## Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

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

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Brian Greene doesn't understand it either, if he omits perception.
Ed is the earth observer. Sam is the ship observer.
Ed's data shows distance to destination is 4 ly, so ETA =4ly/.8c = 5 yrs.
Sam leaves Ed at .8c and arrives in 3 yr ship time.
How does Sam reconcile the difference in time of arrival?
SR predicts motion slows EM processes which includes clocks, and biological time keeping functions. Sam assuming a pseudo rest frame, concludes the destination arrived early as a result of length contraction of the universe, since his sense of time agrees with his clock. This is the reciprocal effect of Ed perceiving a length contracted ship as it speeds away, a requirement of the 'relativity principle'.
phyti
Member

Posts: 74
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Sorry i just got home and there were copious mistakes on the post before last. I'll answer your questions then correct that post. Sorry if someone read it and got confused. It won't affect this discussion though. I'll try to get to all that as soon as possible.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

phyti » October 9th, 2018, 12:20 pm wrote:Brian Greene doesn't understand it either, if he omits perception.

Where has Greene omitted perception?
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Dave I'll answer your question but I'm short on time. Greene pulls a little slight of hand. v=x/t not x/t'. He starts with v=x/t then says how can v=9c when he switches the equation to v= x/t'? That's not v he's really talking about it's v' which is Yv which is x/t'. He's mixing apples and oranges on purpose to confuse people with relativity's blessing. Relativity states v can't be greater than c but since Y can be infinite, v' can be infinite.

All the numbers you want are in the std above but you need to understand what they mean and how to use them with perspective (not easy). v'=x/t' = 4.25/3.19 = 1.333 = Yv =5/3 (.8c)

Alice covers Bob's proper distance of 4.25 in 3.19 yrs her time. v does not equal 1.333 c, v' does.

The slope of Alice's line is 1/v' from her perspective and 1/v from Bob's. Please divide Bob's length units over Bob's time units to get .8c but do the same for Alice's t' axis. Divide Bob's length units over Alice's red numbered time units and you'll see a 1/v' slope where v'=1.3333c.

Jeez I hope I didn't make a mistake. At least this post cleared up the errors I made 2 posts ago.

I don't use the length contraction (black lines) but from Bob's perspective at 4.25 of his ly, Alice has to travel 2.55 of her ly in her time of 3.19 yrs. v =x/t = Yx/Yt = x'/t' = 2.55/3.19 = .8c.

Alice's perspective of Bob's space (not what I do) x'=Yx" so x"=x'/Y = 2.55/(5/3) =1.53. From Alice's perspective, Bob's distance is 1.53 ly not 4.25 ly. So from Bob's perspective for Alice to travel the length contracted distance of 1.53 ly at .8c, she'll only take 1.91 bob yrs. That's the answers you're looking for.

Or you can forego all that length contraction stuff and just say from Alice's perspective of Bob's perspective when he's at t=5.31, she's at t'=3.19 and t'=Yt" so t" =t'/Y =3.19/(5/3) = 1.91 yrs. Working backwards, v"=x'/t" . v" is Yv throughout just like v is .8c for every homogenous perspective. So 1.33=x'/1.91. x' =2.55. v=x'/t' so .8c=2.55/t' so t'= 3.19. Work backwards one more layer and v'=x/t' so 1.33=x/3.19 so x= 4.25.

Alice , from her perspective takes 1.91 bob yrs to travel her and Bob's shared proper space of 4.25 ly.

Getting rid of Alice's contracted space and using only Bobs will change the lorentz transformation formulas from what they are for relativity but so what, new formulas. Please don't ask me to work them out as a further test because I never use the current ones, I just use STDs.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf,

You earlier said:

ralfcis wrote:If my theory does not give the same answer as relativity in every scenario, then my theory is wrong.

Well, the following statement in bold contradicts relativity, does it not?

ralfcis » October 9th, 2018, 5:42 pm wrote:Alice's speed can never go above c even though in her frame she's seeing the distance markers pass by her at greater than c.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1115
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Nope as I explained v=x/t and v'=Yv. They are not the same thing. Only v is not allowed to exceed c. Greene is mixing perspectives and is then surprised those numbers don't match the velocity numbers when you don't mix perspectives. Relativity is a perspectator sport where perspective is everything. My numbers match relativity's numbers perfectly here, Greene just doesn't know what they mean. For every x,t,v and c there's a corresponding perspective x', t', v' and even c' for relatively moving frames depicted on an std. Relativity doesn't agree because it chose to force a marriage between time dilation and non-existent length contraction over perspective. Why? because Lorentz came up with length contraction so it was baggage Einstein inherited and didn't question because it would have been harder to sell his theory. The same trouble I'm now having. Getting rid of length contraction would cause a big rift in the current scientific dogma that space and time are the same thing. The fact that there's a permanent form of time dilation called age difference and there's no permanent form of length contraction that survives once the relative velocity is gone is proof that they're not the same thing. Sorry Don Lincoln.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

But this is not just a question of numbers, symbols and diagrams; it is a question of empirical fact. We are talking about what Alice actually sees. If ralfativity says she sees things passing her at more than c, and relativity says she does not, that is a direct contradiction, and can in principle be resolved by experiment. One of the two theories must be objectively false, not just methodologically inferior.

Just to be clear: are you using the word "perspective" to correspond with "frame"?
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1115
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

perspective is frame.

Relativity says she can't see those markers passing faster than c if you don't mix perspectives. I believe relativity also knows there's no such thing as length contraction so she's not going to see it outside her window. If she does then where is my argument wrong. It shows you can use time dilation instead of length contraction in all cases to solve relativistic problems. And that the two can't be used concurrently from the same perspective. So using time dilation, she would see no length contraction. As I said they were laid in the 0v frame and the messages from those beacons can't be affected by length contraction. There's a difference between objectively false and creating constructs that everyone should know are not real. The problem lies not in the relativistic facts but in the way the theory explains them.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Consider the permanent effects of general relativity (which I'm not familiar with so correct me if I'm wrong). Space is actually shrunk and not just in the length direction. I don't believe you're pancaked onto the surface of a black hole with your height and width intact, you're crushed from all sides. And you would be permanently crushed if you could somehow be removed from the surface by Hawking radiation or something. Now that is permanent physical contraction that SR just doesn't provide.

Time in a black hole is also permanent age difference, there is no reciprocal time dilation. As soon as you enter the hole, you age slower and you don't reciprocally see the outside universe age slower. When you emerge, you will have permanently aged less. These GR effects, which some try to port into SR, do not fit with SR even though SR is a special case of GR.

These are just opinions, I have no idea if they're facts or not.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Still no takers? I think my kung fu is pretty strong.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is alice's perspective of the outside frame is time dilation and not length contraction. (Technically speaking it's time contraction from Bob's perspective through Alice's perspective.) The physical manifestation is seen as the passing of outside distance markers at a speed greater than c because she's using her time and Bob's space which is a mix of perspectives. When you mix perspectives in a formula for velocity (v=x/t) it's no longer velocity, it's what I like to call gamma v, it's v' =x/t'. Within her own frame, she sees her time passing normally in a normal space. She is going 0c through space in that frame and c through time.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Also, to illustrate the power of gamma v to topple relativistic constructs, you should go back and read my thread on E=mc2. The derivation was a fluke from a mistaken assumption that gamma should be grouped with m instead of v in relativistic momentum as can be seen in Greene's video.

That formula had nothing to do, at its inception, with the equivalence of energy and matter. Einstein hijacked the word "mass" to make it mean both energy and matter and if it means the same thing as both, there's no conversion. E=hf is a formula about the conversion of energy to matter. It's a fluke that E=mc2 did actually relate energy to matter and that was realized by Lise Meitner decades later. Guessing the correct answer is not the same thing as knowing the correct answer.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I'm sorry, ralf, but none of what you are saying here makes sense to me.

ralfcis » October 10th, 2018, 2:05 pm wrote:I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is alice's perspective of the outside frame is time dilation and not length contraction.

Well, we will have to disagree here. I would bet a large sum of money that Alice does see length contraction.
ralfcis wrote:(Technically speaking it's time contraction from Bob's perspective through Alice's perspective.)

I don't understand this. The only two frames are Alice's (in which she is stationary, and Bob and the earth are moving) and Bob's (in which Alice is moving, and he and the earth are stationary). When Alice observes space and the distance markers, she is doing so in her frame (not a "mixture" of frames), and in her frame they are moving.

ralfcis wrote:The physical manifestation is seen as the passing of outside distance markers at a speed greater than c

I think experiment would prove this wrong.

ralfcis wrote:She is going 0c through space in that frame

She is "going at 0c" in her own frame, and she is "going through space" in Bob's frame (which she can refer to). But she is not "going at 0c through space" - that is loose terminology, and contradictory. In any perspective in which you are going "at 0c", you are not going "through" anything (though things may be going "past" you).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1115
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

You think experiment would prove me wrong? Such an experiment isn't possible. So how are you going to get proof of what alice sees outside her window. Look at Greene's videos and everything any relativist would tell you, length contraction doesn't really happen on a physical level (outside of wiki). I had high hopes for you Positor. You were the 1st who recognized I wasn't an absolutist. I thought at least you'd use reason for your counter arguments instead of belief.

Alice is going at 0c through space relative to her frame. You really think that's wrong. That's like one of the 1st lessons in relativity.

Last edited by ralfcis on October 10th, 2018, 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Er ... Don Lincoln posts here???
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Not any more but he did chime in when the site changed ownership. I tried to sell him on ralfativity but he wouldn't even take it for a test drive; something about my views on length contraction.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Oh, I just saw Expert Notes for the first time, but it appears a bit dated ... Can we get Lincoln back???
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

ralfcis » October 10th, 2018, 9:01 am wrote:I tried to sell him on ralfativity but he wouldn't even take it for a test drive...

Boy, there's a shock!
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

So I thought I sold you on it based on me providing you with 2 numbers? I guess my last hope is convincing Biv. No Don won't be coming back to this math-free, algebra-averse website. Maybe discussions centering on 4-vector light cones might entice him.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

davidm » October 10th, 2018, 7:59 am wrote:Er ... Don Lincoln posts here???

He left a while back, seeking "more eyeballs" on anything he posts. And I believe there were considerable demands on his time at FermiLab, the LHC, and his various book projects. It was nice to have a real expert while we had one. Jorrie is also on an extended hiatus, but does reappear now and then.

TheVat

Posts: 7322
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
 davidm liked this post

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

ralfcis » October 10th, 2018, 7:52 am wrote:You think experiment would prove me wrong? Such an experiment isn't possible....

Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.

Both relativistic mass increase and density increase can be reliably inferred from collision data.

TheVat

Posts: 7322
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Alice is going at 0c through space relative to her frame. You really think that's wrong. That's like one of the 1st lessons in relativity.

You are falsely describing Positor's point, which is that it's rather redundant to say that someone has zero velocity "relative to their frame." The meaning of an inertial frame of reference is one in which you are defined as stationary. You are not moving, through space or through lime jello, in your inertial FoR.

TheVat

Posts: 7322
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Also from Richard Muller, physics prof:

Length contraction is a real contraction.

I’ve seen in in my own lab, in which a proton moving at very high velocity clearly shows its pancake shape. (We don’t see this directly, but we can tell from the way the particle scatters that it is contracted.)

The length contraction is not a visual thing; it is not an illusion; it is a real contraction.

In the rest frame of the object, called its “proper frame”, the object is not moving (it has zero velocity) and it has its original length L.

In a different frame, say the “laboratory frame”, in which the object is moving with velocity v, it has a shorter length. That’s the length contraction, often called the “Lorentz contraction”.

Some people will argue that its “true” length is still L. But a consistent use of that use of language would conclude that no object is moving, since in its proper frame its velocity is always zero. If you insist that all objects have their rest length, then why not be consistent and say that all objects have their rest velocity?

For a moving object, you measure its length by noting the position of the two ends simultaneously, and then you calculate the length of the object as the distance between those two points. Since the concept of simultaneity depends on the reference frame, so will the length that you obtain. An object has many lengths, just as it has many velocities, one for each reference frame you use.
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I included an allusion to that in my opening statements. That's Feynman. He stated it's easier for the quarks to hit when they stick out like blueberries in pancakes. Facts are they supposedly get flattened also so that argument falls apart as so many others do that claim "can only be explained when". Just look at the many worlds theory. It's chock full of "can only be explained when" statements. Relativistic mass isn't an increase in matter, it's an increase in energy like the increase in energy you put into it to gain energy (aka mass). The momentum is increased by Yv, not Ym.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

You're not moving through your space but you are always moving at c through time in your inertial frame. Positor said she is moving through space. She's moving through Bob's space but not through her own space. I assume he thinks moving through space means her own space which is part of space. Statements need to explicitly define from which perspective.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 10th, 2018, 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Dave that argument is so full of holes I'd prefer patching my walls over responding to that and I'm all out of plaster. When you use a clock to measure length and it's dilating then your measuring tool is causing the results. That spray thing isn't a proof because there maybe other valid explanations for it that he chose not to mention.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 10th, 2018, 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I'm starting to lose hope on making a sale when I have to explain the differences between the wheels and steering wheels.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

ralfcis » October 10th, 2018, 8:44 am wrote:You're not moving through your space but you are always moving at c through time in your inertial frame.

So? I mean, yeah, sure. I think everyone here knows how the 4-vector works.

TheVat

Posts: 7322
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I added more words but no light cones. If I've misrepresented Positor, I'll apologize to him for what I've put his family through.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 10th, 2018, 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Now i have to go out and test Fladdles 4.0. The 1st 3 Fladdle designs didn't cut the mustard.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013