## 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

Ok cut n paste.

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.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

So when Alice reaches Proxima Centauri there is a pre-recorded beacon made by Bob that broadcasts the following message: "You have traveled 4.25 light years." But Alice thinks she has traveled 2.55 light years. You think one or the other must be right? They're both right -- that's the whole point!

Your ridiculous example presupposes an absolute frame which just happens to be Bob's. And why not, I guess! Bob, after all, is the man! :-D
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Or suppose the message is not pre-recorded, but is on PC or a planet in orbit around it or whatever, and this device tracks Alice's journey. Then when she lands it tells her the distance she has traveled. But of course, the device is in PC's rest frame relative to Alice. So what do you think it will tell her? Your whole thesis obviously is that there is an absolute, "correct" frame that if it existed would annul the entirety of relativity theory, not just length contraction.
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Nope I went through quite a detailed explanation of the difference between an agreed to reference frame and an absolute frame. Positor agreed they were not the same thing. You just keep repeating the same questions and answers. So what's the point Dave? Let me tell you a story.

I worked with this russian guy who could only speak and understand in 3 word sentences. Out of anything I told him, he'd try to find 3 words he was familiar with and reform my message into his. Needless to say, they weren't the same. You can't read and just ignore the parts you don't understand. Every word counts. The parts you're ignoring are the ones you should be asking your questions on. I obviously lost you at hello so start again from the very beginning and ask questions on the first sentence you're not familiar with.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 12th, 2018, 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

If the beacon on PC tells Alice that she has traveled 4.25 light years and Alice insists she has traveled 3.19 light years, who is right, Ralf?
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Please note also that you have yet to defend the idiotic notion that if length contraction is real, it somehow changes the content of a message.
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Both are right from their perspective Dave however that does not apply to the two of us. I have defended that either length contraction is real looking outside of Alice's window or the beacons she sees are real, not both. It's the difference between a distance that is measured by a dilating clock and one that uses proper distance agreed in a reference frame. The only way both could be correct from her perspective is if either they were programmed to send a message to her based on her relative velocity, or if relativity automatically corrected her perspective reality for her. by somehow changing those messages. I said that's not possible. Then I told you to sift through Greene's videos where he supports the view that relativity can't alter messages from a pre-agreed reference frame. Enough already.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Right. Relativity can't alter messages made from a pre-agreed reference frame. Did I say otherwise? That was my point!

So if the beacon on PC, whether pre-recorded or not, tells Alice that she traveled 4.25 ly to reach her destination, when she measures 2.55 ly, then this is because the beacon was pre-synced from the earth perspective and is right from that frame, but wrong from hers. So what?

Why can't the beacons she sees outside her window and length contraction both be real, Ralf?
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Yes you win Dave. Alice can use both the proper distance that comes from the beacons for her v' speed calculation or can use length contraction to determine her v speed calculation. I was stubbornly not seeing what you were saying.

The fine point is this. When I see you at a distance and you're only a thumb tall from my perspective and I'm a thumb tall from your perspective, is that reality or illusion. Once that distance separation between us disappears, and we reunite in the instantaneous present, we can measure our true heights. If we have measuring tapes at those distances, we can measure ourselves and send a message to each other of our heights. So what's real, the message or our thumb measurements? The thumb measurements are analogous to length contraction from a perspective and the tape measurement messages are analogous to the beacons.

When Alice and Bob are reciprocally time dilating wrt one another is that perspective illusion or reality. They both can't be younger than each other. That paradox is settled under the rules of the twin paradox but without it they are both aging at the same rate and have the same age in the instantaneous present reality. In the delayed present reality, their clocks are mutually dilating. My theory adds the age line construct instead of length contraction, reciprocal time dilation and lines of simultaneity to cleanly solve this confusion. Length contraction does not persist once the distance and velocity disappears in the twin paradox scenario but the effects on time remain and are manifested as age difference. That's the true reality.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

So are we in agreement because if we are then you're also agreeing to the fact that my consensual reference frame is not an absolute frame because it gives an equally valid result as length contraction. If we agree to that then real progress has been made here.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

I wrote a statement yesterday in my post on Minkowski's Alice's Perspective that bothered me a bit but I let it slide. Well this morning I realized that statement throws everything into question. I'm sure Dave will seize on the words he recognizes here and ignore the rest of this post. He neither understands the theory nor what is busted nor how it may be possible to fix it, but as of this moment, it's severely broken.

Now I said my theory could continue even if length contraction is proven true. But I underestimated the importance of length contraction. What would be the point of another theory that uses all of relativity's constructs but only differs on its definition of reality. Relativity's reality is that time and space must bend to keeping the speed of light limited to c. A lot of physics falls out of that statement but it's more like a law than a theory. The theory would be more how causality is preserved in the universe.

Ralfativity's mission statement is everything is due to 2 temporal realities: delayed present and instantaneous present and the rift in reality is caused by the fact that information is delayed by a limited c. I still think ralfativity's definition is far more important but the only advantage left is that it can predict age difference under conditions that relativity doesn't consider valid spacetime paths.

So what was the statement that got me here. I said Alice's stationary perspective within her own frame depends on length contraction to show her velocity through space is 0c and her velocity through time is c, just like Bob's. Well Bob's view was in cartesian coordinates and Alice's was in Minkowski's. This would mean that Bob's perspective of her frame would require him to see not only her time dilated, but also her length contracted as well so that she would be viewed as stationary within her own frame. This would also mean that her perspective of Bob's frame would require a reciprocal view. Length contraction cannot be explained away here. I'm surprised Dave didn't pick up on this.

Now this still would differ from relativity in that Alice is never stationary wrt the Earth frame in ralfativity. But, by the transitive property, if Alice sees Bob length contracted and he is in the Earth frame then Alice must see the Earth frame equally contracted.

What a mess, it seems hopeless. But there's actually a choice here. Either ralfativity is garbage (big cheers from the gallery) or the Minkowski depiction of reality is garbage. I choose the latter. I think the transform between coodinates is not how Minkowski described. I think it's a rotation between two cartesian coordinate systems. There are no rhombic coordinates except that it would appear like rhombic coordinates arise from the rotation on a corner between two sheets of graph paper. Epstein uses this rotation but I think an Epstein/Minkowski hybrid coordinate rotation is the correct way to depict reality. I'm hoping someone else has already discovered this and I don't have to bumble around in the dark again to find out how this works. Maybe this is light cone/ 4 vector stuff. Maybe I'll just continue with where I was going and ignore this flaw in the Minkowski portraits for now until I get more information. I mean the existence of length contraction can be quarantined for now. Ralfativity lives on!
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

Ok I looked into it and the hybrid Epstein/Minkowski (Epstink for short) STD is no big deal. Here's what it will look like at .8c.

Bob's proper frame is the vertical catesian coordinates and Alice's proper frame is the diagonal cartesian coordinates. The topmost layer (on the bottom of the page) is Alice's x'-axis (no longer like minkowski's depiction). The next layer down, Bob's cartesian x-axis coordinates are shared between Bob and Alice when viewing each others frames from their perspective. There is no need to ever include Alice's x'-axis in discussions. The next layer is Alice's t'-axis. Finally we have the bottom layer (on the top of the page) which is Bob's t-axis.

This hybrid is not the same as Epstein because the t and t' axes are not swapped. It's just frame rotation without all that minkowski stuff to accommodate length contraction as something real.

One big change is that c will still be c but the slope of the line for c will be frame dependent just like it is for Epstein. So c will no longer be depicted as a fixed 45o line but will change between 45o and 90o depending on perspective. Don't worry, you'll get used to it and forget all about length contraction (that kept the slope fixed at 45o). We're not in Kansas anymore.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

Judging by the sound of crickets, I assume we're good and the problem is settled. But I also assume that many of you are perplexed why I didn't go with the minkowski original of Alice's perspective:

It seems to make sense that if Alice is depicted stationary, then Bob and the entire universe is whizzing past her in the opposite direction. That would be true if there was no background universe. Let's see what the Loedel depiction of .8c has to say about that.

This depiction, without a background universe, is equivalent to the minkowski depiction without a background universe. They are not equivalent once you add the World Space Agency's distance markers. Alice has a relative velocity to Bob of .8c in both depictions but if she were to be deemed stationary using the standard method that has been employed for over a century, the universe would be passing by her at .8c in minkowski's depiction of Alice's perspective and .5c in the Loedel.

You can draw .8c relative velocity between Bob and Alice any way you want but to say the background universe rushes past Alice without thinking what that really means is just wrong. The new depiction of Alice's Perspective is a perfectly valid way to draw the relative velocity between Bob and Alice without screwing up the relative velocity to the background distance markers. mic drop
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

ralfcis » October 14th, 2018, 8:47 am wrote:Judging by the sound of crickets, I assume we're good and the problem is settled.

The sound of crickets means, "nobody cares."

Mic drop.
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

Or maybe crickets make that sound because they're not known for their powers of higher reasoning. I'm getting a lot of traffic for people who supposedly don't care. You dropped your mic again.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

I suspect it's for amusement value. Your plaid chart would make nice wallpaper.
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

I guess it's amusement at your expense. I suspected "portrait" was too highfalutin a term; maybe cave painting?
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

I apologize in advance, I don't want to be shut down for my smart mouth. I'll leave Dave's next retort unanswered.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

You have something against cave paintings?
davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

In this Minkowski cave painting, notice how the three figures are length-contracted in their direction of motion relative to the cave frame:

davidm
Member

Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

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

In truth, the opposite is being depicted. The last guy ate a bit too much bison or he might be pregnant.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

I liked the chart with the kilts. Orthogonal Scotsmen. They're length contracted, unfortunately due to wearing nothing under the kilts. It's chilly in Scotland.

TheVat

Posts: 7701
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

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

You like kilts, I got kilts. Not plaid, more argyle than plaid. I got your Epstink, I got your Loedel right here.

I've redrawn the original Minkowski from Bob's perspective into the new Epstink STD depiction. I've rounded out the numbers and added a few lines. I've also included the Loedel equivalent so you can see how the lines deform from one portrait to the other.

Now everything should be as clear as a ball of yarn. Let's start with the blue gash from 5 to 3. It represents Bob's age as 5 but Alice's age is a combination of her time through time (t') and here time through space (x/c). The formula, according to trigonometry, for this is

t2=t'2+(x/c)2

When Bob is 5, the blue line points to Alice t'=3 and x=4 which means Alice's age is 5 from her 2 components of time.

The purple age lines illustrate their same age in the instantaneous present for both within their own frames. Notice how they are the same slope as the lines of simultaneity from the intermediate half speed green frame's perspective. For the Epstink, .5c is half speed and for the Loedel it's 0c. The intersections between the purple and green lines are the same for both depictions (5.7 and 3.4). This illustrates that Alice and Bob are not the same age from either's perspective in the delayed present but they are always the same age simultaneously from the half speed intermediate frame's perspective. (Half speed refers to the velocity combination law from relativity.)

The difference between time dilation (blue line going to a point on the thin red line) and time contraction (red line coming from that same point and being dilated back onto Bob's timeline) should be now graphically apparent. This is what I meant by time contraction is Bob seeing his own time dilated to Alice and then being dilated once again through Alice's perspective. Time contraction is Bob's time being double dilated and physically represents the time Alice takes in her years to traverse Bob's proper distance in Bob's proper time. This construct completely replaces the need for length contraction which will no longer be depicted in the Epstink STD.

So in this example, Alice will traverse 4 ly in 1.8 of Bob's time contracted years which gives a v'=Yv= 1.3333c. Another way to see it is t=Yt' = 5/3*1.8 =3. v'=4/3=1.3333c. Alice crosses 4ly in 1.8yrs mixed perspective v' which is not v so no c speed limit is broken. The distance between 4 light year markers is not contracted, the time it takes to cross those 4 markers is contracted from Alice's time perspective of Bob's proper distance.

In the next post we'll talk about how the yellow and pink light signal lines work to post-process the delayed present to verify Bob and Alice were the same age in the instantaneous present of the past or pre-process that they will be the same age in the instantaneous present of the future. As I mentioned, the light lines are no longer at a 45o angle for Epstinks and the time they actually travel must be corrected from what is depicted. The bells should now start ringing in someone's head reading this.

PS. I'm thinking of renaming Epstink to the Ralf STD. I mean why should either of them get any credit; they didn't think of it.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

Don't jump the gun reading my posts, I edit for a long time correcting my mistakes after I initially post. I'm also paranoid about losing my text if it takes me too long to finish the initial post and I get logged off. It's happened to me too many times in the past.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

Oops, I think my pink and yellow light lines are drawn wrong. My previous description of how light lines work looks correct. The slope of c is a constant 45o slope for all observers and the time travel of the light is not reflected by the length of the light line in the depiction. The distortion arises from the fact that Loedel is the closest one can depict relative velocity (both moving) on an STD. Minkowski requires a time note considering perspective beside the line. I will correct this to how it looked originally. It looks like the Epstink is really not all that different from how I was using the minkowski ignoring length contraction.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

ralfcis » Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:49 am wrote:Don't jump the gun reading my posts, I edit for a long time correcting my mistakes after I initially post. I'm also paranoid about losing my text if it takes me too long to finish the initial post and I get logged off. It's happened to me too many times in the past.

Compose your message in word or similar before logging in, and paste it in with your graphics.

We know from the LT, time dilation and length contraction each contain 1 gamma factor which preserves light speed of c.

x'=g(x-vt)

t'=g(t-vx)

Length contraction is necessary being the complement to time dilation, to scale one frame to another frame.

Why make something simple unnecessarily complicated?
phyti
Member

Posts: 103
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

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

Length contraction is necessary being the complement to time dilation, to scale one frame to another frame.

Much of this thread is proving that length contraction isn't necessary at all. Now if you can show a counter proof then please do. Otherwise I'm well aware of how relativity works which is primarily not what this thread is about. I haven't yet seen awareness on anyone's part of what my theory is about yet they all seem to declare with certainty that relativity is better. I, being aware of how both my theory and relativity work, can state ralfativity is much simpler, more elegant and can predict more things than relativity can. Plus it can help one understand relativity at a deeper level and from another perspective if you wish to cling to that theory. I'm the only one so far who has provided mathematical counter arguments and falsifiability to my theory which I resolved myself. No one here can even pick up on the problems I've highlighted. So I'd like someone to understand and push back against this theory other than stating the obvious; that it's not relativity.

PS. Lorentz transforms, so what. I use a simple frame rotation for much simpler coordinate transforms. My transforms don't even include variance in the x-axis because both use the same x-axis in reciprocity so my equations will be far simpler in every case. Now I haven't worked them out yet as it would be a waste of time to continue trying to prove stuff here that involves algebra. I'll save that for someone who is willing to test drive the theory and put my mettle to the peddle. I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to peddle a theory that people would really want to disprove.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

It might take a few days on deciding how the light lines will work. If someone can help me and tell me how they work in relativity especially in the Bob to Alice direction. I assume the way it could work is by the time the signal reaches the recipient, the sender moves on and the resulting time of subtracting the signal delay from the recipient's age will equal the time through time component of where the sender has moved on to? I don't yet see the deeper meaning of this and how it post-processes a common instantaneous present. The main drawback is the recipient compares his age in the past to the sender's time through time component in the future. I don't see the significance of that or if even I'm on the right track. I suspect relativity doesn't even have a way to correlate light messages to a common type of present between the two.

I have to keep in mind that Alice's total age is not just the time that has passed on her clock but the added time through space that has reduced her time through time. Maybe it means nothing to connect Alice's red 5 with Bob's blue 5 through a purple age line. I think it does mean something but I can't yet fully understand.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

My recent re-involvement in ralfativity began at my 40th re-union where I told my buddy I was really into ralfativity lately. I explained him my theory and he asked, "how can the passage of time not be directly related to aging"? The answer now appears to be, Alice's age was never the reading on her clock from Bob's perspective, it was the reading on her clock from her own perspective in the co-located instantaneous present. From Bob's perspective, her age was a combination of her clock reading and her time component through space.

When Bob is 5 from his perspective, Alice is also 5 despite her clock saying 3. When Alice is 3 from her perspective, Bob is not 5, he's 3 despite his clock reading of 1.8. The number 3 on Alice's timeline can be either interpreted as an instantaneous present or a delayed present but it depends on perspective. Now I'm thinking every t-axis should have 2 time coordinates for every point, the perspective present and the instantaneous proper present.

This pretty much debunks Greene's theories of the concurrency of past, present and future as shown in these videos:

He obviously doesn't understand what his own now slices mean; they are not time machines. Alice and Bob can't look into the others past and certainly not into the others unwritten future. If he knew about the 2 types of present, he would be able to interpret his STD's correctly.

And now the age of each is also the reading on both clocks (in a delayed present sense) from the perspective of an intermediate half speed velocity equally relative to Bob and Alice. The lines of simultaneity from that intermediate frame is the common delayed present as opposed to the instantaneous present between the two.

Age lines are different from those lines of simultaneity. Age lines link the same clock readings on Alice's and Bob's on-board clocks into a common instantaneous present that is different from the delayed present.

Now it's clear as a bell. Thanks relativity for never clearly explaining any of this. With this rock solid definition, I can now proceed to correctly interpret what info light signals are passing and to correctly interpret the results of those light signals pertaining to time dilated clock readings and age.

PS To those proponents of the necessity of length contraction, where does length contraction add to the understanding of any of the above? It doesn't even enter the formula for determining Alice's time through space.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

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

Ok I solved my light message problem but the result is so bizarre I'm hesitant to write it because I might have made a huge mistake. The result is all that's important is the message content. How long the light takes to deliver that message from your perspective is irrelevant.

Here's the Loedel STD of Bob and Alice simultaneously relative to the earth frame sending out a light message at a pre-agreed proper time on their on-board clocks when they reach 3. This is a simultaneous instantaneous present which is also monitored by the earth frame as a simultaneous delayed present relative to the earth frame.

Notice the pink and yellow light signals are the same length and take 6.93 earth yrs to go between each of them. This is 6 of their years. They each get the other's message when they're 9 so they know that they successfully sent out their messages when they were both 3 in the instantaneous present and they aged 6 of their years within their own frames. The fact the light took 6.93 earth yrs to deliver the messages was irrelevant.

This is more clearly shown in the minkowski version:

It only takes light 4 yrs to deliver the message from Alice but Bob has aged 6 yrs from the time they both agreed to send the message simultaneously wrt the instantaneous present at t=3. It takes light 12 yrs to deliver the message from Bob to Alice yet Alice has also aged only 6 of her proper years while waiting for the message.

Do you see a mistake or are you thinking the only mistake here is that I was ever born.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013