Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

 

 

In our example whether Loedel or Minkowski, t'=2, Ym=1.25 so tx=.5. In causal time both bob and alice are 2 but in perspective time you add tx to the perspective you want to calculate. From bob's perspective, t= tau + tx which means Bob=2.5 and alice =2. From alice's perspective, she's 2.5 and bob is 2 because you add tx to alice's tau.

 

...from Bob's perspective he was 4.25 when alice was 2 using the light signal lines and from alice's perspective she was 4.25 when bob was 2 using the light signals to establish their perspective and causal time ages.

 

So what does this do for us? Well it eliminates relativity's concept of reciprocal time dilation.

 

 

You immediately contradict yourself, Ralf.  Of course you don't know it, and will never believe it.  You're so conceptually confused that you wouldn't see a self-contradiction if it slapped you in the face.

 

Because you're so illogical in your thought patterns, logic can't ever faze you.  It means nothing to you.  It's not even a consideration.  You just keep on truckin with your illogic, unperturbed

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In a sense, SR "eliminates reciprocal time dilation" but only in it's supposed "resolution" of the twin paradox.  It's "resolution" tells you that the age difference is absolute, not relative (reciprocal).

 

But it's resolution also contradicts it's own premises, i.e., that time dilation is reciprocal.  Does it then modify it's premises?  Hell, no!  NEVER!  So it doesn't "eliminate reciprocal time dilation" at all.  It just continues to contradict itself, everywhere it goes.

 

It has to contradict itself in order to get the right answer in the twin paradox, i.e the answer that a PFT would give from the get-go.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The word "paradox" has been defined as follows:

 

a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

 

 

That's why I put the word "resolution" in scare quotes above.

 

SR does not eliminate or resolve the paradox at all.  It just affirms it.

 

In generic terms the paradox arises from this question:  How can a relative theory derive an absolute answer?

 

It can't.  Yet SR does, but only admits to it in rare cases like the twin paradox.

 

Logical conclusion:  SR is not a relative theory, notwithstanding it's pretenses to the contrary.  It ultimately relies on preferred frames of references to arrive at the answers it gives.  But, again, it seldom acknowledges that.

 

SR can haul out graph paper to explain "why" it gives an absolute answer, but that does not resolve the paradox at all.  The simple fact remains:  It comes up with an answer that is absolute, not relative, all while pretending to be a relative theory.

 

When the twin paradox comes up, it is common to hear SR disciples quickly assert that "there is no paradox."  All they're demonstrating is that they don't even understand what the paradox is.  One of many things they don't understand, I'm afraid.  They don't even try to understand.  They just parrot what they've been told.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I see you've added this to your post, Rals.

 

Now you can simply answer what time is it but you have to ask do you want the causal time or the perspective time and from which perspective. Relativity did not allow such a simple question to be answered until the valid end of a spacetime path.

 

To answer your question here, Ralf, you do what SR ends up doing.  You prefer the earth's frame.  You can call it a "perspective" time, because it's one perspective.  However it can also be said to have  the "correct" time.  Not sure what you even mean by "causal time."  But by preferring the earth frame, you are treating it's time as absolute.  It is the preferred frame here, because it's the one which is not moving (and because it therefore gives the right answer).

 

In contrast, you can say that the space twin has the (false) perspective time.  He thinks he's the one who's older but he aint because his "perspective" is false.  And, because it's false, that also demonstrates that time dilation is not reciprocal.  It is unilateral.  It demonstrates that his motion is absolute, not merely relative.

 

But of course I've already explained all this to you several times, and you've never been able to comprehend it yet, so I really don't know why I bother.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Einstein justifiably argued, as did Galileo centuries before him, that in a closed cabin, deprived of any sensory input from external surroundings, one could not detect, from doing physical experiments alone, whether he was moving or not.

 

But then he makes a huge and unjustified leap in logic.  One which Galileo denied was accurate. From that extremely limited consideration, Einstein fallaciously asserts that "you can never tell which of two objects in uniform motion is moving."

 

But all a guy on a  moving train with the shades drawn has to do is raise the shade and he will immediately recognize that he is moving relative to the earth, not vice versa.

 

But he doesn't even have to do that.  He can stay in his little sense-deprived prison and still know he is moving relative to the earth.  All he needs to do his consult his recent memory.  He will remember that he felt himself accelerating when the train left the station.  He will also remember that he has felt no acceleration since obtaining a uniform speed.  He will also remember Newton's "law of inertia."  He can then reliably conclude that he is moving relative to the earth, whether he can "see" it, or sense it, or not.

 

Same with the traveling twin in the twin paradox, of course. But note that even in that scenario, the traveling twin does NOT conclude that he is unable to discern whether he is moving or not, relative to the earth.  On the contrary, he KNOWS.  He "KNOWS" that he is the one who is NOT moving, despite knowing that he was blasted off from earth at a high, accelerating speed.

 

Every day, in routine life situations and in all other branches of physics, we rely on our ability to discern which of two objects is moving relative to the other.  As just one of millions of examples, this means that if we accelerate a particle to a uniform speed of .99c relative to us, we know that the particle had NOT remained motionless while the lab had suddenly started to revolve around it until it reached the rate of .99c.  But if you want to listen to SR, that is impossible to know.  Well, except for when it is possible in SR, I mean.

 

Why do people so readily accept this erroneous proposition (i.e., that you can never know which of two uniformly moving objects is the one moving relative to the other) that is advanced as a foundational premise of SR, I wonder?

 

Do you know, Ralf?  Since you are so ready to accept it, I would assume you know why you do, eh?

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

The following was simplified in later posts. Relativity's  definition of age difference is t-t' which is perspective age difference and impermanent. For me the true definition is a difference in proper time along proper time lines of simultaneity that intersect the velocity lines. Once proper age difference is established by a change in velocity, it remains permanently until the next velocity change. The following text showed a nascent consciousness of that final conclusion.

 

I am seeing a whole new math arising from this method and I have to rigorously define how the operations work. For example in this STD of Alice's rountrip at .6c:

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6028&mode=view

 

I just assumed the trip could be divided into 2 independent legs.  The purpose of this thread is to derive relativity from simple algebraic rules but the results (not the method) must agree with relativistic results. Fortunately relativity only cares about the end result when Bob and Alice re-unite.

 

Let's consider the outbound leg. Relativity says Alice is 4 but Bob can be either 5 or 3.2 depending on perspective. I say both are 4 in proper time with a free agent of distance equivalent time to be added to one or the other once a change in velocity occurs. It doesn't get added in a lump sum but is retroactively added incrementally once the initiator of a velocity change is established. It's a form of post-processing. Once Alice initiates the change, Bob is the one who inherits the extra distance equivalent time of 1 yr (according to the formula t_x = t'(Y_m-1). 

 

I make the return leg independent. Relativity does not consider the form of the independent return leg as solvable. It doesn't begin with the two participants co-located (they are separated by 3 ly at the start) so their clocks are not sync'd at the start. This means when they re-unite, the clock comparison is gibberish. Now I don't find this true because the clock sync can be done at the end and the start time can be post processed backwards. For some reason relativity says no to this.

 

There's also a 2nd method to determine a valid start time. The graph of the 2d leg is no different to the graph of the muon experiment where the muon starts in the upper atmosphere and makes it to earth. The result of the muon experiment does not come from a valid age difference, as there is no valid spacetime path defined, but it comes from our perspective of time (we don't care about the muon's perspective). If we had shot muons into the upper atmosphere at the same velocity as they come down, then the graph would look like Alice's roundtrip depiction and we would have a valid age difference measurement between us and the muons independent of perspective. 

 

But since it's a case of reciprocal time dilation from one perspective, it doesn't matter where we draw the earth or the upper atmosphere in the graph. If we swap them around from the current STD, the return leg looks exactly like the outbound leg. We apply the same analysis as for the outbound leg and we get Bob also ageing 5 yrs for Alice's 4. We can tie the original legs together and see they re-unite in a valid spacetime path so their age difference is not a matter of perspective, it's real in that all perspectives agree upon the result. They are co-located in causal time.

 

As a result of this analysis we can define the mathematical operation on a graph that looks like the 2nd leg and convert it into one that looks like the first leg to get useful results out of it where relativity doesn't allow this. Correction: a flip is not a valid operation so it's actually a sideways slide. A flip changes the relative velocity sign so it is invalid.

 

Next we'll explore another mathematical operation of this new math. We've seen the equivalence of a Loedel depiction and a Minkowski depiction of .6c relative velocity. But do the rules apply to a non-symmetrical depiction? Let's study the results of Bob leaving earth at .33c and Alice leaving in the opposite direction at .6c. Will we get the same result for t_x  for that scenario as we would for the minkowski depiction of .7777c (the combo velocity of .33c and .6c)?

 

It looks like t_x is more than just the time equivalent of distance separation but is actually age difference. Once we define the math rules for deriving it for different depictions of relative velocity, it will be easy to tally up the results of age difference for any complex graph.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

We apply the same analysis as for the outbound leg and we get Bob also ageing 5 yrs for Alice's 4. We can tie the original legs together and see they re-unite in a valid spacetime path so their age difference is not a matter of perspective, it's real in that all perspectives agree upon the result.

 

 

Exactly.  And the result will always be an absolute, not a relative, difference.  You don't have to speculate, based on hypothesis; you can just look directly at the two clocks and see which one has slowed down.  Then you will know which one was actually moving faster relative to the other.  The difference is empirically determined and absolute, as the H-K experiment showed.  There is no "reciprocal" time dilation.  The motion involved is absolute, not relative.

 

Now, Ralf, if you can ever figure out what this implies, you might be getting somewhere.  I've already told you, but you ignore anything any one else says.

 

Once we define the math rules for deriving it for different depictions of relative velocity, it will be easy to tally up the results of age difference for any complex graph.

 

 

As you can see from the foregoing, it's not a matter of "math rules," as you seem to think.  It's a matter of empirical fact. If the math rules you develop to explain the facts don't match the data, then you can only legitimately change the rules, not the facts.

 

That's what H-K had to do.  The SR rules simply did NOT match the facts.  So they changed the "rules."   They had to dump SR and adopt a preferred frame theory, which posits absolute motion, in order to get the theoretical predictions to match the empirical facts.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 If the math rules you develop to explain the facts don't match the data, then you can only legitimately change the rules, not the facts.

 

Of course anyone who accepts the velocity addition formula, as you do, would ignore this.  The attitude there is the same as Hegel's, to wit:   "If the facts contradict my theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts."

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6028&mode=view

 

I just assumed the trip could be divided into 2 independent legs. This is not an assumption relativity holds true because it violates its spacetime path rules. 

 

What are you even talking about?  You're contradicting yourself, yet again.   The very STD which you link shows two independent legs, one for the outbound trip and one for the inbound trip.

 

And it shows, just as I said, that SR chooses to treat the earth frame as the correct one, which is absolute.  The earth twin has aged 10 years, and the spacetwin 8, end of story.    There's nothing reciprocal about it.  If the spacetwin thinks otherwise (as he does, per SR) then he is just flat wrong, that's all.  If you reverse the assumptions about who is moving (i.e., assert that time dilation is reciprocal), then the spacetwin will say that HE has aged 10 years, and the earthtwin only 8.  Bzzzzz.  WRONG, per SR.

 

The earth is treated as the preferred frame of reference, it's as simple as that.  If you want to try and argue that SR is consistent and reflects physical reality, then you have to deny the fact that SR absolutely prohibits the use of a preferred frame.  But if you deny that premise, you are repudiating SR as a whole, and simply adopting a preferred frame theory of relative motion (a PFT). That's what the GPS does, and what H-K did.

 

Of course that's not something you are capable of understanding because you are very conceptually confused, Ralf.  I only take the time to point it out so that future readers can consider it from a rational and logical (as opposed to dogmatic and illogical) standpoint.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's consider the outbound leg. Relativity says Alice is 4 but Bob can be either 5 or 3.2 depending on perspective. I say both are 4 in causal time with a free agent of distance equivalent time to be added to one or the other once a change in velocity occurs

 

A totally arbitrary, unwarranted, and unjustified claim, which defies all reason.  You're just playing with numbers, Ralfie.  Yet again you simply demonstrate how conceptually confused you are.

 

Time dilation is steady; it does not increase by discontinuous jumps or vary according to the direction you're going.  Time dilation has been shown to be strictly correlated to instantaneous speed only.  It is unaffected by anything else, such as acceleration, or lack thereof.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I think I made a mistake in defining the flip operation. I think it should be a sideways slide, not a mirror image flip. A flip would be wrong because it would mean the relative velocity has no sign but a slide assures the sign is maintained so you get the correct answer when you plug it in to the relativisic velocity combo equation. So a flip operation is subtraction of relative velocities.  Moronium probably picked up on that mistake and I'll see if maybe he mentioned it.

Edited February 28, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;
You need more than a one-way signal. To make measurements, requires an outbound signal and its inbound return.

Eg., A sends a signal at 1.00 which reflects at Ut=2.00, and returns at At=4.00. A adds half of transit time to emission time, assigning Ut(2.00) to At(2.50). A concludes the U clock rate is .8 the A clock rate.
The graph shows this rule works since it uses the A axis of simultaneity (green) which is tangent to the (red) calibration curve where it crosses the time line of A.

You can also use the coordinate transformations for event U(0, 2.00)

x' =g(x-vt) = [0-(.6)2]/.8 = -1.50

t' = g(t-vx) = [2.00 -(.6)]/.8 = 2.50

The length of light lines is not meaningful, it's not a 2D map.

 

[ralfcis]

Ok I was unaware relativity does that. I can see how this method gets rid of the light depiction travel time problem. My method gets the same answers. This isn't an interpretation problem with relativity, its just a workaround method to align the depiction with reality. The question I'm trying to answer is What time is it? I'm trying to answer it independent of perspective using proper time. In order for all times to agree, the answer is add the  proper time on your watch plus the time equivalent of the distance separation. I convert perspective time from the common proper time between them. Relativity does its calculations using perspective time instead of converting proper time results into whatever perspective you want.

 

Say there's a planet 3ly away from earth. The two planets have their time sync'd according to their horizontal lines of simultaneity. The yr on earth is 2010, the yr on Alice's watch is 2010 and the yr on the distant planet is 2010. Alice takes off at .6c and arrives when her watch says 2014 while the planet's clocktower says 2015. Has she gone back in time from the planet's perspective or has she gone forward in time from her perspective? No. She knows part of her time has been converted into distance. The time equivalent of her distance is 1 yr so add those 2 times together and she's really 5.

 

The question remains whether reality is the same as information. If the sun is plucked from the center of our solar system, our reality won't change for 8 minutes. Our reality is our perspective reality based on delayed information. We can't experience the proper reality because of the delay of info. We can only calculate that the sun was really gone 8 minutes ago and that is the cause of our present predicament. So what time is it really? Is our reality and our present subjective and other perspectives see it differently or is there a common reality that everyone can agree upon after post-processing the info? Relativity says no to this.

 

We already have a clue to this common time because all clocks tick at the same rate within every frame. Whatever number we assign to each clock tick is not as important as recognizing the clock rate is always the same. Do our clocks really tell what time it is or are their readouts the result of arbitrary synchronization and labelling. If the planet had no clocks before the colonists arrived, planet time would have been set to 4 not 5. That still wouldn't have prevented conflicts between planetary time and others arriving from earth using different relative velocities. What would eliminate conflicts is recognizing the distance equivalent of time and correcting clock readings with that time info.

 

PS. Causal reality would occur instantaneously if it weren't for the info delay of the speed of light. As soon as that sun was plucked, the earth would go dark and get flung out of orbit. We wouldn't be orbiting nothing for 8 minutes. That delayed reality is only possible because the delay of info is the same as delay of reality.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 

The question I'm trying to answer is What time is it? I'm trying to answer it independent of perspective. In order for all times to agree, The answer is add the  proper time on your watch (causal time) plus the time equivalent of the distance separation.

 

 

Wise up, Ralf.  You're never going to get that out of SR.

 

Time does NOT change in a PFT.  You need to investigate those theories, not SR.  Einstein took Lorentz's" local time" which Lorentz regarded as a mathematical fiction (although useful in calculations), and declared that it was the "real" time.   That's where all the problems in SR began. 

 

You're not going to "solve" the problems in SR by accepting it's premises.  You need different premises.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

She knows part of her time has been converted into distance. The time equivalent of her distance is 1 yr so add those 2 times together and she's really 5.

 

 

Converting time to distance is a function of that abomination of Minkowski called "spacetime."  A PFT has no use for such absurd fictions.  Those deal in ordinary Newtonian 3 + 1 space and time (as did Einstein when he created the theory in 1905).

 

You're not going to "solve" the problems in SR by accepting it's premises.  You need different premises.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Among other differences between SR and a preferred frame theory are:

 

Simultaneity is absolute, not relative.

Motion is absolute, not relative.

Transformations go only one way (they are not "reciprocal").

Time is absolute (apparently what Ralf means when he says "causal time").

 

The GPS rejects SR and adopts a PFT for good reasons.  Using a PFT, the system works.  It is impossible to use SR and have a working system.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The question remains whether reality is the same as information.So what time is it really? Is our reality and our present subjective and other perspectives see it differently or is there a common reality that everyone can agree upon after post-processing the info? Relativity says no to this.

 

 

You can philosophically debate what "reality" is all day.  But to answer your question, relativity says no because it adopts, at bottom, the ontological stance of solipsism, which claims:  There is no objective physical reality.  All "reality" is strictly mental and subjective. 

 

If you don't agree with that you will adopt the philosophical position of realism, which says that there are "things" out there that exist independently of the mind.  This is the view that a PFT (and virtually every serious philosopher in history) takes.

 

The science of physics (and all science and scientists in general) presupposes a realistic view, not a solipsistic one.  Well, with one exception, I mean, to wit:  The so-called "science" of SR.

 

SR is simply a mental game played by mathematicians. It is a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one.  It ends up endorsing propositions which are physically impossible.  

 

Reality is not information.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Moronium