Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

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

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

P.S. If I find an instance of two different RAD results for a single RVU, I'm pretty sure that will invalidate my theory as well. Then there will be no valid theory to explain relativistic phenomena until the next revision comes around. Maybe I shouldn't say that out loud.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

I had left off with not being able to answer this question:

" If Alice had not done her change and Bob had - 1 RVU, the resultant RAD would have been +.8 yrs for Bob which means Alice aged .8 yr less than Bob. (I need to work out the math here as to why this is true as I can't yet give you the corresponding RVU for this RAD result.)"

Here is the answer. As soon as Alice or Bob go outside the original cone from Alice's velocity line at .6c away and Bob at 0c. The first RVU at .6c has a RAD of +.8yr. So if either turn away from each other at .6c, they will have an age .8yr more than the other. Let's make sure the result is consistent both inside and outside the cone.

1. Alice jumps 2 RVUs towards Bob (for a resultant relative velocity of .6c towards Bob). -2 RVUs corresponds to a RAD of -2 yrs. But Bob also jumps -1 RVU (RAD = +.8 yrs for Bob) away from Alice for a total RAD of -2.8yrs for Alice (+.8 for Bob = -.8 for Alice). This is consistent with the result that if Alice alone jumps -3 RVUs within the cone, her jump to -.8824c towards Bob would result in her also ageing -2.8ys less than Bob.

2. The RVU's RAD values for Bob seem to have some dependency on what Alice does. At Alice's RVU of 0 or -2, Bob's RVu of -1 has a RAD value of +.8. But if Alice's RVU = -1, Bob's RAD is +1. It's like an enigma code with tumblers.

3. I should also do the arithmetic to verify the result for Bob jumping -2 RVUs (.8824c away from Alice). This should result in the same RAD for Alice alone jumping -4 RVUs (.9756c towards Bob) where the RAD = -3.325 yrs.

I suspect at some point the hyperbolic nature of the age difference curves will make these linear relationships of RVUs impossible. This would not detract from the argument that relativity is flawed because it doesn't even have these linear relationships, only inconsistency between Bob making a velocity change towards Alice or away from Alice.

I wonder what this analysis would reveal if instead of Minkowski STDs I used Loedel which are the closest to depicting true relative velocity (both Bob and Alice are depicted as equally moving but unfortunately at half speed away from each other).
Last edited by ralfcis on December 17th, 2018, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

RVU means relative velocity unit in .6c changes
RAD means resultant age difference in yrs
At proper time T=4 the changes begin.

If no change, Bob's RVU = Alice's RVU =0, RAD =0.

If no change from Bob (his RVU =0) but only Alice makes changes and her RVUs = -4,-3,-2, -1, 0, +1, +2 which correspond to the relative velocities of -.9756c, -.8824c, -.6c, 0c, +.6c, +.8824c, +.9756c and RADs of -3.325, -2.8, -2, -1, 0, +.8, +1.325 yrs.

If no change from Alice (her RVU =0) but only Bob makes changes and his RVUs = -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3 which correspond to the relative velocities of -.8824c, -.6c, 0c, +.6c, +.8824c, +.9756c and RADs of +1.325, +.8, 0, -1, -2, -2.8, -3.325 yrs. Total symmetry as you'd expect from relative velocity.

If Alice makes a change of -1 RVU (.6c towards Bob) and Bob makes changes with his RVUs = - -2, -1, 0, which correspond to the relative velocities of -.8824c, -.6c, 0c, and total (Alice) RADs of -2.8, -2, -1 yrs.

The table is not complete but I'm working on it.

So far it shows combinations of changes yield the same results as when Bob or Alice makes changes independently. Most importantly this consistency carries on into making predictions that if Alice or Bob make velocity changes that increase their original relative velocity, they will age faster thereby making their counterpart age less. This is completely uncharted territory for relativity but the consistency of the math holds up.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

. too many errors, i need to do this post over
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

Ok let's try this:

Here are what the cones look like. It's so complex I was going to give up drawing it.

Alice's cone of possible velocity changes that comply with relativity's ability to calculate age difference is the red dot area for this example. Ralfativity allows calculation of age difference in the pink dot area as well.

Bob's cone of possible velocity changes that comply with relativity's ability to calculate age difference is the blue dot area for this example. Ralfativity allows calculation of age difference in the light blue dot area as well.

Alice's cone of impossible velocity changes that don't comply with relativity's ability to calculate age difference is the yellow dot area for this example which is allowed by ralfativity.

Bob's cone of impossible velocity changes that don't comply with relativity's ability to calculate age difference is the purple dot area for this example which is allowed by ralfativity.

As you can see the number of ralfativity dots far surpasses the few relativity blue and red dots. Ralfativity has no need for the undotted areas and can calculate age difference for all relative velocity changes.

Now we add what Alice's red .6c RVU lines look like:

Now we add what Bob's blue .6c RVU lines look like:

Here are Bob's and Alice's .6c RVU lines in the forbidden cones.

ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

If you think time dilation and age difference are the same thing and that I'm trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, please save yourself some time and read no further.

The above post shows relativity will not accept a determination of age difference unless the participants re-unite (except for 1 tiny exception (accompanied by legal disclaimers) where they stay apart at 0c). The vast areas of those STD's show the calculation of age difference is indeterminate. How likely do you really think that is? I've opened up this vast uncharted universe and proved any relative velocity change (which includes slowing down without re-unification and speeding up without re-unification) causes permanent age difference by using the one exception in relativity where the participants don't re-unite.

Jorrie often addresses my theory as hogwash and says mathematically disproving it would be too time consuming for him. What's the word for when a person knows something's so true no proof required? Oh yeah, ineffable. His main argument is that Alice and Bob stopping relatively to each other is and is not (depending on his mood) really valid age difference because other observers will see them as different ages from their perspectives because of the distance separation between them. This idea comes from the perspective differences of simultaneity. I'm now going to prove mathematically that those perspectives are of reciprocal time dilation and not of permanent age difference which is independent of perspective. Unlike Jorrie, I back up what I say in these discussions with math even though that seems to be a completely foreign language around here. So I'll start off with verbiage.

The example I will use is Alice coming to a stop and showing the lines of simultaneity between Bob and Alice have nothing to do with the age difference between them. According to ralfativity, the age difference increases .25 yrs for each Bob year between the change Alice makes (t=t'=4) and when Bob receives the news (t=8). The slope of the instantaneous present lines between them changes during this time.

Relativity's perspective lines of simultaneity do not change from the moment Alice makes the change. According to these horizontal lines between Bob and Alice, they both "see" from their perspectives that Bob has instantaneously aged 1 yr more than Alice; that somehow their reciprocal time dilation perspectives have instantaneously transitioned from illusion to reality. Oh I forgot, perspective is reality in relativity while past,present,future are persistent illusions.

Bob's reciprocal time dilation perspective, that he was 5 seeing Alice as 4, became reality even though a second before her change they were the same age 4 because there can be no age difference during constant relative velocity. Alice's reciprocal time dilation perspective was that she was 4 and he was 3.2 and all of a sudden Bob is 5 where their ages were both 4 a second before. Yes this makes perfect sense to relativists who back it up by saying relativity is counter-intuitive like that's some sort of definitive proof. They also throw in terms like "coordinate time" or "perspective time" as if there's no way to interpret what's really going on from that.

Others will bring in the false narrative that a change in velocity can't be instantaneous and so the age difference can't be either. Please google clock handoff where a frame jump can be instantaneous and erase that ridiculous argument from your brains.

Even though the lines of simultaneity show the age difference instantaneously, even relativity knows better. it makes up 3 false rules to fudge the answers it wants to see according to its theory.

The 1st is how age difference unfurls is indeterminate, you can't look at the answer before the end of the spacetime path. This gets rid of any weird trends you may be observing that don't fit in with the final answer. It also gets rid of the embarrassing contradiction of how age difference unfurls differently if you switch perspectives (i.e. depicting Alice as stationary).

The 2nd is you can go ahead and determine the age difference once the light of the change reaches Bob. So the info uniting them is sufficient, they don't need to physically re-unite? That's great news!

Oh, but wait, the third is you can't use the 2nd rule if Bob and Alice will re-unite. Wanh, wanh, so close but no cigar. Yeah, this is all so counter-intuitive it must be right or maybe just pure nonsense.

The next example I will use is Bob moving at .6c towards Alice when she stops at t=t'=4. It will again show the lines of simultaneity of their perspectives are not the same thing as the instantaneous lines of simultaneity which reflect permanent age difference. Perspective is not reality whatever Einstein said. Perspective is our delayed and distorted view of an underlying instantaneous reality that we can only calculate or experience in the present if we're not separated from the event. Oh, this isn't counter-intuitive so it must be wrong.

Now do you really need me to waste my time re-showing you the math I've already presented in past posts or can I just move on with this issue settled once and for all.

P.S. Counter-intuition, like double-speak, arises from re-defining words used in everyday language and giving them the opposite meaning. For example, relativity's redefinition of the word "mass". They should have used the word "magic" instead and there'd be far less confusion. Used in a sentence, "An object's magic increases as it approaches the speed of light."
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Relativity puzzle: "half speed" and the twin paradox.

Unlike Jorrie, I back up what I say in these discussions with math even though that seems to be a completely foreign language around here.

When a line of postings reaches a point where it will:

1. Make false imputations to another member (especially an absent one who has moved on)

2. Cast general aspersions on the membership ("math...a completely foreign language....")

3. Continually bring up issues and lines of argument from a thread closed by moderators (see forum guidelines)

4. Chronically mischaracterize the theory (SR) that is being critiqued ("they should have used the word magic [for mass]..."

then they may be either deleted and/or the poster banned. You, Ralf, have expressed an anxiety that you will be banned here, as you have been elsewhere. And you use an invalid line of argument that any banning means that a repressive orthodoxy is crushing you, which I take to be a preemptive attack on moderators who do their jobs in enforcing forum rules. Today's ban is done without prejudice regarding personal theory - anyone is free to posit alternative theories to SR - but is in regard to the four points stated above. It also implies no personal animus. Good luck.

TheVat

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

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests