before that.

P.S. I've learned enough of proper relativity(hence ralfativity began) but every time I get close to overturning it you shut me down and pull another ace from your sleeve. This time it was the hidden calculus (mortals are only privy to the algebra of relativity.)
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 10th, 2017, 2:31 am 

Ralfcis wrote:Which were the two posts that got me kicked off for bringing the forum into disrepute. I suspect they were the two posts after I got kicked off because I see nothing wrong before that.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=319268#p319233

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=319268#p319268

I can find more posts that would warrant a removal from the Physics section (where people are invited to for chats about standard physics).

If you want to appeal the decision, go ahead...

Edit: link updated as requested.
Last edited by BurtJordaan on April 10th, 2017, 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: link updated as requested
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 10th, 2017, 8:01 am 

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?


img6.jpg


Yeah that's a little over the top and, again, completely non specific. Here is an image of an STD relativity style for .6c. The dotted lines show reciprocal time dilation. The parallel horizontal lines indicate Bob's now slices of a certain time throughout space. Where they intersect Alice's velocity line they link the present time on Bob's watch to the dilated time on Alice's watch according to the formula t=Yt'. So 4 yrs on Bob's watch is seen as 3.2 on Alice's.

The parallel slanted lines indicate Alice's now slices. Where they intersect Bob's vertical line they link the present time on Alice's watch to the dilated time on Bob's watch according to the formula t=Yt'. So 4yrs on Alice's watch is seen as 3.2 on Bob's.

That's reciprocal time dilation but when you want to compensate for a dilated time Bob sees of Alice to the time Alice sees of Bob then you need the sync offset. So t=5 for Bob is t'=4 dilated for Alice which in turn is t"=3.2 for Bob. the sync offset is vx/c2 = 1.8 which is added to 3.2 to get t=5 for Bob.

I forget how many times I used this to figure out age difference but you seem to forget as well because every time I post on the forum it's like my first post for you. I'm sure you're going to ding me on the semantics but as you said before, can't argue with a correct answer (paraphrasing of course but if you want me to look up where you said that I can).

As for Brian Greene, we've clashed on this many times. Your viewpoint is that he's essentially right but the words he uses are wrong. I think he's quite clear on the interpretation he wants to push so I'm reposting links to his videos and let anyone interested decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR8DYZz ... UgDLTwVbFc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoOKSI ... c&index=51

Maybe I'm missing what you specifically think I don't understand or is it just everything?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 10th, 2017, 2:43 pm 

BurtJordaan » 09 Apr 2017, 17:14 wrote:
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.

The relevant math that I referenced is this part of the Wiki article: Difference_in_elapsed_time_as_a_result_of_differences_in_twins_spacetime_paths. It says everything but what Ralf wrote.

I am not defending a position here, I just want to show, for the record, that there is gross misinformation going on. I guess Brian Greene would have said the same, but I do not expect him to show up here anytime soon...

The rest of this post? Just a repeat of a standard STD with the same old standard stuff, which I think he has originally learned from me. So hardly worth a read and/or comment.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Aging Difference, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 10th, 2017, 6:00 pm 

ralfcis » March 16th, 2017, 6:30 am wrote:Yes you did state all the backlogged time dilation becomes an immediate age difference the instant a frame change occurs. Yes I get a different mathematical result. I have shown that if the frame change is near instantaneous, like a brief stop and then restart at the previous speed and direction, that age difference does not suddenly get heaped on all at once. I get almost no aging difference in this scenario.


If we alter the problem so that Alice and Bob don't meet up at Earth but Alice turns around and accelerates to catch up with Bob position and then decelerates so they are then in the same place and inertial frame, then we pretty much know they will not be the same age. But when does this age differential occur? When they accelerate?

I believe if we do the calculation we find the deceleration to Bob's inertial frame will have no effect when they are in the same place. This is why it was my contention that all the acceleration does is alter this notion of simultaneous elsewhere we have concocted. I am further claiming that the difference in ages is a purely global effect due to the structure of space-time and really has nothing to do with acceleration. Thus it does not really occur anywhere because the whole notion of absolute simultaneous age comparisons at a distance is just nonsense.

Do you want to do this calculation? Shall I?
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 10th, 2017, 6:59 pm 

I definitely have way more respect for you now that you have flashed your credentials. I have no credentials. I took 1 online course from Brian Greene and only took up relativity as a challenge to fill my time at work during the slow months. But right now are the fast months and since I've been kicked off the physics forum, the stress to try to finish my interpretation is over. Every time my threads get shut down or moved is when I start engaging in convos; I should have never revealed what I really think or where I thought this thread would end. I lost a big opportunity here and maybe should fade into the background and finish in silence.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 10th, 2017, 7:18 pm 

ralfcis » April 10th, 2017, 5:59 pm wrote:I definitely have way more respect for you now that you have flashed your credentials. I have no credentials. I took 1 online course from Brian Greene and only took up relativity as a challenge to fill my time at work during the slow months. But right now are the fast months and since I've been kicked off the physics forum, the stress to try to finish my interpretation is over. Every time my threads get shut down or moved is when I start engaging in convos; I should have never revealed what I really think or where I thought this thread would end. I lost a big opportunity here and maybe should fade into the background and finish in silence.

Or..... you can keep learning by struggling with this stuff. Because let me tell you something. None of these calculations are easy. I struggle every time I do a calculation with the Lorentz transformations because I have to practically fight my own instincts the whole way. What experience gives you is the confidence that if you you persist then they do work out eventually.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Aging Difference, an alternate relativistic method

Postby BurtJordaan on April 11th, 2017, 1:29 am 

Apologies to Ralf for sidetracking his thread, but it is unfortunately relevant to his main issue.

mitchellmckain » 11 Apr 2017, 00:00 wrote:I am further claiming that the difference in ages is a purely global effect due to the structure of space-time and really has nothing to do with acceleration.

I can agree with all you said, but I would not discount the effect of the acceleration that much, because it changes the spacetime structure of the accelerated party in relation to the large scale spacetime structure. This causes different paths through spacetime for the parties, a fact that immediately changes the aging of an accelerated party.

The usual counter to this argument is the 'all-inertial ABC flyby', with a time-hand-off scenario. The counter-counter is that at least two of the observers must already have changed their spacetime orientations before the start of the test. Although the final result is clear and absolute, the interim stages of the scenario is pretty open to interpretation, much due to the lack of full spacetime history of the parties.

The full and clear Twin Paradox solution involves at least two accelerations, one at the start and one at the turnaround. The final event can be just a flyby - by then all is known. And to be absolutely clear, it must be a practical acceleration, not instantaneous. Then one can calculate the absolute spacetime path-lengths unequivocally and hence the elapsed proper times (aging) of any participant at any stage (meaning a specific spacetime event along the route of one of the parties).

Ralf an I have been using the word "frame-jump" for instantaneous acceleration, but this causes one to somewhat loose sight of the role that the acceleration has played. I find it OK if we make it extremely short, so that acceleration plays a negligible role, but not to completely ignore its role.

After all, future interstellar travel could be all about being accelerated there all the way, with a reversal of the acceleration at the mid-point.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby mitchellmckain on April 11th, 2017, 2:27 am 

Agreed.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 11th, 2017, 5:57 am 

No, no go ahead, I'm in favor of all legit physics discussions. Makes me feel like I'm back on the physics forum.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Relative aging, an alternate relativistic method

Postby ralfcis on April 12th, 2017, 5:47 am 

I've had a revelation this morning so I totally retract my complaint. Even though ralfativity uses the exact same formulas as relativity, they are not related in meaning or terminology. I'm no longer going to use relativistic terminology as that is misleading and causing confusion. There will still be confusion when relativists see my formulas and wonder why I'm not using relativistic terminology or interpretation but the two theories are unrelated so why pretend that they are. There is no verbal translation between the two even though the math is common. Even t=Yt' will no longer mean time dilation, it will be the clock conversion formula in ralfativity because there is no real thing as time dilation except as an illusion. So personal theories is where I'll ignominiously remain forever and ever. Let the re-write begin.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests