Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

[TheVat]

If anyone wants some homework, here are three postulates concerning the Minkowski space:

1. The dot product is linear and commutative.
2. The dot product is invariant under (Lorentz) boosts.
3. The metric defining the dot product is independent
of the reference frame.

If you completely understand 2, you are well on your way!

[TheVat]

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)...

Yes, that's what relativistic mass means. It's kinetic energy plus rest mass. Was anyone saying otherwise?

[davidm]

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

What is Fladdles? Is it a synonym for Relfativity? So now we are confronting Relfativity 4.0? :-(

I wonder why you can't see that time dilation entails length contraction, if c is constant. If c is not constant, then there is no time dilation either!

[ralfcis]

So energy contributes to density? Maybe particles pancake on impact. Why would it make a difference if they pancake pre-impact. Also why this apparent support for length contraction being real when you said yourself, "don't take length contraction too literally."

[davidm]

Maybe particles pancake on impact. Why would it make a difference if they pancake pre-impact.

The difference is that pre-impact, they're served with blueberries.

[ralfcis]

Senseless, oh good, partially or totally? Either way I'm sure armed with your obviously prodigious math skills, it would be easy for you to point out which part of the math is senseless. Should be as easy as explaining the meaning of V.I.P. to Homer Simpson. I don't know if you've ever seen that clip. Blueberries, mmmmm.

[TheVat]

So energy contributes to density? Maybe particles pancake on impact. Why would it make a difference if they pancake pre-impact. Also why this apparent support for length contraction being real when you said yourself, "don't take length contraction too literally."

That quote was about the perceptual nature of Lorentz contraction. From a rest frame, a moving object appears to be contracted in the vector of motion, but it's not a physical effect in the same way that compression or cooling is. It's about altering the metric of space. The space doesn't really change. What changes is a relationship between objects when they enter different inertial frames. They begin measuring things differently so that each preserves c as a constant. And that happens because there is no fixed Newtonian backdrop of space. If Newton had been right, then light would propagate through an aether and it's speed would vary depending on everyone's direction of motion and nothing would undergo Fitzgerald contraction unless it was literally compressed by pushing through the viscosity of the aether. That sort of contraction would be objective and seen the same by all observers. Forgive me if you know all this, I'm just clarifying a casual comment I made earlier.

[ralfcis]

Yes and that's the crux of my disagreement with positor. I'm saying Alice's view outside her window, according to relativity, is length contraction. I'm saying her view is (double) time dilation with no length contraction. The velocity she sees is v'= Yv from the mixed perspective of Bob's time being dilated from her perspective and Bob's proper space. It is not v, it is v', so it is not subject to the rules that v<c always and doesn't contradict them.

The speed of c is kept constant not from the ratio of contracted length over dilated time, it is the ratio of Alice's dilated time from Bob's perspective dilating that time again through Alice's perspective. It's double dilated time over proper distance that allows c to be c and still beat alice even though her mixed perspective v'=Yv can be many times c. The STD shows ALice's double dilated time of 1.91 years (it's really equivalent to how length contraction is derived so it should be called time contraction) over 1.53 ly which is Bob's length contraction, is 1/v, or over Bob's proper distance 4.25, is 1/v'. Is she going to look out the window and see proper distance and time contraction (double dilated time) and measure her mixed perspective velocity as 2.25c or will she actually see Bob's length contraction and measure her relative velocity as .8c. She already has her doppler shift ratio on the tv picture from Bob going at 1/3 her clock to do that. Time dilation results are not related because they don't change due to direction and her clock is 3/5 Bob's.

Hard to let this sink in because I'm replacing length contraction with the new concept of time contraction. Everything length contraction guaranteed for c will now be handled solely by time contraction. All relativistic effects can be explained solely from the time domain, space can be invariant. The proof is in what Alice may one day see outside her window. This part of the theory is falsified if you can prove space is not invariant in SR. I know SR's assumption is that it isn't but that does not constitute a proof.

[davidm]

Senseless, oh good, partially or totally? Either way I'm sure armed with your obviously prodigious math skills, it would be easy for you to point out which part of the math is senseless. Should be as easy as explaining the meaning of V.I.P. to Homer Simpson. I don't know if you've ever seen that clip. Blueberries, mmmmm.

Here is the equation as I see it. Note the vital role of Cat Lady, not just Homer:

[davidm]

In your discussion of Bob’s “proper space,” it leads me to wonder if we can write an equation for his improper space. That could be a pretty salacious equation, especially since we will need to take into account not just Alice, but Cat Lady too.

But then, as the old song goes, “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors” — especially when observers in relative motion can’t even agree on when the doors close.

[ralfcis]

Dave keeps asking me to put up or shut up but when I do put up (which is 100% of the time) Dave just ignores it because he doesn't understand basic algebra in either graphical or equation form. But he did recognize numbers in his astute observation that one example had a 12 ly trip and the other had a 5 ly trip so he emphatically stated the examples must be completely different. In actual fact he innately recognized there was some sort of difference in the examples but it was just in the two numbers representing different trip lengths. So he has some sort of feel for numbers and maybe if I talk in numbers it will trigger some sort of understanding within him.

Here is an abstract artwork I drew:

It's called, "Colored Lines with Numbers and Axes." Of course, Dave was already calling it that in his head (although he might not be familiar that axes is the plural of axis). There are 4 axes on this graphic art painting. I'm using MS Paint so it does qualify as a painting. Have I lost anyone so far? Good.

What's cool about this painting is that moving or swapping the time axes will cause the painting to radically alter. Actually Minkowski was the original artist and mine is just a print but just swapping the placement of the t-axis with the t'-axis gets you into the psychedelic world of Epstein. I experimented using Epstein once and although it changed the way I look at the universe, I don't want to go back because no one will ever be able to understand me.

Just moving the axes will get you into the world of Loedel art. Loedel, Minkowski and Epstein all look very different but all must actually bend to the masterworks of Loedel. If the graphical depictions of lines do not match Loedel, notes must appear on the other art forms to comply with Loedel. This notation has never been adhered to or even known (until now).

But enough about art history, let's look at the pretty colors. Oop, there's a bold blue line drawn masterfully almost straight across the page and it has numbers on either end of it joining the two t-axes. It's more like a gash or an assault with a straight razor, a Red Wedding but in blue if you will. What could this possibly mean to the artist and those who can appreciate and interpret his art?

Stay tuned, I don't want to overload you with too much information at once.

[ralfcis]

Most people don't know that the previous painting is only Bob's perspective of a future world with spaceports, near light travel and a view of his beloved twin sister Alice leaving for Proxima Centauri. But the portrait fails to capture the tears in that departure. A grey background would have been more appropriate because if Alice ever returns, she will find her brother has grayed significantly during her trip.

Alice's perspective is not included here (it will be in the next portrait but not how you could possibly have imagined) and it does not depict any relative velocity or reciprocal time dilation between them (as only the Loedel masterwork can). Nope, this is a portrait of human civilization civilizing space with a network of distance beacons from Bob's (or more correctly Earth's) perspective only. It is hard and without emotion.

Now these distance beacons could have been designed with some intelligence. They could have monitored the tv signal of each passing ship's clock and, upon working out the relative velocity from the doppler shift ratio of each ship's tv signal relative to the all encompassing tyranny of earth space, could have delivered a customized message to each ship of where they are in their own distorted x'-axis. But that would have been stupid because the x'-axis does not really exist.

Nope, the message they receive from the beacons is about where they are in the stationary earth frame. Their speeds do not give them a sense of length contracting the universe because their speeds do not alter the messages coming from the beacons when they pass beside them. If length contraction was real, relativity would be able to magically change the messages from those beacons without human help.

So what does the blue line mean? We don't know yet until we draw the Loedel depiction of this portrait and consider Alice's perspective from another minkowski depiction. We only know one thing so far; Bob stands alone at the precipice of time, having aged 5.31 years since his beloved Alice left. Some say Alice has only aged 3.19 years at that present moment but they would be sadly mistaken. They would be sadly mistaken because relativity has not properly defined what type of present Alice and Bob are sharing across that bold blue ocean of time.

Now most of you are expecting the standard relatvistic rendition of Alice's perspective where Alice takes over Bob's vertical t-axis and Bob takes over Alice's diagonal axis but in a negative direction.

This is not correct. The standard painting does not depict Alice's perspective because it changes the distant beacon network from Earth centric to Alice centric. The World Space Agency did not set up space beacons to accommodate every possible relative velocity a ship might travel. No, Alice's perspective must maintain its diagonal slope but still be recognizable as stationary from her perspective and Bob's must remain vertical and now be recognizable as traveling at .6c relative to Alice. How can this possibly be done? It's never been correctly depicted before. Stay tuned (I really don't have time for this because I should be working on patenting Fladdles).

[ralfcis]

Here for the first time in this or any gallery is Minkowski's Alice's Perception.

Every other depiction throughout history has been a misguided attempt at capturing her true essence and this portrait is definitely for adult eyes only as Alice is finally exposed to the world au natural. For the sake of modesty, it's presented in negative (sort of) with the blue line now in red and the red line in blue.

Let's start with the simpler stuff. Alice's x'-axis is now the proper distance she sees within her own ship. The same goes for her t'-axis. The velocity, therefore, within her ship through space is 0c but her velocity through time is c. It means she is stationary within her own ship just as Bob was stationary within his own ship from his perspective in the previous artwork.

Alice is still moving relative to the world space agency distance markers outside her window at .8c. Bob is stationary wrt these outside markers so his relative velocity to Alice is .8c by the transitive property.

Next is the hard stuff; interpreting the blue and red lines and the thin black lines. This is what Alice's perception of Bob has always been about, not the slope of the t and t' axes. Then we'll quickly jump to the Loedel for a much better depiction of what relative velocity truly looks like and a clue to Alice's real (instantaneous) age wrt Bob.

PS. I can see the shock in the gallery audience but I'm sure the applause and bravos are forthcoming for this masterpiece.

[davidm]

Hey, Ralf, did you ever see the movie “Gangs of New York”? I’m thinking of the scene in which Bill the Butcher asks the cop, “What in heaven’s name are you talking about?” Then Bill goes on to say, “I don’t give a twopenny…” etc.

Anyway, what in heaven’s name are you talking about when you assert that if length contraction was real, “then relativity would be able to magically change the messages from those beacons without human help.”?

[ralfcis]

Intelligent beacons (which require human programming) vs beacons without intelligence. Which type of beacon are you Dave?

What I'm saying if length contraction was real, then the messages from the beacons (which are also real) would also be affected by length contraction which would change all of reality including the message content. This clearly can't happen so the only explanation left is length contraction is not real. The "I" stands for important, the "V" for very.

No need to be so nasty in your questions though because that gets reciprocated like time dilation.

[davidm]

Ralf, this remains opaque. What kind of beacons are you talking about? Do they have distance markers printed on them? Do they give off radio signals, or what? Most important, you did not answer the question: Why, if length contraction was real, “then relativity would be able to magically change the messages from those beacons without human help.”?

[ralfcis]

Dave more words appeared.

[davidm]

The messages are radio signals? Why would length contraction change the content of the signals, Ralf? Please do explain.

[davidm]

Also, note that the velocity of the messages would NOT change -- it would remain c. Obviously the content would not change, either. So what "change" are you talking about?

[ralfcis]

Radio signals, oui. Speed of radio signals irrelevant. Beacons are there for a reason to tell you where you are in space. Relativity says you can see length contraction. Sight is a visual input and the beacons tell you where you are. Reality is trying to get through. It can't disagree with itself. Either the beacons (if you could hear them) or what you're supposed to be seeing outside is not real. If the beacon says you're this far out and you see you're not as far out as the beacon says from your perspective, then one is wrong. They would both be right if relativity could magically re-write the message you hear to agree with what you see. Humans could program the beacons to do that but they chose not to and relativity wouldn't alter reality to do that. Do you need more words because I could put this on endless repeat like a beacon.

[TheVat]

Is everyone clear that Minkowski space is objective with regards to total spacetime separation between events? Different observers may get different values for distance and time, but the spacetime INTERVAL is independent of anyone's particular frame of reference. Any interaction (fly-by) with a space buoy is an EVENT. The spacetime interval between that event and the next fly-by buoy event is fixed. Different observers may get different values for linear dimension and time elapsed, but the dot product will be the same.

[davidm]

Ralf, in Greene’s Proxima Centauri example, suppose there were a big, unchanging sign on that star: I AM 4.25 LIGHT YEARS DISTANT FROM EARTH.

But according to Alice, PC is just 3.19 light years distant and she gets there in 2.55 years, not in just over 4.25 years as judged by earthbound Bob. So what? The content of the sign doesn’t change, it’s just wrong from Alice’s perspective. But then the sign was made from the earth’s perspective, so from that perspective it’s right. And … so? Even without relativity I can find plenty of signs and distance markers that are just wrong.

[ralfcis]

Thank you Dave. Now all you have to do is look through the Greene videos and find the one where Greene says the signs can't be wrong. Then he'll explain why. I'm off the hook.

[ralfcis]

Invariance is based on a coordinate transform between cartesian coordinates and minkowski coordinates. I have a different transform because I do not use minkowski coordinates. The x-axis is invariant and the previous variance that was assumed in the x-axis has now been transferred into a pure time coordinate value (double gammad) and an invariant x-coordinate value. My beacon example is how the invariant x coordinate would work without length contraction. It would use time contraction as I will show in my continued posts. My theory does not depend on this part being true. However, my goal is to trim the fat from relatitivty to make it even simpler. I can live with length contraction but I'm trying to prove I don't need it.

[davidm]

Thank you Dave. Now all you have to do is look through the Greene videos and find the one where Greene says the signs can't be wrong. Then he'll explain why. I'm off the hook.

Erm, so you're saying the signs CAN be wrong, from certain perspectives? Then you're agreeing with me?

I am asking you to defend your claim that the content of messages can change if length contraction happens. Be specific. Give an example of this change, in detail.

[ralfcis]

Dave put your reading glasses on.

[davidm]

Ralf, put your thinking cap on and defend, in detail, your claim that the content of a message will change if length contraction is real. Give us a specific example of why this should occur, according to you.

[ralfcis]

Already done Dave. Try repeating back to me what I said in your own words so I can determine where you're misunderstanding me. And try to acknowledge when you agree with me and not just leave the conversation in limbo. You have not acknowledged that once nor have you acknowledged to agree to disagree.

[davidm]

Oh, sorry, maybe I missed it. Please quote for me the specific example you gave of the content of a message changing because of length contraction. Indeed, you said more than that -- you claimed that all of reality changes, if length contraction is true. Can you also show me the specific example you gave of all of reality changing, if length contraction is true? Just pretend I'm a big dummy who doesn't know math or the fact that "axes" is the plural of "axis" and SHOW ME your specific examples that somehow I missed.

[davidm]

I don't agree with you at all.