Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Skip this.

 

Here's a snapshot of Alice doing monkey business in an area relativity deems can't result in a determinant age difference. The area is from Alice stopping to Alice not making a velocity change. Between those bounds Alice can decide to slow down which results in a permanent age difference through this method. The stop is shown in light purple and her choice to keep going is in regular purple. She ages a year less if she chooses to stop and remains the same causal age as Bob if she keeps going at .6c. This is the only choice she can make where reciprocal time dilation can remain applied to either Bob or Alice depending on perspective. In other words they're both the same age until a change in velocity changes that. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Vxa73JGY5TFRtfp68

 

If Alice stops she only ages 3/4 of a yr for every yr Bob ages during the time of imbalance in relative velocity (this lasts 4 causal yrs). If Alice keeps going, she ages 1 yr for every bob yr so no age difference is occurring during constant relative velocity.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

I have no idea what Ralfcis is trying to say, and I suspect he doesn’t, either. I’m not even going to try to disentangle or decipher it.

 

Dingle wrote: "The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A — which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.”

 

I guess he is referring to reciprocal time dilation and length contraction, the heart of the alleged twin’s paradox. Some guy stays on earth and his twin blasts off. The traveling twin travels at constant uniform velocity toward a distant star, at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He then turns around and comes back home. When he returns, he finds that he has aged less than his stay-at-home twin.

 

So I guess Dingle’s problem is that while the traveling twin is in constant uniform motion (inertial frame) he is entitled to think that his stay-at-home twin is the one who is in motion, and that he is at rest. Stay-at-home thinks the opposite: He is at rest, and twin is in motion.

 

As a consequence of this, both see the other’s clock as running slow compared with their own, and each sees the other as length-contracted in direction of motion.

 

Paradox! I guess they can’t both be right. So relativity must be wrong! Is this what Dingle thought, and Moronium thinks?

 

But the situations are symmetrical only part of the time.

 

The traveling twin is not always in constant uniform motion. He must accelerate and then decelerate when he turns around, and then accelerate again on the return leg. In fact, this is usually presented as the solution to the so-called paradox — that special relativity does not apply to accelerated frames, and this symmetry-breaking is what accounts for the ultimate measured age difference of the twins.

 

But it really isn’t the solution. The traveling twin will end up younger even if accelerated frames are omitted entirely. We can idealize the situation to say that the traveling twin’s takeoff and turnaround is instantaneous, without acceleration or deceleration. Though this is physically impossible, we can run this as a perfectly valid thought experiment.

 

Imagine twin A, on earth, and twin B, in spaceship, exchange constant radio signals — pulses emitted one every second as measured by each’s own clock. Each will see the pulses arriving from the other at lower frequency — i.e., each will determine that the other’s clock is running slow.

 

But now twin B turns around instantaneously — no acceleration or deceleration. Remember, this is a thought experiment. It doesn’t have to be physically possible. What will each twin see now?

 

Twin B, incoming twin, will immediately begin to see higher frequency radio pulses from earth, whereas Twin A, on earth, continues to see low-frequency pulses. This is because B is heading back into pulses already on their way, while A will be waiting a longer time for the pulses that left at B’s turnaround point.

 

Consequently, both will agree that A ages more than B, even before B arrives home.

 

The key point is not acceleration, it is rather that, while both (in the thought experiment) are in inertial frames, B is in two different inertial frames, whereas A was always in the same frame.

 

This, I guess, is what Dingle never got. Even completely discounting acceleration, A and B’s points of view are not fully symmetrical.

 

Of course, if B travels on forever in constant uniform motion and never turns around and never returns, and A and B continue to send out radio pules, each will judge the other’s clock to be running slow, and both will be right, from their own perspective, which is all that matters. If both are in constant uniform motion all the time, and each never switches frames, the question of who is actually older or younger has no physical meaning.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Moronium]

If your argument is that SR applies to no known situation in the universe then congratulations--you have relegated SR to the pseudo-science that it is:  a metaphysical proposition which is unfalsifiable and which has absolutely no relevance to physics.

 

A and B’s points of view are not fully symmetrical.

 

 

Of course their situations are not symmetrical. And of course one "changes frames."   One is moving, one isn't.  The moving clock is the one that slows down.  The motion is absolute, not relative.

 

The only "paradox" is that SR claims that time dilation is reciprocal and motion merely relative, all while making predictions which totally demolish that claim. And suckers are asked to believe that both are true.

 

 

Of course, if B travels on forever in constant uniform motion and never turns around and never returns, and A and B continue to send out radio pules, each will judge the other’s clock to be running slow, and both will be right, from their own perspective, which is all that matters.

 

 

No, that is not "all that matters," unless you're talking about solipsistic philosophy.

 

Physics is about objective matter in motion, not the subjective minds of ignorant observers.

 

Just answer the question, Amp:  How is it possible for each of two clocks to be running slower than the other?

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Without a change in velocity they remain the same age ageing at the same rate. I proved that with my discussion on light signals.

 

The act of relativistically verifying they are the same age requires someone to change velocity. This will affect what answer they will ultimately get but they can use this answer to work backwards to what their age had to have been. Of course if you only consider perspective time as real, then the final answer will depend on whose perspective you're judging the outcome from. But if you consider perspective to be an illusion, then there is proper time that clears everything up. 

 

I sure am presenting a lot of math for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, if I was presenting this in Chinese you'd come to the same conclusion rather than understanding you're not understanding the language.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I know you're going to respond with there's no absolute preferred reference frame. Put on your reading glasses and pull down on your thinking cap and try to read what I wrote:

 

Proper time has no perspective; there's no ambiguity of what event happened first. It may join all the same sync'd proper times but it is not a universal or absolute or Newtonian time but it is instantaneous with the speed of light delays stripped away and time laid bare. When one initiates a change in relative velocity, proper time is disturbed between the two parties. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 But if you consider perspective to be an illusion, then there is causal time that clears everything up. I explain what causal time is but, I know, new 

 

 

You fool yourself into thinking you have dreamed up some radical new concept, Ralf, i.e., what you want to call "causal time."  It's nothing new.  It's been around forever.  It is called absolute time.

 

...is not a universal or absolute or Newtonian time but it is instantaneous...

 

 

 

Even if you want to claim, contrary to all evidence, that the speed of light is infinite, you're still just talking about absolute time.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

It's ok moronium, I know you have no reading glasses or a thinking cap. I was talking to your friend. Absolute time can't be altered by the antics between 2 parties. Proper time becomes unbalanced between the two during the time one makes a change and the other gets news of this. Relative velocity depends on being the same for both. When it's not, permanent proper age difference occurs.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

it is instantaneous with the speed of light delays stripped away and time laid bare.,,, Causal time becomes unbalanced between the two during the time one makes a change and the other gets news of this. 

 

Time delay is "stripped out of" every lorentz transformation.  Those transformations have nothing to do with who "gets news" when.

 

It's not relevant, whatever your theory is.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

If your argument is that SR applies to no known situation in the universe then congratulations--you have relegated SR to the pseudo-science that it is:  a metaphysical proposition which is unfalsifiable and which has absolutely no relevance to physics.

Just answer the question, Amp:  How is it possible for each of two clocks to be running slower than the other?

 

You are, I am sorry, to say, profoundly ignorant about science, philosophy, probably everything. It has always been known that special relativity is an idealization — it does NOT apply to the real world, because it does not incorporate accelerated frames and gravity! Good lord man, why do you think Einstein developed general relativity? Because he knew SR was an incomplete idealization!

 

It is astonishing how you have comprehensively missed the point of my post. I am showing how, even on its own incomplete idealized terms, SR resolves the twin paradox without any recourse to general relativity or accelerated frames!

 

GR simply subsumes SR into a broader context that adds acceleration and gravity. That SR fully resolves the so-called twin’s paradox without even having to invoke GR is a testament to its strength, not its weakness! My goodness, you are dense!

 

As to how it is possible for two clocks to be running slower than the other, I have already explained this! The PROPER time is what clocks validly measure -- i..e. clock ticks in their own frames.  

 

[ralfcis]

Skip this.

 

Here's Alice choosing a velocity slowing down away from Bob and the same velocity (5/13c) returning to him. After the 4 yr causal  time of relative velocity imbalance is passed, Alice will have age 1.6 yrs less than Bob on the roundtrip returning and only .4 yrs less going away. She will not continue to age less after those 4 yrs unless she makes another velocity change. After she hits t'=7.6, she will age yr for yr with Bob with reciprocal time dilation between them adding up but not counted in their causal time until someone changes the relative velocity.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Yd998s2C3mbyGabPA

 

Again, the point of this thread is a derivation of relativity using simple algebra. I get all the right answers but I can expand the determination of age difference into scenarios relativity disqualifies because of bad assumptions. So far I've only taken the math into one forbidden area. Soon I will take it into others such as what happens if Alice makes a velocity change greater than .6c away from Bob. This new simplified graphical method I've come up with should make the results more intuitive but not for anyone on this forum except maybe for Popeye.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

special relativity is an idealization — it does NOT apply to the real world

 

 

Exactly.  It does not, and cannot, apply to the real world because it's premises contradict physical reality.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

even on its own incomplete idealized terms, SR resolves the twin paradox without any recourse to general relativity or accelerated frames

 

 

Completely wrong.  You have shown no such thing.  I don't think you even understand what the paradox is.  The so-called "resolution" to the paradox only reinforces that the paradox is unresolved and unresolvable.

 

GR is NOT a theory of relative motion--as even Einstein admitted despite struggling in vain  for years to make it one.

 

It is a theory of gravity, not relative motion.  It has nothing to do with SR.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

SR always dealt with local, Euclidian spaces, whereas GR was developed to account for global, Riemannian space. And neither is contradicted by the fact that the expansion of space, beyond the Hubble volume, is superliminal.

 

SR, like Newtonian physics, works to an approximation. That is what all theories do. The same must also be true of GR and QM, since they are incompatible!

 

Theory development is in accord with the pessimistic meta-induction: all theories are strictly false. But this does not mean they are useless. Theories are predictive models, instrumentally useful until their predictions break down, as Newton’s did with respect to the orbit of Mercury, and then it was relativity to the rescue.

[Moronium]

As to how it is possible for two clocks to be running slower than the other, I have already explained this! The PROPER time is what clocks validly measure -- i..e. clock ticks in their own frames.  

 

 

 

Heh, and YOU want to talk about someone being dense?

 

That's no answer at all.  Why, if each clock runs slower than the other, does one twin come back younger?  Why isn't each younger than the other?  What one of them "validity measures" turns out to be 100% wrong.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Theory development is in accord with the pessimistic meta-induction: all theories are strictly false. 

 

 

No, just to begin with, that's wrong.  No theory is "presumed" to be false, per se.  It's just that it can never be "proven" to be true, that's all.  Any theory can be proven to be false, of course.  As SR has been.

[Amplituhedron]

 

Heh, and YOU want to talk about someone being dense?

 

That's no answer at all.  Why, if each clock runs slower than the other, does one twin come back younger?  Why isn't each younger than the other?  What one of them "validity measures" turns out to be 100% wrong.

 

 

LOL, I just explained this to you! What the hell is wrong with you, anyway?  :surprise:

[Amplituhedron]

Each clock does not objectively run slower than the other -- that's the whole bloody point! There is no objective, frame-independent point of view about which clock is "really" correct. Holy F, man, that is the whole point of the theory! You are a piece of work!