Page 1 of 4

Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: November 4th, 2017, 6:12 pm
by ralfcis
This is not a thread on the special theory of relativity. I'm abandoning anything I said on my previous threads. Ralfativity has alternate explanations for relativistic phenomena and the following explanations should not be confused with SR.

Here's what pushed me over the edge

PostPosted: November 6th, 2017, 11:07 am
by ralfcis
What pushed me over the edge to reject the teachings of relativity was the discussion on reciprocity.

Here's a picture of reciprocity at a relative velocity of .6c where Bob and the Earth are the stationary reference frame.


In the next STD you can see how the crossed colored lines of reciprocity close on each other for subsequent .6c relative velocities that approach c. The first is where Bob is at .6c relative to the earth and Alice is at .8824c relative to the earth which maintains .6c relative to each other.


The next superimposes Bob = .8824c relative to the earth with Alice at .969c relative to the earth to maintain .6c between them.


People who don't understand what relative velocity means will not understand these STD's. That's because they have the idea that .6c is like a setting on the spaceship's speedometer. You want to go .6c? Just step on the gas until the needle hits .6c. These STD's show .6c relative velocity between Bob and Alice can be any velocity relative to earth. The confusion stems from relativity's STD's having a hidden implied reference frame which is the Earth, not Bob or Alice.

The Minkowski STD attaches Bob to the Earth which is stationary. In the reciprocal analysis, Alice is stationary and Bob and the Earth are moving. The only useful STD where Bob and Alice are both moving and the Earth is stationary is the Loedel STD:


The question that made me throw relativity out the window was which one of the 4 labeled points occurs 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in time. The next post will show relativity has no idea because it depends on an observer's perspective. Ralfativity will show that as soon as you set up your 1st distance marker, you have chosen your preferred frame and there is no ambiguity due to reciprocity. Reciprocity still exists but it doesn't stand in the way of determining unambiguous answers.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: November 7th, 2017, 9:45 am
by ralfcis
Crap I just got laid off. Don't know how I'm going to squeeze in physics anymore.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: November 7th, 2017, 1:08 pm
by phyti
ralfcis ยป Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:45 am wrote:Crap I just got laid off. Don't know how I'm going to squeeze in physics anymore.

Is there an unemployment system in Canada?

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: November 7th, 2017, 5:03 pm
by ralfcis
Yes and I`m now in it.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0 review, the definition of reality

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 12:12 pm
by ralfcis
Hello my friends, still no job that affords me the luxury of spending 6 hours per day on physics, sigh! So my involvement will be intermittent until the end of time. I tried reviewing where I left off and I've found I sure like packing a lot of lines into STD's which make them really hard to follow. So we're just going to talk for now and review the parts of Ralfativity that will go on past this point. Since STD's take so long to generate, I'll do the math proofs of what I'm saying later.

Ralfativity basically defines the nature of reality which is the interaction between information and the present moment. It appears only co-located objects can share the same information in the present moment. As soon as the objects are separated, there is a delay of information between them. The present is no longer shareable in the present but can be determined through post-processing. In other words, once the delay of information is overcome, the present that the objects shared can be determined. This is how past, present future and the speed of light delay work together to establish and limit causality. The speed of light limit does not limit the speed of any traveler in his own frame (only from another frame's perspective) but it limits the universe to be causal. So we are able to reap the benefits of limitless speed without sacrificing causality. Thank you speed of light limit.

Let's consider a couple of examples. Entanglement: two particles are co-located to start and are then separated yet can affect each other instantaneously, faster than light. They are separated yet apparently share the same present in the present moment. Quantum physics states there is no exchange of information so the speed of light limit remains in effect. Also, relaying the information that the entangled particle has chosen the opposite quantum state as the particle that has been bumped out of superposition is subject to the speed of light limit. So again, without an exchange of information in the present, two separated objects cannot share the present and the present they did share can only be determined through post processing.

Here's a rather unrealistic example. Imagine if the sun could be plucked out from the center of our solar system instantaneously. Both the light and gravity that we would feel would continue for 8 minutes until the Earth was flung from orbit. Our reality, until the information reached us, is delayed by 8 minutes. Through post processing we would be able to determine that the sun had actually disappeared 8 minutes ago and that was the actual reality that we could not determine in the present moment. So what is reality, what happened 8 minutes ago and 8 minutes later or what we experienced during those 8 minutes? Ralfativity offers the answer without destroying the Earth.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0 review, the definition of reality

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 12:12 pm
by ralfcis
posted twice

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 1:13 pm
by phyti
Good to see you back, since you have an inquiring mind. I thought you were making progress just before you left,and encourage you to keep on questioning ideas.

I see you realized we live in the past.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm
by ralfcis
Ralfativity has stripped itself of all the terms, caveats, and dongles that exist in relativity. In fact, ralfativity doesn't even need to define length or even a universe other than two objects on a grey background with a unitless space axis.. There isn't even a Cartesian coordinate reference frame. All you need is two on-board atomic clocks, and the received doppler ratio between the objects transmitting rate of clock info. (Yes in past writings I said there had to be a universal reference clock provided by one of the frames or universal distance coordinates (which is essentially the same thing), but no longer.)

There are only 2 caveats to ralfativity. The first was hinted at in the opening of this thread. All the STD's there look different but that's only because the velocity lines are not only relative to each other but also an implied reference frame. Remove that reference frame and the Loedel, Minkowski and Epstein depictions must all represent .6c relative velocity the same way. Relativity handles this by adding a secondary x'-axis to their STD depictions. This contracted length axis also supports a constant c for all frames except in the Epstein depiction. Ralfativity does not require either a constant c or any length axis. because the first caveat forbids this. (Wait for it)

Compare the STD's at the beginning of this thread and you will see that the light signals in the Loedel STD are the same length yet in subsequent depictions of .6c, the lengths are no longer the same. The first caveat says since all depictions of the same velocity must behave the same way mathematically, then all light signals must travel the same cartesian distance in the same time. Relativity introduces length constraction to assure this, ralfativity uses the purely temporal doppler ratio, length or distance need not be considered. The spped of the light from from the cartesian time axis is faster than the one from the slanted time axis and is normallized to be the same using the doppler ratio. This will be shown in detail later. The length of the light signals in either direction for any depiction of .6c must be effectively the same as they are in the Loedel STD. Ralfactivity uses the doppler ratio is used to relate light velocity to the frame velocity. Please don't start yelling until I complete how the math works for this.

The 2nd caveat relates to the definition of reality I gave earlier. When Alice goes out at .6c and changes her velocity, there is a delay before Bob gets that info. So far as Bob is concerned, he is still going at .6c relative to Alice. But Alice can immediately see that her doppler ratio wrt to Bob has changed. Before the change, they were seeing the rate of time flow at 1/2 speed. If Alice turns back toward Bob, she will see his rate of time at double speed but Bob will still be seeing her at half speed. Eventually when news of the speed change reaches Bob, they will regain the same relative velocity and both their doppler ratios will show a double speed time rate.

The time between Alice's speed change and the delay of that info reaching Bob is a breach of reality just like in the sun disappearing example. There must be a conservation of relative velocity and this is manifested by a permanent age difference between Bob and Alice that unfolds during the information delay time. This is how ralfativity resolves the paradox between Bob's reality and Alice's reality where Bob thinks he's still engaged at .6c with Alice and Alice knows she is not. The 2nd caveat of ralfativity is there is no age difference accumulation except during the delay time between velocity change and the info reaching the other party of that change.

Ralfativity requires no syncing of clocks, the universal accuracy of atomic clocks ensures this. There is no need for Alice and Bob to start co-located, the doppler ratio and clock time will allow them to calculate their distance, relative velocity and start time. There are no spacetime paths. There is no need to consider both perspectives, the first caveat ensures the one you choose is the same as any other. Hence, choose the simplest one to depict in an STD.

As a side note for using the simplest STD, the Muon example of relativity is often taught completely wrong. The muons are like tiny Alice space ships that have built in atomic clocks, go out a bit and come to a dead stop. This is not an example of reciprocal time dilation but is an example of age difference with only the Muons aging less than the Earth upon destruction. There is absolutely no need to do a reverse analysis as the Earth never ends up aging less than the destroyed Muons.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 2:16 pm
by ralfcis
No we live in the present since we'r co-located with ourselves. Everyone else lives in the past as we live in their past. The surface of time is like a large tent with many equal length poles that we can't see because the tent fabric droops. The droop is info delay. The equal height of the poles is the post-processed underlying present.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 3:39 pm
by ralfcis
Two ships are travelling in my gray featureless universe. They don't even know they're moving because it's always the same gray background so the concept of distance is useless to them. One day they start seeing each others television signals with atomic clock readouts embedded in them. They both know relativity so they know time passes at the same rate on both ships. They can compare how they observe the other's rate of time to theirs and can conclude the relative velocity from that. Then they can correlate the readings on each others clocks.

Now one of them makes directional changes such that the doppler ratio he was reading before is inverted informing him that he is directly approaching the other ship. (He had to first do some maneuvers to determine the minimum doppler ratio between them.) His signal states when this happened and since their clock readings have been translated, the other ship can tell from the delay of the signal how far the other ship was when the change was made. From this point there is enough data to build a universe and explore relativistic effects such as how their ages began to differ after the other ship altered course.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2017, 7:14 pm
by ralfcis
I should mention the fabric of time iis quite tight with only 1.3s of droop between the Earth and moon so our individual presents are pretty indistinguishable from each others here on Earth. The tent poles are the true present which can only be determined through post-processing. No matter how close one is to the tent pole the true present can't be experienced in the present (except for co-located particles) much like absolute zero is an infinitely unattainable limit for temperature.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0 Space markers

PostPosted: December 27th, 2017, 10:41 pm
by ralfcis
In previous iterations of Ralfativity, I championed the establishment of a single clock network distributed through space. The on-board clocks of the two participants could be compared to an adjacent network clock if the relative velocity between the two was zero. There was a list of conditions under which a valid comparison could be made but in ralfativity 2.0 the clock network has been replaced by distance markers set when the doppler ratio between the two participants' on-board clocks and received clock rate from the other participant equals 1. This means they are relatively stationary and a proper distance can be established.

The establishment of the markers occurs when one of the participants makes a change in direction that registers a doppler ratio = 1 even for an instant. The distance between them is the light delay between them. To keep things simple, both could be relatively stopped until the info of the change reaches the other party. Once markers have been deployed, the participants just need to transmit their clock reading when they're close to a marker whether they're stopped or moving past it. We can argue about the minutiae of this claim but the theory behind this is a proper space network of markers can take the place of the former distributed clock network to form a reference frame of proper space.

We need to agree on this before we continue.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0 relativity

PostPosted: December 28th, 2017, 3:28 pm
by ralfcis
Here is a combined STD of .6c relative velocity in two forms in blue (Alice and Bob are moving away from each other at .33c) and red (Alice is moving away from Bob at .6c).


Alice and Bob's relative motion is independent of the background reference frame yet the two depictions seem quite different. This post will explain how to reconcile the differences in both relativity and ralfativity. Let's add light signals for each of the scenarios:


As you can see the thin blue light signal x between the .33c lines is symmetrical. The signal Alice sends to Bob when her on-board clock hits 2, reaches Bob when his clock hits 4. The same is true for Bob and the transmission and reception are simultaneous for both. But as you rotate the blue lines along the hyperbolic green lines to where the red lines are, the thin red light signal x loses its symmetry, or does it?

For the blue lines, the blue t'=2 points both simultaneously start at t=2.1213 on the t axis. But for the red lines, the red t'=2 points line up with 2 different values on the t-axis. It also appears the proper distance between t'=4 on the blue lines is shorter than the 3 ly mark Alice reaches at t'=4 for the red lines. These inconsistencies cannot stand between the two depictions of .6c. Fortunately relativity can invoke the relativity of simultaneity to fix this first problem and length contraction during movement to solve the 2nd but it is so complex to explain I don't want to get side-tracked. I'll prove in a simpler way using the light signals that relativity does preserve identical relative velocity behavior no matter how it's oriented to the reference frame.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 28th, 2017, 11:23 pm
by ralfcis
Ok so depending on perspective, we haven't actually proved that Bob and Alice in the red line .6c send out their light signals in some form of reciprocal simultaneity from each other's perspective. I think that looked pretty clear in the blue line .33c combinatorial .6c even though I did not verify that graphically. So to verify reciprocity at .6c, let's start with the pink and orange line light signals depicted here.


The pink light signal travels from Alice at t'=2 to Bob t=4. It travels 1.5 ly in 1.5 yrs in Bob's stationary reference frame. The orange line seems to travel much further and longer but it is actually travelling in Alice's frame. The key here is that the left red line is in the stationary frame and the right is in the moving frame. The left and right blue lines are both in equally moving frames, there is absolutely nothing special about the stationary reference frame.

Ok back to the pink line. It starts at t'=2, reaches Bob at t=4 and takes t=1.5 yrs to get there. Bob can post process that Alice was 2 and he was simultaneously 2.5 from his perspective when Alice sent the signal. His flat line of present confirms this as well as the formula t=Yt'. Now just apply the same method to the right red line.

When Bob was t=2, that coincides with Alice's line of present at t'=2.5. Bob's signal reaches Alice at t'=4 which is in t'=1.5 yrs. The light travels 1.5ly on the x'-axis (which is the same thing as Alice's line of present). This is what's happening exactly on the left red line so there's perfect symmetry. Remember, relativity uses length contraction in this way so that even though it looks like from Bob's perspective his signal is travelling 3 yrs and 3 ly through Alice's frame, the same speed of light is preserved from Alice's perspective who sees the light travel 1.5 ly in 1.5 yrs.

You will also notice other lines of present I've added to explain away the difference in simultaneity in the red and blue .6c depictions. Simultaneity comes into effect when a background reference frame perspective is introduced. There is no difference in simultaneity or it's reciprocity when considering the purely relative velocity between the two participants.

The line of present from the right red t'=2 intersects Bob at t=1.6. This is exactly the same as the right t'=2 blue line of present (which I didn't bother to draw) would intersect the left t'=1.6 blue line of present. It's reciprocal and identical from left to right. For the red lines, line of present from a .33c observer would join the two red 2's which would appear to him that both Bob and Alice sent their signals simultaneously. For the blue lines, it would be the stationary frame that would see this.

I find relativity's methodology for solving these problems very clumsy and inelegant even though it eventually arrives at the correct answers. But the assumptions it makes here eventually lead to incorrect answers when it comes time to figure out age difference. Age difference is not digital but analog. The two frames only need a change in velocity, not a complete stop, to establish a partial permanent age difference. Relativity does not accept this because it has a problem between coordinate values and distances between coordinates. This problem prevents the unfolding of the age difference depending on perspective. Relativity gets around this problem by banning any determination on age difference until all the delayed information of a stop is available to both parties. For example if Alice is moving then stops, she would age less than Bob smoothly between the time she stops and the info is relayed to Bob. But in the reverse analysis where Alice is stopped and then takes off after a few years at high speed to catch up with Bob, Bob will initially age less than Alice until Alice's info reaches Bob and only then will she have ultimately aged less than Bob. Relativity does not allow one to look into what's happening during this interval as it's a contradiction of reciprocity. As you shall see, ralfativity does not have these problems and does not ban the data of how age difference progresses during the transition period because reciprocity is preserved. I'd say that's quite a significant improvement not to mention the benefit of much simpler math to determine it.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 29th, 2017, 1:15 am
by ralfcis
Ok so with the last post I feel I have no more unanswered questions about relativity that can come back to bite me. So I'm going to bid it adieu and approach ralfativity with a new found confidence.

First off, there's no need for length contraction to maintain the speed of light constant for all frames. The relativistic combo law does that. Plug any v with c in that formula and the answer is always c. However I will be adding units to the c lines. The c lines will have units like the t' axis but instead of t'=t/Y units, the units will be based on the doppler ratio. which is 1 at 0c, 2/3 at .33c, 1/2 at .6c, 1/3 at .8c and 1/4 at .8824c when there is increasing separation. The ratios are inverted in the approaching direction.

v will no longer be important, it will be replaced by Yv because the stationary frame is no longer important. So .33c is v=c/3, Yv=.35355, Y=1.06066; .6c v=3c/5, Yv=3c/4, Y=5/4; .8c v=4c/5, Yv=4c/3, Y=5/3; .8824c v=15c/17, Yv=15c/8, Y=17/8 The t'-axis will take over from the t -axis but this will be flexible as needed. The last STD will be corrected and presented as an example in the next post.

Since there is no length contraction, there will be no x'-axes in the new STD's. Only proper length will exist as decided by the two participants when they are bor relatively stationary. A network of distributed Ly markers will be set up to take the place of the former clock network. When a ship is near to a marker and it knows the doppler ratio of the other ship, it will be able to determine its motion, something relativity forbids. For example when a ship is near the 3ly marker and it reads the other guy's doppler ratio as 1/2, he'll know he is going .6c and the other guy is stationary. If he was near the .75 ly marker with the same doppler ratio, he'd know both were travelling away from earth at .33c (.6c away from each other). I don't see how a preferred frame is avoidable. Ralfativity does not care about reciprocal analysis where relativity considers the entire universe passing stationary participants because any moving frame choice is as valid as any other so ralfativity chooses the simplest scenario. There is no fear the reverse analysis will affect age difference non-symmetrically. I know, blasphemy!

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 29th, 2017, 2:47 pm
by ralfcis
Ralfativity uses time through the doppler ratio from pure relative velocity to create an ly network of distance markers to create space and a preferred stationary background reference frame. This has arisen from valid relativistic principles even though it now contradicts relativistic principles. Why not take advantage of that to re-define how STD's are drawn. Since there's only 1 perspective we need to consider, the relativity of simultaneity of other perspectives is not important. The light signal x will change as shown in the following STD.


In order to establish when the two participants on the red lines send out their light signals simultaneously from the reference frame perspective, we can calculate using the relativity of simultaneity formula (or the thin red line of present) that Bob has to send his pulse at t=1.6 which will be simultaneous with Alice sending out her pulse at t'=2. Notice I've added units to the light signal lines to show how long and far they travel through the 0c and .6c frames. This addition does not affect the constant value of c in all frames. In relativity, the light signal has no units, it is a unitless constant. Maybe that's what Bangstrom always meant by dimensionless constant?

Let's explore the features of this STD. First you'll notice age difference has not been established. When Alice is 2 she calculates bob is younger at 1.6 and vice versa from Bob's perspective. The light signal from Bob takes 1.2 Alice years (c' units) to reach Alice at t'=3.2. In 1.2 Alice years from t'=2 (simultaneous with t=1.6), Alice travels .9 ly proper distance (none of this length contraction stuff here). Yv uses the t' axis and with v=.6c, Yv = .75c. .75c = x/t' = .9/1.2 =.75c so everything matches perfectly in this new theory. The start of the light signals was calculated to be simultaneous from the reference frame perspective and the end of the signals is also simultaneous from that perspective (t=4 and t'=3.2). Using the formula t=Yt', we can see the 1.5 yrs Bob has aged is equivalent to the 1.2 yrs Alice has aged so no age difference has occurred between the two even though Bob was apparently younger than Alice when the signals were sent and older when they were received. This is just reciprocity in action and says nothing about age difference.

In the next post we will adjust the blue lines to fit in with ralfativity because there still remains the problem that at t'=2 for the right red line, the proper distance traveled is 1.5ly. The distance between the two blue t'=2's is 1.414 ly which is a little short because the blue lines are still using length contraction and v instead of Yv. Anyway, stay tuned.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 30th, 2017, 11:28 am
by ralfcis
Rough night last night as I worked on my proof that the red and blue versions of .6c must have the same distance separation at t'=2. I even came up with a math trick to prove it.


You can see t'=2 of .33c corresponds to t=2.1213 which goes up the hyperbolic line to t'=2.1213 which coincides to x=.75 which is half of x=1.5 at .6c. Luckily this has no significance because if it did it would disprove ralfativity, not support it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the non-linear relativistic velocity combo formula would lead to linear behavior in the distance separation. .33c is not half of .6c so why should the distances at .33c be half of the distances at .6c even though two .33c's yield a .6c relative velocity.

The ralfativity universe is created from two traveling atomic clock ships on a grey background who knew nothing of each other's existence until they saw each other's transmissions which allowed them to establish doppler ratios. These allowed them to calculate their relative velocity. When one made a change, the other would note the time it took for that change to manifest itself as a change in his doppler ratio giving him a proper distance reading between the two when the change was initiated from a doppler ratio of 1 indicating the stationary reference frame.

So with a proper space established in this way, the different combinations of relative velocity overlaid on this background would mean you would be able to determine what is your speed contribution to the relative velocity. If you're at the 1.5 ly marker and your doppler ratio is 1/2 of another ship's, you know you're going at .6c relative to the other ship which is in the stationary frame. The same doppler ratio at the .707 ly marker would mean you are both travelling away from each other at .6c but each individual velocity would be .33c from the reference frame. The key here is if you were at the .75ly marker and seeing this doppler ratio, you would be traveling .6c relative to a ship in the stationary frame. The distance markers and doppler ratios work to give you an absolute speed relative to the reference frame out of a relative velocity.

Ok sounds too simple, I must have made a mistake somewhere. It's probably the same mistake I've been making through all my iterations of ralfativity because I always arrive at the same conclusions. I just can't see the mistake.

Ok, I have an idea to test the math. I have never been able to seamlessly construct an Epstein STD from a Minkowski. As you may know, the conversion between one and the other is a simple swap between the t and t' axes. All the lines on an STD should easily rubber-band around this swap but they get hopelessly tangled. Maybe with my new knowledge, the conversion can go smoothly this time.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 31st, 2017, 8:53 am
by ralfcis
While working on my Minkowski to Epstein conversion, I finally saw the "mistake" I was making all these years. It turns out the mistake is resolved in the first principle of ralfativity and is caused by one of the first principles of relativity. There are two realities: the one we can't see until after post-processing the delay of information and the other we experience in our present as the information is reaching us in real time. The STD is a map of stored information created by velocity and separation. That information only becomes real once it overcomes the propagation delay. Then people start comparing info on the STD at the same time when there are all kinds of layers of time that are not comparable. This is why Prof Brian Greene came up with his interpretation that the past, present and future were all equally concurrent. It's because he was reading the charts with that wrong interpretation.

As I showed in my last STD, knowing each individual's share of the relative velocity does not determine age difference (it does so only when the 2nd principle of relativity kicks in during the time a change in relative velocity is made and propagates to the other party). Relativity's big mistake was in the assumption that actually knowing who's moving contradicts reciprocity which it clearly does not as I've shown in my STD.

As I said years ago, relativity can be likened to a VCR. There is record and playback. Velocity and separation create the record speed. They also create a playback speed and the two can be quite different as can be seen once Alice turns around. Her record speed is c/Y but her playback speed was 1/2 normal time rate separating and double fast forward returning. A true reckoning can only happen once all the information has been collected but there should be no barrier to calculating what that information will be ahead of time assuming no further changes. There should also be no barrier to including past information into a subsequent change. Relativity does not make this call because an incomplete spacetime path is not valid. This is opposite to ralfativity, there are no paradoxes in comparing things that happen at different times.

Ok, I'll continue with the Epstein conversion and then hit the 2nd principle of ralfativity, how relative aging unfolds.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: December 31st, 2017, 8:25 pm
by ralfcis
I meant how age difference unfolds not relative aging unfolds.

Ok here goes, I'm going to convert the following Minkowski STD into an Epstein STD on a proper space stationary reference frame (meaning x'-axes and length contraction are verboten).


We're going to construct this very slowly as it's easy to make a mistake. First the grid:


Notice the purple t-axis has been exchanged with the red t'-axis but the Bob and Alice labels remain where they were. This is because Bob is still stationary and Alice is now moving but the slope of her velocity line is no longer 1/v but is 1/(Yv). In the Epstein STD she is traveling Yv=.75c.

The green hyperbolic line that joins all points at proper time =2 for all velocities is now circular representing a pythagorian sum of squares rather than a subtraction of squares. The lines are properly time labelled the same way they were in the Minkowski STD. Now the trick is to draw the rest of the lines with their ends in the right place.

Ok, hours later I've finally reached the end and the conversion should be an Olympic sport because it requires mental gymnastics on a level I've never seen before. The next step is each line needs to be labelled with both t and t' labels. At that point the ends of lines A-E can be attached.


Minkowski lightline D is 1.5 ly/yr travelling through the stationary frame and lightline E is 2.4ly/yr multiplied by the doppler ratio at .6c of 1/2 which normalizes to 1.2 ly/yr in the .6c timeframe. The corresponding lines in the Epstein STD require further massaging to make sense.

The Epstein D line is 1.2 ly which translates via t=Yt' to 1.5ly through the stationary frame. It appears all time corresponds to the .6c frame (the t' values need to be converted to give the corresponding t values) in the Epstein STD. The Epstein E line is treated the same as the Minkowski E line. It travels 1.2y after the doppler ratio correction which corresponds to the 1.2 y Alice travels through the .6c frame. The distance of .9ly Alice subsequently travels is the same in both STD's.

Now that I understand how to convert between the two STD's, I find the Epstein version too difficult to keep straight in my mind. It's of no real use in my opinion since the Minkowski is much easier to understand.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0 age difference

PostPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 12:03 pm
by ralfcis
Here is the STD of Alice going out and returning to Bob at .6c.


The pink line is the Alice's light signal from the transition point tp and the yellow line is Bob's signal to Alice. On the Alice .6c side each line takes 1.5 yrs to propagate but on Bob's side in his stationary years each line takes 3 yrs to propagate. The doppler ratio = 1/2 at .6c and the speed of light is seen as 1yr/ly from both perspectives, it's just the units on the light lines change.

In the major triangular areas above the pink line and below the yellow line, NO age difference is occurring between Bob and Alice because their doppler ratios tell them they're both traveling at .6c relative velocity. In the yellow triangular area you can see the doppler ratio is 1/2 (.6c separating) from both Alice's and Bob's perspectives where Alice sees Bob's TV signal containing two years of content spread out over Alice's 4 yrs. So the time rate of the TV signal is 1/2 speed slow motion. The dotted pink line from Alice to Bob shows Bob also sees Alice's TV signal containing two years of content spread out over Bob's 4 yrs. They are therefore seeing each other at .6c relative velocity and no age difference occurs when in constant relative motion.

In the top triangular area the doppler ratio is 2 (.6c approaching) and again NO age difference occurs after Bob t=8. Bob and Alice will both see the time rate of the TV signal at double speed fast forward. This does not mean Bob and Alice are travelling through time at double the rate, they are going at normal rate within their own frames of reference.

According to relativity's rules, the age difference determination cannot occur before Bob t=10 when Bob and Alice reunite. Relativity's rules need to change because it is not the physical co-location of the participant's clocks but the clock info co-location that determines age difference which can be determined 2 yrs in advance of relativity's determination.

The lower thin red line is Alice's line of present at .6c. It is drawn to show Bob when he should send his light signal such that it intersects the transition point when Alice gets there. In Alice's time frame, the light signal travels 1.5 yrs. It started when Alice was 2.5 yrs her time and she also travels a further 1.5 yrs her time to meet the light signal at the tp. You won't get this kind of straight forward analysis from anyone else. I know, I've tried.

From the tp, Alice relays the info back to Bob which takes 3 yrs to get to him at the end point te=8. Remember, all age difference has been settled for both halves of Alice's journey even though the 2nd half is not over yet.

Let's do a quick check to verify everything is copacetic up to this point. The two light signals have taken 6 Bob yrs starting at t=2 to reach this point te=8 so everything adds up here (6+2=8). Alice's clock info may be co-located with Bob's but how much has Alice aged in her years by the time their info co-locates? She was 4 at the start of her light pulse and it took 1.5 of her yrs to reach Bob so she has traveled an additional 1.5 of her years ending up at t'=5.5. Here's the important part to remember: just because 5.5 and 8 share the same line of present doesn't mean they're sharing the same present. They can't be because there's distance between them. The fact Alice is 5.5 and Bob is 8 does not mean Alice is 2.5 yrs younger than Bob when the info co-locates. The true calculation of age difference and how it unfurls year by year after the transition point tp to the end point te will continue in subsequent posts. Hint, it's the large central triangle where all the age difference action happens between tp and te (the transition and end points).

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 3:25 pm
by phyti

As soon as the objects are separated, there is a delay of information between them.

A and B are each located at the apex of their personal light cone.

Through post processing we would be able to determine that the sun had actually disappeared 8 minutes ago and that was the actual reality that we could not determine in the present moment. So what is reality, what happened 8 minutes ago and 8 minutes later

Yes, perception is always historical or after the fact. Notice Einstein defines the 'time' of a primary event e1 as the awareness/perception of event e1, which is itself a secondary event e2. The time of e1 requires knowing the light distance to e1. For local events, there is no significant difference, but not so for astronomical distances.

The time between Alice's speed change and the delay of that info reaching Bob is a breach of reality just like in the sun disappearing example. There must be a conservation of relative velocity and this is manifested by a permanent age difference between Bob and Alice that unfolds during the information delay time.

That is reality. You can't be aware of an event until after it happens, and how much after depends on the spatial separation. While A and B are moving at constant velocities, there is no aging difference, since clock rates are reciprocal. Permanent age difference requires a comparison at a common location.
Now that I understand how to convert between the two STD's, I find the Epstein version too difficult to keep straight in my mind. It's of no real use in my opinion since the Minkowski is much easier to understand.

I'm glad you discovered it yourself, since it's much more difficult to convince someone.
In your effort to invent a new version of SR, you are using gamma. That is the single factor based on the independency of light speed from moving matter, distinguishing SR from Newtonian physics. Your theory is therefore SR with a different label.
Brian Greene promotes the idea of moving in time, which is the basis for the Loedel and other variants.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 6th, 2018, 12:27 am
by ralfcis
Between Bob's times from t=2 to t=8, Bob thinks he's engaged in a .6c relative velocity with Alice. Only Alice knows what's going on because she initiated the change in velocity and she can see the immediate change in her doppler ratio relative to Bob. Bob has to wait until news of the transition reaches him at t=8.


The pink line from t'=4 (the transition point tp) takes 3 Bob years or 1.5 Alice years to reach Bob so Alice ages from 4 to 5.5 yrs. Her line of present at t'=5.5 intersects Bob at t=8. So Alice is 2.5 of her years younger than Bob in her years which converts to 2 Bob years younger that Bob. This is the correct answer 2 years before relativity can arrive at the same answer. But how does it unfurl?

We need to work backwards from t=8. We know the light signal from t'=4 took 3 Bob years to propagate which means Bob was t=5 when Alice was t'=4. We can see from Bob's yellow light line at t=3.2 that Alice aged from t'=4 to t'=4.6 (.6 of her years) when Bob aged from t=2 to t=3.2 1(.2 of his years). Similarly we can see when Bob aged from t=3.2 to t=5 (1.8 Bob years), Alice aged t'= 4.6 to t'=5.5 (.9 of her years).

Now let's use this data to reconstruct Bob and Alice's aging from t=2 where the light signal from Bob reaches Alice at t'=4 and Alice ages from t'=2.5 to 4 while Bob ages from t=2 to t=5. When Alice ages from t'=4 to t'=4.6, Bob ages 1.2 of his years from t=5 to t=6.2. When Alice ages from t'=4.6 to t'=5.5, Bob ages 1.8 of his years from t=6.2 to t=8. This is how the age difference unfurls during the the transition period from t'=4 to t=8. Relativity does not predict this because it forbids looking at it. It forbids looking at it because it would unfurl in a non-reciprocal manner in a change of perspective which would violate reciprocity. (I'm not 100% sure of my last statement because no relativist will commit to how age difference unfurls in relativity because they're not allowed to.) Relativity only cares about the age difference at the end of the spacetime path when t=10 and t'=8. I will show in subsequent posts how ralfativity predicts age difference for a range of velocity changes from c approaching to c accelerating away. The speeds accelerating away do not have or require the transition to cross 0 relative velocity to make a determination of age difference. Maybe if I do enough examples someone will catch on to what I've accomplished here because this is not S.R. as some here think.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 6th, 2018, 8:34 am
by ralfcis
Some of you may be asking how it's possible that age difference begins before the transition point and ends 2 Bob years before Alice re-unites with Bob. Is there some sort of premonition of the future going on as Prof Brian Greene surmises?

No, the theory of ralfativity is based on two realities, two presents. There's the present we can't see and can only deduce through post-processing (go back to the example of the sun being plucked from the solar system). Then there's the present reality we experience once the delayed info from the first reality reaches us.

At t' = 2.5 (t=2) Alice sends out a signal to Bob that reaches him at t=5 that convinces him that he is still engaged with Alice in a .6c separating relative velocity even though his true reality for the past 3 years is not so. His perception of reality must wait until the info reaches him. The STD is not 2-dimensional, it is 3 dimensional and what looks like things sharing the same present are actually sharing 2 presents at different times.

The next example will have Alice continue separating at .6c after t'=4 proving there will be no age difference before or after the transition point using ralfativity. Then we will go through the example of making Alice stationary and Bob moving. Ralfativity will have no difference in how age difference unfurls which is not true for relativity (if you break the rules and try to look under the covers which relativity suspiciously forbids).

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 6th, 2018, 11:41 am
by ralfcis
Here's the STD where no change is made at the transition point so no age difference occurs. A frame that is aging the same rate as the other will count his number of proper years to be the same number of dilated years he sees in the other frame. For example, the dilated year is .8 of the proper year from both perspectives. So when Bob is t=5, his line of present aligns with Alice t'=4 which is 5 dliated years (5 * .8 = 4). Reciprocally when Alice t'=5, her line of present aligns with Bob t=4 which is also 5 dilated years (5* .8 =4).


Notice how each light line has 2 number attached to it. One side is the number of years the light travels through the .6c frame and the larger number for the stationary frame. This completely eliminates the false need for length contraction and keeps the speed of light the same for all frames.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 6th, 2018, 8:04 pm
by ralfcis
Before I go onto the relativity shattering example of the reverse analysis of .6c return trip, I decided to quickly do the example of Alice stopping wrt Bob at t'=4.


The world's chief scientainer on relativity, Prof Brian Greene would say the age difference is instantaneously established by the swing in Alice's present line to horizontal. He would show all present lines between Bob and Alice show Alice has aged 1 yr less than Bob in all cases past t'=4. This is the kind of malarkey that has brought up generations of confused relativists for over a century. If you apply the same reasoning as was presented in the .6c return trip example for ralfativity, you will get the correct answer how age difference unfurls and when the difference in aging ends. I'll just copy and paste it here with the necessary corrections in red.

The pink line from t'=4 (the transition point tp) takes 3 Bob years or 3 Alice years to reach Bob so Alice ages from 4 to 7 yrs. Her line of present at t'=7 intersects Bob at t=8. So Alice is 1 of her years younger than Bob in her years which converts to 1 Bob years younger that Bob since they are both in the 0 relative velocity frame.. This is the correct answer at the same time relativity arrives at the same answer notwithstanding Brian Greene's ridiculous analysis. But how does it unfurl?

We need to work backwards from t=8. We know the light signal from t'=4 took 3 Bob years to propagate which means Bob was t=5 when Alice was t'=4. We can see from Bob's yellow light line at t=3.2 that Alice aged from t'=4 to t'=5.2 (1.2 of her years) when Bob aged from t=2 to t=3.2 (1.2 of his years). Similarly we can see when Bob aged from t=3.2 to t=5 (1.8 Bob years), Alice aged t'= 5.2 to 7 (1.8 of her years).

Now let's use this data to reconstruct Bob and Alice's aging from t=2 where the light signal from Bob reaches Alice at t'=4 and Alice ages from t'=2.5 to 4 while Bob ages from t=2 to t=5. When Alice ages from t'=4 to t'=5.2, Bob ages 1.2 of his years from t=5 to t=6.2. When Alice ages from t'=5.2 to 7, Bob ages 1.8 of his years from t=6.2 to t=8. This is how the age difference unfurls during the the transition period from t'=4 to t=8. Relativity only cares about the age difference at the end of the spacetime path when t=8. Ralfatity, for once agrees with this end result but would probably disagree with how relativiy would unfurl it if that info was available to be seen.

Unfortunately I don't know when I'll have the time to continue with this as I must spend some time looking for a job. Fortunately my ex-boss just handed me an extra $2000 2 months after he fired me. Don't know why.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 8th, 2018, 2:34 pm
by ralfcis
I just had an epiphany and I need to write it down and investigate it later when I have time. You know how I'm always comparing relativity to a VCR. I've established that the playback speed of the delayed (stored ) info is the doppler ratio but I've never established the record speed. I think the answer is 1/Y.

So, for example, at .8824 c separating, Y=2.125 and the doppler ratio is 1/4. This means Bob and Alice are seeing each others TV images at 1/4 slow motion but the speed of the information being stored is a little slower than 1/2 speed. That means the playback is lagging the speed of the information storage. If Alice turns around at that speed, the doppler ratio becomes 4 so they're seeing the playback of the stored info at quadruple fast forward of the normal rate of time. The record speed remains the same throughout the journey. So when all the stored info is played back, the result must be the age difference.

This also has implications on the meaning of time dilation. Equivalent aging might mean defining matching years as to how much time it takes the observer to record the info from the others year. For example, at .6c, Bob and Alice take 1.25 years to record a year's info from each other and 2 years to get the playback of that info when they're separating. So Bob's 5 years has a 4 yr age equivalence to Alice's years. When that ratio is disturbed, an age difference results. This would make it easier to calculate age difference as it happens.

Sounds neat but I'll have to prove it actually works.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 11th, 2018, 7:15 pm
by ralfcis
Ok I'm going to have to introduce a non-relativistic term, it's called an equivalent year. If Alice ages 1 year in her proper frame, Bob's equivalent year is Alice's year/Y. So Bob's equivalent year multiplied by Y is equivalent to 1 Alice year. So at .6c relative velocity, Bob's equivalent year is .8 Bob years.

From Alice's perspective at .6c, her line of present at 1 Alice year intersects Bob's vertical t axis at .8. So long as Alice's lines of present at every Alice year intersect Bob's t-axis at multiples of .8, Bob and Alice are not aging differently. So when Alice has aged 4 years, her line of present must intersect Bob's t-axis at t=3.2 for there to be no age difference between them. The same rules apply from Bob's perspective of Alice.

I do not yet understand the physical significance of this. If we draw a neutral observer going at .33c between Bob and Alice, the STD shows that his lines of present have Bob and Alice both aging 1yr for each line of present at .33c. Here is the STD:


The green lines are the lines of present for the observer going at .33c. Bob's equivalent years match his and Alice's years from this perspective. The red lines are Alice's line of present from her perspective. (Bob's lines of present would be horizontal lines from each of his years.) Bob's proper years are in blue on the t=axis and his equivalent years are in red. It looks like Alice is repacketizing Bob's years into .8yr packets but I don't yet understand what this means. Maybe the next post will jog something.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 11th, 2018, 8:41 pm
by ralfcis
The red line of present joining Alice =1 and Bob = .8 is not something we can experience in the present. It can only be determined through calculation and post processing just like the sun being plucked from the center of our solar system can only be determined as earth is being flung out into space. There would be no 8 minute warning of what would happen when our delayed present results from the hidden present.


So Bob's proper distance markers take the place of relativity's universal network of sync'd Bob clocks. Bob and Alice both know their relative velocity is .6c because both can see each others transmitted clock rate is received at half the speed of their proper clock rates. Bob knows n advance that if Alice transmits a pink light signal at t'=1, Bob has to send out a yellow light signal at t=.8 for the light signals to be simultaneous from Alice's perspective. She won't see Bob's signal until she travels .6 of her years.

Instead of introducing that messy concept of length contraction to maintain constant c for all frames, ralfativity manipulates a constant c using the doppler ratio. Bob's light pulse covers 1.2 ly in 1 yr and because the doppler ratio of a stationary frame is 1, his result is not modified. Alice's doppler ratio is 1/2 so this is used to allow the same light pulse in her frame to cover the same distance in half the time which is 2c multiplied by the doppler ratio normalizes to c in her frame. I'm sure there's a good explanation for this that correlates with relativity's use of length contraction to fudge the results in the same way.

Alice's pink light line also has 2 values attached to it. On the Bob side there is no fudging required. Alice's signal travels .75 ly in .75 yrs which provides the answer Bob was 1.25 when Alice was 1. On the Alice side, the fudge factor is .75 divided by Y resulting that from her perspective, her light pulse travelled .6 Alice years. (I'm sure there is a logical explanation for this as well.) This matches the .6yrs she travelled after she shone her light.

Sure, right now I'm a little light on the deeper understanding of the physical significance of why this all works out but let's face it, relativity presented no physical significance behind it's math.

Re: Ralfativity 2.0

PostPosted: January 12th, 2018, 10:39 am
by ralfcis
Ok, I've figured out some parts this morning. The previous discussion showed how a line of present from Alice's perspective can convert into a horizontal line of present from Bob's perspective. But there are apparent mysteries. The .33c perspective shows no missing time between Alice and Bob as Alice and Bob age at the same rate year for year. But from Alice's perspective, Bob ages .2 Bob years less for every year Alice ages and from Bob's perspective, Alice ages .2 Alice years less for every year Bob ages. How are things falling behind in these 2 perspectives but not falling behind in the .33c perspective?

There's also another mystery. Alice shares 2 lines of present, depending on perspective, with Bob. When Bob is 1.25, Alice shares a hidden present with Bob when she's 1. But she also shares a hidden present, from her perspective, where Bob is .8. Now how can Bob be both 1.25 and .8 when Alice is 1 in both cases? The answer in in the fact that the hidden present is actually an instantaneous present. If the transfer of information was instantaneous, Alice would be able to read both values on Bob's clocks even one in Bob's past as being simultaneous. It's like if the speed of light was instantaneous, the past present and future would be all concurrent like Brian Greene thinks they are. But they are not.

As soon as there is distance between clocks, they cannot share a present because there is no such thing as instantaneous information transfer. The instantaneous present Alice and Bob share must be converted into real time that takes into account the delay of information transfer between the separated clocks. This implies the instantaneous nature of information transfer in the hidden present is not real and neither is the hidden present.

So relativity uses the relativity of simultaneity (vx/c) to correct the instantaneous time on Bob's clock from Alice's perspective into what she would read as a result of Bob and her both sending out light pulses simultaneously in the instantaneous present. The relativity of simultaneity for Alice = 1 at .6c results in .45. So you add .45 to Bob's instantaneous simultaneity with Alice and you get the corrected time for Bon as 1.25 when Alice is 1. This happens to be an instantaneous simultaneity Bob has with Alice from his perspective. Now Alice's time has to be corrected to a real time from Bob's perspective. Her time = 1 from Bob's perspective is not the same time=1 from her own perspective. Bob's is separated by distance and there's no such thing as instantaneous information transfer.

This also doesn't mean Bob has aged 1.25 years while Alice has aged only 1. Nope the relativity of simultaneity is composed of two values in ralfativity. The first is the .2 years Bob is short due to Alice's perspective so they can age the same. That lost time is impossible for Alice to see and it builds up over time even though it's invisible so long as they're in constant relative motion.The 2nd value is .25 which is how many Bob years Alice's clock is ahead of Bob's when his present is at t=1. So the corrected time is made up of Y from both perspectives.