Personal Topic

[Moronium]

Ralf, your presumption, and assertion, is that so called "time-dilation" and slowed aging are different things, governed by different causes.  And you seem to want to know "why" that is.  Here's the short answer: it isn't.  There is no distinction, not within the realm of SR, anyway.  It is the same phenomenon.  What in the world makes you think otherwise?

Edited January 24, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. For the moving organism, the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with approximately the speed of light.

 

 

Albert Einstein, 1905

 

The slowing of clocks and the reduced rate of metabolism for living organisms are simply two sides of the same coin.  They are not distinct phenomenon.

 

The hands on clocks do not move much, and animals don't age much, in a "mere instant," as Al puts it.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I'm going to have to refer you to my STD language test I posted before. There's no point in talking further unless you show a basic understanding of the terms or are willing to learn the terms.

[Moronium]

I'm going to have to refer you to my STD language test I posted before. There's no point in talking further unless you show a basic understanding of the terms or are willing to learn the terms.

Heh, and where can that "test" be found, exactly?  Have any kind of link?

[ralfcis]

In this thread, the drawing I posted is the STD and the questions are with it. Very short.

[ralfcis]

Yay, my STD test works in what it was designed to do. (A-wal pay close attention to the next sentence. Your brain will try to redact it. It is the question I have been repeatedly posing. Repeat it back to me in your own words so I can at least tell you saw it this time.)

 

Now I think I see a huge disproof, in the GPS satellite example, of the idea that age difference in the twin paradox is caused by the force of gravity (acceleration) at the turnaround point. Here's why:

 

Reciprocal time dilation between two parties only exists when the two share a constant relative velocity. They both calculate the other is ageing slower. The same with length contraction but the difference with length contraction is that it doesn't persist once the two reunite whereas the time dilation does in the form of permanent age difference. The reciprocal time dilation is no longer reciprocal, it has only become permanent for one of the parties and both agree that's true. In fact, the whole universe from every perspective agrees in their now permanent age difference (no longer reciprocal).

 

Now the latest theory I got from the expert was the acceleration at the turnaround set the total age difference even though the journey was half over and more reciprocal time dilation was coming in the second half. That's fine since the acceleration needed to turnaround would be twice that needed to stop. It's not that this answer wasn't available at the turnaround, it's that other perspectives had different simultaneous readings of the two clocks because of the relativity of simultaneity.

 

I now say, so what? Everyone travelling around would know relativity and be able to calculate once Bob and Alice re-unite, Alice will be 2 yrs younger than Bob at the re-unification. All disagreements due to perspective before they re-unite can be calculated and resolved once the info of the turnaround reaches those perspectives. (This means if Alice does the change she is closest to the info so she would be the first who could calculate that her age diff when they re-unite. Bob will be the last to calculate the result because his perspective is the farthest from the info.)

 

In the GPS satellite example, their clocks do not feel any force from their relative velocity that would indicate a turnaround. Hence their clocks should be in permanent reciprocal time dilation with the earth but I now see each orbit is a valid spacetime path and therefore the GPS satellites are accummulating age difference with each orbit without the force of acceleration causing it. There is a turnaround but it does not involve acceleration that was postulated would result in permanent age difference for the satellite. Just because the start and endpoints of the spacetime path aren't exactly co-located with the earth's spacetime path, doesn't mean that distance separation can't be resolved through calculation. So I'm going to have to reject the expert's opinion on what causes age difference. It is not non-inertial acceleration which causes gravity and then the formulas of GR come up with the answer of age difference. (I don't believe there's reciprocal time dilation due to gravity, only the party in the heavier field will age slower and permanently wrt the observer.)

 

But that still doesn't resolve a huge contradiction in relativity when Bob and Alice stop at a distance from each other. In the .6c example where Alice stops 3 ly away from Bob, the answer is obvious that once Bob receives the info that Alice has stopped, they will both agree she has aged one yr less than Bob. Other perspectives will not agree due to their relativity of simultaneity. If the stop is perfect, there will never be a re-unification so the other perspectives can't even calculate what their age diff will be once they re-unite because they never will. But if Alice slowly drifts towards Bob, then yes all perspectives can agree, a million years later, at their re-unification, Alice will have aged 1 yr less than Bob. But if the stop is perfect or she drifts away from Bob, then no possible calculation can be made for universal agreement of their age difference.

 

This is lunacy. It proves to me age difference does not require re-unification and therefore has nothing to do with valid spacetime paths. I now feel free to propose my personal theory of ralfativity as an answer to this problem. I just need to find another forum with hardcore experts that can really put my theory to the test. There is tons of math involved and that just won't fly over here or on most forums as I've found out.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

As long as there is this persistent inability to understand the difference between time dilation and age difference, there can be no points made here.  There is a time diff between the GPS clocks and the earth clocks. Where does this time diff come from? Because if it comes from GR gravity, that's a different answer than if it comes from time dilation and another different answer if it comes from the doppler shift ratio, and another answer if it comes from whatever causes permanent age difference WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TIME DILATION!!! Age difference isn't even a rate of time.

 

So my point is, there are 2 components to consider, the effect of gravity on earth clocks slows them in relation to the satellites' clocks and then the time dilation  (which does not result in permanent age difference) of the satellites' relative velocity slows their clocks from our perspective. Watch the video the admin posted at the top of page 5 and it says how much each component contributes to the combined time difference between our clocks and the satellite clocks. Spoiler alert, the gravity component wins.

Age is the integral of the rate of time.

[exchemist]

I'm going to have to refer you to my STD language test I posted before. There's no point in talking further unless you show a basic understanding of the terms or are willing to learn the terms.

STD?

 

Sexually Transmitted Disease?

 

Subscriber Trunk Dialling? 

 

???

[ralfcis]

spacetime transmitted diagram disease. The last D is silent. I don't see your answers to the test anywhere.

 

Everyone, no matter where they are in the universe, on the surface of a black hole or travelling near the speed of light relative to us, we are all ageing at the same universal rate within our own frames. Yet the results of integrating that rate do not agree from any perspective or co-location. The final tally, compared at the end of a spacetime path, is called age difference and that's due to relativistic effects. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

spacetime transmitted diagram disease. The last D is silent. I don't see your answers to the test anywhere.

 

Everyone, no matter where they are in the universe, on the surface of a black hole or travelling near the speed of light relative to us, we are all ageing at the same universal rate within our own frames. Yet the results of integrating that rate do not agree from any perspective or co-location. The final tally, compared at the end of a spacetime path, is called age difference and that's due to relativistic effects. 

Thanks for explaining the initials. But age is just one manifestation of accumulation (integration) of time differences. You could use clock time or the extent of radioactive decay, or anything other time-dependent phenomenon equally well. Why do you have a bee in your bonnet about age?  

[ralfcis]

The twin paradox is about how it's not the same thing as reciprocal time dilation. My bee is trying to understand what causes the difference. Now that I think I have relativity's explanation for it, I find it lacking. So when I found it lacking years ago, without knowing relativity's final explanation, I came up with my own theory. After countless revisions, I came upon a consistent story that has no contradictions. Replacing the theory of relativity with the theory of ralfativity would be yuge. Hence, the bee. This tiny bee in a huge theory, just crushing this one tiny problem would bring down the entire theory.

 

Now if you remember on the previous forum, just mentioning I had a pet theory resulted in my eviction from the physics forum. The forum-Nazi stated just having a pet theory, discussed or not, represented a hidden agenda which de-legitimized my  discussion about physics and the theory of relativity. No soup for me that day.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

This is a response to the last forum that evicted you. I posted it to the 'personal theories' section, before they moved your thread to the trash, yet did not see it.

There are also posts 43-46 here that were directed to you if you returned. It's simple to add graphics here, and they do clarify a page of text.

-------------

Ralf#65;

You also gave me an explanation once that acceleration causes age diff and there's no such thing as instantaneous acceleration so the age difference sweep does not cause instantaneous age diff but a smoother albeit rapid age diff.

 

Now you're saying there is no unfurling of age diff so why would you have proposed your acceleration line of simultaneity sweep as the cause. Saying there is no unfurling of age diff is not the same thing as understanding why there isn't.

------

I tried uploading graphics here with no success. It seems nonsensical, since it works elsewhere.

------

In the above, you are misconstruing what I said. The axis of simultaneity (aos), established via SR clock synch, is a mathematical tool, to simulate a pseudo rest frame for the inertial observer. It only has a local application for the observer, since it's not feasible to extend to distant locations. Consider the case of a clock 100 ly distant. Would you be around for the return? Einstein said it simply as: "there's an A time and a B time, but no common time." In his analysis of system K and K', the x axes are parallel. As it's depicted in a Hermann (Minkowsi spacetime diagram), it's misleading, with 'jumps' in time, i.e. a fictitious problem. The aos is based on relative inertial motion. If one of two frames changes speed or direction, the clocks require another application of the SR clock synch.

-------

When A receives the current time code from B, A can compare the current A-clock age to the past B-clock age, but it's incomplete. The only way to compare current ages, is to be coincident.

------

Draw the popular 'twins' graphic as described below, with an exchange of light signals for A and B.

The B clock separates from the A clock at .6c then reverses direction at At=5, to reunite at .6c.

The speed profile vt/ct for A is a constant 0, as observed from a universal reference frame U. The speed profile vt/ct for B is a constant .6. Time dilation is a function of speed, not direction and thus not acceleration. Examine the gamma factor which contains only 1 and v/c. Acceleration is not the causal solution to the 'twin' problem. It's only an incidental detail of the simplest scenario. Both could accelerate in another case.

Since the reversal is simplified to instantaneous, to avoid an acceleration interval, treat the scenario as two inertial profiles. There are various methods to work around the reversal but just ignore it, like it's done for the separation and reunion. The B profile is symmetrical, so it's only necessary to examine one segment and double it.

Al with his A clock receives 4 B-ticks in 8 A-ticks, followed by 4 B-ticks in 2A-ticks (via blue encoded light signals).

Bev with her B-clock receives 2 A-ticks in 4 B-ticks, followed by 8 A-ticks in 4 B-ticks.

This describes doppler shift, the perception of frequencies when source and detector have relative motion. The ratio when converging is the inverse of the ratio when diverging. The ratios .5 and 2 are the same for both, contradicting the fact that the clock rates are constant. (An observers motion cannot affect the rate of a distant clock.)

What is more meaningful is total ticks received, 8 for Al and 10 for Bev. They both agree Bev is the younger. This only requires exchange of data, not a physical stop.

Because the profiles form a closed path, all ticks are conserved, no losses, no gains.

The mutual observations of clocks only informs them of the past clock rates and per the SR clock synch convention a calculated time dilation. Neither Al nor Bev can predict the accumulated time on the clocks (aging), unless they follow predetermined speed profiles.

Note this is the simplest case of the twin scenario where the twin who returns will always be the younger. With each changing their speed profile, requires more analysis.

All moving clocks lose time. The question is, which of the two loses more.

------

A benchmark for proficiency is when you can produce a Hermann which correctly corresponds to the Lorentz/SR transformations.

[ralfcis]

So you're phyti? I can't see that forum from home because my IP is blocked. I have to go to the library and I still can't see what's in the trash can. I have to assume someone else's identity to see that. I did respond to your post there. Could you maybe get a message to KJW that I debunked his theory of non-inertial acceleration being the cause of age difference here if he wishes to finish our discussion?

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The twin paradox is about how it's not the same thing as reciprocal time dilation. 

 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is reciprocal time dilation in the twin paradox, but not reciprocal aging.

 

Neither one is reciprocal.  There is no reciprocal time dilation in the twin paradox.

 

This is a fact which many SR advocates try to deny by employing a great variety of sophistry, but their efforts to deny it are ultimately futile (as empirical experiments reveal).

Edited January 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

How's that quiz coming. It should prevent all future mixing of terms into a blender and coming out with word slosh.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

What's your response to my last post?  (post #150)   Does it have something to do with "terminology?"

 

We were just discussing this same issue at some length in another thread, which you can look at if you're wondering why I make the claim.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34636-physics-based-on-einsteins-errors/page-5?do=findComment&comment=367248

[ralfcis]

Yes all of it.