## Ralfativity 2.0

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

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I'm just going to jump ahead to the answer and show how to get it if someone asks. In the example I gave, Alice's handoff is irrelevant. Charlie has already executed his change of velocity which will initiate his age difference. Alice's flyby will just confirm Charlie will age another year less than Bob on top of the one he will have aged less than Bob after he made his transition at t'=4.

Alice's action is significant if Charlie started from deep space towards Bob. Any signalling between the two would not establish any aging difference between them until Alice's flyby. Although Charlie did not initiate a change of velocity, the flyby would and the age difference of 1 yr less for Charlie could unfurl during the info delay to Bob. Relativity would conclude no age difference was occurring before the flyby point but I see no reason why one couldn't extrapolate that the same incremental age difference after the flyby point could have also been occurring before it. Other research teams could have sent out other pilots to flyby charlie before Alice and those teams would have revealed the same incremental age difference occurring before Alice would conclude its indeterminacy before her flight. Certainly, if there had been no flyby point, age difference between Bob and Charlie due to charlie's journey could not have been established when they met.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Ok here's a very deep question. When charlie comes in from deep space, Bob and he are aware that their relative velocity is .6c through their mutual doppler ratio. They are able to send light signals of their clock readings which are unsync'd and therefore useless to establish incremental aging during charlie's approach. But once charlie meets with Bob, the clocks are sync'd and wouldn't it be possible to post process charlie's incremental age difference during his journey in? Now you might say there has been no frame jump during the journey, it's all been constant velocity so age difference can't have occurred. But that's not true. The instantaneous moment between approach and separation is 0 velocity. The moment charlie passes bob at .6c, he is relatively stopped for an instant. But was it charlie or bob that initiated this 0 frame jump, relativity dictates you don't know because of reciprocity. But if an earth-centric network of milestone markers had been distributed along charlie's path, you would know he was moving through space and therefore he was responsible for the frame jump when passing Bob and post processing would show he aged less than Bob. At their meeting, they wouldn't have aged at the same rate and at a relative velocity closer to c, Bob would have been a grizzled old human compared to charlie. The alternative would be they were both around the same age, it's only one or the other and the result is determinate. But this means only 1 frame jump at the end is sufficient to establish age difference and 1 at the beginning is not. I wonder what relativity's take is on this. It's the same annoying question I thought I had resolved but here it is back again in another scenario.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I just recognized this morning that this is not a new scenario at all, it's the muon experiment. Let's get rid of all the statistical averaging and simplify the experiment to fixed lengths, times and speeds. The muon is a little atomic clock with a fixed half life. It is created a fixed distance from the surface of the earth by cosmic ray collisions. It travels at a fixed percentage speed of light. But we don't know when it'll be created so our clocks are not sync'd. According to relativity, there is no way to determine age difference as there is no start to the spacetime path. Also there is no way to establish if the muon is stationary and the earth moves towards it at near c or vice versa. If muons were created on the surface of the earth and beamed into space, these muons would be able to visit their space cousins instead of dying early on the surface of the earth if they popped into existence with 0 relative velocity wrt earth. So the muon experiment is relegated to an example of time dilation reciprocity.

But let's put the entire experiment in a collider. Suddenly the exact same experiment is an example of age difference because we can establish a valid spacetime path. We create a muon at a certain time and a certain fixed distance from a detector and we get a signal from the detector the muon has been detected. We have a legitimate spacetime path and can establish the moving muon has aged less than a stationary one. The only difference between the two experiments is the space muons are created randomly wrt our clocks. That could also be repeated in the lab, thereby negating a valid spacetime path, yet the age difference results would remain statistically identical. They are not indeterminate as relativity would claim. All we have is an endpoint and an invisible start point but the only way the muons reached the detector is the same reason the ones with a known start point do, they age less. It's not a time dilation problem just because you close your eyes.

So charlie coming in from space with no known start point is aging less because he is not at constant relative velocity throughout his journey. At the point he meets bob he does an instantaneous frame jump which can be used to post process any age difference from any arbitrary point in his journey just like the muon experiment. This point has been brought up many times in the past but has never received a rebuttal except the standard attacks on my general inability to memorize scripture correctly.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

The companion question to this is what's so different from a start together and an end together. They are symmetrical. Leaving a start is the opposite in direction, time and increasing relativity of simultaneity of going towards a stop. Would that not make it possible to extrapolate the age difference based on a start and on the fact that one of the parties is passing by milestones while the other is not. That concept would devastate both relativity and ralfativity but I don't see where it's wrong except that it would mean there's no such thing as purely relative motion without a background space reference frame. Well, here I am again, full circle, right back at the beginning. I was making such nice progress too.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Ok I guess I'm going to have to reason my own way out of this dilemma. In a normal example, the start is known, a transition occurs and during the delay of that info to the other party, age difference unfurls. Jorrie said there was some sort of subtle difference between the info reaching the other party and the two participants re-uniting physically. The info does reach the other party long before they re-unite. No further word on that though.

In this muon example, whether the muons decay, crash into the detector or pass through it unimpeded; that constitutes a stop. But there is no propagation delay of the info which occurs at the same time as the physical reunification of the muon and the detector. So age difference can't unfurl, it is suddenly established. Or is it?

The start point is unknown and distance separated from the end. All that has been occurring during the journey is reciprocal time dilation. We use that in the GPS and don't really care if it's reciprocal because establishing age difference doesn't really matter nor does the fact the satellite sees us time dilating. In many ways the muon example is the opposite of a typical twin paradox example. In the muon example, the relativity of simultaneity is donated as a lump sum of time the muon depletes as it approaches the detector. In a typical example, the relativity of simultaneity is built up from the start.

The placement of the transition point is also odd. In the muon example, there's no space between the transition point and the end point and in the typical example there is. It's almost as if you took a slider and moved the transition point, the start point would move towards the t-axis and you'd get one or the other typical example. The age difference that occurs before the transition point in the muon example and is established at the transition, gets split for the typical example just like the relativity of simultaneity and part of it is banked before the transition and the other part is counted after the transition. Yes, this is a logical explanation of what's happening wrt age difference in both examples and I'm sticking to it. Ralfativity is saved and I can move on.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Nope, still not right, age difference can't manifest itself instantaneously at the end nor could charlie have been aging slower on his way in at constant velocity unless there is some significance to age difference being caused by the start point's initial distance separation from Bob. It's as if an imbalance in the relativity of simultaneity causes age difference, not the imbalance in relative velocity due to the delay of info after a transition. That's what I need to look at further.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I just figured out the answer so I rushed back here to make sure no one else had so I won't have to share my Nobel prize with anyone. The answer is where and when or what relative velocity was first established between charlie and bob is only relevant in so far as how much distance there is between charlie and Bob when the transition occurs to establish age difference. Age difference only accumulates during the info delay after a transition. Charlie and Bob could be at constant relative velocity forever before one of them makes a change and that time before the change has no influence on age difference. So the Bob and Alice .6c example of Alice stopping at 3ly will yield the same result as charlie coming in from deep space at .6c with no start point or clock sync also stopping at the 3 ly mark.

Bob will have established their relative velocity through the doppler ratio between them prior to Charlie stopping. Bob will think the relative velocity is still at .6c for 3 yrs after the stop which results in Charlie aging 1 yr less than Bob. If Charlie had not made a change, there would have not been any age difference between them even when Charlie met Bob. This must mean the muon experiment is about time dilation from the earth perspective and is not an example of age difference as I had said.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Hold on, the muon example is not the same as the Charlie coming in from deep space example. Muons pop into existence a fixed distance from Earth`s surface. The analogous example for Charlie would be he`s parked on a planet 3ly from Earth and then blasts off towards Earth at .6c. This would be a transition from 0v to .6c so he would age 2 yrs less than Bob during the 3yrs the velocity change propagates to Bob. The muon experiment is an example of age difference and not time dilation as the Charlie deep space example was. Sorry, this is an investigation, I think about things as we`re going along.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Oops I said 2 yrs less and, I`ll have to check, but I think it should be 1 yr less. The relative velocity before the transition sets the foundation for age difference. Alice`s relative velocity in the turnaround example would yield an age difference of 2 yrs but a transition from stop to .6c back in Charlie`s case should only yield a 1 year age difference with Bob on the return journey. I`ll have to verify with an STD because I have been wrong before. Anyway, this all is a very sharp departure from relativity`s strict spacetime path method with a well defined start to determine age difference.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

ralfcis » February 11th, 2018, 2:02 pm wrote:The instantaneous moment between approach and separation is 0 velocity. The moment charlie passes bob at .6c, he is relatively stopped for an instant.

But to 'stop' is to remain stationary for a duration of time. An 'instantaneous moment' has no duration. Even light travels no distance in no time, but we would not therefore say it 'stops'; that would violate the universality of c.

Also, if it were legitimate to say that Charlie is "stopped" at the moment he passes Bob, then we could equally say he is "stopped" at the moment he passes any arbitrarily chosen point in space. Therefore any supposedly continuous motion would consist of a virtually infinite number of stops.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Thanks for your reply. I wrote a list of reasons why this instantaneous moment is a zero velocity common frame but can`t find where. I don`t think you`re disputing that anyway. So what is an adequate duration to establish a valid stop? According to the formula for relativity of simultaneity = vx/c2, either 0 velocity or 0 distance separation means a shared instantaneous present without any relativity of simultaneity. When Alice's ship passes closely to Bob's distance marker, she knows immediately what proper distance she has traveled, length contraction due to her velocity flies out the window. The spacetime path endpoint does not require Alice to stop for a minimum duration with Bob. She can fly right past at full velocity and that's considered by relativity to having both in the same 0 velocity frame. When you hear a car pass by you with its horn blaring, you stop hearing a frequency shift at its closest approach meaning its relative velocity to you is zero. I had more reasons but I hope these are enough?

P.S. If you look at my STD's comparing Alice stopping for 1 year as opposed for 3 years, you'll notice the shorter the stop, the more irrelevant it becomes to age difference. So every point can be a stop but its effect is completely drowned out by subsequent points. Unfortunately there is a common misconception that a stop mathematically causes a swing in the line of present that causes age difference. Relativists try to slow down the swing which is cut off by shorter durations of a stop. There's no need for that mathematical complication as ralfativity has no limit on the speed of the swing as it puts it at the end of the prop delay of the velocity change from Alice to Bob. The swing cuts off age accumulation not starts it so it can be an instantaneous change in line of present.

PPS Also I do not hold with relativity's idea that light travels in 0 time. I have shown c'=Y(c-v) just like v'=Yv. The speed of light through a relative velocity frame adjusts to that frame. Don't buy this argument on the basis of a 1 sentence explanation, go back to where I thoroughly discuss this idea and submit your counter-arguments based on that discussion. Relativity is no longer the law for me so I don't often agree with its assumed statements of fact and explain at length why.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

A circular orbit like the Earth around the sun means they share the same 0 velocity frame but the distance separation means they do not share the same instantaneous present. With the relative velocity =0, there should also be no relativity of simultaneity but that is not true of GPS satellites so there must be something different about angular velocity that makes the relative velocity not zero. I'm not at this level of SR. Maybe someone knows the answer, I think is is what Dave Oblad was on about.

Maybe I should steer clear of this for now but a far away ship moving perpendicular to you will at some point be at 0 relative velocity but at a distance so it will not share an instantaneous present but will share a horizontal line of present with you.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I think I'm just going to skip forward to the final push, the end of the need for the 0 velocity frame to establish age difference. Relativity can't do this. This is going to be tedious and long. I'm dreading it and I don't really have the time for it.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I forgot I had promised somewhere to do a full reverse analysis of the twin paradox proving incremental aging unfurls the same way from both perspectives. You'll often read that if Alice is depicted as moving away from Bob, her clock is dilating wrt Bob's clock. If clocks measure aging, then it looks as if Alice is aging slower than Bob. Relativity does not support this view but it is a common misconception. It's implicitly backed when relativists try to explain the twin paradox because they say, in the reverse analysis, when Bob is deemed moving Bob is therefore aging less than Alice like Alice was formerly aging less than Bob. If relativity is serious, it wouldn't allow people to have this misconception.

Relativity just keeps insisting time dilation and length contraction are real because they are measurable. A ruler is used to measure length but it doesn't measure any real length unless it's held right up against the thing you're measuring. The same for a clock, it doesn't measure any real time unless it's held right up against the thing's time you're measuring. Measurements at a distance need to be post-processed taking into account perspective.

But then relativity doubles down on its confusion. It states every velocity has its own space and time coordinates and that all velocities are relative so you can't really allow a common background reference frame because that introduces absolutism. It does not. It still allows for relative velocity without introducing an infinite number of overlapping coordinate systems based on unreal time dilation and length contraction.

Ralfativity establishes a network of earth-centric distance markers. They are established between 2 participants who set distances when they enter a zero velocity frame from whatever relative velocity they were sharing previously. I can't see where the earth wouldn't always be one of those participants unless you were trying to establish age difference between 2 guys floating in a space that had no stars. It would be crazy to repeat this process of establishing distance markers for every relative velocity.

When you do a reverse analysis and Alice is stationary, relativity makes her coordinates the new cartesian coodinates and the x-axis is her former x'-axis. It would be impossible to set up an Alice-centric network of distance markers because you'd need to accelerate and decelerate the earth to .6c to set a marker when both Alice and the earth were in 0 relative velocity. What ralfativity does is have the same x-axis for all relative velocities between Bob and Alice and absorbs "length contraction" into the time domain. This was already done in this thread but I'll repeat the two STD's, both analyses, in the next post. The key is each time coordinate has 2 values: dilated and non-dilated wrt the earth-centric reference frame which doesn't change whether either is deemed moving or stationary. In the reverse analysis, both Bob and Alice were always both moving wrt a background reference frame. I've just made it the same reference frame for both analyses. No rules broken here, this is just an enhancement to relativity.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Here are the two initial STD's of Alice moving wrt earth and Bob stationary and the reverse analysis, ralfativity style, where Alice is stationary, the earth frame forms the cartesian coordinates which do not length contract and are common to both analyses. Bob and the earth are moving wrt Alice in the reverse analysis. Next will come the incremental aging difference for both analyses from Alice's perspective (because she initiates the velocity change).

The blue numbers are earth time and the red are Alice time. Bob moves with the earth so both Bob and earth dilate wrt Alice time for the 1st 4 years where Alice is stationary. Alice takes off at .8824c wrt the earth reference frame to catch up with Bob at .6c relative to him. See having a background earth reference frame does not mean Bob and Alice can't have a relative velocity between them independent of the reference frame. This is not frame absolutism. When Alice catches up with Bob, she ends up aging 2 yrs less than Bob in both analyses. Whether Bob or Alice are deemed moving at first is irrelevant to determining age difference because there has not yet been a velocity change initiated by either one of them. Remember, age difference is only caused during the time one participant changes the relative velocity and the other gets the notification of that. Whatever relativity says causes age difference is a comparatively confused message that adds no understanding to the nature of reality.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Sorry readers, I've found a flaw in my reasoning while I was doing an incremental age difference analysis on Alice returning rather than just stopping. I was expecting that instead of Alice aging .25 yrs less per equivalent yr, the return analysis would yield double that amount. But it doesn't, it yields .5625 yrs less per equivalent yr. This means I have not correctly factored in relativity of simultaneity as Alice returns and it is not automatically handled by the shorter light delay as Alice approaches as I had assumed. It also makes the incremental age difference seem unrelated to the correct final answer that Alice ages 2 yrs less than Bob on a return journey. The cut off when Bob gets the news from Alice is 2 while the incremental tally is 2.25. When Alice stopped, the cutoff was 1 and the incremental tally was 1.05. Also there is no relativity of simultaneity factor when Alice stops. Even so, there was still a discrepancy between the final value and the incremental tally that seems totally unrelated to the discrepancy in the return journey. So I have to figure out what's really going on here as my previous explanations seem to hold no water.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I feel so guilty people reading this stuff and it's not yet correct and I don't have time to work on it. I thought of an example where Bob1 is on earth and Bob2 is on planet Bob 3 ly away. The clocks read the same on both planets but that doesn't mean they share the same time. They are separated, they cannot share the same time no matter how synchronized they are. When Alice takes off from earth to planet Bob, she will mimic the muon experiment. She's moving at .6c relative to both but before she reaches planet Bob, her constant relative motion causes age difference between her and Bob2 but no age difference between her and Bob1. She will be aging incrementally less than planet Bob on her journey so that when she arrives at planet Bob, her clock will have aged 1 yr less. Her change of velocity with respect to planet Bob will have started on earth. Her change of velocity wrt earth will start when she stops at planet Bob and so will her incremental aging wrt earth.

The fact is you can't use a clock to measure space or time unless that clock is directly attached to the thing you're measuring. Otherwise you need relativity to post process your measurements. Statements about clocks measuring time running slower or clocks at a distance being synchronized using Einstein's method are ridiculous. I have several ideas about where my errors due to clock separation are occurring and I'm sure the final answer will be eye opening. I think it will eventually show that the doppler ratio is just some other form of relativity of simultaneity. I just don't have time to explore all the dead ends I'm going to encounter.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Here is the STD of what I was talking about:

Whether Alice stops at planet Bob or keeps going, her proximity to the clock on planet Bob establishes she has aged 1 yr less with respect to Bob2 and 0 yrs less with respect to Bob1 during her journey. Now nobody is going to convince me that only at the point of contact with planet Bob does Alice's clock instantaneously lose 1 year wrt planet Bob. The age difference has been incremental from the start. And since this scenario is a mirror image of her journey wrt earth, there is also no instantaneous age difference in that time direction either. Please relativists, stand up and say you believe your absurd theory that does not support incremental aging difference.

If she passes through, planet Bob can report back to earth, using the pink light signal, that Alice was 1 yr less than Bob2 which is exactly the same scenario as the Charlie clock handoff example (except Charlie's ship is now a light signal carrying the info back to Bob1). When Bob1 gets the signal he can't possibly avoid concluding that since the two Bob clocks are synchronized, that Alice was also 1 yr younger than him 3 yrs ago. If there was no signal back, then relativity says Bob1's only conclusion is that Alice was and is the same age as him. So if Bob closes his eyes, Alice is the same age and if he opens his eyes, she's one year younger. I'd like to see a relativist's explanation for this paradox. Oh yeah, I forgot there's impossible to understand algebra involved so no answer will be forthcoming.

P.S. Also take note triangles 1 and 2 are identical in that there is no incremental age difference within the triangles which only accumulates outside the triangles. Why? Because there is a relationship of constant relative motion within the triangles between the vertical side and the slanted side.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I was hoping some relativist would challenge me on my assertion that Alice ages less wrt Bob2 but remains the same age as Bob1 on her way to planet Bob. The reason is that Bob2 will get a delayed signal that Alice has taken off from earth and the age difference between them occurs between the time Alice takes off and Bob2 gets the news of that.

There is also the mathematical proof using the fact Alice ages 2 years less than Bob1 on a roundtrip journey back to him at .6v and only 1 yr less as v1 to planet bob approaches 0 and v2 on the return journey remains at .6c. This proof shows that the spacetime path where the two parties are separate at the start and then come together is a valid example of the twin paradox where an age difference occurs. This means every relativist who stated that the muon experiment is an example of reciprocal time dilation and not age difference (I'm looking at you Jorrie and Brian Greene and actually every relativist who ever lived) is dead wrong.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Here's the STD that proves mathematically that the muon experiment is not an example of reciprocal time dilation but twin paradox age difference. You cannot say that you don't know whether the muon travels to a stationary earth or the earth travels to a stationary muon because there would be no possible age difference if that were the case.

As you can see for v1=.6c, Alice ages 12.5-10.5 = 2 yrs less than Bob at the reunion. For v1=.4c, Alice ages 12.5-10.9= 1.6 yrs less than Bob at the reunion. As v1 approaches 0, Alice ages 12.5-11.5= 1yr less than Bob. At v1=0, there is no way to establish a common start between them that validates a spacetime path yet this math proof does not require that.

The original example of Alice leaving earth at .6c and then stopping wrt to Bob at the 3ly mark and thereby aging 1 yr less than Bob yields the exact same result as Alice stopped wrt Bob at the 3 ly mark and coming back at .6c. That's some real nice symmetry.

Determining Alice ages 1 yr less than Bob requires none of relativity's rules on clock sync or spacetime path. The clock sync is embedded in the agreed proper time distance between them and the universal accuracy of atomic clocks. Bob and Alice will see each other as stationary measuring the doppler ratio=1 between them. Bob will get a delayed notification from Alice when his doppler ratio changes to 2 that 3 yrs ago Alice took off towards earth. That's all you need to know about S.R., any other barnacles and verbiage are irrelevant.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

If you spent time learning the basics of SR, you wouldn't be frustrated trying to reinvent it. It's not difficult, only requiring algebra and physical concepts of matter, light, and motion.
In the example, Alice and Bob move relative to Ed (on Earth) at .3c and .6c respectively. All clocks were synchronized at the origin. The plan is for A and B to emit time signals (blue) at 1.00 local time, which would cause the distant clock to emit a current time signal. Each would measure the clock rate of the other based on the return time of the reflected signals (R).
The hyperbolic lines of constant time show the A and B clocks remain synchronized.
A receives a Bt=1.47 at At=2.15. She knows her signal was sent at At=1.00, but she doesn't know when R occurred. Einstein's solution was to accommodate the observer's perception of a pseudo rest frame by a convention that assigns the time of the remote event to half the round trip time for a light signal to that event (red). If A had a remote clock at R, it would be synchronized to her local clock, but the half way time occurs later. She concludes the B clock rate is slower than hers. The reason, the time interval for emission to R is .47, and for R to detection is .68, i.e. not linear. Bob's conclusion is reciprocal. A and B are not observing aging, but doppler shift that results from their diverging paths.
Do you think Alice would age differently moving toward Bob compared to moving away from Bob, at the same speed?
phyti
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

"Do you think Alice would age differently moving toward Bob compared to moving away from Bob, at the same speed?"

There'd be no resultant age difference in either example of constant relative motion. It makes me laugh how many people think they know relativity and don't know the difference between reciprocal time dilation and age difference.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Here's a little something I wrote in another forum that may help you understand the difference between age difference and reciprocal time dilation. The two example are GPS and the Hafele-Keating experiment.

In reciprocal time dilation, the GPS satellite sees your clock going slower (after some post processing) and we can also process that its clock is going slower than ours. Both are aging at the same universal rate in their own frames. How does one reconcile that they both age normally in their own frames and both age slower wrt each others perspective. The relative velocity is doing that so removing the relative velocity should be a way of establishing who is actually aging less. But if you stop the satellite, let's say by landing it, it's clock will have permanently aged less than the earth clock. But if you instead stopped the earth clock wrt the satellite by flying it up to the satellite (and subtracting the effects of the flight velocity), you'd see the earth clock has aged less. So establishing age difference is dependent on who stops while reciprocal time dilation depends on perspective and velocity. I don't consider it real because it stops existing as reciprocal one you remove the conditions that created it. It's like saying a guy 100 yds from you is only 1 thumb tall and then after you've removed the separation, he's now permanently 1 thumb tall.

The Hafele-keating experiment is when they took an atomic clock in a plane to test if it would run slower than one left on the launchpad. Relativists love to redirect and obfuscate conversations with irrelevant details so I'm going to idealize the experiment by having the plane do a pole to pole to pole orbit, linearize the motion and ignore gravity. This will result in the standard Bob/Alice roundtrip STD I presented earlier. (That's the triangular picture.)

If the plane starts at the north pole, the turnaround point is the south pole; turnaround being defined as the transition from receding to approaching with a instantaneous zero velocity in between. Now most people think the plane is aging slower while it's traveling when actually the two clocks are reciprocally time dilating. The age difference begins at the south pole as clock data is shared and compared at the turnaround point. My contribution is that age difference starts occurring incrementally between the turnaround of the plane at the south pole and the news reaching the clock at the north pole. Most relativists believe all age difference is restricted to occurring during the plane's turnaround time.

Let's add a bit of spice to an old example and throw in a second plane. If that plane takes off in the same direction and speed of the 1st plane you'd naturally assume there is 0 relative velocity between the planes, near zero separation, and at no time a change of velocity between them so there would be no age difference or reciprocal time dilation between the planes and they would have the exact same age difference and reciprocal time dilation relative to the clock at the north pole.

But what if I told you they took off in opposite directions. The relative velocity should be double, and you'd assume there would now be an age difference between the planes. There certainly is a reciprocal time dilation and there are even 3 turnaround points between the planes but there is no age difference. There can't be because independently they must have the same age difference wrt the clock on the pole so they can't be different from each other.

I could provide an STD but no one understands what the lines mean so what's the point.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

ralfcis » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:39 pm wrote:"Do you think Alice would age differently moving toward Bob compared to moving away from Bob, at the same speed?"

There'd be no resultant age difference in either example of constant relative motion. It makes me laugh how many people think they know relativity and don't know the difference between reciprocal time dilation and age difference.

After all those posts trying to show aging of Alic relative to Bob, are you still laughing?
phyti
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

No I'm crying now the same way Jorrie was probably crying trying to explain this fact to me:

Constant relative velocity does not cause age difference on its own. Permanent age difference is not the same thing as reciprocal time dilation. From this point I diverge from relativity in how age difference occurs but if you're not even at the first point, someone has got to help you get there. Do you agree or disagree with the first point?
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I'm always left wondering when people leave the conversation have they been convinced or just give up.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

ralfcis » March 14th, 2018, 7:03 pm wrote:The Hafele-keating experiment is when they took an atomic clock in a plane to test if it would run slower than one left on the launchpad. Relativists love to redirect and obfuscate conversations with irrelevant details so I'm going to idealize the experiment by having the plane do a pole to pole to pole orbit, linearize the motion and ignore gravity. This will result in the standard Bob/Alice roundtrip STD I presented earlier. (That's the triangular picture.)

Can you clarify one point, please. Do you agree that a clock in orbit around the earth undergoes constant acceleration? Although its speed remains the same, it is constantly changing direction, so its velocity vector constantly changes. It is never in an inertial frame.

If you "linearize" the motion (i.e. imagine it as straight lines), then you have two inertial frames - outward and return - which is not equivalent to the real situation.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Acceleration doesn't play a role in SR even though GR says it's equivalent to gravity. Jorrie has addressed this issue but I didn't understand his answer. Linearizing is coming up with an average velocity that would yield the same age difference as if it were a straight line velocity. I'm not sure what your last question is. A difference in velocity out and in doesn't matter, it just makes the triangle scalene instead of isosceles. Did you buy the answer i gave to your last question?
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

OK, thanks. I have no further questions.

ralfcis » March 16th, 2018, 3:15 pm wrote:Did you buy the answer i gave to your last question?

I did not fully understand it, but you have studied this topic in much greater depth than I have, so I will assume you are correct.

I do not have time to do much background reading on this at present, so I will resist the temptation to make any further interventions in this thread!
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

PreviousNext