Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Now most of you don't know why relativity depends of length contraction to work in tandem with time dilation to keep c constant from all perspectives. All you need to know is that Einstein said so and its "counter-intuitiveness" must make it beyond the scope of reason so faith must be employed in order to understand it. In fact, the wackier the belief, the more faith is required. Faith is also very difficult to articulate as it's based more on a time you saw the light rather than a reason for seeing the light. So I'm going to articulate your point of you for you.

 

In my previous example, Alice sees she has covered 4 ly in only 3 of her years while from Bob's perspective of time, she did it in 5 of his years. Relativity says the problem with Alice's measurement is she's mixing Bob's distance and her time to get a value above c so her distance must have contracted at the same time her time was seen to dilate. Never mind that mixing Bob's distance over her time is a different measure of velocity, c can't be exceeded no matter what.

 

This is great news for anyone who wants to beat Usain Bolt on the track. All they need to do is wear a wristwatch that runs far slower than the official track clock. When they cross the finish line they just show they ran the race in 1 sec according to their watch. The officials, unable to grasp the counter-intuitive paradox, declare one of the lanes must have shrunk during the race and has restored itself now that the race is over. 

 

Alice at 4 ly has fallen 2 yrs behind in her clock information transfer to Bob. When she was only 1 ly away, she was only half a yr behind. Alice, on the other hand, is not separated from her clock or the point of passing proxima centauri at the 4 ly mark. That distance is 4ly from Bob's perspective but she is right there knowing she is 4 Bob light yrs away from Bob. Bob is separated from her perspective and she is separated from his but she is not separated from her own. This is the point where perspective reality breaks down and the true proper reality, which Einstein missed, takes over.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Now most of you don't know why relativity depends of [sic] length contraction to work in tandem with time dilation to keep c constant from all perspectives. All you need to know is that Einstein said so and its "counter-intuitiveness" must make it beyond the scope of reason so faith must be employed in order to understand it. 

 

:lol: Utter nonsense! We all understand it -- do not take it on faith -- except for you. You don't understand it!

 

It's explained right here

[ralfcis]

This is an answer to a question in another thread: This is for Mattzy, the rest of you will probably only be able to see a blank page.

 

 The speed of light and the rate of time are interrelated. What everyone sees within their own frame is the normal rate of time. However from their perspective, other frames have different rates of time as defined by the doppler shift ratio. If everyone had a TV broadcast of what was going on in their frames, the TV show from a frame coming at .6c towards us would appear to be in double speed fast forward. Their time rate would appear at double our normal time rate and our time rate to them would also appear at double the normal rate.If they were moving away from us at .6c, their time rate would look at half speed slow motion.

 

The speed of light dictates what normal time rate looks like because time rate  is the rate of information transfer and since c is the max rate of information transfer, we go at c velocity through time. When we move, our velocity through space subtracts from our max velocity through time to an outside observer according to the formula c² = v² +v_t². Of course our perception of the rate of time would not change based on the value of c, it would always look normal to us unless we compare it to other relatively moving frames. Their apparent velocity through time is just an illusion of perspective. 

 

Light has two time components, its frequency and velocity. It's frequency is related to the doppler shift ratio which is related to the perspective illusion of the time rate slowing or speeding up. But its relative velocity component of time is related to time dilation which is independent of direction. At .6c, the time dilation is always 80% not 50% or 200% like the DSR. Time dilation is wrongly called time slowing. You will not see an effect of time dilation on the rate of the motion picture you see coming from other frames. Time dilation's only purpose is to keep relative velocities below c especially any relative velocity to c. Your relative velocity to light is not added as velocity but is hidden as time dilation allowing the light more time to travel the extra distance you've started at so c remains constant.

 

c is the max information transfer rate. Now a ship approaching you at .6c is sending information at double the max transfer rate. It's because distance is where information is stored. The further a ship moves from you, the more information can't get back to you because the transfer rate is only 50%. But if the ship turns around, it has an excess of stored info that it needs to dump at a quicker rate because once it meets up with you there can't be a surplus of info untransmitted. This would be a jump in time.Also it can't dump all its info before it gets to you because it would be like fastforwarding your TIVO on live TV and getting TV information that hasn't happened yet.

 

Relativists don't assign purpose to relativistic phenomena but those phenomena are what's critical to the nature of reality,  time and causality.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Marcopolo asked a question on another thread. 

 

  As I said relativity is a two trick pony, all examples are variations on the MMX for time dilation combined with the twin paradox for age difference. Before any meaningful discussion can result, people need to understand the difference between the two but there's mostly no hope of that happening. Secondly, they need to understand the relativistic velocity combo law of which there is also mostly no hope. So if you don't accept anything I've said so far, save yourself a read. I was going to present STD's but no one knows how to read them and they take an awful long time to draw so we'll just go with a written numerical example. No formulas because that only caters to Victor's and 006's penchant for equation porn.

 

 I'm going to solve his question, which is a variation on the Hafele-Keating experiment, by restating it in such a way that it doesn't violate relativity's spacetime path rules. Now being an old man who likes to shake his fist into the air not understanding why he's doing that or what he's railing against, Marco will immediately break  into a number of Wiki articles proving how flawed the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment were to the point they could mean anything or nothing. Again, stop reading at any point if you're not really interested in getting an answer.

 

 Instead of using a light signal to start two ships 3ly from earth coming towards each other from opposite sides at .6c, we're going to send out two ships from earth at .6c to personally start the other two ships. Relativity is a stickler for spacetime paths starting and ending co-located and although it recognizes light signals to sync clocks, it does not recognize light signals to begin time durations at a distance. What this would look like on an STD is two symmetrical round trip voyages in opposite directions out and back 3ly from and to earth at .6c. It's equivalent to two planes leaving the north pole in opposite directions to the south pole and back which is a variation on the Hafele-Keating experiment (HKX).

 

Marco's question is the planes' relative velocity to each other is double their relative velocity to the north pole so their time dilation to each other must be double that of each of their time dilation to the pole which is mathematically impossible. (By double I mean relativity combo law double).  Please confirm I have re-stated you question correctly in new terms. Please don't restate your question in your old terms because I am trying to see if you have the mental flexibility to understand it in different terms or if you're just the standard literal thinker on physics forums.

[marcospolo]

Marcopolo asked a question on another thread. 

 

  As I said relativity is a two trick pony, all examples are variations on the MMX for time dilation combined with the twin paradox for age difference. Before any meaningful discussion can result, people need to understand the difference between the two but there's mostly no hope of that happening. Secondly, they need to understand the relativistic velocity combo law of which there is also mostly no hope. So if you don't accept anything I've said so far, save yourself a read. I was going to present STD's but no one knows how to read them and they take an awful long time to draw so we'll just go with a written numerical example. No formulas because that only caters to Victor's and 006's penchant for equation porn.

 

 I'm going to solve his question, which is a variation on the Hafele-Keating experiment, by restating it in such a way that it doesn't violate relativity's spacetime path rules. Now being an old man who likes to shake his fist into the air not understanding why he's doing that or what he's railing against, Marco will immediately break  into a number of Wiki articles proving how flawed the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment were to the point they could mean anything or nothing. Again, stop reading at any point if you're not really interested in getting an answer.

 

 Instead of using a light signal to start two ships 3ly from earth coming towards each other from opposite sides at .6c, we're going to send out two ships from earth at .6c to personally start the other two ships. Relativity is a stickler for spacetime paths starting and ending co-located and although it recognizes light signals to sync clocks, it does not recognize light signals to begin time durations at a distance. What this would look like on an STD is two symmetrical round trip voyages in opposite directions out and back 3ly from and to earth at .6c. It's equivalent to two planes leaving the north pole in opposite directions to the south pole and back which is a variation on the Hafele-Keating experiment (HKX).

 

Marco's question is the planes' relative velocity to each other is double their relative velocity to the north pole so their time dilation to each other must be double that of each of their time dilation to the pole which is mathematically impossible. (By double I mean relativity combo law double).  Please confirm I have re-stated you question correctly in new terms. Please don't restate your question in your old terms because I am trying to see if you have the mental flexibility to understand it in different terms or if you're just the standard literal thinker on physics forums.

Well, seems that you want to add totally unnecessary information to this simple example, by sending a signal from C (presume its the Earth) to start both ships on their trips towards Earth. What reason do you have for making this unnessary addition? The point is simply that both ships are equal distances from C and start moving at exactly the same speed towards each other,  beginning at exactly the same time, so that they will be, after a certain time, be practically passing at C  at the same time. There is nothing mysterious about this, its simple Physics. No need for math here.

 

The point is stated clearly by the author of this example as follows, "We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A & B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B."

 

Meaning that simply neither ship will be able to claim that the others time is slowed.  However, SR requires that BOTH ships claim that the other time is less than their own time.

 

But as both ships are at precisely the same location as C, at the same moment, they have 100% positive proof that their times are both identical, and are also matching the times that C has recorded.  Not A, or B or C, can possibly claim that some other observer has experienced any time dilation.

 

Because all three observers have just confirmed empirically that they have all just recorded the exact same events, and measure the exact same duration.

 

Why do you want to add numbers here? the rationale is clear enough already.  Using a failed Minkowski abortion of a diagram won't prove anything.

[ralfcis]

I should have known better than to assume you could read. I said relativity can only do things for valid spacetime paths. What possible difference could it make to you whether the start signal is at c or .6c?

 

"Meaning that simply neither ship will be able to claim that the others time is slowed.  However, SR requires that BOTH ships claim that the other time is less than their own time."

 

This is the crux of the matter where your understanding falls completely apart. Your first sentence is incomplete.  Neither ship will be able to claim that the others time is slowed in relation to what? To each other or to the earth? Each individual plane time is dilated equally and reciprocally to the earth for their journey to the earth. But Einstein's relativity, being a totally assinine theory, does not allow one to consider the journey back on its own without considering the journey out. Fortunately, for the example I provided, the reciprocal time dilation is the same 80% for the entire round trip because I chose to use .6c instead of c for the trip out.

 

So the earth calculates each as having a reciprocal time dilation of 80% earth time and each calculates the earth having an 80% time dilation of plane time. But time dilation is not age difference. I know you can't understand what that means but age difference is the result of the twin paradox where each plane that does the round trip journey will return to earth having only aged 8 yrs while the earth aged 10 in this example. This is not reciprocal or due to time dilation, only the planes have aged 2 yrs less than the earth.

 

Now you may ask to apply the same reasoning to the planes alone. If the planes go out and come back at .6c relative to earth, their relative velocity to each other is double that for the round trip journey. Double .6c is .8824c  (15/17 c) using the relative velocity combo law. Their reciprocal time dilation is calculated as 47% of their own time rate but their age difference is zero. You're saying mind blown, I've never heard this distinction before. Relativists have always equated time dilation with age difference. Yes because they're nearly all idiots. There is no age difference between the planes because they both performed an equal directional change back to earth at the same proper time. You want a relativist to answer this question and you're going to need to understand some real heavy math. Because both made the change that would result in each ending up 2 yrs younger than each other when they got back to earth, the math behind age difference in the twin paradox works out to them both being the same age. The math to calculate age difference is not the same math to calculate reciprocal time dilation. You won't meet anyone on a physics forum who understands this distinction or how to calculate it and you won't find it on wiki. You can choose to believe me or not because you just don't possess enough understanding to make that call yourself. What you claim is clear is due to your lack of understanding of the difference between reciprocal time dilation and age difference.

 

Unfortunately I learned much later that relativists do not define age difference in terms of the twin paradox but define it as the difference between the two times at the ends of a line of perspective simultaneity e.g. Alice at .6c is 4 and Bob is 5 according to his perspective for an age difference of 1 yr. I need to find out on the PSX what terms they use for twin paradox age difference.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

I should have known better than to assume you could read. I said relativity can only do things for valid spacetime paths. What possible difference could it make to you whether the start signal is at c or .6c?

 We don’t need to consider the nature of the “starting time”. The point is simply that both ships are moving at some considerable velocity toward point C, from an equally spaced origin.

  The method by which the “start signal” could have been delivered to each ship is irreverent to the problem.

 

As its irreverent, please leave it out of your explanation.

Light speed or 0.6 light speed signal speed has nothing to do with the problem being discussed. 

Why worry unduly about this moot point, unless you are trying to complicate things in order to slip in some weird logic?

 

<<Your first sentence is incomplete.  Neither ship will be able to claim that the other time is slowed in relation to what? To each other or to the earth?>>

 

SR claims that the ship A, and the ship B are moving relative to each other at relativistic speeds, so one can claim that the other is experiencing time dilation, as he can assume that he is stationary.  Both can make this same claim, and both are correct according to the theory.

This claim has nothing to do with point C.

 

Point C is ONLY used to show that both ships reach that place exactly at the same instant, and now that there is effectively no distance between them, A, B and C.  receive a timing signal. 

Now because that signal exactly will match the timing devices in A and B’s ships, as well as point C, then its crystal clear that no time dilation has occurred, or can occur.

 

So at no point does any “outward trip” come into play.

 

Maybe the ships never originated on the Earth (point C) in the first place. There IS NO outward trip!

 

Now what do you do?

 

There is no such thing as Time Dilation.

 

Also, you have a very weak argument to suggest that somehow there is some fundamental difference between “time dilation” and “age difference”

Everyone  (A, B and C) in my example ages the same. And experiences no time dilation.

 

You personally have found some problem with SR and developed your very own “work around”, well done.

Now you just need to take the final step and realize that the only real problem with SR is that everything about the theory is wrong. There is no point trying to sell your “work-around hypothesis” as people who have found SR to be wrong, are not interested in any fudge to the totally useless and wrong theory of SR.

 

And Relativists are like Mormons, they will never admit there is any problem.

[ralfcis]

Ok, I did not heed my own advice. Never peek.

[marcospolo]

Ok, I did not heed my own advice. Never peek.

So that's it?  Do you have no response to the question, other than what you already said?

Which did not address the issue..

[ralfcis]

Does anyone want a copy of my ignore list? It'll save you a lot of time on finding out who not to engage with. Now if only I could make it on their ignore lists.

Edited June 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Does anyone want a copy of my ignore list? It'll save you a lot of time on finding out who not to engage with. Now if only I could make it on their ignore lists.

it's really becoming clear now that Religious people come in many flavours.

Religious people can be identified by their unwillingness to engage in discussions unless the content is compatible with their own beliefs.

 

I can't see any other reason why you can only offer a reply to my question, framed in a new scenario that does not actually address the simple problem I outlined.

 

Ignore is what happens when someone has no idea how to reply without admitting they may be wrong.

[sluggo]

marcospolo#738;
 

Well, seems that you want to add totally unnecessary information to this simple example, by sending a signal from C (presume its the Earth) to start both ships on their trips towards Earth. What reason do you have for making this unnessary addition?

 

[This is Ralf's modus operandi, making things overly complicated. Interacting with Ralf at the SCF for about a year, you get some insight as to his thought processes. He seems to be like the needle that skips in old vinyl records, stuck in a groove (the twin problem).]

"We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A & B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B."

[This conclusion is incorrect. The graphic shows A and B approaching E(earth) at .6c, from opposite directions, beginning at equal distances. SR states all processes involving em interactions function at a slower rate relative to a reference frame/observer. This includes any device serving as a 'clock', which also includes a biological 'clock'. Biology is chemistry, a subset of physics. Since the case is symmetrical relative to E, we only need to examine A.
While A is moving, E observes the A-clock running slower than the E-clock, and A observes the E-clock running slower than the A-clock.
E records A arrival as (x, t) = (0, 4.0).
A records A arrival as (-.4, 3.2).
Assuming a rest frame, A concludes his clock is correct and the universe has contracted and arrival has occurred at the small circle.
When compared together, the A-clock has accumulated less time than the E-clock.
If all members of the experiment know the specifications, the speed of B as calculated by A, is the general composition of velocities
(b-a)/(1-ab),
with the lower case speeds corresponding to A and B.
Substituting -.6 for b yields
-1.20/1.36 = -.88, with a corresponding time dilation of .47.
A and B will observe a reciprocal td of .47 while moving.
By symmetry, they will show equal times when compared at E.

[marcospolo]

marcospolo#738;

 

[This is Ralf's modus operandi, making things overly complicated. Interacting with Ralf at the SCF for about a year, you get some insight as to his thought processes. He seems to be like the needle that skips in old vinyl records, stuck in a groove (the twin problem).]

 

"We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A & B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B."

 

[This conclusion is incorrect. The graphic shows A and B approaching E(earth) at .6c, from opposite directions, beginning at equal distances. SR states all processes involving em interactions function at a slower rate relative to a reference frame/observer. This includes any device serving as a 'clock', which also includes a biological 'clock'. Biology is chemistry, a subset of physics. Since the case is symmetrical relative to E, we only need to examine A.

While A is moving, E observes the A-clock running slower than the E-clock, and A observes the E-clock running slower than the A-clock.

E records A arrival as (x, t) = (0, 4.0).

A records A arrival as (-.4, 3.2).

Assuming a rest frame, A concludes his clock is correct and the universe has contracted and arrival has occurred at the small circle.

When compared together, the A-clock has accumulated less time than the E-clock.

If all members of the experiment know the specifications, the speed of B as calculated by A, is the general composition of velocities

(b-a)/(1-ab),

with the lower case speeds corresponding to A and B.

Substituting -.6 for b yields

-1.20/1.36 = -.88, with a corresponding time dilation of .47.

A and B will observe a reciprocal td of .47 while moving.

By symmetry, they will show equal times when compared at E.

hypo-6-6.jpg

< Since the case is symmetrical relative to E, we only need to examine A.>

 

No, the problem is not one of symmetry, we are only interested in the relative times between A and B, so we need to consider ultimately what that relationship might be.

Einstein’s clock synchronization method stated that the time taken to go from A to B was EQUAL to the time taken to go B to A, providing the velocity was equal. This is a no brainer.   The Equation, backed up with every possible test, is undisputable for a set velocity. The time taken from A to B is identical to B to A., therefore, A=B and B =A.

This is also seen to be true according to Galileo’s principle that “physics must work the same in all equal inertial frames of reference”.   Einstein also used this as one of his two postulates in his 1905 hypothesis.

So we are all in agreement about this simple principle of Physics, correct?

 

<While A is moving, E observes the A-clock running slower than the E-clock, and A observes the Earth-clock running slower than the A-clock.

E records A arrival as (x, t) = (0, 4.0).

A records A arrival as (-.4, 3.2).>

 

However, what you are saying here is directly opposite to the two statements that all Physics rest on, and agreed to by Einstein himself!

Expressed as an equation what you just said is; A = B but B is not equal to A.

I can’t let you use this error in an explanation that’s supposed to be based on reason, logic and Physics.

The ONLY correct statement is:

E records A arrival as (x, t) = (0, 4.0).

A records A arrival as (-.4, 4.0).

This now matches perfectly the two basic statements of Einstein and Galileo.

 

But let's continue for a bit…

<If all members of the experiment know the specifications, the speed of B as calculated by A, is the general composition of velocities (b-a)/(1-ab),

with the lower case speeds corresponding to A and B.>

 

No, let's just say that all the members have NO idea at all what your crazy "specifications" are!

 

So then only “A” knows what he calculated “B’s” time was.

And B has his own measurements of the time, What then?

 

What you have then is that if both A and B use your crazy equations, that they both will say the exact opposite of each other, and we have an impasse.

Because it’s physically impossible that they both can be right when they both have contradicting answers.

“A” claims, “My time is slower than yours”: and B says, “NO, MY time is slower!”

 

So any math you do from here on is meaningless, unless you first make your scenario rational.

 

In any case here are MY workings using Einstein’s Time Dilation, to show why it’s stupid.

 

A and B have a velocity relative to E which is 0.4 c. This means a reduction of 91.65% of moving time, for E’s time. i.e  100 minutes on A or B’s clocks will be only 91.65 minutes on E’s clock.

Relative to E, both A and B say that there is an 8.35-minute loss for the E clock compared to theirs.

 

BUT as we are mostly interested in looking at the relative time dilation between A and B, we can forget about E for the moment.

 

The relative velocity between A and B is exactly 0.8c which will result in a time dilation of 60%.

 

Meaning that for A who measures 100 minutes on his clock, he will claim that B’s clock only recorded 60 minutes!

 

So now that’s a difference of 40 minutes of lost time on B’s clock, compared to A’s clock.

 

BUT when we actually compared all clocks when all three players were at the same place in space and in time, (at location E) there was a calculated difference of 8.35 minutes between A and B’s clocks compared to E’s clock!  Meaning that A’s clock was IDENTICAL to B’s clock at that exact moment.

 

So what is it? If both A and B agree that the E’s clock has lost 8.35 minutes, then that MUST mean that A’s clock is identical to B’s at that moment. And that’s exactly what rationality indicates.

So how can it be possible that at that exact same moment, there can be a 40-minute difference between A and B clocks?

 

Of course, smart people will know that the 8.35-minute loss was just as much an error as the 40-minute error.

 

This whole scenario only works out rationally, logically and mathematically if you use classical rules of Physics and Math.

 

Then you get the logical result where A=E=C. As any sane person would expect.

 

If you are going to reply to this with some other weird logic, I ask that to keep the problem simple, by restricting the whole situation to the point of view of just ONE observer, say observer A.

 

Because if you start hopping between observers opinions of what the time is when your hypothesis claims that each observers times are not compatible, it's like playing cards game with different decks.

Edited June 9, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

Ok Sluggo, let's have it your way, an analysis with no age difference only reciprocal time dilation. This is the STD you're pushing:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/b1rDU9ePoj7kMui18

 

Two yellow light beams are sent from earth to sync the clocks to zero of two incoming ships at .6c relative to earth. Earth has pre-set a flight plan so that in order to hit the ships simultaneously at the 3 ly mark, earth must send its light signals 3 yrs earlier so that the earth time will also be zero simultaneously with the ships' time being zero. 

 

This is completely wrong and shows a total lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity. While earth's perspective of the ships' clocks is indeed zero, the ships perspective of the earth's clock is not zero. Since there has been no frame jump and only reciprocal time dilation exists, there can't be a time difference between the earth's and the ships' clocks when they meet at earth if the clock sync had been done correctly.This should be obvious because the symmetry of the reciprocal time dilation has been broken. These are just super rookie mistakes on Sluggo's part but since everyone on this forum is a super rookie, the mistakes just go undetected. This is why relativity has strict spacetime path rules which I tried to implement changing the scenario just a little bit. Of course since everyone gets their relativity out of a comic book (wiki) they don't know about these rules.

 

Let's flip the STD vertically so we can at least start at a valid co-located start point for a spacetime path. Then we can flip it back to see what the numbering of the lines should have been.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/F5jKNwG7ksigsY388

 

What? hey, it's like a magic trick for Sluggo, the numbers suddenly make sense at least to anyone who understands relativity. Time dilation is reciprocal once again. So we flip it back to what marco wanted and we get the correct numbering.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/wPYkw42VKixt2W899

 

The difference is the relativity of simultaneity has been taken care of at the beginning so all clocks can maintain symmetry at the end.Of course if you had of done it using my original method with age difference, there would have been no need to maintain symmetry at the end to agree with reciprocal time dilation. All this has been wasted on you guys because you have no concept of what relativity actually is.

[marcospolo]

Ok Sluggo, let's have it your way, an analysis with no age difference only reciprocal time dilation. This is the STD you're pushing:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/b1rDU9ePoj7kMui18

 

Two yellow light beams are sent from earth to sync the clocks to zero of two incoming ships at .6c relative to earth. Earth has pre-set a flight plan so that in order to hit the ships simultaneously at the 3 ly mark, earth must send its light signals 3 yrs earlier so that the earth time will also be zero simultaneously with the ships' time being zero. 

 

This is completely wrong and shows a total lack of understanding of the relativity of simultaneity. While earth's perspective of the ships' clocks is indeed zero, the ships perspective of the earth's clock is not zero. Since there has been no frame jump and only reciprocal time dilation exists, there can't be a time difference between the earth's and the ships' clocks when they meet at earth if the clock sync had been done correctly.This should be obvious because the symmetry of the reciprocal time dilation has been broken. These are just super rookie mistakes on Sluggo's part but since everyone on this forum is a super rookie, the mistakes just go undetected. This is why relativity has strict spacetime path rules which I tried to implement changing the scenario just a little bit. Of course since everyone gets their relativity out of a comic book (wiki) they don't know about these rules.

 

Let's flip the STD vertically so we can at least start at a valid co-located start point for a spacetime path. Then we can flip it back to see what the numbering of the lines should have been.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/F5jKNwG7ksigsY388

 

What? hey, it's like a magic trick for Sluggo, the numbers suddenly make sense at least to anyone who understands relativity. Time dilation is reciprocal once again. So we flip it back to what marco wanted and we get the correct numbering.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/wPYkw42VKixt2W899

 

The difference is the relativity of simultaneity has been taken care of at the beginning so all clocks can maintain symmetry at the end.Of course if you had of done it using my original method with age difference, there would have been no need to maintain symmetry at the end to agree with reciprocal time dilation. All this has been wasted on you guys because you have no concept of what relativity actually is.

Can you explain anything WITHOUT using an STD?  These diagrams are nonsense.  The graph having distance one axis and time on the other is NOT a "spacetime diagram". Its a graph, plotting the Velocity of an object.... v=dt.

That first line is NOT positional, its a vector allowing the user of the graph to see how far away a person would be, from a starting point, if he moved at the particular velocity over a time period of interest. The positions possible for the moving object are ONLY ever read on that x-axis, and time is only ever read on the time axis.  NOTHING exists in the area bordered between the two axies.

 

That's what you have, it's not showing ANYTHING related to the nonsense concept called "spacetime".

 

Drawing the VELOCITY vector and then relabeling it as a "worldline" is deception. A trick and you fell for it.

Pretending that the "worldline"  somehow is the time axis for the moving object is the absolute pinnacle of insanity or total lies and deception. BS in other words.

Drawing a new x-axis mirrored about the velocity vector of light is such a moronic concept, I can't understand how any teacher can possibly stand up in a class and repeat this abortion of mathematics.

 

Its no wonder why you cant answer simple questions rationally.

[ralfcis]

Shirley, you can't be serious. Even the bumbling dimwits on here call you a bumbling dimwit and if they are incapable of understanding an STD, that's even more so true for you. Just ignore the STD if that's too much for you. Shirley you have some way to calculate the numbers, besides using a Magic 8 Ball, I've given you in my numerical example. Do you not agree with the numbers or you haven't graduated to using numbers yet? If there's no way to reach you, why are you complaining that's my problem somehow?

[marcospolo]

"Meaning that simply neither ship will be able to claim that the others time is slowed.  However, SR requires that BOTH ships claim that the other time is less than their own time."

 

This is the crux of the matter where your understanding falls completely apart. Your first sentence is incomplete.  Neither ship will be able to claim that the others time is slowed in relation to what? To each other or to the earth?

 

 

Now you may ask to apply the same reasoning to the planes alone. If the planes go out and come back at .6c relative to earth, their relative velocity to each other is double that for the round trip journey. Double .6c is .8824c  (15/17 c) using the relative velocity combo law.

Ok, first, the others ship time RELATIVE to its own time.  Nothing to do with Earth.

 

Relativity is between the two ships.

 

And we know what Einsteins irrational claims are about the combined speeds, but that is exactly what we are complaining about.

The only correct answer to 0.6 + 0.6 is going to be 1.2.

If you think, for some imagined reason that nothing can go that fast, then I reduced the initial ships speed to 0.4c giving a relative speed between the two of 0.8c to keep you happy.

 

You have no rational reason to use Einstein's relativistic formula of velocity additions.

EVERY experiment ever done in all mans history has verified that 0.4 + 0.4 = 0.8.