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

I've figured out why people on this forum won't be able to understand my last post.

There is no velocity greater than c, it's a universal constant like absolute 0, so how does ralfativity allow it?

a) This comes from not understanding that the rule comes from the relativistic velocity combination law. .5c+.5c does not equal c, it equals .8c. c+c =c not 2c. I do not break that law and merely writing a number that's greater than c does not defy the concept. The number is not the concept, you need to understand what's behind the number.

b) People don't understand that 0c means you're going 0c through space and c through time while c means you're going c through space and 0c through time. Everything goes at a combined velocity of c so you can't say any velocity is greater than another without qualifying which components of the velocity you're comparing.

c) People don't understand what relative velocity means. They think a spaceship would have a speedometer on it with a fractional c scale from 0 to 1 relative to the background universe or to light speed. This is a very different concept from making all velocities relative to earth and its distance markers. An alien ship's relative velocity to you (as seen through the doppler shift ratio of his televised atomic clock) would have to be converted through your relative velocity to earth in order to calculate that ship's relative velocity to the earth frame.

d) It is much easier to use v' and c' when describing relative velocity of the moving frame. First you get rid of the needless concept of length contraction. Second, you can understand more easily why the stationary frame can calculate why Alice can cover such great distances in less of her time (which they subconsciously equate to their own time) and why they turn to dust faster while watching her do so.

e) Perspective is not reality. Perspective distorts reality and needs processing. The common statement in relativity that "they're both right" is wrong. The idea that both see the others time reciprocally move slower is false. What they see is the others clock move slower due to velocity but the clock can't also measure the time through space due to distance. That is the missing component that when added to the time on the clock shows both are the same age, aging at the same rate. Only an imbalance in relative velocity due to info delay when one changes the relative velocity can make the perspective a reality.

f) Relativity has brainwashed people into parroting statements without understanding them. Brainwashing is very difficult to deprogram through reason.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

ralf;

The two axes of an STD are usually expressed in yrs and light years (c=1ly/yr) but they can also be expressed in nano seconds and ft as in c=1ft/ns. But what scales would we use to depict the numbers we have in our muon example?

---
Vertical axis is ct (due to Minkowski's math rendition of SR), and the horizontal axis is x=vt. So any straight line has a ratio of vt/ct = v/c = speed. If v=c, then the slope is 45 deg.
It's simple math.
The left drawing is the earth perspective of events, muons moving at .95c from an altitude of 5 units to the ground.
The right drawing is the perspective of events by an observer moving with the muons.
Both drawings are to scale.

Why do you persist in reinventing the wheel?
Remember the commercial, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
Attachments
phyti
Member

Posts: 74
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Phyti you obviously did not view Greene's video. I was using his numbers and how they would be converted to be used in an STD. Many people here have no connection to abstracts but can handle real numbers. Is this really all you've taken away from this discussion? You found the dots on the i's too big and the t's crossed a little too long? Yes I persist in re-inventing the wheel because the wheel is broken but this example is irrelevant to that and more relevant in helping all those here who can't understand STD's by using a real numerical example. If you're going to snipe, snipe at the meat, not the thin air. I make some unambiguous blunt statements, find one you disagree with, state your case and let the real talk, not fluff, begin.

PS And before you either state the wheel is not broken, here, again are my reasons why it is

1. Einstein himself said a theory should be as simple as possible (but not simpler). Relativity has a lot of fat on it that can be trimmed away. Trimming away length contraction would make one of relativity's basic assumptions, that both time and space conspire to keep the speed of light constant from all perspectives, irrelevant.

2. The spacetime path explanation for age difference is a dud and too complex. That is borne out by the fact that most people don't even know what it means. Mine defines the nature of reality vs perspective and the nature of the present.

3. My theory allows calculation of age difference in circumstances that relativity does not allow because they violate valid spacetime path rules.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf, relativity is not broken. What is broken, is the understanding (and teaching) of SR to many people. Your interpretation is one (or both) of those and IMHO, it does not enhance the understanding of SR - on the contrary, I think it will seriously hinder the progress for serious students.

I suspect that you will now demand an example of every failure of your understanding/teaching of SR. I will decline, because it is virtually impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in the tons Ralfitivity harvest that I've been through.

Do you realize the amount of effort required, potentially for no benefit to the respondent? Time that could have been more productively spent reading a decent textbook on relativity?

Sorry Ralf, I'm out of here.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2733
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Maybe I'll eventually find one of those people who've read a decent book on relativity and can point out how much chaff and how much wheat is in my harvest. Unfortunately that book doesn't seem to exist or no one on here's read it. So I'll just continue until they do. Surely you don't need to consider the whole wheatstack to just discover one piece of straw to chuck out.

You are the only person here capable of doing that. I completely and totally agree with how you've taught me relativity. But I had questions which you refused to answer so I went and found my own answers. The questions remain and I am presenting those questions to the readers here.

I know you want to save readers from being confused by warning them to shut their eyes but it's actually their minds you're asking them to shut. I'm trying to open their minds to the questions. Have you really read any part of Ralfativity 3.0? If not, I don't think your blanket condemnation is justified.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 26th, 2018, 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Now back to business. Phyti, a few posts back I showed a new way to consider Alice's perspective in an STD without associating it with either stationary or moving. I'd like to see if you can do more than pick out a few words you recognize in my posts and spew out standard knee/jerk responses. I'd like you to show me an STD of the muon example from the muon's perspective without having to resort to depicting it in the standard minkowski stationary perspective.

Part of relativity's bag of tricks is to mix contradictory messages. It first states there are no stationary or moving frames, which is absolutely true but then will do analyses with first Bob as the stationary perspective and then Alice as stationary. Perspective does not need the stationary or moving tags associated with it. In fact, it's wrong to do so. This is why I have both perspectives on one STD, Alice does not have to be redrawn as stationary.

Relativity also likes to hide things by saying they don't exist when they do. There is always a hidden background common frame in every STD. I'll reveal it and the standard reaction will be OMG it's a preferred frame and that's not possible. It's not a preferred frame, it's just that the brainwashing sets off alarm bells for even mis-definitions of preferred frame.

The hidden common frame can be revealed in the standard twin paradox example. First you draw it with Bob from his stationary perspective. The next STD is Bob moving and Alice is stationary. The idea here is that now, the entire universe is moving past Alice. This can't be true physically from both a momentum perspective and from the fact Alice would need to be kept stationary from a point outside the universe like a record needle on a spinning record and from the fact empty space can't be made to move. There was a thread a while back of putting air in a moving glass tube through space and evacuating it and proving that the vacuum within the tube had no relative velocity to the vacuum outside the tube. Space can't move past anything.

When Alice is drawn stationary for 4 unit years and then takes off at .8824c relative to her empty take off point to reach Bob in different 4 yr units, she is the centre of a completely different common reference frame than the one that Bob and her shared from his perspective which was the earth frame. Alice's engines are still on in her stationary perspective.

The only way to make "stationary and moving" part of the true perspective is to have Alice fly past Bob and the earth with her own network of distance markers which Bob and the earth would then reference their movement to and abandon their earth frame. There is no need for this complexity if you abandon stationary and moving relative to each other and adopt relative velocity to a common reference frame for simplicity.

Here are the STD's I have been referring to using stationary and moving perspectives rather than just pure Bob and Alice perspectives. Remember, when Alice is stationary, she will not be taking off from the earth in 4 yrs, she will be taking off from a nondescript chunk of empty space. Earth has "moved" away.

Oops, my computer crashed yesterday and I lost all my STD's:

ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Woo hoo, I've reached a new total of 7100 minds corrupted. It's probably just the same 10 or 20 minds that keep coming back for more. Actually I made a mistake in my last post. Alice's engines are not on unless to overcome resistance from space dust.

Oops I also noticed another mistake in my 2 muon STD's. One goes from left to right and the other from right to left depending on earth or upper atmosphere stationary perspective. They are not equivalent even though they give the same correct answer. If the earth is the stationary perspective, the muon starts at a separated distance which is equivalent to a time difference. That time difference diminishes and disappears when the muon hits the earth.

The opposite happens from the upper atmosphere perspective. The muon starts with no time penalty due to distance but as it moves away from the upper atmosphere, the distance (converted into time) eats into its age.

Still waiting on phyti's answer on how to draw an STD from the muon's perspective without making it stationary.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf, you seem to misunderstand that it's never "the universe" that moves past Alice, it is only particular objects that can have a relative velocity. There is no preferred frame, ever. There is no "view from nowhere" - no view from "outside." And there is no "common reference frame. " A FoR is always and only particular to an observer, and to objects they observe. You keep, as if subconsciously, adding a universal FoR.

The muon observes the earth atmosphere as compressed in the vector of its passage through it. It's not a wrong view, or an illusion. It is simply how c is a constant and the muon doesn't exceed c. For the muon, the atmosphere must be length contracted. In the "world" of muons, our atmosphere is only a few miles deep.

TheVat

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

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Alice takes off from Bob and the Earth in the 1st STD. In the reverse analysis, Alice is deemed stationary and Bob, the earth, satellites, asteroids (all in the earth frame) move past Alice. It's not 2 individual objects that are involved in relative velocity, it's frames with all their relative 0v objects inside. Most of the universe is included in that frame. It's so far in the background it looks like it's at 0v relative to the earth frame. This is an illusion of perspective. All is illusion in perspective as nothing persists once the perspective is removed except for the case of age difference.

If you're saying the 1st STD only involves Alice and Bob, why, in the reverse analysis, does a third frame appear? One in which Alice is relatively stationary to for 4 of her years while Bob, the earth, asteroids, satellites are moving at .6c relative to both Alice and her invisible frame out in empty space. Then Alice has to take off at .8824c relative to the invisible stationary frame hurtling through space leaving it behind. Her speed relative to Bob has changed from .6c separating from Bob to .6c coming towards Bob. Her clock units are still relative to the stationary frame that is left behind. There's no need for this to be true if you don't draw Alice's perspective as needing to be stationary.

There is always this background common reference frame in relativity and now you've seen it and it is not a preferred frame. Tell me, have you ever done a stationary perspective change STD. If not, you won't be able to understand what I'm talking about.

Your last paragraph is irrelevant to ralfativity. I do not need length contraction to explain relativistic phenomena. I'm also not discussing the theory that unicorns and elves are involved to make muons live longer than they should.

PS. Look at Greene's muon video

Greene says the muon can be either viewed as stationary and the earth is rushing up to meet it or the earth is stationary and the muon is rushing down to meet it. Depending on which perspective he chooses, he either uses length contraction or time dilation as if they're fixed to a particular perspective. Ralfativity doesn't care about that. It has both perspectives in 1 STD and it chooses one of them to be depicted as stationary. That is not a preferred frame and it never has been.

I referenced another greene video where Alice is looking outside her cab window and sees the city she's driving through distorted by length contraction. Bob, who's in that city, sees only HER cab as length contracted. So don't tell me you really believe that the phenomena caused by relative velocity are exclusive to only the two participants.

start at 15:50
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

ralfcis » October 27th, 2018, 9:13 am wrote:
I referenced another greene video where Alice is looking outside her cab window and sees the city she's driving through distorted by length contraction. Bob, who's in that city, sees only HER cab as length contracted.

How does this contradict what BiV wrote?
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf, you seem to misunderstand that it's never "the universe" that moves past Alice, it is only particular objects that can have a relative velocity.

The background frame is the city and it includes Bob but the effects are not exclusive to just bob and alice. the two objects are bob and alice but the effects include the surroundings. The universe does move past alice, not just bob. Do you need me to say it in many more ways? The universe moves past bob as only a velocity through time but it moves past alice as a velocity through time and through space. Bob can be deemed the stationary reference frame or the city can be or combined bob/city can be or moving alice can be or stationary alice with the city moving past her can be. The city is the universe moving past alice. It's not just bob moving past alice. Clear yet?
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

My point is I don't need to engage in all this useless perspective talk when any perspective will give you the same result. So I choose one. Yes it's the one I prefer which is NOT the same thing as a preferred frame. I prefer it for depiction in an STD. No? None of this is getting through to anyone?

I also prefer Alice's perspective to be a mixed perspective. Alice uses her time which is the dilated time from Bob's perspective and she uses Bob's space as her space so that Bob can bring her into his frame. Alice's perspective of her own frame is independent of this mixed perspective.

Everyone sees me always putting the more massive frame as the stationary frame so they automatically assume I'm unaware of all the other possible perspectives. They see Bob whose frame overlaps the earth frame and they say you are only allowed to draw relative velocity between Bob and Alice, there is no earth frame because that would be 3 frames in one STD which is not allowed. There are always at least 3 frames in an std unless you are doing std's of two astronauts floating in a grey featureless universe with no way to establish distance markers between the two. That doesn't even happen in a collider, the collider is the reference frame. You might prefer the collider spinning around a proton but I don't care about that perspective and who would.
Last edited by ralfcis on October 27th, 2018, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Greene says the muon can be either viewed as stationary and the earth is rushing up to meet it or the earth is stationary and the muon is rushing down to meet it. Depending on which perspective he chooses, he either uses length contraction or time dilation as if they're fixed to a particular perspective. Ralfativity doesn't care about that. It has both perspectives in 1 STD and it chooses one of them to be depicted as stationary. That is not a preferred frame and it never has been.

But it is important how you use gamma, depending on your frame. The muon has to reach earth before it dies, or vice-versa. As Greene makes clear. From the detector frame, the muon is aging more slowly (dilation). From the muon frame, earth is covering a shorter distance (contraction). SR clarifies this just fine. As another poster said, if it ain't broke don't fix it. You don't choose anything as stationary except Your Own Frame. I don't see why this is such a BFD. Perhaps I just don't grasp your concept of a "mixed perspective" - it seems incoherent to me, but perhaps it will be considered genius in fifty years.

TheVat

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

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Working backwards:

Mixed perspective is, in Jorrie's book, a Breme (can't remember the spelling) concept of your space, my time or v'=x/t'. I'v explained it to death so no point in going over it again here.

In a Minkowski STD you choose either Bob or Alice as the stationary frame (the cartesian coordinates). If you don't know this, you don't know what an STD is.

I think I've already gone through several examples showing from either muon or detector perspective you can use time dilation to solve the problem. A length contraction solution is not dedicated to the muon perspective as all of you seem to believe.

I don't know how many times I've listed the reasons relativity is broken so I won't repeat them here again.

If you don't understand anything I've written, start at the beginning of the thread, find a sentence you don't understand and I will be happy to explain it.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Biv, I understand it takes endless repetition in many different ways until something happens to be said in a way that resonates with someone. I'm willing to repeat everything I've already said but I need you to acknowledge when you do or don't understand. I also need you to answer my questions that I posed to you. Actually, anyone else who wishes to participate should submit their own answers to these questions. Here they are again:

1. Can you read an STD?
2. Can you draw an STD?
3. Have you ever drawn a reverse analysis or a perspective change of an STD?
4. Do you understand the 2 STD's I've provided as being from 2 different perspectives?
5.Do you agree that relative velocity is between frames and not individuals?
6. Do you understand everything within a frame is space stationary except for another frame and that relativty's purpose is to allow one to determine the behavior of the other frame from your perspective?
7. Do you believe by doing an analysis of a frame moving relative to your static frame is the same thing as setting up your frame as the dreaded preferred frame of reference?
8. Do you believe everything moves at the combined rate of c and that movement through space subtracts from the movement through time to maintain that combined rate of c?
9. Do you believe reality changes with perspective or do you believe it's what's left after the perspective is accounted for?
10. Do you think I said space can move past a stationary Alice? (hint: I said the opposite but also said you can use space moving past Alice as a perspective which I don't do).
11. Do you think, in the reverse analysis from Alice's stationary frame perspective of Bob's frame, that Alice takes off from earth after being stationary for 4 years?
12. Do you believe there is no common background reference frame in either of Alice's or Bob's perspectives from their stationary frames?
13. Do you believe using either perspective gives the same results or is the fact that Alice looks out her cab window and sees a distorted city tell her she's the one moving through space? How is this imbalance not a preferred frame (hint: it isn't).
14. Are you aware of the 3 reasons I listed of why relativity is broken?
15. Do you understand v=x/t, v'=Yv=x/t'? In the muon example from the muon's perspective, t=2.2 usec, Y=9.08, v=.994c. What is v'? What is x? Is x longer than the distance from earth to the upper atmosphere from the earth's perspective? Do you see length contraction mentioned here? Do you think I've arrived at the incorrect answer because I didn't consider length contraction from the muon's perspective?

Bonus question (you get this and you're at a major milestone): What do x'/t and x'/t' equal and what do they represent physically?
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf;

Phyti you obviously did not view Greene's video.

--

I've seen Brian Greene on PBS, and am familiar with his metaphorical "moving in time" idea. It's nonsense if it's supposed to explain physics.

---

1. Einstein himself said a theory should be as simple as possible (but not simpler). Relativity has a lot of fat on it that can be trimmed away. Trimming away length contraction would make one of relativity's basic assumptions, that both time and space conspire to keep the speed of light constant from all perspectives, irrelevant.

---

There is no conspiracy when processes are interpreted in terms of physics without the personification of objects. Time dilation and length contraction are both caused by light chasing a moving target.

---

2. The spacetime path explanation for age difference is a dud and too complex. That is borne out by the fact that most people don't even know what it means. Mine defines the nature of reality vs perspective and the nature of the present.
3. My theory allows calculation of age difference in circumstances that relativity does not allow because they violate valid spacetime path rules.

---

If you walk them through the development of the spacetime graphics, which are just geometrical interpretations of the coordinate transformations, it's not complex.

Perception is reality confined to the mind. Mental processes are chemical processes, and just as real as the stone falling to the ground. Perception may not represent 'reality' as perceived by another observer, but that's the revelation of SR. Motion affects perception and measurement, a new concept for science.
phyti
Member

Posts: 74
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Ralf;

I'd like you to show me an STD of the muon example from the muon's perspective without having to resort to depicting it in the standard minkowski stationary perspective.

---

That's the muon perspective on the right, in the last graphic posted on the 25th.

It's simplest to start with the earth view and transfer the data to the muon view, without calculations. Each observer may consider themselves at rest.

---

Part of relativity's bag of tricks is to mix contradictory messages. It first states there are no stationary or moving frames, which is absolutely true but then will do analyses with first Bob as the stationary perspective and then Alice as stationary. Perspective does not need the stationary or moving tags associated with it. In fact, it's wrong to do so. This is why I have both perspectives on one STD, Alice does not have to be redrawn as stationary.

---

SR states there is no absolute rest frame, and consequently you cannot detect absolute constant motion. You can only detect and measure differences in anything, distance, voltage, altitude, pressure, etc. It also demonstrates that scaling of space and time from one frame to another allows any inertial frame to serve as a reference. That is what supports the 1st principle 'the description of physical processes is the same in all inertial frames'.

I draw both frames to compare the two perceptions, which is not possible on one graphic, due to scale. In the muon case the difference is huge.

---

Relativity also likes to hide things by saying they don't exist when they do. There is always a hidden background common frame in every STD. I'll reveal it and the standard reaction will be OMG it's a preferred frame and that's not possible. It's not a preferred frame, it's just that the brainwashing sets off alarm bells for even mis-definitions of preferred frame.

---

A fictitious fixed frame can be used to develop the coordinate transformations for moving frames A and B, just as Einstein did. When complete discard the fixed frame since only relative motion of A and B is required.

---

There is no need for this complexity if you abandon stationary and moving relative to each other and adopt relative velocity to a common reference frame for simplicity.
---
OTEOMB, Albert Einstein,1905,

"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought."

He already considered that idea and tossed it.

---
phyti
Member

Posts: 74
Joined: 04 Jul 2006

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

I'll answer more when I have time but here is an answer to your first point from Don Lincoln:

"The really fundamental insight into relativty and its most interesting property is that each and every object is always travelling through spacetime (not space) at the speed of light. The more velocity it has in space, the less velocity it has in time. And that's the fundamental crux of the whole thing."

I don't agree with Greene on a lot of what he says but I do agree on this interpretation of relativity. Relativity is supposed to be settled science but it's more like a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want to believe. I believe this is the explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. Lincoln is firm that space and time bend to keep light constant, time dilation working in concert with length contraction. I contend that time is a mixture of clock readings and distance readings but time (the pythagorean combination of those 2 readings) is the only thing that bends to keep c constant. I'm just one more choice at the buffet.

PS. Einstein said time is what clocks measure. I absolutely disagree. Time is a combination of clock and distance measurements.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

There is no conspiracy when processes are interpreted in terms of physics without the personification of objects. Time dilation and length contraction are both caused by light chasing a moving target.

I can't respond because I have no idea what that means.

If you walk them through the development of the spacetime graphics, which are just geometrical interpretations of the coordinate transformations, it's not complex.

We're not talking about the same thing at all.

Your last paragraph, yeah, thoughts can be measured, who cares. Relativity allows for conflicting measurements due to perspective to be reconciled into a common reality. Measurements, by themselves do not constitute reality, the processing of the measurements does. The explanation of how both see the others clock moving slower and yet the passage of time (ageing) is the same for them is the reality. How does relativity explain it? Movement through space takes time from movement through time but due to relative velocity, they are both moving equally through time and space. There is no way to detect if one is moving a little more through time and the other is moving a little less through space. That imbalance would indicate a preferred frame. Since ralfativity doesn't recognize perception as reality and that any perception processing arrives at the same reality, I can do all my calculations with one of the frames not moving through space and the other moving through both time and space while still recognizing they are engaged in relative velocity and both moving equally through time and space. The only thing that's important is when the perspective becomes reality when one of them makes a change in the relative velocity. What is relativity's explanation for that. A bunch of complex spacetime path rules. This is not the same thing as a spacetime diagram. What's my explanation, my reality? It's ralfativity and how the theory centres on delayed information causing the permanent, persistent age difference independent of perspective.

I apologize, I realize I have never explained my point of view so clearly before. I was assuming everyone knew what was in the back of my mind. Now I see why I was causing confusion.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Crickets!
Ok let's move on to your next post:

I'd like you to show me an STD of the muon example from the muon's perspective without having to resort to depicting it in the standard minkowski stationary perspective.

---

That's the muon perspective on the right, in the last graphic posted on the 25th.

I think I see the problem, the brainwashing is so thorough it doesn't allow you to read my posts. It automatically redacts words it does not want you to see; it has total control of your perception of reality. I'm going to add another time I asked for this particular STD and hopefully you'll be able to see what I asked for is not what you gave me:

Still waiting on phyti's answer on how to draw an STD from the muon's perspective without making it stationary.

Notice the words
muon's perspective without making it stationary
? What does your STD depict with the muon's vertical axis? The muon has the cartesian frame and what does the cartesian frame depict? Hint: a stationary perspective. Notice I said I didn't want that? Can you draw an STD from the muon's perspective with the muon depicted as the moving frame? The moving frame uses the Minkowski coordinates.

I see I'm really up against it if I want to shake people out of this deep relativistic coma state. I'm going to try hypnosis. I will keep repeating something you all understand:

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

Now we're going to insert a statement from phyti that was irrelevant where he put it but is relevant now:

If you walk them through the development of the spacetime graphics, which are just geometrical interpretations of the coordinate transformations, it's not complex.

As I've said before, STD depictions of

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

are flawed. The closest one that depicts

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

is the Loedel STD because

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time
.

The Loedel is still flawed because it requires a background common cartesian reference frame with the velocities relative to it. That's why .6c relative velocity is depicted as two .33c frames.

The Minkowski STD does not depict

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

because 1 frame is depicted from a stationary perspective with the other frame being observed as moving through it. This clearly breaks the rule that

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

because from the cartesian stationary perspective, there is no movement through space.

The Epstein also fails to depict

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

but it does show how mixed perspective of "your space in my time" is depicted.

Einstein may have tossed the fixed frame but it came back like a boomerang when Minkowski entered the picture. It is inescapable when trying to draw relative velocity in any type of STD. Depiction, perspective and reality are not all the same thing as much as everyone here thinks they are.

I'm hoping some of you were able to see the statements outside the boxes.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

relative velocity requires both to move equally through space and time

The question is how do you draw that on a Minkowski STD where Bob is depicted as stationary and his velocity through space is 0. You need to look from both perspectives but you don't need to make Alice stationary to see Bob as moving through space from her perspective. As I said before, stationary or moving are not the perspectives, you don't need to redraw Alice taking over Bob's cartesian coordinates.

Here's the STD that includes both Bob's and Alice's perspectives. Alice can see Bob as moving from her stationary perspective but none of you can see how that's possible yet. Bob just happens to occupy the cartesian coordinates so it's easy for us to see that Alice is moving from his stationary perspective. Again, the words stationary and moving will soon have no importance to the depiction of relative velocity and perspective.

Arrrg, too many lines, I've already lost you. What does Bob see of Alice's velocity relative to him. The blue lines at 3 and 4 (1 Bob year) intersect Alice's velocity line and go down to the x-axis at 1.8 and 2.4 which is .6 light years. So what's Alice's velocity from Bob's perspective? v=x/t = .6/1 = .6c.

Now how in the world am I going to trick you into arriving at the same answer from Alice's perspective of Bob when Bob's vertical line can't have a slope of .6c? Whether you use Minkowski coordinates or Ralfski coordinates for Alice's frame, the answer will be the same so we'll use the Ralfski coordinates and not bring length contraction into it.

The red lines at Alice's 3 and 4 are exactly like Bob's blue lines at his 3 and 4. They riccochet off Bob's vertical time axis onto the red velocity line and then onto the shared x-axis with Bob. The Bob's time unit from Alice's time unit perspective is between the riccochet points and is .8 Bob years. The distance he travels in .8 yrs is .48 light years from Alice's perspective. So his velocity through space from Alice's perspective is v=x/t=.48/.8 = .6c even though the STD depiction hides this from our eyes. Again, you have to be able to see what is real, what is perspective and what is depiction.

I guess I've given away the answer of how one can draw Alice's perspective without redrawing her as stationary. There are no moving or stationary perspectives, they're just drawing tools that have the added benefit of being able to work out all solutions from only 1 perspective. Even if you want the other perspective, there's no need to redraw the STD from that perspective as relativity has brainwashed you into believing.

Are any future visitors to this thread able to understand what I'm saying yet?
Last edited by ralfcis on October 29th, 2018, 9:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Why do you write all this? It's perfectly obvious that if c is invariant, then two observers in relative motion will disagree both on duration and lengths. It's not assumed, it's entailed.
davidm
Member

Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Here's the same analysis on a Loedel STD:

Notice Bob and Alice are depicted as going .33c from a common frame (the earth) but the analysis I used previously shows they see each other (only Alice's perspective of Bob is shown) at .6c relative velocity. I don't need to use any special x'-axes or length contraction to figure this out, I just use the x-axis of the background earth frame which they all share. Since Bob's frame is rotated back from vertical, his blue lines to the x-axis are depicted as also tilted and no longer vertical.

From here the next logical conclusion is always use the background frame's x-axis for any depiction of relative velocity. The next conclusion is that since there are infinite orientations of .6c depictions and since they must all arrive at the same answers, pick the one that is easiest to calculate. This does not make it a preferred frame as all of you seem to think. It may not be a true depiction of reality, or reciprocal perspective but with Bob drawn "stationary" and Alice "moving" you can calculate both perspective and reality. Remember there are no stationary or moving perspectives, only stationary or moving depictions. You guys seem stuck on this too. Don't forget the light lines must also be calculated as their depiction is distorted. The delay time must be adjusted which can give a velocity c' many times c through "moving" frames. This is not a violation of the constancy of c from every perspective. Depiction, perspective and reality are not the same, another concept you can't seem to grasp.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Ralfativity 3.0 The cause of age difference

Enough.

Many pages of people talking past each other. I think the relevant points have been made, and the OP has presented its ideas.

TheVat