Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the math)

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

Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the math)

Ralfativity has been shut down so many times that the ideas are spread out over several threads. In this one I will no longer use relativistic terms even though the formulas are the same. The meaning will be completely different so all ties to relativity will be severed which means this thread (for once) will not be. So there's no further confusion, I will re-write the last thread using only new non-relativistic terminology.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Correction: Aging rate not relative aging.

Crap instead of relative aging I should have used the terms aging rate and aging difference. The aging rate is the same and equal to 1 for both except during the delay time after a velocity change by one. The relative velocities are not the same during this transition time because one is stuck at the old relative velocity and the instigator is immediately at the new one. The difference in aging rate compensates for the imbalance in relative velocity. The instigator ages at a slower rate than the other guy who always ages at the proper rate of 1yr/yr so long as he also doesn't instigate a change of relative velocity.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

As I was transferring relevant info from the last thread into this one, I noticed I no longer require the equation c2=v2+(c/Y)2. It was a nice concept where everything travels at c but as the spatial component v increases, the temporal component (c/Y) decreases to maintain c for all participants. But it had no practical use for determining aging difference so I'm cutting it loose. This means all ties to relativity are severed and I'm free to do some really alternative math with some really alternative results. I'm going to do the unthinkable, make c my reference frame which is not only impossible but highly frowned upon by relativity. Most of what I wrote previously won't figure in this new interpretation. Sorry to anyone who's been reading along so far.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, light speed and present time

The following STD is a graphical representation of a line of 4 transparent light monitors spaced 1 light year apart. Shining a laser pulse from earth through them will return a signal back to earth that the laser pulse has been detected. The 4th detector has a mirror which reflects the pulse back through the detectors.

In year 4, the earth will receive the signal back that the 2nd monitor has detected the laser pulse from earth. In the two years it took the signal light to reach earth, the laser pulse will have reached the 4th monitor. The present moment that the earth and the laser pulse share is the earth has aged 4 years and the laser pulse has traveled 4 yrs to reach the 4th detector. They have both "aged" at the same rate.

At earth's 4 yr mark, Bob sends out a 2nd laser pulse. The STD gets a little confusing here because the 2nd pulse reaches the 2nd monitor 6 yrs after the first pulse had been sent out and reflected back from the 4th monitor. The two pulses will reach the 2nd monitor simultaneously from 2 opposite directions. This validates the concept of a simultaneous common present for this example.

You will notice that each event is spaced 1 yr apart but Bob sees them as 2 years apart. This does not mean that he sees the speed of light at half speed or that the frequency is doppler shifted to half frequency. Each signal is just information about the laser progression. Every time Bob receives a signal, the laser has progressed another light year in one year. That information is delayed by the speed of light back to Bob. So when the laser has traveled 1 yr, that info hits Bob at 2 yrs because of the 1 yr delay. During that delay, the laser has progressed another year so Bob and the laser have journeyed 2 yrs.

The same is true in reverse. Bob must send out a laser pulse every 2 yrs to intercept the return of the original laser pulse at every monitor spaced 1 ly apart. He sends out the 2nd pulse at yr 4 which will hit the 2nd monitor in 2 yrs. He waits 2 yrs to send a 3rd pulse which takes a year to hit the 1st monitor. This will intercept the original returning pulse which takes a year to propagate from the 2nd monitor to the 1st.

A similar analysis can be conducted for velocities other than light speed as will be shown in the next post.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

I just lost another day's work again because of this forum's insistence of relogging in if you spend 8 hours typing. Can I recover what is lost or do I type everything over again?
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

There are just too many new concepts to simultaneously explain so I'll just start out with a simple example:

8 light years from earth is a sentry. When it detects something coming towards earth, a signal is sent which will reach earth in 8 yrs. The STD for this example is given below.

The sentry signal is the dashed line from 8ly to 8y. The solid line is Charlie traveling at ,8c. No one on Earth (Bob) will even be aware of Charlie's approach or relative velocity until 8 yrs after the sentry signal is sent. Bob won't even be sure that Charlie's relative velocity remained constant until 2 years after Earth receives the sentry signal. Charlie could be a rock, a star or a ship named Charlie. Earth has no prior history of Charlie's existence or spacetime path.

That's all for today.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

Hi ralfcis,

I must assume you have a computer to post the above information. The posted images above leave a lot to the imagination.. no detail.

There are many free programs on the net that allow one to draw simple lines and label them. Most will export such work to formats compatible for posting as an Image file here. There are also free screen capture tools that can translate your Cadware to an Image file if the chosen Cadware can't save to an Image file.

I also assume there are many free paint programs out there, suitable to such purpose.

Might I suggest you use such tools to enhance your presentations? I seem to remember much better image presentations on your other posts.. what happened (if I may ask)?

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

My strategy has always been quick and dirty. Somewhere down the line someone always gets frustrated with it and volunteers to do all the detailed grunt work for me. Oops, did I write that out loud?

Anyways I hope my scribbling doesn't hide the end fact that Charlie will age only 6 yrs while Bob ages 10 with no turn-around, no hand off, no acceleration, no clock syncing, no network clocks and no lump sum age difference during acceleration. The aging difference is smooth and only occurs during the time it takes for the initial sentry signal to reach Earth. After that, both Bob and Charlie will resume aging at the same rate. It'll take months to tell the whole story. Eventually this STD will have so many lines added to it, it will look like a ball of yarn.

However, if it's no trouble to whip out neat computer generated drawings, now's the time to do it as I've only posted 2 simple ones so far.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity, NOT related to relativity (except for the m

We can make Charlie an inanimate object but there's no point to that because we won't be able to determine age difference and won't see any transmission to determine relative velocity. So Charlie is a ship inhabited by aliens. The only way their clock is sync'd to ours is in the universal accuracy of all atomic clocks and the fact it uses the sentry signal to mark a start time. This is the starting gun and the race is on. Earth will also have to come up with a retroactively simultaneous starting signal, retroactively because it presently knows nothing about even the existence of Charlie.

Any transmissions from the ship are too faint to be seen by earth beyond 8 ly so any transmissions of the aliens and their clock would start right after the sentry signal hits Earth. It would take time to understand the clock readout and what it should read in proper time because we would see its readout and at 3 times its normal speed. ( r = c/(Y(c-v)) = 3 at +.8c) So for every Charlie year Charlie travels, Bob would see it fast forward in 1/3 Bob years.

We'd also see televised movement inside the cabin at 3 times its normal time rate but we wouldn't know this having never seen these aliens before. So we'd need at least another sentry signal from, let's say, 4 ly out to measure their relative velocity. For simplicity's sake we assume their path is straight and at an unchanging velocity throughout.

Bob would also be transmitting a televised signal of his day to day life and his atomic clock readout. If Charlie re-transmits Bob's signal back to him, the one Bob sees at 8.889 yrs will be the one that Bob sent out coincidentally simultaneous with the 8 ly sentry's signal.

Just as Earth will see Charlie's transmission at the rate of 3 Charlie years per 1 Bob year, Charlie will also be seeing 3 Bob years per 1 Charlie year as is suggested by the dashed lines from Bob to Charlie. The TV picture will be viewed as triple fast forward. Even though the viewing rate is reciprocal, indicating +.8c relative velocity, neither will be aware of what each is seeing of the other for many years of additional propagation delay. But that last point is not really important.

"Simultaneous" is a very loaded word in relativity. When I say the sentry signal is generated simultaneously with Bob's signal which reaches Charlie at the 2.667 yr mark, what does it mean? Those two signals are separated by time and space so how can we know they happened simultaneously in some kind of definition of the present moment. This is where things start to become very difficult.

to be continued
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 681
Joined: 19 Jun 2013