## 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've changed my mind as a result of discussions on the CR4 forum:

I've been focusing on the relativistic caveat that clocks can only be compared in a zero velocity frame. I've been trying to shoe-horn that concept into explaining why instantaneously co-located clocks speeding past each other can be validly compared. I said this must somehow be a zero-velocity frame. I now see the caveat is wrong. It's not about velocity, it's primarily about separation. The endpoint of a spacetime path is the co-location of clocks. If the clocks stop at a distance from each other, the co-location of clock info (the light signal from one reaches the other) also establishes the end of the spacetime path between the two participants. I think, though, the separation leaves others traveling wrt the two participants open to seeing a different age difference than the two experience wrt each other. I need to think on that more.

The start of the spacetime path is also about separation but unless there is a valid endpoint, the start is not the start of age difference, only reciprocal time dilation. So my theory now changes from velocity change starting the age difference process to separation change starting it so long as there is a valid spacetime path endpoint. This means that the example of Alice coming in from deep space is not an example of reciprocal time dilation but is an example of age difference so long as you set a distance marker of where you want to start counting the age difference. Hmm, I'm not sure relativists will buy that idea either.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Positor don't assume I'm correct unless my argument sways someone with a lot more knowledge about relativity. I'm not getting the answers to my questions so I have to make up answers along the way. I have changed my mind many times but at least in a logical progression that will hopefully lead me to the truth. Changing my focus away from velocity to separation as the cause of age difference is a huge departure from what I've been saying and is even farther away from what relativity says.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

This idea that co-location and not zero-velocity is what allows comparison of clocks has liberated me from trying to accommodate the relativistic concept. A while back I had a thread on defining the present. I can now set up a hierarchy of definitions:

1. Co-location at zero velocity is the most powerful present. It's unshakable from any perspective and it joins the present we can't normally see due to separation with the delayed present. It's what everyone assumes is how a spacetime path ends, with Alice re-uniting and stopping wrt Bob.

2. Instantaneous co-location due to relative velocity. This is the end of a spacetime path where Alice whizzes past Bob and they exchange age information. Of course, exchanging info takes time so the info is prepared and at the exchange of a tone between them becomes valid. I've never been able to get an answer as to whether this is a valid end to a spacetime path and most assume some amount of time must pass for it to be valid. Then I ask for a mathematical proof of how long they should be at zero velocity for it to be valid. No answer to that.

This present not only allows valid clock comparison at the end of a spacetime path but at any point in spacetime without having to stop. Co-location cancels out any relative velocity effects between the two clocks.

3. A shared line of present at a distance. The line of present has a slope v on the spacetime diagram. This present is seen differently by outside frames because there is a distance separation. It also can't be seen by the two sharing the line of present but it can be determined through post processing. It is what I call the delayed present and it is the only present we experience in the present.

4. The light line present is a new one. As Alice's return trip velocity approaches c, she stops aging wrt Bob. She is the same age as when she started her return journey even though it takes light 3 yrs to complete the same journey. There is no age difference between the start and end so it's like a present. If you consider other return velocities for Alice and draw lines from t=8 (the time Bob is aware Alice has changed her separation to one that will end in a valid endpoint) to points on Alice's lines of how much less she has aged from the transition point, you will not get lines of present from t=8. The slopes of those lines correspond to another phenomenon that I have yet to define. My error in trying to calculate incremental age difference was assuming those lines were lines of present. My next posts will show you what I mean graphically.

P.S. I need a better term to replace "her separation to one that will end in a valid endpoint". The term used to be a change in velocity but that's no longer correct. Maybe "aging start" is good but people won't know what I'm talking about. Also I'm be proving partial age difference can be established without the need of a valid endpoint because age difference is only dependent on the time delay of the imbalance between relative velocities after a change.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Yup aging start and aging end; a non-specific term until I come up with a more concise explanation for it.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I was thinking this morning that saying age difference begins with "a change in separation so long as it ends with co-location" sounds too complicated and contrived. I was thinking what if the muon passed through a barrier of red paint in the upper atmosphere and the color would disappear after a known time of contact with oxygen. Yet splooches of red paint were hitting the earth long after the paint should have faded away.

It's not about change of velocity or change in separation or even about muons themselves, it's about the clocks the muons carry, how long the coat of red paint lasts. The clocks they carry is their half-lives before decay. Those clocks start when the muons are brought into existence, anything before that is irrelevant. If the clocks allow the muons to reach the detector, the clocks have measured a slowing of time. But I think it's more than just a detector's perspective of reciprocal time dilation, I think the co-location of the muon and the detector qualifies as a permanent age difference scenario. If so, the creation of the clock is a valid start to the spacetime path and is where age difference begins.

I still don't know what relativity says about Alice coming in at .6c from deep space, though. If she turned on her clock at the 3ly mark from earth, would that be a valid start of age difference between her and earth? Would her later co-location with earth validate she had indeed aged less from the time her clock was turned on? This would be disastrous for both relativity and my theory because it would mean valid age difference, not just reciprocal time dilation, could be counted from any point of the journey in.

In my theory the age difference is settled long before the co-location in the same way it's settled when there's no co-location, when both participants have stopped at a distance from each other. But if Alice turned on another clock after she knew Bob was now aware of the change in velocity she made earlier, that clock would now be counting a 2nd separate age difference wrt the start of that 2nd clock when the 1st clock, right beside it, is saying there is no subsequent age difference going on. But there must be because Alice is still going at .6c and she's still a distance from earth. I don't know how to get myself out of this one. I need to know relativity's perspective on this because, in the end, if relativity can come up with an answer, my theory must agree with it or it's wrong.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Good news, Jorrie will address this issue on the physics forum at some future date. Every answer I try to come up with contradicts other answers so I'm stuck for now.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Ok with my brief stint on the physics forum I am now able to continue with ralfativity. This theory is all about establishing permanent age difference. Everything that is not age difference is reciprocal time dilation which has no direct bearing on a persistent reality (as opposed to a temporary perspective reality).

So the first rule of ralfativity is:

Age difference is caused by the speed of light delay between the times of clock co-location at any relative velocity and 0 relative velocity at any separation of clocks.

This rule changes a lot of the things I've been saying. Principally I don't care about establishing valid relativistic spacetime paths to determine age difference anymore. Age difference is not caused by relative velocity, separation or co-location alone, it happens between the conditions of 0 relative velocity and 0 separation.

So if Charlie is coming in from deep space and doesn't stop along the way, he will not have aged any differently when he lands on earth than if he had stayed on earth. If he does stop and continue in at the same speed, he will only age less during the length of his stop and the rest is irrelevant reciprocal time dilation. The rest of his journey in after the stop does not cause age difference. If Alice is leaving earth at .6c and accelerates to .8c, that change in velocity will not change the fact she is not aging differently than if she had stayed on earth. I'll detail the changes in the next post.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Nope, this statement is wrong:

"If Alice is leaving earth at .6c and accelerates to .8c, that change in velocity will not change the fact she is not aging differently than if she had stayed on earth."

I'm abandoning the relativistic idea that there's something special about 0 relative velocity. If Alice changes from .6c to .8c when leaving Bob, the news of that change will take time to get back to Bob. He'll still be locked at .6c relative velocity while Alice will be at .8c. That imbalance, for as long as it lasts, causes age difference. No stop was involved.

This thread has become too confusing to read as I've dithered back and forth between ralfativity and reconciling it to relativity. I'm going to stick with the original idea that age difference occurs during a relative velocity mismatch. This means age difference can be established long before co-location of the participants because the co-location of the clock information traveling back at c is much faster. The co-location of the information resets the relative velocity imbalance so they are again traveling at a new constant relative velocity until they physically co-locate which means they are not incurring age difference during this time. The idea that physical co-location establishes age difference assigns a magical property to physical co-location when info co-location is all that matters.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

Consider this explanation of why there's no age difference during constant relative velocity.

Oh still can't upload images so I'll have to describe it to you.

Alice is leaving bob at .6c. From Bob's perspective, when he's 5, she's 4 (and the opposite is true from her perspective). She sends a signal out to Bob telling him she's 4. He gets it when he's 8 and knows the signal took 3 Bob yrs to get to him so he was 5 when she was 4. But Alice is still travelling at .6c and 3 Bob yrs is equivalent to 2.4 of her years. So when Bob gets the signal at 8, she's 6.4.

Yes this is all coordinate time transforms and up until now did not really mean age because the numbers were dependent on perspective and who was artificially deemed stationary and moving. But I don't care about age, I care about age difference. Alice's number is Bob's number divided by Y and Bob's number is Alice's number multiplied by Y. If you apply this math trick and get equal results, then there is no age difference between the two from either perspective. From Alice's perspective they are both 6.4 and from Bob's they are both 8. Who cares that the numbers differ between perspectives if the math trick makes them the same in either perspective signifying no age difference. Now apply this trick when there's an actual stop or even just a change in relative velocity and you will get an age difference in either Bob yrs or Alice yrs. No more ponderous rules to follow in order to establish age difference. And there's no dependence on bringing clocks together or reading clocks in the 0 velocity frame. There's nothing magical about the 0 velocity frame, establishing partial age difference is now possible.

I'll need to work out the bugs by looking at some examples of when an actual velocity change happens.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0

I don't understand the sudden influx of readership. Are people finding their way here by accident? No way anyone can understand what I'm writing without the accompanying STD's and the upload still isn't working. Anyway, here's the next example I'll be working on:

Alice leaves Bob on earth at .6c and stops at the 3 ly mark for 1 year and then continues out to space at .6c again. What will be her age difference with Bob? Bob will have no age difference with Alice for his 1st 5 years. Then for the next 3 yrs, his relative velocity wrt Alice will be .6c while Alice will have a relative velocity wrt Bob of 0c for 1 yr. Bob, at 8, will see his relative velocity switch from .6c to 0c for one year but during that year Alice has already switched back to .6c so the imbalance in relative velocity has flip flopped. Finally, the balance is restored at the old relative velocity for Bob with Alice a year later and no more age difference will accumulate. The age difference accumulates during the times of imbalance. I haven't worked it out yet.

The following example will be Alice, instead of stopping for a year, she'll accelerate to .8c for a year and then go back to .6c. Since there was no stop involved, relativity dictates there will be no age difference; ralfativity begs to differ.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013