Relativity And Simple Algebra

[sluggo]

ralf;

If the muon had eyes, it would see the atmospheric distance it had to traverse as only .645 km instead of 5.9 km. This should mean the Earth would either appear or actually be much closer

 

[Yes. An alien anaut moving with the muons, would observe the ground outside his window (just prior to his death) and conclude based on his clock, that the earth had contracted as it approached. I.e. he can interpret his own time dilation as length contraction, since he assumed an inertial (pseudo) rest frame.

 

The rate of time that both clocks are ticking down is the same for both within their own frames...

 

[Yes, because the observers biological clocks (and all em processes) are running slower.]

 

The difference in the clocks, 19.79 usec for the Earth clock and 2.165 usec for the muon clock, is not totally due to time slowing, it's caused by when you start the clocks as is apparent in the STD zero times.

 

[No. The difference is the additional time lost as a result of their relative motion. ]

[earth frame:
v=.994
γ=9.1
x=6 km
t=20 µs
muon frame:
t'=2.2
I agree with your results, but without the contortions of speed and time. I only read what you print. So you seem to be making progress.]

Edited October 29, 2019 by sluggo

[ralfcis]

 "that the earth had contracted as it approached"

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I mean the distance from muon to the earth was contracted so the earth would look closer but the reciprocal distance from earth to muon would not contract so the muon would not look closer. What??? This is a slap in the face to relativity's definition of reciprocity. This is because a single perspective can't see both time dilation and length contraction concurrently. The muon does not see his own time dilate from his perspective. He only sees his proper time as 2.2 usec. However, this does not prevent him seeing the distance to earth contracted from 5.9 km to .68 km. That is outside his frame. 

 

Reciprocally, the earth sees the proper distance in his frame to the muon as 5.9 km. The earth does not see the distance to the muon shrink to .68 km as the muon sees that happen from his perspective because the 5.9 km is in the earth's proper frame while that is not in the muon's proper frame. So relativity's definition of reciprocity is wrong. What is reciprocal from the earth's perspective is the muon's 2.2usec is dilated to 20 usec. Time dilation is reciprocal to length contraction across perspectives.

 

"Yes, because the observers biological clocks (and all em processes) are running slower."

 

No observer's clock runs slower, the observed clocks run slower and even that statement needs qualification. In causal time, both clocks run at the same rate and for the same duration (2.2 usec) after the start line of causal simultaneity. An observer travelling at half of .994c (.896c) between the muon and earth  would see their clock rates tick out 2.2 usec the same. The earth perspective at t=0 would see the muon cross the .68 km to earth in 2.2 usec earth time. The earth perspective at -17.6 usec would see the muon cross the 5.9 km to earth in 20 usec earth time. You can make any perspective say anything you want but causal perspective is universal. Why? because the start and end times are causally simultaneous from both perspectives.

 

"Yes, because the observers biological clocks (and all em processes) are running slower."

 

Part 2. There are all sorts of sects in the religion of relativity. You're part of the quantum physics (a fringe) sect. EM processes do not cause length contraction. In fact when I asked that question on the physics stack exchange about whether the lower bracket of a mirror is required for the mirror angle to shift, the simplest answer was, " Do you see matter in the Lorentz equations?" Biological clocks do not run slower or faster (in the twin paradox) relative to their own frame or reciprocally to another frame in constant relative motion. This is not related to the cause of permanent age difference.

 

"No. The difference is the additional time lost as a result of their relative motion."

 

Well show me a mechanism where any time is lost in any scenario. Time is always conserved and the mechanisms of conservation are quite varied and complex.

 

"So you seem to be making progress."

 

So you only read what I write but somehow overlooked the one thing I've said most often about the difference between reciprocal time dilation and age difference. Before I pointed that out to you again this time, I hadn't been making any progress. It looks like you're the one who finally seems to be making progress in your reading comprehension. There is no hope either of us will join the others sect.

Edited October 30, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

As soon as I can find the time, I'm going to do an extensive analysis that should clarify everything. I'm going to set up an earth colony 3 ly away that will be stationary relative to earth and have the same  time sync'd to earth. There will be 3 scenarios of a ship coming from deep space and passing by this colony on his way to earth.

 

First, the ship will be just like the muon example and have its clock sync'd to earth time when it reaches earth. From there the causally simultaneous sync start can be derived. The colony time is irrelevant.

 

2nd, The ship will pass the colony and sync up with the colony's clock on his way to earth. Even though the ship's journey is identical, its sync with the colony's clock will constitute a frame jump and end up in permanent age difference from the earth even though the colony's clock is sync'd to earth.

 

3rd, A ship will be launched from earth to intercept the incoming ship at the colony. The ship from deep space will sync his clock to the earth ship's clock making this a standard twin paradox example. 

 

The deep space ship will travel the same journey but will have 3 different ages relative to the earth just based on how he syncs his clock. In fact he can carry 3 different clocks on his ship that will have 3 different times when they reach earth based on their clock sync. Which clock will reflect the ship captain's age difference from earth?

[ralfcis]

I posted this question on the physics stack exchange and I'm discussing it with a phd in quantum physics who also knows relativity. We are able to understand each other (for a change) and I hope to have a final answer soon. 

[ralfcis]

Ok I got my answer and it won't agree with the PhD's answer (he's still working on it) because he's ignoring the last bit of math that disproves his philosophy (sound familiar?). Sad, the back and forth was quite reasonable until the last point of contention. I'll post the mathematically consistent answer here soon.

[ralfcis]

The point of contention is the results of the clock hand off version of the twin paradox. The clock hand off version is Alice goes out at .6c and Charlie goes in at .6c and when Alice and Charlie cross paths at 3 ly out, Alice syncs Charlie's inbound clock to her own outbound clock which was sync's to earth's clock on take off. 

 

Disciples of any religion are given the freedom to ignore teachings that don't agree with their personal philosophies and the clock hand off example is almost universally ignored. There's no acceleration in it so the sect that believes GR can explain SR have no way to sneak in gravity as the cause of the twin paradox. The hand off of clock info is instantaneous which can't be accomplished in a normal twin paradox turnaround point because acceleration or gravity would be infinite.

 

It also introduces new paradoxes in that Alice, Bob and Charlie are all engaged in constant relative velocity so they all age at the same inertial frame rate so there is no age difference between them which doesn't happen in the twin paradox. The only thing that experiences a frame jump is the clock info. So while Charlie ages normally on his way in, his clock registers having aged less after the clock hand off. This is because age difference begins after a frame jump and ends when the clocks co-locate according to the twin paradox in relativity. And how does this age difference accumulate after the frame jump? it's the Rindler metric again according to relativity even though most disciples believe the outbound clock ages 1 year less on the outbound journey and another year less on the inbound when the facts are both inbound and outbound legs are at constant relative velocity where no age difference can accumulate due to time reciprocity.

 

All these paradoxes are swept under the rug by ignoring the clock hand off example and ignoring the true cause of age difference which is the Rindler metric, not reciprocal time dilation or even relativity of simultaneity which is Greene's explanation of it. 

 

What's worse about the clock hand off example is it throws into question whether the returning clock is actually measuring a frame jump's affect on time itself or whether only the clock's info is being affected. There is no question that Charlie's ageing is not affected by the frame jump in clock info which would have happened if time itself was being affected throughout the whole inbound ship and not just its clock.

 

Things rapidly deteriorate from here because you can stick other values into the clock at the 3ly mark from ships going outbound at other velocities. What's consistent is the earth ages 5 earth yrs for Charlie's inbound journey of 4 Charlie years. But if you choose different velocities for Alice (or Charlie inbound to the colony at 3ly out (while switching to .6c for colony to earth)) the age difference between earth clock and Charlie's clock change while neither Charlie's (4 yrs) or the earth's (5 yrs) ageing changes. 

 

For example, Charlie's clock when sync'd to earth time when it reaches earth and worked backwards would have had his clock set to 1 yr. He travels to earth in 4 yrs so 4+1=5 which agrees with earth's clock. His clock has aged the same amount as the earth's clock because both were engaged in constant relative velocity.  But if he took the colony's clock which had been previously sync'd to earth time, his clock would have been set to 0 yr so it would have read 4 yrs upon meeting earth's clock at t=5. This means his clock would have aged 1 yr less than the earth clock. If he took the outbound ship's clock at the colony, his clock would be set to -1 and would have been compared to the earth clock at unification to show it had aged 2 yrs less than earth. This is in agreement with the standard clock hand off example above. If he took a light signal from earth at the colony, his clock would have been set to -3. Hence his clock would have had an age difference to the earth clock of having aged 4 yrs less. His clock would have read 1 yr at co-location (He took 4 yrs to travel and his initial clock setting was -3 yr) and earth's clock would have been 5. 

 

See how bad the clock hand off example is for the twin paradox in relativity? What clock hand off example? is what relativists are saying right now. Might as well question the existence of the twin paradox and the Rindler metric as well. What all this evidence seems to be saying is age difference in the clock hand off twin paradox is just a clock phenomenon, not a time phenomenon as it is for the normal twin paradox. 

 

So I guess there's no point in showing my analysis based on the clock hand off twin paradox since I've concluded that is just another wrong concept of relativity. It is not a valid example of age difference due to frame jump.

 

PPS. No I'm wrong here. The clock hand off scenario is real because a clock traces out a world line and the world line traced here is over the outgoing and incoming ships. Each ship has its own world line that is independent from the one of the outgoing and incoming journey. So the captain does not age 2 yrs less than the earth clock on his world line but the clock he is carrying does. If the same ship was outgoing and incoming, that would be another world line where the captain and clock would age 2 yrs less than the earth clock.

Edited November 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;

I mean the distance from muon to the earth was contracted so the earth would look closer but the reciprocal distance from earth to muon would not contract so the muon would not look closer...
The muon does not see his own time dilate from his perspective. He only sees his proper time as 2.2 usec.

 

[The example is similar with an Anaut moving between Earth and a Sign 8 units distant relative to E.
On the left, A's speed is .8c relative to E. E will observe the A ship as lc to .6 its earth length, and its clock running at .6 earth time. The 6 units are projected onto the A timeline with the typical tick marks.
1. Any object moving relative to the A-ship cannot affect its dimensions or its clock rate. These effects must be a consequence of its own motion.
2. You, and others, are missing the role of perception. If only the moving clock was affected, the observer would surely notice. The explanation of why he doesn't is because his biological clock also runs slower, i.e. the observer is not exempt from the effects of motion. The same reasoning holds for lc. If the A-ruler is lc as part of the ship, A will always measure his ship as its rest length.
E coordinates (x, t) for event 'A meets S' is (8,10). A perceives (thinks) his coordinates relative to E are (4.8, 6). A can assume E and S are moving past him at .8c in the opposite direction. He thinks his clock is correct and can see S as it passes by. If the expression x=vt is true, then x must have changed, and x=.8(6)=4.8. He concludes the universe is lc as it rushes past.
Both E and A have observed lc, thus it is reciprocal. The ship was lc from its excessive speed, and the universe was perceived as lc to reconcile A's time dilation. Refer back to 1, the motion of the ship cannot affect the dimensions of the universe, but it can affect the perception of the anaut.
On the right is the A description of a lc separation moving past A.]

 

[ralfcis]

"If only the moving clock was affected, the observer would surely notice."

 

He does surely notice, the doppler shift ratio will allow the observer to see the televised signal broadcast from the moving ship to show the occupants moving at 1/3 the rate that the occupants of earth are moving. If the ship's clock is being televised, the clock readout will move at 1/3 the rate. 

 

" the observer is not exempt from the effects of motion."

 

He is because he's not moving and neither is the other guy in their own frames but they are moving relative to each other. They have no way to tell if they themselves are moving so they are stationary.

 

"The ship was lc from its excessive speed"

 

Nope. No such thing as real lc. The ship is not hitting some kind of Higg's field drag that is physically contracting all the electron orbits within the ship's matter as you alone seem to believe. There's no one here for you to ask so I suggest you take your theories, post them as questions on the physics stack exchange, get every answer under the sun, and work out the truth from all these conflicting answers. Give up on trying to convince me you even speak for mainstream relativity or have any grasp of it.

 

PS

" and the universe was perceived as lc to reconcile A's time dilation."

 

Yup that's Einy's explanation, they work together concurrently. It's not my explanation. Mine is simpler since it doesn't need the concept of length contraction. A theory must be as simple as possible so Einy's theory disqualifies itself. Disprove mine on its own merits where it gets a wrong answer. Not only does it not get wrong answers, it can solve problems relativity disqualifies itself from. Do you want me to list them again?

Edited November 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Ralf;

Keep entertaining yourself with your feel good physics, but don't expect any awards!

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

 

and the clock hand off example is almost universally ignored.

 

 

 

[No it isn't. It's been around for a long time, you just weren't aware of it.]

 

 

 

gravity as the cause of the twin paradox.

 

[

 

Gravity was never in 'special relativity' theory, thus is a non argument. Gamma does not contain a term for acceleration, and experiments with particles subjected to high g accelerations had the same life times as those at rest. More things you weren't aware of.]

 

 

The hand off of clock info is instantaneous which can't be accomplished in a normal twin paradox turnaround point because acceleration or gravity would be infinite.

 

 

 

[Regardless of acceleration intensity (imagined or real), it's duration would be zero, thus irrelevant. The break in the line makes them independent of each other.]

 

the Rindler metric

 

 

[The rest is just rambling verboseness, except for your 'show and tell' term.

With Alice and Charlie already up to speed:

A departs at .6c, at At=0, accumulates 4 yr, crosses paths with C who receives her time signal of 4.

C sets his clock to 4. returns to Earth, after accumulating 4 yr, crosses paths with E, who receives his time signal of 8 yr. A and C have the same speed relative to E, thus the same rate of time dilation.

Earth clock reads 10 yr.]

[End of experiment! There are no frame jumps, lack of synch, or other nonsense you spew forth.]

[ralfcis]

"[No it isn't. It's been around for a long time, you just weren't aware of it.]"

 

More proof your reading comprehension is not up to snuff. I've been discussing the clock handoff example for years on the spcf forum where we first began.

 

"Gravity was never in 'special relativity' theory, thus is a non argument."

 

Correct but it is an argument for some who equate gravity with acceleration as it is in GR which also has time effects due to gravity. It's another sect of relativity, google it.

 

"There are no frame jumps, lack of synch, or other nonsense you spew forth."

 

Ok then, if Alice goes straight out 8 yrs with no frame jump, what is  Bob's corresponding  age at that mark? You're correct in that if you trace clocks over the spacetime paths or worldlines and compare them, that is a valid answer without any of the extraneous nonsense I or relativity spews out. There is no Rindler metric, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, age difference vs reciprocal time dilation, perspectives, frame jumps, acceleration, twin paradox, MMx, constancy of c, aether, Lorentz transforms required. I have recently changed my opinion on this based on the last answer I got from the physics stack exchange.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/511462/is-the-clock-hand-off-version-of-the-twin-paradox-real-or-fake?noredirect=1#comment1152644_511462

 

However, the flaw with this method is that the clocks must start and stop co-located. My theory does not have this limitation. Because of causal simultaneity, loops are not required and segments of worldlines can be compared under new rules that are not part of relativity.

Edited November 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here's my math technique for calculating worldline time durations. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/w5o99sNd77jUv7ns7

 

 This new STD is the upside down mirror image depicting Alice going out at any speed from c to -c and returning at -.6c. It's the exact same math technique I showed a while back for calculating age difference for Alice going out at .6c but returning at any speed from c to -c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yErRbWE9ofPzPAso9

 

 The green lines in the top STD at 1/3c are half the .6c return speed. The green lines that branch off are the half speeds of the outgoing speeds. For example, .5c is half of .8c. These green lines set where t=-3 is on the outbound velocities. The count continues on the inbound velocity and ends where the ship meets earth. At that point, the clock differences are listed. So at .6c out, .6c in, the earth clock says 5 yrs and the ship clock says 3. For .8c out and .6c in, the earth clock says 5 yrs and the ship clock only ages 2.5. 

 

What's shocking to relativists is this method can calculate age difference for clocks that do not start at the same point. The blue 0c line has the ship ageing 1 yr less than earth even though it did not start at earth. The brown -.6c line ages the same as earth. This is exactly what you'd expect from a constant velocity journey in. What's really surprising is that even coming in at -1c, the pink line ages 2 more years than earth. The math to calculate that is more complex as infinity gets algebraically cancelled out as it did in the original math I showed a while back. If you understood that math then this example should be a breeze to understand (except for Sluggo).

Edited November 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Oh my, I forgot to add my piece de resistance, my coup de grace to Einy's theory.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/po1jU3w6wspCEPeTA

 

Just adding up the times is not enough to get the true picture of where the age difference actually happens because after the time of relative velocity imbalance, constant relative velocity is restored and the ageing difference stops and the green lines of simultaneity return to a non-changing slope. The yellow light line from the turning point defines the stop and start of the duration of the velocity imbalance. Notice how the green lines have a gradually changing slope during this time. This is where both ends of the causal simultaneity lines start having different values on the end of their lines which become a permanent difference once constant relative velocity is re-established.

 

Relativity can only establish age difference at the end of the worldline where the clocks are co-located. The importance of the concept of causal simultaneity is that simultaneous time, independent of perspective, can be established between points that no longer need to be co-located. This is what Einy missed in his theory.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Relativity can only establish age difference at the end of the worldline where the clocks are co-located. The importance of the concept of causal simultaneity is that simultaneous time, independent of perspective, can be established between points that no longer need to be co-located. This is what Einy missed in his theory.

No he did not miss that, your little 2D diagram has already made clear the aging difference, SR is designed to be applied to such a situation from the perspective of Alice or Bob and still be able to tell the aging difference before arrival using his field equations. Which is not simple algebra it's a lot of Newton's Calculus.

[ralfcis]

So you can read. I`m not used to seeing people with that skill. Unfortunately I still don`t believe your unsubstantiated claims or that complex math somehow trumps simple math that comes to the same answers. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Edited November 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

So you can read. I`m not used to seeing people with that skill. Unfortunately I still don`t believe your unsubstantiated claims or that complex math somehow trumps simple math that comes to the same answers. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Keep it up and you might just earn yourself another 3 stooges video. But I don't enjoy embarrassing posters like that.

 

My point is if you don't develop the type of arithmatic suited for the problem you face you're stuck at the inductive reasoning stage for 66 pages, like a half-*** version of Sherlock Holmes. I had to learn calculus to better understand my DID model and worked well in giving me insight that would have been otherwise impossible.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I might have a go at it.