Why ralfativity? What is relative aging?
Why ralfativity? Why another crackpot, fringe theory bashing relativity when it's been so successful for over a century endorsed by the world's most brilliant minds? Because ralfativity makes experimentally verifiable predictions that relativity does not. Of course there's no data to support this claim as the experiments have not been carried out or even contemplated yet. Hence, the purpose of this theory, to get them done.
The focus here is how each theory handles relative aging between two participants moving in relation to each other or to a common intermediary reference frame. This common frame is not absolute, it's relative to each participant and is often deemed a stationary reference frame for both even though any of the 3 frames can be deemed stationary. Earth or a lab or the LHC will be used as the stationary reference frame for examples here even though it's not mandatory.
Most of the time, the rate of relative aging =1, the two participants are aging at 1yr/yr so long as there is no disruption in the relative velocity between them. The farther they separate due to the relative velocity, the greater the potential for relative aging difference once a velocity change is made. Information of a velocity change takes time to propagate over the separation between them. It is only during this time, when the relative velocity between them is unmatched, that the rate of relative aging between them is other than 1. That fractional aging rate causes a cumulative aging difference over the time the relative velocity change is delayed until a new relative velocity is seen by both.
For the purposes of simplicity, the way relative velocity can be "seen" is through the comparison of transmitted TV signals between the two participants. The signals contain clock information so the difference in clock rates reveal the relative velocity. At .6c, for example, each participant will see the others clock rate as half their own hence the rate of TV images will be half normal speed if the two participants are separating. If coming together, the received clock rates will be double and the TV image will be double fast forward.
In previous threads it was stated that the TV image will not be sped up or slowed down but think of the TV image as a series of flash cards. If you have a 1 yr stack of flash cards to be seen over two yrs, the image rate will be half. If you have 2 yrs of flash cards to be seen in 1 yr, the image rate will be double. The rate of the TV image is exactly like those flash cards.
It's a misconception to assume time itself is speeding up or slowing down even though that's what the relative clock rate is suggesting;, the relative aging between the participants remains the same at 1. But if one changes velocity, he will see an immediate difference in his relative clock rate while the other guy will have to wait to see that. He therefore sees his relative velocity unchanged while the instigator immediately sees a new relative velocity. When this info makes its way to the other guy he will see his relative velocity change without doing anything to change it. At this point he can calculate how much younger his partner is and extrapolate the rate of his relatively slower aging from the time he changed his velocity. They now both share a new relative velocity and the age difference compensates for the relative velocity mismatch. Since no one can age faster than the proper time, the instigator's age will be less than the other guy's by this age difference.
This age difference will not be subtracted in one lump sum but will be equally spread out as the relative aging rate starting at the velocity change until either the age difference is exhausted or banked into a new velocity change. Hence the present age difference can be calculated in detail up to that point before the end of the spacetime interval, something that relativity can't know. There are many months of math ahead to prove this claim.