Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Ummm there are no loose ends that require any special math to tie up. All the pieces of the puzzle are in place. So the 3 stooges was a means of embarrassment? Too subtle for me. I wasn't aware.

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

Biological clocks do not run slower or faster (in the twin paradox) relative to their own frame

 

 

[i did not say they did. It's relative to an outside observer! I include the observers own biological clock as the reason he does not detect his own clock as slow. So who can actually read?]

 

He does surely notice, the doppler shift ratio will allow the observer to see the televised signal

 

[ the observer WITH the clock. You're misinterpreting what's written. So who can actually read?]

 

He is because he's not moving and neither is the other guy in their own frames but they are moving relative to each

 

 

[You keep mixing the inertial observer with the moving observer. So who can actually read?]

 

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.

 

[Lorentz had lc in his theory of electrons in the form of deformed em fields. Heaviside simplified Maxwell's equations to the current four, and developed a modified em field using them (Heaviside ellipse). These concepts were offered and accepted as explanations for the results of the MMX. The particle accelerator at Stanford U. has conducted experiments for over 50 yrs with electrons. As the electrons near light speed, the electric field intensity increases from the contracted fields, and is detectable. You should do more research. If you criticize Einstein's theory, then you also criticize the work of Lorentz, Poincare, and others who worked on the same theory, and all those who came before them who provided a basis for their theories. This sounds so familiar today, the person with an inflated image of himself.]

 

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.

 

[Not true. Each must be running while separated, and the comparison be made when approx. coincident. The only thing compared is the elapsed interval of time while separated. If they are not coincident initially, then you have the problem of clock synchronization, which can only be relative. It's simple, but you can make it as complicated as desired if you think that's worth more points.]

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

The graphic is a remake of your 2nd pic in #1120. Only the outbound portion is needed due to symmetry.

The axis of simultaneity (also green) is a mathematical tool, not a physical thing. In all common texts, the two systems S and S', are in relative motion with x axes parallel. If the x axis of the anaut remained parallel, and no synch procedures were done, Anaut would perceive the doppler shifts you refer to. But doppler shift in SR is a case of perception, even in Newtonian physics. The ref. clock is a constant frequency, but is perceived as lesser or greater depending on the anaut's motion, thus is not an indication of aging. As mentioned earlier, the motion of the anauts does not affect the ref. clock. All clocks run at a constant rate that is a function of speed.

 

The hyperbola (red) is also a standard reference for a common time for all moving frames. (I use the arc method since it is simpler.) The inverse gamma for .6c is .8, thus the outbound clock ticks 4 while the ref. clock ticks 5. Identical clocks, but moving through space at different speeds. If the outbound anaut polls the ref. clock at At=1, for a time signal, he assigns the time of event Et=2 to half of the round trip time, per the SR clock synch convention (because an inertial observer would expect out and back transit times to be equal. Anaut's perception is, Et=2 occurred at At=2.5, i.e. it's lagging behind. To paraphrase Einstein, 'it has nothing to do with the physical propagation of light, but provides consistency for the theory', to support a pseudo rest frame for the inertial observer. The actual reason is in the geometry, the transit times are not equal out and back, for the moving frame relative to the ref. frame.

None of the other things you mentioned are relevant. You even agreed a few pages back, that no calculations are necessary. since the clocks supply the answer when rejoined.

The triangle with the 10 ref. clock events sent outward is the simplest explanation (even in the Wiki article). It's obvious the outbound anaut detects event 1 and 2, and the inbound anaut detects 3 thru 10. Notice, continuous events, with no jumps or gaps!

[ralfcis]

This morning I submitted this question to the physics stack exchange:

 

What are the rules governing worldlines?

 

 

I recently got a great answer Is the clock hand off version of the twin paradox real or fake? that tracing a clock across spacetime paths was the way to determine age difference between the worldlines. The Rindler metric handles the frame jump but that happens for a very small percentage of the worldline so no need to worry about it. I had been under the impression that age difference was occurring only during the application of the Rindler metric.

For a time before the end and after the start of the worldline, two participants are engaged in constant relative velocity so there can be no ageing difference between them, only reciprocal time dilation which makes it impossible to determine who's ageing slower. So I assumed so long as their doppler shift ratios were reciprocally the same, their relative velocities were the same, their time dilation was reciprocal and no age difference was occurring between them.

For a time after a frame jump, it takes time for the light that a frame jump has occurred to reach the "stationary" party. During this time their doppler shift ratios are not the same (only the one who initiated the frame jump can know this), so their relative velocities are not the same which means this is the only time period outside of reciprocal time dilation when the age difference can occur.

The numerical example of what I'm saying is for a .6c 3 ly out roundtrip, the 4yr (traveller) outbound journey and the last 2 yrs of the inbound journey of the traveller is all reciprocal so no age difference occurs. Only during the 1st 2 yrs of the inbound journey can it be happening.

Rule 1. So I understand one of the worldline rules is that worldlines can only be compared for age difference if they start and end co-located. If they start or end apart, outside perspectives will see different age difference results between the two.

So, for example, if the traveller stops 3 ly out, his worldline does not end where it started so you can`t conclude he has aged 1 yr less even though they end up in the same inertial frame of 0 relative velocity.

Rule 2. Because of rule 1 you can`t compare segments of worldlines.

Rule 3. Because of rule 2 you can`t look into the segment where age difference is occurring in real time. You must wait to determine any age difference that has occurred until the end of the worldline even though no age difference accummulates after the new relative velocity is established between the two participants before the end. In my example, the new relative velocity is established 2 yrs before the end of the worldline.

Rule 4. Frame jumps that do not end in co-location have an indeterminate age difference between two disjoint worldlines.

Rule 5. Because there is no frame jump in the muon example or a co-located start, there is only reciprocal time dilation. No age difference has occurred between the earth and the muon even though the muon co-locates with the earth at the end.

A GPS satellite is a good counter example. Most think its time difference, due to the velocity component, comes from reciprocal time dilation. The truth is because it's in orbit it has a turnaround point and hence a frame jump point so it keeps an ever increasing age difference wrt Earth.

Rule 6. Worldlines can`t be joined up in series that end up at the beginning.

Rule 7. Because of rule 4 and 6, relativity cant calculate that an acceleration away from the start at the frame jump point will actually make the traveller age more than the earth. You cant use a series of subsequent worldlines that return to the start to prove this.

Are these even the rules or are there more?

P.S. I have a legal math method that adheres to these rules but it can also apply outside them to make them obsolete if they even exist according to the answers I await.

Edited November 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Ummm there are no loose ends that require any special math to tie up. All the pieces of the puzzle are in place. So the 3 stooges was a means of embarrassment? Too subtle for me. I wasn't aware.

Then why did you admit neither Alice nor Bob can tell just by looking at each other that Alice is aging more until they meet?

 

They obviously don't know how to use SR, you have that in common with the twins.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

[Farsight]

Are these even the rules or are there more?

There's less. Just about everything in that answer was wrong. Spacetime paths do not exist in any real sense. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical model of space at all times. The Rindler metric is not something real. Nor is a reference frame. Nor is a worldline. We live in a world of space and motion. The map is not the territory. 

 

In this real world we can gauge our motion using the CMB dipole anisotropy. It's the de-facto absolute reference frame of the universe. If two participants are engaged in constant relative velocity, the one who moves least compared to the CMBR ages most. If the guy in the spaceship turns round and comes back to Earth, the guy on Earth moved least compared to the CMBR, so he's aged most. He has also moved least compared to the Earth. For an out-and-back trip we tend to forget about the CMBR and talk about motion relative to the Earth. 

 

The simplest way to think about that is using the light-path of the light in a parallel mirror clock. The guy who stays on Earth has a parallel-mirror light clock where the light goes straight up and down. The guy who goes on the round trip has a light path consisting of triangles like this /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ → for the outward trip then like this ← /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ for the return trip.

 

When he turns around, he's undergone half his time dilation. He's doing 0.6c and the distance is 3 light years, so when he turns round 5 Earth years have elapsed. However he's time dilated by a factor of √(1-0.6²) = √(1-.36) = √0.64 = 0.8. So 4 of his years have elapsed. When he gets back to Earth 10 years have passed on Earth but he's aged by only 8 years. 

 

Amazingly enough, this the Lorentz factor can be derived very simply from Pythagoras’s theorem. Take a look at the simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity on Wikipedia. It shows the light path for one of the triangles above:

 

_{Public domain image by Mdd4696, see the Wikipedia time dilation article}

 

Imagine I'm the out-and-back traveller. The hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle represents the light path. The base represents my speed v as a fraction of c. The height gives the Lorentz factor, which can be written as √(1 – v²). If I could travel at .99c, the Lorentz factor would be √(1 - 0.99²) = √(1 - 0.98) = √(0.02) = 0.1414, which is a seventh. So my clock clocks up one year while your stay-at-home clock clocks up seven. The Lorentz factor is that simple. Time dilation is that simple.  There is less to it than meets the eye. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Farsight

[ralfcis]

I'm not even going to try to argue your beliefs, just your math. Consider 2 worldlines at .6c. One is a roundtrip at the 3ly mark and the other keeps going. At t=10 earth time, t' =8 for the roundtrip traveller. The traveller ages 2 yrs less. So what does your math calculate for the traveller heading out into empty space at .6c when the earth has aged 10 yrs?

 

I assume the answer you calculate is also 8. The answer is actually 10 according to relativity's main equation which agrees with the equation calculating worldline duration and age difference. The worldline duration = sqrt (t'² + x²) = sqrt (8² + 6²) =10. (I moved the normally negative x² to the other side of the equation. ) 10-10=0 so there is no age difference between them but there is on a roundtrip journey. The time dilation from each perspective is the same which means both would calculate the other as ageing less which is a paradox.

 

I'm not totally on-board with this method because past t=8 for earth and t'=6 for the traveller, they have a new constant relative velocity which is -.6c as opposed to their starting velocity of +.6c. There is no age difference for worldlines engaged in constant relative velocity so the age difference at t=8 should be 2. But the method I've outlined above, the age difference works out to about 1.5 years (sqrt (6.4² + 1.2²). Clearly age difference keeps accumulating right up until t=10 during a time when the last 2yr segment is relative velocity which prohibits more age difference.

Edited November 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[Farsight]

I'm not even going to try to argue your beliefs, just your math. Consider 2 worldlines at .6c. One is a roundtrip at the 3ly mark and the other keeps going. At t=10 earth time, t' =8 for the roundtrip traveller. The traveller ages 2 yrs less. So what does your math calculate for the traveller heading out into empty space at .6c when the earth has aged 10 yrs?

8 years. 

 

I assume the answer you calculate is also 8. The answer is actually 10 according to relativity's main equation which agrees with the equation calculating worldline duration and age difference. The worldline duration = sqrt (t'² + x²) = sqrt (8² + 6²) =10. (I moved the normally negative x² to the other side of the equation. ) 10-10=0 so there is no age difference between them but there is on a roundtrip journey. The time dilation from each perspective is the same which means both would calculate the other as ageing less which is a paradox.

 

No, the answer is 8 years. Worldlines do not exist. The traveller exists, so does the Earth, so does the CMB, and so does space. He's moving through it fast, so his time is dilated. If he was moving at c, he would be totally time dilated, and would experience no time at all. 

 

 

I'm not totally on-board with this method because past t=8 for earth and t'=6 for the traveller, they have a new constant relative velocity which is -.6c as opposed to their starting velocity of +.6c. There is no age difference for worldlines engaged in constant relative velocity so the age difference at t=8 should be 2. But the method I've outlined above, the age difference works out to about 1.5 years (sqrt (6.4² + 1.2²). Clearly age difference keeps accumulating right up until t=10 during a time when the last 2yr segment is relative velocity which prohibits more age difference.

 

It's too purist. It dates from a time before people knew about the CMB. The people who take this approach tend to refer you to the Einstein equivalence principle, which is nothing to do with Einstein. You know, there's a lot of myths in relativity. See this for example: the principle of equivalence and other myths/. I wrote it. I'm a relativity guy, and I've read the Einstein digital papers. Einstein's relativity is rather different to the relativity people tell you about.   

[ralfcis]

I argue math, you respond with philosophy. Your philosophy is absolute motion which is not part of relativity at all. You are not a "relativity guy". If you believe in an absolute frame, you're an absolutivity guy. A guy moving at c experiences his own time as progressing normally. He is only frozen in time to an outside observer engaged in constant relative velocity.

Edited November 7, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Woo hoo, I just realized I have broken the forum record for most replies. My threads are #1 and #3. Breaking the most views record will be difficult. If this were any other forum I would have been unjustifiably kicked off long ago.

[ralfcis]

Sorry Sluggo, I can`t respond to whatever you`re saying because it just looks like a mash up of words I can`t make any sense of. Maybe I really can`t read. If there`s someone else out there who can make sense from it please translate for me.

[Farsight]

I argue math, you respond with philosophy. Your philosophy is absolute motion which is not part of relativity at all. You are not a "relativity guy". If you believe in an absolute frame, you're an absolutivity guy. A guy moving at c experiences his own time as progressing normally. He is only frozen in time to an outside observer engaged in constant relative velocity.

No, I'm a relativity guy. See Einstein's 1939 paper on a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses. He said “g₄₄ = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero". He was talking about a black hole event horizon. A clock going at the rate zero doesn't tick. An observer sitting in front of this clock would "go at the rate zero" too. He doesn't see the clock ticking normally. He doesn't experience his own time. He doesn't experience anything. Ever, It's the same for the observer moving at c. 

[ralfcis]

Ok farsight I'll bite even though I know there's various levels of crazy on this forum and there's no amount of reasonable argument that can shake the faith of believers in the dogma of their sects. In contrast you should post questions on the physics stack exchange. The gravitas of a person's reputation score is definitely reflected in the quality of their answers. Those who know less are gauged by the quality of their questions. Maybe if people on here participated there, we could just ignore the crazies when they post based on their reputation scores. 

 

I haven't been involved in the dogma of the CMB as an absolute frame but here are my criticisms of it anyway.

 

1. The CMB is equally distant from every point in the universe like the earth's horizon is from everyone on the surface of earth. Everyone gets the same distance reading to the horizon no matter how fast they're going towards it. I assume this CMB dipole is like a mountain on the horizon. The thing is if your direction is a circle around the mountain, your relative velocity to the mountain is zero even though your relative velocity to others on the surface is not zero even if they're not moving relative to the mountain. You're moving but your absolute relative velocity to the mountain is zero just like someone who's not moving?

 

2. If you gauged your relative velocity to the mountain, you'd need to move straight towards the mountain and judge your velocity by how much the size of the mountain was increasing. For the 1st part of your journey, you'd need very sensitive measuring devices to tell you were moving at all. Imagine how sensitive those would have to be to gauge your velocity to the background CMB. In contrast, it would be very easy to gauge your relative velocity to something closer by using the doppler shift ratio. 

 

3. If you're gauging your distance to a mountain on the horizon, once you're closer to that mountain , you're no longer using the horizon as an absolute frame. The same problem would occur if the CMB was like your horizon or absolute frame. 

 

4. Your age difference between you and the guy beside you can't be determined if you're both moving parallel to the CMB but there very definitely is one between the two of you. So what's the use of an absolute age difference to an absolute frame that can't be calculated?

 

5. Now I'm not sure how relative velocity is defined in relativity. If you were at the center of the earth, the relative velocity of orbiting satellites would be zero as they're never closing the distance gap between them and you. But they do move at an angular velocity. I don't think that counts because it's not a vector. So ignoring gravitational effects, their time is not dilating wrt to you if you're at the center of their orbit but it is dilating if you're on the earth's surface. This has nothing to do with my CMB discussion, just thinking out loud.

Edited November 7, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

I remember when Farsight was a frequent visitor on many forums. They didn't like your analogy of time as counting beans!

I get the same response for orbits, trajectories, axis of simultaneity, etc. as perceptions, reality confined to the mind, with no physical counterparts. That's the current status of science where the representations are believed to be the reality.

Rather than learn it, Ralf prefers to use demeaning and insulting responses to impose his own lack of understanding onto others. The old, if I can't raise myself up. I'll bring the others down to my level.

[ralfcis]

I'm not that way on the physics stack exchange because I think I might learn something from them. I try to insult away people who waste my time but that seems to backfire as insults seem to draw them closer to me Sluggo. You just repeat stuff like a robot and take issue with my disagreement with your obvious truth instead of trying to understand my point of view. Of course, from your perspective, I'm the one doing that to you even though I'm constantly re-adjusting my ideas to new interpretations. You can't see that because you ignore all my previous interpretations so you assume there's been no change. 

[sluggo]

Ralf;

I didn't understand SR when visiting forums about 2006, but I had to learn it to understand why people are still debating an established theory 100 yrs old. After many refinements in the learning process...my conclusion was, misinterpretation and excessive abstraction.

I have examined your ideas, then disproved them because they don't work or contradict established experimental verification.