## Ralfativity 2.0 examples

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

### Ralfativity 2.0 examples

I'm going to move all my examples supporting Ralfativity 2.0 into this thread. Remember, no one is holding a gun to your head to read this thread, the time you may or may not waste will be entirely your own. Same goes for any time you may feel I'm wasting. I will be transferring my examples from the Physics Forum into this thread in one post which you may have already read in the physics forum.
ralfcis
Active Member

Posts: 1022
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0 examples

Ok, let's start again with the simplest scenario just plain old .6c relative velocity between Bob and Alice. If you like symmetry, I could draw it as both Bob and Alice leaving the earth at .33c but I won't. I'll stick with relativity's convention of one being stationary and the other moving and when they reverse roles. However I have seen some texts with the earth as a background stationary frame and either Bob or Alice is attached to the stationary frame. This is wrong. When Bob is stationary with the earth, the reverse analysis should have both Bob and the earth moving away from a new stationary frame Alice creates in empty space. Here is the STD drawn in relativity style:

Bob's lines of present are blue horizontal and Alice's are slanted red. They are just indicators of reciprocal time dilation, depending on whose perspective you adopt. If you drew a .33c observer's line, he would see both Alice's and Bob's lines of present overlap and Bob and Alice's years at both ends of these lines would be the same number from the .33c perspective. I can't see how these lines have anything to do with age.When Bob is 4, Alice is not 3.2, she's only that from Bob's perspective using his line of present.

To avoid confusion when I just want to determine age difference, I add another set of labels on the t-axis of Bob's equivalent years to Alice. This sets a baseline for me to tell if Bob and Alice are no longer aging at the same rate. So long as they are at the same relative velocity, they are. This is not anti-relativity, it is not a convention, it's just a method to allow me to keep track of no age difference and age difference when it happens. Here is that STD:

Next we'll study the scenario of when Alice stops followed by when Bob stops.

Here is relativity's STD of Alice stopping at t'=4:

Before t'=4 there could have been no age difference between Bob and Alice because there was no difference in their relative velocity. However, those who misinterpret time dilation as age difference will say that Alice was either potentially aging 1/4 yr per yr less than Bob and Bob was also potentially aging 1/4 yr per yr less than Alice. No way for relativity to determine which is true so far as permanent age difference goes.

Bob during the transition delay (the 3 yrs it takes the pink line from Alice saying she has changed her relative velocity wrt Bob to 0c) still reads Alice's doppler ratio from Alice as 1/2 so he still thinks his relative velocity is .6c unchanged. So he still thinks his equivalent yrs are matching Alice's year for yr and no age difference is occurring.
Alice, on the other hand can see Bob's doppler ratio =1 immediately at the start of her transition. Bob will be able to see the same doppler ratio 3 yrs later when they will both agree that their relative velocity is now changed to 0. From then on they will have no further accumulated age difference because they both agree they have the same relative velocity.

But during the transition, relativity cannot make the call on how the age difference accumulated over those 3 yrs. It can only make the call when the pink signal reaches Bob and what was once a reading of reciprocal time dilation becomes a reading of age difference. Bob has aged 8 yrs, Alice has aged 7. My method agrees on the final answer but can also peer into those 3 yrs of indeterminacy to come up with a per yr age difference accumulation between the two. Jorrie believes that my method will be proven a fraud once I do the reverse analysis where Bob and the earth are considered moving and Alice is stationary. We'll see maybe tomorrow as I first have to show what yr by yr results my method calculates.

But first I will continue where I left off, Bob's post processing re-evaluation of the per yr accumulated age difference between him and Alice after he receives her pink signal. Here's the STD again:

Up until t'=4, There was no age difference but until t=8 Bob was still receiving Alice's doppler ratio as 1/2 indicating he was going at .6c relative velocity to her. He would chart his equivalent yrs between Alice's lines of present and conclude no age difference between the two up until t=8. But Alice's info would force Bob to re-calculate Alice's lines of present after t=3.2 (equivalent Bob yr 4). The wider gap between his blue lines now indicates his equivalent yr had changed to a Alice full yr (no time dilation in 0 relative velocity). So at t'=5, the first circle shows a .2yr Bob yr age difference between him and Alice. To undilate that into Alice yrs you multiply that by Y and get Alice has aged .25 yrs less that Bob up to this point.

Similarly, the next year's accumulated difference, represented by the next circle, is a total of .-4 Bob yrs or .-5 Alice yrs which is another .2 yr loss over the last yr. The same goes for the next yr, an accumulated total loss of .6 (.75 Alice yrs) or another .2yr loss per year. Same for the next yr with an accumulated loss of .8 (1 Alice yr) or another .2yr loss per yr.

So far we've done the loss calculation from Alice yrs 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, and 7-8. We've already arrived at the correct tally yet there's another circle on my diagram, what's that all about? It shows the total loss remains the same at .8yrs so the extra per yrs loss is 0 which means this yr does not affect the tally. It would have been another .2yr loss but the pink signal cuts that .2yrs off before it can happen. The last blue slanted line that intersects Alice's pink line is forced to slam down hard horizontal by the pink line telling it to.

So we have a total that matches relativity but we get the added bonus of seeing how that total accumulated during the 3 yrs Alice's signal propagated when there was a relative velocity mismatch. While relativistic math does not prevent the same calculations to be made, relativistic theory does and prohibits them as being indeterminate.

Next up, Bob stops wrt Alice continuing at .6c. And finally Bob stopped and Alice stopped which results in Bob approaching Alice at .6c.
ralfcis
Active Member

Posts: 1022
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0 examples

Jorrie made some points about my method that I'd like to address. A valid one is post processing is not the same as reading the age difference in real time. So I'm going to have Alice file a flight plan with Bob. Bob will send signals to Alice of his real time age at predetermined moments so that his age, after a 3 yr delay, will hit Alice at t'=5, 6, 7. This will allow Alice to have a real time calculation of Bob's age per her year.

I didn't get to finish but the following partial STD shows Alice aging .2 yrs (.25 Alice yrs) less than Bob in the first year IN REAL TIME, not post processed. I'll finish when I have time.
ralfcis
Active Member

Posts: 1022
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 2.0 examples

Here's the STD so far using light signals to determine accumulating age difference in real delayed time. I'll provide the description when I can and fill out the rest of the STD. The point is I'm willing and able to address any concern Jorrie has. It may be pointless from the perspective of convincing anyone here but it isn't pointless as an exploration of the truth. Already hidden facts about relativity were revealed:

1. The half twin paradox is now not valid because for some reason the twins have to meet, it's somehow not enough for them to send light signals from the same 0 relative velocity frame, they must meet so the age difference becomes universal rather than just between the two of them. That's a huge chunk of the theory of relativity that has been hidden up until now and will remain undoubtedly undiscussed now that I'm permanently banned from the physics forum.

2. The hidden math of relativity is calculus, not algebra. Any algebraic proofs without the corresponding calculus are invalid.

3. Any math proof that disproves relativistic caveats, such as you can't determine age difference as it's accumulating, is an automatic disproof of the math, no further discussion is permitted.

4. Any discussion of moving length contraction solely into the time domain is considered a breech of a relativistic caveat and any math proofs that this works are hence automatically disproven.
ralfcis
Active Member

Posts: 1022
Joined: 19 Jun 2013