## Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

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

### Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Basically Ralfativity and relativity differ in the following ways:

1. Relativity requires the concept of Lorentz contraction to explain the constancy of the speed of light. Ralfativity has no need of Lorentz contraction (just another form of time dilation), distance is invariant, the Lorentz transform equations are simplified.

2. No need for the spacetime interval in ralfativity, gamma explains everything.

3. No need for the concept of relativity of simultaneity, this is just another form of time dilation.

4. No need for the concept of reciprocal time dilation, the relativistic doppler formula fixes the twin paradox before it can even be considered a paradox.

5. Ralfativity clarifies Einstein's relativistic mass formula. V=c does not work in the relativistic formula unless you also set m0=0. The resultant relativistic formula for energy has to be replaced by the one for quantum physics. Also, the relativistic formula gives analog results for energy to matter conversion instead of the correct digital results that quantum physics provides.

6. In physics there are no infinities that do not tend to a finite value, in relativity there are and ralfativity removes them (based on an intuitive but unproven assumption that the finite value of gamma as it goes to infinity for v<c is equal to 1 at v=c).

7. Relativity uses the formula c2 = v2 + w2 to express the fundamental concept that we are all moving at the velocity c but the faster we move through space, the slower we are observed to move through time (w is the velocity through time).
Ralfativity uses (Yv)2 = v2 + w2 to express how a limited speed through space allows for an unlimited speed through spacetime. The faster we move through space, the less time we spend moving through space and the more of our observer's time we spend moving through time (thereby the slower we move through time). However, this time longer through time does not age us but it can age those observing us relatively faster.

Point 7 is very confusing and requires precise clarification in subsequent posts.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: The meaning of velocity through time in relativity

The most important pythagorean formula in relativity is never discussed in popular media:
c2 = v2 +w2 where w is the velocity through time.

Think of the universe as a giant video recorder. It has normal image speed, fast forward, slow motion, record and playback. Normal rate of time flow is the velocity through time at the speed of light when standing still. In order to be observed moving through space, the observer will see you subtract from this max velocity through time (because the total can't surpass c) and both of you will see each other moving in slow motion even though time flow in each respective frame will remain normal. This isn't a paradox, it's an illusion of perspective and not persistent in reality (but under the right conditions can be made real).

Everyone moving at whatever constant velocity can determine himself to be stationary and hence always moving at the max velocity through time (normal time flow).

Slow motion is observable but fast forward would mean breaking the max limit of c through time and going into the future before anyone else (which is basically time travel and impossible). Yes there is no time travel into the future (or past), only time travel from one present moment to the next. It's like riding the crest of a time wave, if you ride it sideways you take a longer path than someone riding straight. You both reach the shore at the same time on the same wave but one of you has traveled a lot farther in that same time.

Oh yes, back to the fast forward feature. Just as fast forward is possible on stored data (but not on live TV signals), so is the signal data stored in the transmission delay over large distances. You'd think if you fly towards those signals you'd be able to see them before someone standing still thereby you'd see them sooner and in fast forward.

That's not how it works in relativity because of the constancy of the speed of light for all frames. Whether you're standing still or moving toward or away from the signal, you would not reach it any sooner than anyone else because you'd break the light barrier doing so. But remember, relativity affords you with a velocity through space and a velocity through time and that velocity through time component would allow you to see the delayed signal you're approaching in fast forward even though you couldn't reach it sooner than anyone else. (In the sonic doppler effect, the source's velocity has no effect on the speed of the sound wave. In relativity, neither the speed of the source or the receiver has an effect on the speed of the light wave.) This is the real explanation for how the constancy of c works, not some fairy tale that as time dilates, length must contract to keep the velocity ratio constant.

Most relativity discussions have each participant use a telescope to see the other but that's just not practical. Instead, I have my participants beam out a strong TV signal of their daily lives with a clock in the corner of the picture. If a ship leaves or passes earth at .6c, the ship and the earth will see each others transmissions at half speed slow motion. The formula for this is a ratio of time being transmitted to the time being received by a participant equal to the sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)). This formula won't mean much unless you draw a spacetime diagram (STD) with the slope of a line at 1/v and have 45 degree transmission lines radiating from it.

If you use any kind of timing analysis such as reciprocal time dilation or compensating for the delay of signal, you will get into the quagmire of the twin paradox. What the doppler formula method does is show both participants signals as moving reciprocally slower and delayed. Now both are living their lives at the normal rate of time flow w=c, so what each participant is not seeing of the other is getting stored in the Universe's video recorder (transmission delay). The data being stored in that must be unlocked to determine who is really aging slower relative to the other.

It can be seen from the STD that the only way to start collecting that data trapped in the UVR is to change the slope of either participant's time line to collect the data being beamed from the other participant. Just slowing down will get partial data retrieval but that's not not really useful. It's only when the two participants stop and achieve the same relative velocity to the reference frame that the slopes of the 1/v time lines are in parallel and they are collecting all the data from each other albeit delayed. Both their signals will be received in normal motion but it's only the one that instigated the change to his relative velocity that will immediately see the others signal go at the normal rate of time flow. The other guy will still see the instigator's signal in slow motion until the the delay of the change reaches him. If they both instigate the same velocity change at the same time, they will both see the others signal immediately change from slow motion to normal motion.

If instead of relatively stopping, they go toward each other then the signals they see are in fast forward. At .6c towards each other, they will see each move at double the normal rate (for the instigator the change is seen immediately on turn around, the other guy will have to wait until the fast motion rate reaches him.)

The delay of the data retrieval means there is still data being stored by the UVR but when both participants enter the same constant velocity frame no matter how far apart and for no matter how short a time, they will have established a point in time (that will need to be revisited for analysis) that allows them to determine their relative aging up until that point. Subsequent changes can be added to the total relative aging each time both re-enter the same constant velocity frame but until either one is destroyed (preventing subsequent changes) or they both cross each other in space at the same time (no light delay so a determination of relative aging is immediate) can they both say they have seen all the stored data in the UVR and can make a final determination of who aged slower.

Relativity depends on the reciprocal time dilation method which will give different results on the fly depending on which participant is deemed stationary. That method only arrives at the correct answer after both participants cross each other in space. Ralfativity does not need to wait for that occurrence because it uses the doppler formula method which is consistent no matter which participant is deemed stationary. Relativity just needs to adopt this method and both will be on an equal footing.

Ralfativity has a different definition of velocity through time from relativity. This will be discussed in the next post.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: The meaning of velocity through time in ralfativity

The basis of ralfativity is the formula

(Yv)2 = v2 + w2 where w is the velocity through time

w = v sqrt(Y2-1)

Yv is the total velocity through spacetime and v is the light speed limited velocity through space. As v -> c, Yv approaches infinity which means very large distances are covered in very little time for the traveler. Ralfativity does not depend on length contraction for this, length is invariant unlike in relativity.

The velocity through time w also tends to infinity which is the opposite of relativity's w. Luckily the time spent in the velocity through time component is not experienced by the traveler, who, like in relativity, only experiences normal time flow. It's the observer who experiences the effects of the traveler's velocity through time by aging relatively faster. This is what keeps the observer from seeing the traveler go faster than light, his time greatly speeds up relative to the traveler's time so he sees the traveler go great distances in a great amount of time. The observer never sees his own time flow rate other than normal so he experiences his rapid aging by seeing the traveler's time flow in slow motion. It's a very neat closed system that does not require length contraction at all.

Ralfativity depends on gamma (Y) being = 1 for all constant velocity frames. This is also true in relativity except for the ultimate constant velocity frame c. I'm sure relativity has come up with some sort of excuse for this but at v=c, Y =1 for ralfativity, not Y= infinity for relativity. As you'll see, if Y=1 for v=c, all the equations in ralfativity click into place like tumblers in a combination lock unlocking the secrets of the universe.

The first tumbler is that w=0 and Yv=v at v=c for ralfativity. This means light has no velocity through time, it's speed is all velocity through space. Without a velocity through time component and no length contraction, a person observing light can see it propagating in normal motion. Time is not observed to stand still for light (one can see light's frequencies, they are not zero) and no one ages rapidly relative to it. C=x/t for all frames in all frame's proper time. This is how the speed of light remains constant for all observers in ralfativity.

All equations need to be separated for v<c and v=c in ralfativity as the equation for relativistic mass is in relativity because the behavior of matter and energy are not continuous, they are distinct. The separating factor in ralfativistic equations is the relativistic doppler equation

ttx/trx = sqrt ((c-v)/(c+v))

The fact that this equation keeps popping up in ralfativity has some profound meaning that I will one day get to the bottom of. Even gamma itself can be re-written using those same terms as

Y= c/ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)).

Y is central to ralfativity so equations such as the velocity combo law

v3= (v1+v2)/(1+ v1v2/c2)

is expressed as

Y3v3 = Y1Y2(v1 + v2)

or Y3 = Y1Y2(1+ v1v2/c2)

The formula for v1 or v2=c is

Y3v3 = Y1Y2(v1 + v2) * sqrt((c-v1v2)/(c + v1v2))

or Y3 = Y1Y2(1+ v1v2/c2) * sqrt((c-v1v2)/(c + v1v2))

which is the same formula except it's multiplied by the relativistic doppler formula to keep all Y's equal to 1 (instead of infinity) for v=c. I'm just trying to keep infinity out of ralflativistic formulas unlike relativity.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Jamaican time difference

Just when you thought I had given up, no, I was in Jamaica for 2 weeks and ralfativity continues (even though interest in it has waned considerably). I spent an inappropriate (because what am I doing thinking about physics on vacation) amount of time thinking about it down there and here's what I came up with.

The person moving relatively through space will be moving relatively slower through time. This implies if one is not moving relatively slower through time, there is no relative motion through space. This is a very important point that seems obvious but has some very unfortunate consequences (so remember it when you get to the bottom of the next paragraph).

In ralfativity, ralfative motion is between a participant and a common reference frame and not between participants. This differs from relativity because if each participant's time dilates equally with respect to the common reference frame, there can be no relative time dilation between them no matter what their relative velocity. So in ralfativity, direction does not matter (nor should it because in the formula for gamma, velocity is squared). If the two participants have an equal velocity relative to a common reference frame, whether they are approaching or separating or going in the same direction, their ralfative velocity is ZERO with respect to each other because there is no time dilation between them (recall the paragraph above). For example, when 2 spaceships are moving towards each other at .33c (relative to a common reference frame) for a combined relative velocity of .6c, neither sees the other as time dilating so their ralfative velocity is 0. (If they did register a time dilation between them, then each time dilation relative to the common reference frame would not be equal.)

Relativity assigns no importance to which participant has a greater share of the relative velocity. Two ships flying away from each other at .33c should therefore be the same as one in the reference frame and the other flying away at .6c. This can only be true if reciprocal time dilation is equivalent to zero time dilation as it is for .33c. Ralfativity makes this true by ignoring reciprocal time dilation as pure illusion because the reciprocity cancels itself out depending on perspective. I am jumping to the conclusion that this is the way reciprocal time dilation for one participant moving at .6c is equivalent to zero time dilation for two participants moving at .33c. I am unaware of how relativity explains it (and since I rarely get a direct answer to a direct question, I'll probably remain unaware).

The time on the moving clock is the same time as on the stationary clock when you factor in gamma. (Unfortunately the two clocks can only be compared after the speed of light delay between them is accounted for.) There's nothing magical about that. What is magical is that once the relative velocity goes away, the gamma factor will cause a permanent offset between the clocks for the participant who initiated the change in relative velocity.

The common reference frame exists in relativity and is represented by the cartesian coordinates of the STD. The ct-axis is the universal clock related to each of the participant's clocks by a factor of their gammas. All of their clocks run at the same universal rate but not at the same rate relative to each other. That's again because a clock moving faster through space will appear to be moving slower through time. But why is that sometimes an appearance and other times a persistent reality even when the relative velocity that causes it is gone? That's what will be explored in meticulous detail in the next post.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Problems with relativity and reciprocal time dilation

Before we begin, it's important to remember both Alice and Bob are stationary wrt their own frames and therefore both move at the speed of light through time within their own frames. The rate of time flow will be normal for both. So how can they end up aging differently relative to each other?

Reciprocal time dilation is traditionally used in relativity to show how Alice ages 2 yrs less than Bob from both perspectives of .6c relative velocity in our example. However, the time line changes during the journey. When Alice is deemed moving, she loses 1 year after her 1st four and 1 after her 2nd 4 while when Bob is deemed moving, he loses .8yr after her 1st 4 years then Alice loses 2.8yrs in her 2nd 4 yrs. The final answer is the same but there is absolutely no way the two participants could have received different messages from each other during the journey depending on who is deemed moving. Relativity tries to cover up this logical inconsistency by saying only the last message counts and to ignore intermediate messages whose content would have to change in order to comply with who is deemed moving.

This problem with relativity is clearly seen in the example where Alice stops relative to Bob after 4 years. If Alice is deemed moving, she ends up aging 1 yr less than Bob for however long they remain in the same constant velocity frame. (Bob's knowledge of this will be delayed by 3 yrs.) If Bob is deemed moving, he will end up aging .8 yrs less than Alice. This logical inconsistency cannot stand and it shows the twin paradox has never been solved by relativity using reciprocal time dilation from both perspectives. In fact relativity only gets the right answer when both reunite which is an artificial constraint that ignores valid intermediate results.

Ralfativity doesn't need reciprocal time dilation and uses the relativistic doppler shift analysis to get consistent intermediate results of who's aging slower regardless of perspective. In the 1st 4 reference frame years, both Alice and Bob see each other age 2 yrs (both see a half speed TV picture). In the next 4, Alice sees Bob age 8 yrs (double speed TV picture) while Bob sees Alice age 2 yrs (half speed TV picture). In the last 2, Bob sees Alice age 4 yrs. Both the final result and intermediate timeline is independent of who is deemed moving unlike the reciprocal time dilation method used by relativity.

Although real time comparisons are made impossible by the light transmission delay, ralfativity must also show that it can make consistent predictions of what the relative aging is at any time taking into account the transmission delay. It must also show that those predictions are independent of perspective. A tall order that relativity currently doesn't fill.

If you look at the STD before the turnaround, you'll see, regardless of who is deemed moving, that if Alice sends out a signal at her 2 yr mark, it will reach Bob at his 4 yr mark and vice versa. At this point relativity washes its hands and declares it has done its job of proving reciprocity and that no one ages slower here. But lets look a little closer because there are logical inconsistencies here too.

First, so long as participants are separated from each other, it's impossible for them to simultaneously share the same present moment because of the time it takes info to cross the separation. If you look at the STD, the reciprocities are not equivalent because when Alice is 2 she is separated from Bob by 1.5 ly but when Bob is 2 they are separated by 3 ly. Throw in the analysis of Bob moving and now we have 4 distinct conditions to contend with and not one as relativity implies (where the info from a person aged 2 will be seen by the other person aged 4). It gets even worse as the 4 conditions give rise to 3 possible answers for the relative age of Bob and Alice.

1. Alice moving sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob who receives it 1.5yrs later when he is 4. So we need to calculate Alice's age when Bob receives her message assuming nothing changes. Since she aged 2 years to cover 1.5ly, she will age another 2 years in the time it takes for her signal to travel 1.5ly to Bob. So both Alice and Bob are calculated to be at their 4 yr marks, no relative aging.

2. Bob stationary sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice who receives it 3yrs later when she is 4. So Bob ages another 3 yrs by the time Alice receives the message. So now Bob is 5 when Alice is 4 which means there is relative aging in this calculation.

3. Bob moving sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice who receives it 1.5 yrs later when she is 4. Bob will age another 2 yrs when Alice receives the message so both are calculated to be simultaneously 4.

4. Alice stationary sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob who receives it 3 yrs later when he is 4. If Alice doesn't move at age 4, she would now be 5 when Bob is 4. Another wrong answer different from the wrong answer in 2.

It looks like to get the right answer one must do this analysis only from a moving frames perspective (signal transmitter) relative to the reference frame (signal receiver). I don't fully understand why or what is wrong with the analyses that generate the wrong answers. It has something to do with time dilation and distance.

We'll leave this for now and continue with what happens after the turnaround in the next post.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi ralfcis,

Eventually, you will come to the same conclusion as I did. Time doesn't slow for objects in motion.. only their clocks do.. because Matter is sensitive to Speed.. it must increase in complexity relative to speed. The increase in complexity reduces cyclic periods in clocks (including biological clocks) at the sub atomic levels.

The Twin Paradox is only such if one switches perspective on who is moving and who isn't. The one moving through the most space fastest is the one with the most Dilated clocks. Plain and Simple.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

"The one moving through the most space fastest is the one with the most Dilated clocks."

I did think that for a good long while but now I'm looking at the problem from the perspective that two participants in relative motion are always moving at the same speed no matter who is the one actually traveling through space. We'll see how far that notion goes because I don't know where my writing will take me from day to day. At the end of this thread I may have to start another entitled, "Ok, ok, I've really got the final answer this time." The stuff I'm writing here is quite a departure from what I had been writing before. Now I believe all atomic clocks are automatically sync'd by their very accuracy, all one need do is note their start times when together in the same time and space. There's no need for a universal network of sync'd clocks and the present is no longer horizontal lines from the stationary part of the STD. I'm so glad I am able to explore these concepts without being reigned in by the orthodoxy of the relativist religion as I now understand enough about it to be free of its closed-mindedness.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi Ralfcis,

ralfcis wrote:two participants in relative motion are always moving at the same speed no matter who is the one actually traveling through space.

If this was true, then when Alice and Bob reconnect, there would be no aging differential.

Since this has been tested to be true, then Relativity without a background foundation is a dead end. Things would have been far more simple if they had left the "Time" out of Space-Time. In my book, we all move through Time at the same rate (Speed of Light).. even Black Holes. Even an atomic clock will dilate if moved faster than another identical atomic clock, with speed being relative to a background foundation.

When the dust settles.. we just have clocks that act like speedometers.. basically.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

"If this was true, then when Alice and Bob reconnect, there would be no aging differential."

My next post will show how that happens and it seems to have nothing to do with acceleration or clock hand offs. I can see it mathematically but don't yet know how to explain why it happens physically. I hope I can finish that today but feel more compelled to write my Tripadvisor review of my vacation in Jamaica at the moment.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi again,

Just keep in mind that both Alice and Bob could be traveling alongside each other at.. say.. 50% c. One could accelerate away and go inertial at 0% c. Now who has the slowest clock? The speed of light is a natural reference since it is basically a constant. (but measuring absolute speed can be a bitch...lol)

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

One could accelerate away and go inertial at 0% c? What does this mean?
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I'm going to be kind and repost the relevant STD's to my discussion. However, anyone really interested in understanding this discussion should have been able to draw their own STD's by now.

Alice moving, Bob stationary
[img]

[/img]

Bob moving, Alice stationary
[img]

[/img]
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Wow I just lost an entire day's writing because of this forum constantly timing out my login. Normally I'm able to go back before the login requirement to retrieve my text but this time 6 hrs of work was completely unrecoverable.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi ralfcis,

This Forum doesn't auto log you out. I've spent as much as 4 hours composing a long text in the standard text box. Pausing sometimes to hunt for references or word definitions. Either the service provider is doing this to you or your browser is doing this. I had similar issues using Internet Explorer.. lost a lot of work back in the day. I switched to Mozilla and never had a hiccup since. Plus it has an auto spell checker built in.. very handy.

Per your question: It's been very difficult to gauge ones speed through space because of all the interconnected effects that come from velocity. Now days we can use the CMB as a reference.. and a bit of math.

The CMB will have equal distribution of Spectrum Shift in all directions when you are stationary. Thus one can measure for 0 velocity in space using the CMB. When you accelerate in a specific direction, the CMB will Blue Shift in that direction and Red Shift Behind you.. due to Doppler shifts. Actually, you will get extra Blue Shift because your reference clock on board your ship will run slower.. giving an artificial push more towards Blue. You need to do a bit of Math to cancel out your Dilated Clock and get real velocity relative to the CMB.

Knowing this, Science can now tell us how fast and what direction our solar system is moving through the Cosmos.

Now, if Alice and Bob know their velocity is 50% c in direction X.. then if one of them Accelerates away in the opposite direction (while that person experiences the force of acceleration) that person is actually slowing down. Again, a bit of Math, that person slowing down can achieve 0 velocity relative to the CMB.. and go inertial.

Thus.. that person that accelerated away ends up with the fastest clock of the two. Thus.. acceleration is not an aspect of Dilated clocks (directly). Obviously acceleration is a change in Velocity but that's all. It's the Absolute Velocity that is the final factor for the degree of Dilation in ones clock.

Note: My point of view.

Both Alice an Bob are moving through Time at the same rate, but with different clock dilation's. If someday we ever get FTL communications, both players would instantly know who's clocks are doing what.. without having to rejoin each other for comparisons. In the meantime, if either tries to close the gap between them again, then Relativity is the final Math to predict any clock differences on them re-meeting.

Would your solution to this problem differ from Relativity? I would tend to trust Relativity more.. but not being a math Guru, the only way I can be sure is to program my computer to do a realistic simulation and see the results for myself. Sorry, I don't have the Time or Interest to do such currently.

Good luck..
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Dave,
We're on opposite sides of the fence. I believe in the facts of relativity even though I disagree with the the theory of relativity's explanation of those facts.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: post transition analysis.

We're going to consider several scenarios for what happens after Alice turns 4: Alice returns to earth at light speed, Alice returns at .6c, Alice stops wrt Bob, Alice stops wrt Bob instantaneously and continues away at .6c, Alice moves away at light speed. Hopefully as I consider all perspectives I'll see some mathematical pattern that will lead to a rule where I'll no longer have to consider all perspectives to find 2 answers that match.

1. Alice returns to earth at light speed after she ages 4 yrs her time.
This is not possible but it does reveal some interesting insights as a limiting case. Actually I've read ahead and this example reveals everything about the true nature of relativity and it's very exciting.

First, it will take 3 years for her to return to Bob because she can't traverse that distance faster than light. She won't age a second in that time; she'll view the journey as instantaneous. Her TV picture, when she was 3ly away, will hit Bob at the same instant as her arrival. Bob will be receiving that frozen picture at hyperfast speed so it will still look like she is not moving. The TV picture up until that point was of Alice going at half speed.

The wavelength of the light signal carrying the frozen/hyperfast TV picture is blue shifted to the max by the classical Doppler effect but its wavelength is not frozen in time just because light travels at the speed of light. If it was then we wouldn't be able to see any light frequencies because they would be frozen in time. Luckily light has no velocity through time, since all its velocity is through space, so its time relative to ours flows at the same proper time as ours.

According to ralfativity, Y=1 at v=c which reduces Alice's velocity through time from infinity to zero and she's only left with the speed of light through space. At 0 speed through time, time is at a standstill for her but she travels 3 years through space at light speed to reach Bob. That trip ages Bob 3 years. But hold on a tick, didn't we just agree that at the turnaround point, Bob and Alice had both aged 4 years? 3+4=7 yrs for Bob yet the STD says Alice meets Bob when he has aged 8 yrs and she has aged 0 years in getting back to Bob. What gives here? Pure beauty that's what.

In ralfativity each time unit on Alice's velocity is t'=t/Y. 1/slope of Alice's line is therefore v using Bob time or Yv using Alice time. With Y=1 when v=c, The first year of her journey at light speed back to Bob, Alice will receive a signal from Bob that he is 4. Just before her turnaround, she had received a signal from Bob that he was 2 yrs. In the 2nd year of Alice's trip back to Bob at light speed, she receives a signal from Bob that he has aged 6 yrs. So for every year at light speed Alice travels back to Bob, he ages 2 years from the time he was 2 for a total of 8 yrs. Alice would see Bob's TV picture at double speed after the turnaroundif the journey for her wasn't actually instantaneous. I know, confusing things happen at light speed.

She would see the same effect on Bob's TV picture speed if she had returned at .6c but she would see double speed for Bob's years from 2 until 10 instead of ending at 8. For a return speed of greater than .6c, Bob's picture speed will approach infinitely fast and will only look infinitely fast at v=c to Alice because, to her, the trip to Bob is instantaneous.

This is in total agreement with what ralfativity predicts from the STD and in total disagreement to relativity's incorrect interpretation of the STD using reciprocal time dilation. However, if relativity replaces reciprocal time dilation with the doppler shift timing analysis, relativity would be in agreement with ralfativity (except for the conclusion that Y=1 at v=c).

2. Alice accelerates away from earth to c after 4 yrs.
This is also not possible but it illustrates how different the results are from turning around at light speed. Alice will see Bob frozen in time at 2 because she will miss his subsequent transmissions. For every ly she travels, she won't age but Bob will age 2 yrs. So if she goes out a million light years, he will age 2 million years and she won't age at all. The limit on his age will be the size of the universe but is not infinite.

3. Alice continues away from earth at .6c.
She and Bob will continue to see each others TV picture moving at half speed. The timing analysis will be the same as that for pre-turnaround, Alice's age will remain the same as Bob's and flow at the same proper rate of time as his. The reciprocal time dilation between them will just be an illusion of perspective and irrelevant to reality as it has no lasting or meaningful effects.

4. Alice instantaneously stops and restarts her travel away from earth at .6c
This example illustrates that reciprocal time dilation is not masking relative aging and that acceleration does not magically unveil relative aging that was occurring all along for the past 4 years. In fact a quick stop and restart will not change the fact that Alice and Bob will continue aging at the same rate as can be seen from the STD. There will be no instantaneous discontinuity of age between the two after the stop/restart. The mechanism of how a stop affects relative aging will be seen in the next example (very important).

5. Alice stops wrt Bob.
This scenario is basically a transition between no relative aging (both 4) at a non-zero relative velocity (.6c) to no relative aging (at some point after the transition they both age at the same rate again) at zero relative velocity resulting in a permanent difference in aging (1yr for our example). We know before the transition Bob and Alice both aged 4 years. Relativity, as taught to me, says right at the stop point, Alice can immediately calculate Bob's age instantaneously changes from 4 to 5. (Of course this was proven false in example 4 above.) Bob will verify this fact 3 yrs later when Alice's result reaches him.

This fact cannot be altered by whether you consider Alice from the moving or stationary perspective as the perspective does not alter who has initiated the stop. This is not the same thing as either Alice or Bob initiating the stop. If Alice is deemed moving and initiates the stop, then she can immediately calculate Bob instantaneously ages from 4 to 5 as soon as Alice stops (an impossible conclusion). Maintaining the same perspective, if stationary Bob jumps to .6c thereby achieving 0 relative velocity to Alice, then he can immediately calculate Alice has instantaneously aged from 4 to 5.

Lets employ ralfativity timing analysis to see what's really going on after the transition point when both Bob and Alice are 4.

1. Alice moving sends out her 4 yr mark to Bob who receives it 3yrs later when he is 8. So we need to calculate Alice's age when Bob receives her message assuming nothing changes. Add 3 to Alice's age and she is 7 when Bob is 8. She has aged 1 yr less than Bob and that will remain the same as both age the same subsequently. But lets work backward to see how this relative aging has unfolded.

Alice moving sends out her 3yr mark to Bob who receives it 2.25yrs later when he is 6. In .75 yrs of light travel, Alice reaches 4 which leaves 1.5 yrs of light travel after the transition so she will be 5.5 when Bob is 6. So when Bob's age moves from 6 to 8, Alice has moved from aging a half year less than Bob to a full year less than Bob as calculated by Bob.

Alice moving sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob who receives it 1.5 yrs later when he is 4. We've done this before and we know Alice is 4 because they're the same age pre-transition. So Bob can calculate upon receiving the news of Alice stopping (Alice's TV signal will transition from being seen at half speed to normal speed), that during the previous 4 years Alice has been aging only .75 yr for every year Bob ages until he reaches 8. After that, Alice will age 1 yr for every year Bob ages. As you can see, Alice ages slowly (only 3 yrs) over the 4 yrs after the transition. The change is not instantaneous nor does it begin until the stop nor is it a conversion of accumulated time dilation from the pre-transition 4 yrs. It's more like the unit size of Alice's clock ticks is compressed by the stop and the excess time has to be bled off at a precise rate so the relative time rate between the clocks can achieve a new harmonized proper time rate.

That's all for today. I need to continue this analysis from all perspectives to figure out a way to recognize which 2 analyses yield the same correct answers. I also need to fully analyze the scenario when Alice returns to Bob at .6c.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Oops, the same post posted twice.
Last edited by ralfcis on December 29th, 2016, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I know this thread must be a tedious read but buried under all this detailed arithmetic and algebra some might recognize that an important leg has been kicked out from under relativity in the last post. Relativity holds that the time lines of simultaneity have always been parallel to the x-axis in the STD. Each time line is thought to represent a universal present slice across all space. But the last post showed this is no longer true, the true present does not follow those parallel lines. Nor can the true present be actually measured by comparing clocks, it can only be surmised through calculation. This is an even more significant departure from relativity than the demise of the basic concept that if time dilates, length must contract in order to keep c constant for all inertial frames. Lorentz contraction will be proven to be as superfluous as reciprocal time dilation.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

It took a few days but I finally worked out the math so that it not only gives the correct answer but it now gives the same correct answer from all perspectives. The added bonus of ralfativity over relativity is that the signals each participant receives are not dependent on perspective or achieving an endpoint in the spacetime path. This alone is enough to supercede the theory relativity using the facts of relativity.

The new solution is far simpler and maintains the purity of each participant's proper time, there is no need for a conversion between the two timelines to determine the relative aging between them. The doppler shift method is the key as it is all about the ratio between the two timelines. At the end it's easy to convert that ratio into an actual amount of time difference for the relative aging between the participants. I'll go through the example of Alice stopping and yes it does require, groan, high school algebra and grade school arithmetic to be able to follow along. Here are the 2 perspectives: 1. Alice moving/Bob stationary and 2.Bob moving/Alice stationary:

1. Alice moving sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob who receives it when he is 4. Bob stationary sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice when she is 4. The ratio of their relative aging is therefore 1 because the doppler shift between them is 1 according the the doppler shift formula I gave before but am too lazy to reprint here. There is no relative aging going on, they're both aging at the same rate until Alice stops at 4.
Now a change in the ratio takes place after Alice stops. At Alice=5, she sees Bob's signal from 3. When Bob =5, he gets Alice's signal from when she was 2.5. Now you'd assume there's a half year relative aging going on where Alice has aged a half year less than Bob for the 1st year after the turnaround. No, it's just a ratio at this point, you take the ratio of 1/2 and multiply it by the half year and you get the true time Alice has aged less than Bob in the 1st year after the turnaround which is 1/4 yr. Try the same analysis for v=.8c if you think I'm bamboozling you.
Let's continue when Alice =6, she gets Bob's signal from 4. When Bob=6, he gets Alice's signal from 3. Now there's a yr's difference and multiply that by the ratio and you get half a yr's difference. Alice =7, Bob's signal is 5. Bob=7, Alice's signal is 3.5. 1.5 times the ratio of .5 = Alice has aged .75 yrs less than Bob. Alice=8, Bob's signal is 6. Bob=8, Alice's signal is 4. So the difference is 2x.5= 1 yr.
Now Bob at 8 is getting the message that Alice has stopped. Bob=9, Alice's signal is 5. Alice =9, Bob's signal is 7. 2x.5 = 1 yr. Alice will remain at 1 yr younger than Bob until some other change occurs. Notice it took 4 yrs of being stopped before the final answer is resolved. However, if there had been a frame jump within those 4 yrs, the intermediate results would have still been valid. This is a point relativity just does not get nor can its present math calculate. Relativity must wait until they reunite and it makes the mistake that the result of relative aging is not instantaneous but takes 4 subsequent years after the turnaround to fully emerge and stabilize at 1 yr.

2. This is the reverse analysis where the universe is passing by a stationary Alice; basically the names are exchanged and the math remains unaffected without the over-complicated mess of introducing the relativity of simultaneity (sync offset) that the relativistic math requires. Bob is now a line whose 1/slope = .6 and Alice is a vertical line until age 4 where it changes to 1/slope = .6 in order to stop relative to Bob.
Bob moving sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice who receives it when she is 4. Alice stationary sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob when he is 4. The ratio of their relative aging is therefore 1 because the doppler shift between them is 1 according the the doppler shift formula I gave before (but am too lazy to reprint here). There is no relative aging going on, they're both aging at the same rate until Alice stops at 4 (takes off at .6c relative to the reference frame (the cartesian axes)).
Now a change in the ratio takes place for Alice (but not Bob until he reaches 8) after Alice stops. At Alice=5, she sees Bob's signal from 3. When Bob =5, he gets Alice's signal from when she was 2.5. Now you'd assume there's a half year relative aging going on where Alice has aged a half year less than Bob for the 1st year after the turnaround. No, it's just a ratio at this point, you take the ratio of 1/2 and multiply it by the half year and you get the true time Alice has aged less than Bob in the 1st year after the turnaround which is 1/4 yr. Try the same analysis for v=.8c if you think I'm bamboozling you.
Let's continue when Alice =6, she gets Bob's signal from 4. When Bob=6, he gets Alice's signal from 3. Now there's a yr's difference and multiply that by the ratio and you get half a yr's difference. Alice =7, Bob's signal is 5. Bob=7, Alice's signal is 3.5. 1.5 times the ratio of .5 = Alice has aged .75 yrs less than Bob. Alice=8, Bob's signal is 6. Bob=8, Alice's signal is 4. So the difference is 2x.5= 1 yr.
Now Bob at 8 is getting the message that Alice has stopped. Bob=9, Alice's signal is 5. Alice =9, Bob's signal is 7. 2x.5 = 1 yr. Alice will remain at 1 yr younger than Bob until some other change occurs. Nothing to see here, the math is identical from both perspectives.

I know relativists will accuse me of performing some sort of witchcraft rather than question there may be something wrong with their orthodox religion. Reason and math cannot possibly overcome deeply held beliefs. However, I will entertain any math arguments against what I have presented here.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the knock-out punch

It took a few days but I finally worked out the math so that it not only gives the correct answer but it now gives the same correct answer from all perspectives. The added bonus of ralfativity over relativity is that the signals each participant receives are not dependent on perspective or achieving an endpoint in the spacetime path. This alone is enough to supercede the theory relativity using the facts of relativity.

The new solution is far simpler and maintains the purity of each participant's proper time, there is no need for a conversion between the two timelines to determine the relative aging between them. The doppler shift method is the key as it is all about the ratio between the two timelines. At the end it's easy to convert that ratio into an actual amount of time difference for the relative aging between the participants. I'll go through the example of Alice stopping and yes it does require, groan, high school algebra and grade school arithmetic to be able to follow along. Here are the 2 perspectives: 1. Alice moving/Bob stationary and 2.Bob moving/Alice stationary:

1. Alice moving sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob who receives it when he is 4. Bob stationary sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice when she is 4. The ratio of their relative aging is therefore 1 because the doppler shift between them is 1 according the the doppler shift formula I gave before but am too lazy to reprint here. There is no relative aging going on, they're both aging at the same rate until Alice stops at 4.
Now a change in the ratio (from 1 to 1/2) takes place after Alice stops. At Alice=5, she sees Bob's signal from 3. When Bob =5, he gets Alice's signal from when she was 2.5. Now you'd assume there's a half year relative aging going on where Alice has aged a half year less than Bob for the 1st year after the turnaround. No, it's just a ratio at this point, you take the ratio of 1/2 and multiply it by the half year and you get the true time Alice has aged less than Bob in the 1st year after the turnaround which is 1/4 yr. Try the same analysis for v=.8c if you think I'm bamboozling you.
Let's continue when Alice =6, she gets Bob's signal from 4. When Bob=6, he gets Alice's signal from 3. Now there's a yr's difference and multiply that by the ratio and you get half a yr's difference. Alice =7, Bob's signal is 5. Bob=7, Alice's signal is 3.5. 1.5 times the ratio of .5 = Alice has aged .75 yrs less than Bob. Alice=8, Bob's signal is 6. Bob=8, Alice's signal is 4. So the difference is 2x.5= 1 yr.
Now Bob at 8 is getting the message that Alice has stopped. Bob=9, Alice's signal is 5. Alice =9, Bob's signal is 7. 2x.5 = 1 yr. Alice will remain at 1 yr younger than Bob until some other change occurs. Notice it took 4 yrs of being stopped before the final answer is resolved. However, if there had been a frame jump within those 4 yrs, the intermediate results would have still been valid. This is a point relativity just does not get nor can its present math calculate. Relativity must wait until they reunite and it makes the mistake that the result of relative aging is not instantaneous but takes 4 subsequent years after the turnaround to fully emerge and stabilize at 1 yr.

2. This is the reverse analysis where the universe is passing by a stationary Alice; basically the names are exchanged and the math remains unaffected without the over-complicated mess of introducing the relativity of simultaneity (sync offset) that the relativistic math requires. Bob is now a line whose 1/slope = .6 and Alice is a vertical line until age 4 where it changes to 1/slope = .6 in order to stop relative to Bob.
Bob moving sends out his 2 yr mark to Alice who receives it when she is 4. Alice stationary sends out her 2 yr mark to Bob when he is 4. The ratio of their relative aging is therefore 1 because the doppler shift between them is 1 according the the doppler shift formula I gave before (but am too lazy to reprint here). There is no relative aging going on, they're both aging at the same rate until Alice stops at 4 (takes off at .6c relative to the reference frame (the cartesian axes)).
Now a change in the ratio takes place for Alice (but not Bob until he reaches 8) after Alice stops. At Alice=5, she sees Bob's signal from 3. When Bob =5, he gets Alice's signal from when she was 2.5. Now you'd assume there's a half year relative aging going on where Alice has aged a half year less than Bob for the 1st year after the turnaround. No, it's just a ratio at this point, you take the ratio of 1/2 and multiply it by the half year and you get the true time Alice has aged less than Bob in the 1st year after the turnaround which is 1/4 yr. Try the same analysis for v=.8c if you think I'm bamboozling you.
Let's continue when Alice =6, she gets Bob's signal from 4. When Bob=6, he gets Alice's signal from 3. Now there's a yr's difference and multiply that by the ratio and you get half a yr's difference. Alice =7, Bob's signal is 5. Bob=7, Alice's signal is 3.5. 1.5 times the ratio of .5 = Alice has aged .75 yrs less than Bob. Alice=8, Bob's signal is 6. Bob=8, Alice's signal is 4. So the difference is 2x.5= 1 yr.
Now Bob at 8 is getting the message that Alice has stopped. Bob=9, Alice's signal is 5. Alice =9, Bob's signal is 7. 2x.5 = 1 yr. Alice will remain at 1 yr younger than Bob until some other change occurs. Nothing to see here, the math is identical from both perspectives.

I know relativists will accuse me of performing some sort of witchcraft rather than question there may be something wrong with their orthodox religion. Reason and math cannot possibly overcome deeply held beliefs. However, I will entertain any math arguments against what I have presented here.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Oops, my definition of ratio is not clear. I'll just develop a formula for the method and that will clarify it.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

I was just wrapping up my formulas today and I found a bug. It turns out that if Alice comes to a stop, I had predicted that relative aging would unfurl at the rate that Alice would age .75 yrs per Bob year for the 4 Bob years it would take for the relative velocity to change from .6c to 0c between them. My theory was that relative aging only occurs during the transition where a change in velocity is made by one party and the other one gets the message that it has happened. So before the change happens, they are not relatively aging and after the other party gets the message that a change has happened, they again go back to not relatively aging. So I assumed the relative aging must occur between these two points. If it does, then how would it propagate? Would there be a sudden one shot change as relativity predicted or would it equally unfurl over the 4 year transition? I set up a test STD to find out.

The test STD was Alice stopping for only a year before returning to earth at .6c. A previous STD showed that if she was stopped during the 4 yr transition phase for bob, she will have aged only 3 years. So if Alice stopped for only 1 year, I assumed she would age 1/4 year less than Bob. This turns out not to be the case. In fact extending the transition time from 4 to 5 years does not add any more relative aging than if there wasn't a 1 year stop. I need to look deeper into the nature of relative aging and find out where it specifically happens in the STD. Why did a 4 yr stop reveal relative aging but a 1 yr stop did not.

Oops I think I see the problem, the transition time has not been extended to 5 years, it is 2 separate transitions where 1 is 4 yrs and the other is a year. I need to plug in the numbers tomorrow.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

No problem. The ralfativity method works on any number of speed changes between the first and the time the first propagates to the stationary frame. So the method shows Bob ages 5 yrs between Alice's change at her year 4 and until they both see each other age at the same rate again. So between age 4-5, Alice ages 1 yr per Bob aging 1 yr. Between ages 5-7 Alice ages 1 yr per 2 bob yrs. Hence in the 5 yrs bob ages, Alice ages only 3 so she ages 2 less years than bob. Ralfativity correctly predicts the relative aging process way before relativity can. Drop mic.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Oh crap another problem. I can't accept that subsequent events can affect an established past event. This is one of the problems I had with relativity that states no decision can be made about relative aging until a spacetime endpoint is reached. (Relativity's definition of an endpoint is flawed so the new definition from ralfativity is the point in time that news of a velocity change from one participant reaches the other.)

So in my last example where Alice stops for a year before returning at .6c, there is no relative aging going on for that year. However, if Alice decides to stay stopped for 2 more years, she will have aged 3 years for Bob's 4. So you'd conclude that the first of the years she had stopped has contributed to the total that Alice has aged 1 yr less at the endpoint. I assumed that you could just average the time saved and conclude she had aged .25 yrs less for every Bob year. This means she only aged .75 Bob yrs for her 1st year stopped. But if she decided to return at .6c, her decision would have resulted in no relative aging for her 1st year. So a future decision will have gone back in time and altered an established fact (from .75 relative aging to no relative aging).

This can't happen. The assumption that you can just spread out the total of saved time equally over each year must be false. So how does relative aging unfurl? It's not one lump sum at the 1st velocity change. It's not an average over the years from start to endpoint, so it has to be a lump sum at the endpoint. This would mean there is no way to calculate a shared present between the start and end of a relative velocity transition. The delay of the speed of light makes this information unknowable and is the one thing that guarantees causality in this universe. Relativity came to the same conclusion except for the fact it didn't define endpoint correctly.

Maybe there's a way around this. Alice can make any number of choices after the first year she stopped. But the limits are a speed of light return or a speed of light separation. Maybe the formula for calculating a shared present is not a linear function. Perhaps there is a number for the 1st year stopped that can be established for any subsequent change Alice makes. This would certainly get rid of the rather distasteful notion of a lump sum aging correction at the endpoint. Causality would still be preserved because each subsequent change would have less room to manouvre and none just before the endpoint. Yes this must be the answer but it's going to involve more algebra.

I am not entertaining the notion that the relative aging for the 1st year would have a fixed number with an uncertainty attached. The number would be fixed by the transition from one speed to another and the duration of the new speed before the endpoint. Subsequent velocity changes would have no effect but that number would have to affect subsequent velocity changes. This sounds like months of work if it can even be successful which is not guaranteed.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the nature of time

The classical answer is time = cycle count but it's not the whole story. All atomic clocks in the universe count time at the same rate so if there is a difference between them it has to do with how relativity affects time. It certainly has nothing to do with how relativity affects clocks because all clocks in any constant velocity frame are stationary with respect to that frame and there's no way to tell if that frame is moving or stationary even if its motion is related to something outside itself according to relativity. The laws of physics are the same within every frame.

Now some argue that comparing everyone's motion to the background of space would also give the same results of relative aging (atomic clocks not agreeing on cycle count) as relativity does. I can think of no scenario where the relative aging between 2 participants would be mathematically different from the results obtained from comparing each individual's aging relative to the CMB.

The example I used to verify this was of Alice and Bob leaving Earth at .6c and at the 4yr mark Alice returns to Earth and Bob stops for a year then catches up and meets Alice at the moment she arrives on Earth. Bob would age 2.3856 yrs less than the CMB while Alice would age 2 yrs less. So Bob would age .3856 yrs less than Alice which is the same result as if Earth was not included in the analysis. So unless there are any orthodox relativists out there that have a counter example (and they've had 111 yrs to think of one), I guess Einstein was partly wrong; a relative motion to an absolute reference frame gives the same results as Einstein's relative motion without an absolute reference frame. (To be fair I don't think relative motion to an absolute frame is the exact same as absolute motion but for all intents and purposes it is.) I know there's no counter example forthcoming because that would involve basic arithmetic and algebra and an STD to show it and that's not coming from this forum. I guess I owe Dave an apology.

So back to the main point, pretty much all the oft-referenced barnacles attached to relativity, such as reciprocal time dilation, lorentz contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and relativistic mass, serve no real purpose as they are illusions of perception. (It's similar, non-relativistically, to a plane distant from you looking smaller and slower even though that is not the reality.) Moving or separated clocks cannot be compared in real time due to the delay of the speed of light between them. (Please, relativists, weigh in on this because all the examples I have ever seen show that one CAN compare clocks in real time, which is a mistake that breeds confusion.)

Ralfativity is based on the real phenomenon of relative aging. The cause of the phenomenon is solely based on the delay of information from one participant changing the relative velocity to the other participant, who upon getting that info will achieve equilibrium with the new relative velocity. This disturbance in spacetime will result in the initiator of the disturbance aging slower until the disturbance is resolved. (This is similar to the spacetime disturbance of the sun disappearing and the Earth orbiting empty space for 8 minutes.) I guess it can be termed as conservation of relative velocity. I hope that there are people out there who can appreciate the deep ramifications of this new interpretation and relativity's explanation that somehow acceleration is the cause with no math to back that up, will be made irrelevant.

The conclusion is reality can be contorted by the speed of light delay that transmits reality.

Here is the formula I've worked out for relative aging. I'll go through examples in the next post. It works except at v=c. Working out the anomalies at this limit may prove the main contention of ralfativity, that Alice's unobservable speed through time physically manifests itself in Bob's accelerated aging.

tba = xp/(v1Y1)*(Y1-1+v1Y1)
for v>v1 t'aa = xp/(vY)*(1-Y+vY)
for v1>v t'aa = xp/(vY)

tba is the number of years Bob ages in proper time after the transition
xp is the light yrs traveled to Alice's turning point
v1 is the initial relative velocity Alice leaves Bob, Y1 pertains to v1
v is the new relative velocity Alice initiates, Y pertains to v
t'aa is the number of years Alice ages in proper time after the transition

Velocities leaving Earth have a negative sign.

At v=0, in order to avoid infinities, the equation is re-written as t'aa= xp/(Y)*(1/v-Y/v+Y) = xp
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

People locked in the relativity mindset that reciprocal time dilation is real will find it hard to accept that any mix of constant relative velocities in any relative direction will yield 0 relative aging as if the two participants were traveling at the same speed side by side; basically stopped in relation to each other. How can things be engaged in a relative velocity and act like they're simultaneously stopped? Certainly two ships moving away or toward each other at the same speed relative to a common point is one of the options that generates a relative velocity between them. But since this scenario generates no relative aging, then all the scenarios that generate that relative velocity must also generate no relative aging.

People keep hearing the words that a moving clock slows. But because of the speed of light delay, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Getting that evidence requires altering the speed of one of the clocks which reveals relative aging, not time dilation.

People keep hearing that acceleration, because it moves one of the participants out of constant relative motion, creates a condition outside of SR that spontaneously generates relative aging. They also hear that gravity causes relative aging and that Einstein proved that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Well acceleration is nothing but changing velocity so that means there should be some mathematics that links the relative aging due to gravity to the relative aging caused by changing velocity. There is no such mathematics so the assumption that acceleration causes relative aging is false.

Any acceleration can be mathematically averaged into an equivalent constant velocity in terms of reciprocal time dilation. Yet it's been already proven that during constant relative motion there is no relative aging so how can acceleration be the cause of relative aging. You might argue that Alice coming to a stop 3 ly away from Bob should generate no relative aging (except due to acceleration) because she is moving from a constant relative velocity that causes no relative aging, to zero relative velocity which should definitely cause no relative aging.

Ralfativity easily explains why relative aging occurs in this scenario. It's solely due to the fact that relative aging only happens during the speed of light delay between one participant's transition and the other participant's reception of that info. Only before or after that delay do the participants move at constant relative velocity and no longer age relatively to each other.

Wikipedia lists all kinds of physical proofs for length contraction including Feynman's endorsement but I can show they're totally bogus claims. V=x/t. t=Yt'. x=x'/Y so Yv=x/t'=x'/t. This simple math proves length contraction and time dilation are exactly the same thing. In fact outside of relativity's claim that in order for the speed of light to be constant for all frames, time must dilate and length must contract, there is not one time the length contraction formula can be used simultaneously with the time dilation formula because they are exactly the same thing.

But do they act at all like the same thing? Not at all. Length contraction only happens in the direction of motion while time dilation does not. If time dilation did then the plane of your body would have aged differently than the thickness of your body moving in the direction of motion. Length contraction has no equivalent persistence like relative aging. Things don't stay flat due to the delay of information after a speed transition. There is absolutely no problem that length contraction can solve that only considering time dilation can't solve. Length contraction is a relic carried over by Einstein from Lorentz because that was lorentz's explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment. Unfortunately that carry over based the theory of relativity on the false assumption that if time dilates, length must contract.

And speaking of false assumptions, E=mc2 was a total fluke based on the plum pudding model of the atom at the time and lumping energy and matter together under the moniker of mass. This smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show has lead people into confusing the conversion of matter to energy or energy to matter with the equivalency of mass to energy. Mass IS energy; it's like saying energy is equivalent to energy. My response is what are you talking about Einstein? Saying pumping energy into a system increases it's mass is a shill game. Pumping energy into a system increases it's energy. Let's keep it real.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Are there any people of science (not dogma) on this forum because if I'm spreading lies about relativity I would think someone would have spoken up by now. I'd hate to think my posts appear as incomprehensible word salad.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Here's a reprint of the formula for relative aging:

tba = xp/(v1Y1)*(Y1-1+v1Y1)
for v>v1 t'aa = xp/(vY)*(1-Y+vY)
for v1>v t'aa = xp/(vY)

tba is the number of years Bob ages in proper time after the transition
xp is the light yrs traveled to Alice's turning point
v1 is the initial relative velocity Alice leaves Bob, Y1 pertains to v1
v is the new relative velocity Alice initiates, Y pertains to v
t'aa is the number of years Alice ages in proper time after the transition

Velocities leaving Earth have a negative sign.

At v=0, in order to avoid infinities, the equation is re-written as t'aa= xp/(Y)*(1/v-Y/v+Y) = xp

I've plugged in the numbers for Alice's aging going out 3 ly at .6c and then using velocity values between +c and -c after the transition point. So if Alice stops at the transition point, she has no velocity through space but she is going at the velocity of light through time. It takes 3 years for light to travel the 3 light years back to Bob informing him Alice has changed velocity. Alice ages 3 years at the velocity of light through time as light is traveling back to Bob at the velocity of light through space.

Before the transition, Alice and Bob had both aged 4 proper time years because their relative velocity was constant. Both Alice years and Bob years are equal to proper time years. Relativity will try to mislead you into applying the formula t=Yt' and you would conclude Bob had aged 5 of his years for Alice aging 4 of hers at the transition. The formula applies to time dilation (which is unreal) not to the relative aging we are trying to determine. Bob and Alice share a present time which is not relativity's definition of present.

Up until the transition, Bob and Alice both saw each others TV images going at half speed. So when Alice reached 4, she had only seen 2 of Bob's years even though he had also aged 4 years. The same is true for Bob, Alice is 4 but he has only witnessed her first 2 years. Bob and Alice both know they have aged the same because there has been no change in the speed of the others TV image motion since the start of the trip. The fact that they each see only the first two years after 4 years of travel confirms that their relative velocity is .6c.

Now Alice makes a transition which Bob won't see for 3 years. We use the first formula to see Bob will age 4 years in the 3 yr transition delay. So tba=4. For that 4 years, spacetime will be telling him he is still traveling at .6c relative velocity. He will continue to see Alice's TV image motion at half speed. (Bob's 4 years can also be calculated by multiplying the 3 years it'll take the light to reach him by Y1 which is 1.25. Using ralfativity, .6c, the velocity through space, is actually .75c, the total Yv velocity through spacetime.)

Here's the table that Alice ages (t'aa) for various choices she can make for her transition speed.

v t'aa
1.000c 0
.8824c 1.2
.8000c 1.5
.6000c 2.0
.4000c 2.37
0.000c 3.0
-.400c 3.6256
-.600c 4.0
-.800c 2.25
-.8824 1.6
-1.00c 0

There's a lot of interesting info that can be gleaned from this table but I'll have to tell you about that in the next post.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

In the previous post it was shown that when Alice stops, Bob keeps going at a relative velocity of .6c until light from the transition crosses 3 ly in 3 yrs. But it's not graphically evident that Bob is traveling .6c unless you consider Yv. (I'm going to use a new notation v'=Yv just as t'=Yt.) .6c v = .75c' Yv. (c' is used to identify a Yv velocity). We know Bob is traveling at v'=.75c' because he ages 4 years in the time it takes light to travel 3 ly (3ly/4y = .75c'). During that time Alice is moving at 0c. In the 3 yrs it takes light to travel 3ly, Alice ages 3 yrs even though v'=0c'. From this it's easy to see Alice ages 3 years while Bob ages 4 during the transition; that's relative aging.

Using the same analysis as above, let's assume Alice's speed does not change after the 3ly mark but we'll still call it a transition anyway. So Bob continues at .75c' for the 4 years it takes light to cross the 3 ly. Alice's v' also equals -.75c' so she also ages 4 yrs during the "transition". Alice and Bob both age 4 years so there's no difference in relative aging between them (as it should be).

Relativity has no prediction for relative velocities less than -.6c (Alice speeds up going away from earth) because there is no closure to the spacetime interval. Ralfativity CAN make those predictions. The transition area ends when she travels 3ly because at that point the light from the transition point reaches Bob. So if Alice transitions to -.8c (1.333c'), it will take her 2.25 years to travel 3ly. Bob will age 4 yrs so Alice ages 1.75 years relatively less than Bob. After the transition time, both Alice and Bob's relative velocity becomes re-aligned and they will no longer age differently from each other.

Just as there is a 3ly wall for v<v1, there is a wall for v>0. That wall is based on a formula that sets the upper limit of the transition time to the point Alice and Bob would see each other age at the same rate again. They can't see that point because they can't see the common present between them. (The true common present is not how relativity defines it.) They can only calculate it using the formula t'aa = xp/(Yv)* (1-Y +Yv) (or xp/v' *(1-Y+v').

If Alice could travel at c, the story becomes complex. A velocity at c is all velocity through space and none through time while zero v is all velocity through time and none through space. After the transition back to Earth at c, Alice wouldn't age but Bob would age 2 years for every light year Alice travels after the transition. Bob would age 6 years from 2-8 but between years 2-4 Bob has already been shown to age at the same rate as Alice. So Bob's aging at the rate of 2 years per ly traveled starts only after the 1st ly traveled. Weird. Maybe the significance of this will become apparent later.

The story is quite different if Alice speeds up to -c. Alice sees Bob frozen in time at 2 because none of his subsequent signals can reach her. Bob will age 2 years for every light year Alice travels but she too will be frozen in time from Bob's perspective.

The next analysis will be of Alice stopping for 1 year and then transitioning between +c and -c to see how that 1st stopped year affects the total relative aging. The goal is to come up with a formula that can predict what each year during the transition contributes to relative aging regardless of subsequent transition speeds. From there the ultimate goal is to have a formula that relates Alice's velocity through time to how fast Bob ages.

Relativity states the faster you go through space, the slower you go through time. Ralfativity hopes to prove the faster you go through space, the greater the velocity through time which expresses itself as accelerated aging for your relative velocity partner. The closer one gets to c, the greater the difference in time between v and v' and that slack will have to be borne by the stationary frame's accelerated aging. It's like having a drag race between .6c and .8c dragsters. For the crowd, the race would be over in the blink of an eye but the winner would reach the podium long after the loser had received his 2nd place trophy. Weird.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 963
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada

### Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Hi ralfcis,

ralfcis wrote:It's like having a drag race between .6c and .8c dragsters. For the crowd, the race would be over in the blink of an eye but the winner would reach the podium long after the loser had received his 2nd place trophy. Weird.

Assuming such a Dragster had Inertial Dampeners and the race was a long enough distance, like to Venus and back, then the Guy going 0.8c would have only enough Time to smoke a partial cigarette during the flight and arrive at the finish line (stopping instantly) before the 0.6c Guy and have to wait for the race to finish when 0.6c Guy finally arrives at the finish line. Obviously 0.8c guy won the race. But on comparing notes about the their trip, the 0.6c guy had enough Time to finish his cigarette, even though both lit their cigarettes simultaneously, just as the starting gun went bang to start the race.

This tells us the on-board clock for the 0.6c Guy was running faster and he had enough time to smoke a whole cigarette and the on-board clock for the 0.8c Guy was running slow enough that he didn't have enough time to finish his cigarette. The Guy at 0.8c thought the trip was a shorter duration for him, proven by the fact he didn't have enough time to finish his cigarette. The Guy at 0.6c thought the trip was a longer duration for him, proven by the fact he did have enough time to finish his cigarette.

During the race, the 0.8c Guy was aging slower than the 0.6c Guy, as shown by how much cigarette each was able to smoke on their respective trips.

The 0.8c Guy thought his trip was shorter in duration, and it actually was. (didn't finish his smoke)
The 0.6c Guy thought his trip was longer in duration, and it actually was. (did finish his smoke)

So what's weird about that?

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave_Oblad
Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

Next

Return to Personal Theories

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests