A New Simultaneity Method for Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Mike_Fontenot, Dec 26, 2019.

  1. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,112
    That is where reality and Mike's brain part ways. In order to maintain this fantasy, he has to resort to claiming that the CMIF simultaneity (which is the simultaneity that results from extended sets of Einstein-sycnchronsed clocks at rest in inertial frames) is only applicable to reference frames which have been perpetually inertial.

    This means he has to resort to changing things from being frame-dependent in SR, (such as "simultaneity is frame-dependent") to things being person-dependent in Mike's SR (such as "her age is currently 40 according to the perpetually inertial people in her reference frame, but not according to the guy who recently decelerated, his simultaneity is different, even though he is at rest in that same frame!").

    It is bad enough to patch all of these unnecessary things onto an established theory ad hoc, but to claim the theory was like that all along is just insulting.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Let me confirm what you mean by "happening locally", because I think there is one example where there might be an ambiguity: Let's say, the ICMIO is looking at "Her" in the distance, and "He" is looking at "Her" in the distance, at the same place and the same time. If I correctly understand what you mean by "happening locally" then "He" and the "ICMIO" should be seeing the same event, in the same way, at the same time. Even though "She" is distant, the event of seeing "Her" is local.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,112
    Let's take the simplest case example, where the traveling twin changes from v=+0.577c to v=0.000c at the usual location (x=23.09 light years) at the moment when the traveling twin's clock says 32.66 years, as shown:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    All of the people in questions are now at rest in the stay-home twin's rest frame, and everyone agrees that her age at that time is 40 years old, because SR does not have things that are person-dependent, only things which are reference frame-dependent.

    But let's say for a moment that SR is what Mike says it is, namely, totally silent on what speed of light should be for the traveling twin personally, because he has recently decelerated. All of the people located at x=23.09 can see (using their eyes + a telescope) that the stay-home twin's clock is showing 16.91 years. All of the perpetually inertial people can use the known speed of light and the known distance to calculate her current age as 16.91 + 23.09 = 40.00 years. But the traveling twin is different than all of those other people, because he has not been perpetually inertial. So what is the speed of light according to him? What is the distance between him and her according to him? It is whatever Mike says it is.

    He can say the distance is still 23.09 light years for him, but the speed of light of the image of her clock was not 1 light year per year for him. Or he can say the speed of light of the image of her clock was 1 light year per year for him, but the distance is not 23.09 light years for him. Or he can say it is a combination of both.

    All of this because he thinks SR is completely silent on the speed of light according to him (!) and because he thinks SR is completely silent on the distance between him and her according to him (!). Yeah, I'm pretty sure SR is not completely silent on those things.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    My own philosophy is that given any set of event coordinates, and the position, time, and velocity of any observer, you can establish the location of events according to that observer at that point in time, mostly by using rotation and lorentz transformations. The rotation transformation handles all the forward, up, down, left, and right issues, while the Lorentz transformation handles the future, past issues.

    Here's my most recent treatment on the topic.

    http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/TemporalFacing.php
     
  8. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,112
    I'm not sure why you say it is your own philosophy, because the Lorentz transformations (LT's) sole purpose is to provide equations that anyone can use to do that, while maintaining all of the premises of SR. Unless you are of the Mike Fontenot school of "SR is totally silent on that," then all anyone has to do is use the LT's. They don't have to subscribe to any philosophy.

    Anyway, I watched your first video, and I thought it was explained quite well. But the second video appears to be an accidental exact copy of the first one. Your notes say that the first 17 minutes are a review of part 1, but the whole video is only 13:41 minutes long, (the same length as the first).

    Other than that, I found the fourth video interesting. I had not studied radar time that deeply before, because it seemed to me to be just another unnecessary add-on to SR, and not part of SR itself. But it is funny when you reveal that D&G still ended up with distant times shifting when someone "goes dancing" even though that was clearly what motivated D&G to create the add-on in the first place.

    SR is complete as it is, excepting gravity. If it doesn't specifically say that an inertial frame can only be one that has been perpetually inertial, then that does not mean it is totally silent on that subject allowing one to interpret it to mean that if one wishes. Inertial frames are clearly defined in SR, and not open to interpretations such as that (Mike's).

    Likewise, relativity of simultaneity is a clearly derived result of the premises of SR. When two inertial frames are in uniform relative translation with respect to one another, events which are spacial-separated along the direction of the relative motion between the frames WILL NOT BE SIMULTANEOUS in one frame, if they ARE SIMULTANEOUS in the other frame. Mike's whole goal is to violate that, because he needs to make the event "Traveling twin's age is 32.66" simultaneous with the event "Stay-home twin's age is 26.67" in BOTH the traveling twin's outbound frame, AND the traveling twin's new frame, (after the traveler decelerates to v=0.000c or turns around and heads back at v=-0.577c or whatever else he might do). Thus a clearly derived result of SR, namely relativity of simultaneity as explained above, is DENIED OUTRIGHT under the guise of "SR is totally silent on that". It is almost a blasphemy, lol.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
  9. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    Yes, that's correct. The disagreement between him and the ICMIO (for a while, after he changes velocity) is over how much she aged while those images were in transit.
     
  10. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    I'll try to fix that soon. In the meantime, if you like, you can watch the video on youtube at

    Have you ever heard anyone say "SR is valid only locally"? I have heard this phrase quite a number of times, and it seems at odds with the philosophy that the Lorentz Transformations operates on the coordinates of all events in spacetime. So, my philosophy is that SR is valid globally.

    Look in the Wikipedia discussion archive 5 for Lorentz Transformations, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lorentz_transformation/Archive_5

    Under the header "Delete irrelevant animation", the user, there, whose name seems unpronounceable, says that the animation there, which demonstrates exactly how events move forward and backward in time as the Lorentz Transformations are performed, for a given observer, are "irrelevant" to the Lorentz Transformations. This gives me the impression that many people are of the philosophy that SR does not actually move events around, but just puts new labels on them.
     
  11. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Alright. I will say, then, there is nothing, in principle, that would prevent the traveling twin from using your method, or even arguing that his method was better than other methods. "Better" being a key word here, because it is an opinion word. Opinions as to what is better can be formulated on whatever you designate to be an important property you want a method to satisfy. (A rubric)

    The method I think is better, is for "him" to simply take a "tangent" with slope dx/dt = v, and the hyperpendicular simultaneity line, with slope dx/dt =1/v, and see where that simultaneity line intersects "her" world-line. Whatever age she is at that intersection is what "he" would say "her" age is now.

    One thing I like about this method is that it should highlight changes in the relativity of simultaneity, as he accelerates toward her, she has a sudden lurch forward in age. Even skipping years, if he accelerates instantaneously. If you regard the acknowledgment of the relativity of simultaneity as a bad, thing, though, highlighting it would not be in your rubric.
     
  12. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Your philosophy is then one of denial of facts. Under SR, given any two objects E and F separated by X light years in the frame in which E is stationary, light from F will get to A in X years. Not true of our universe, where if F is sufficiently distant, light will never reach E in any amount of time. So much for SR describing the universe on a large scale.

    On a more local scale, if I shine a laser to a reflector on the moon and time the round trip, I will get a faster measurement for the speed of light than if I did the same experiment on the moon using a reflector here on Earth. SR asserts the two should be the same, but in both cases (the distant F and the moon thingy), the conditions of SR (the parts that make it special) are not met. Only locally are they met.
     
  13. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    The universe you are describing is only a model.

    I agree, here, but what I'm in agreement with is that "SR is NOT valid locally".
     
  14. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    I am describing our actual empirical universe, not a model. There is really an event horizon beyond which light will never reach us. Light round trip to the moon and back really will be measured faster than light round trip from the moon and back. GPS clocks run faster than Earth clocks even in Earth frame where the GPS clocks are moving much faster. SR is mute on all that because SR cannot explain any of these observations.
     
  15. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    What you are describing is General Relativity and Cosmology. This thread is about Special Relativity. In Special Relativity, it is assumed that there are no significant masses present, spacetime is flat, and it is valid over arbitrarily large distances.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2020
  16. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Even if you were correct about the universe, I would still call your description of it "a model."

    Emperical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".

    Can you tell me of an observation that has been done which has demonstrated that your model is correct, and the Milne model is incorrect? Both models have an explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Both models have an explanation for Hubble's Law. And if you account for temperature in the early universe, both models have an explanation for cosmic inflation, as I recently described here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...Cosmological_Inflation_in_Minkowski_Spacetime



    My philosophy is that cosmology and Special Relativity should not be separated. Many people treat them as though the Lorentz transformation stops functioning as soon as one adds a little gravity into the mix. I think that's as absurd as suggesting that rotation stops working as soon as you throw gravity into the mix.

    If I turn my head 90 degrees to the left, all of the objects, no matter how far away from me, rotate 90 degrees to the right in my point-of-view, corresponding to a 90 degree clockwise rotation transformation. It does not matter how far away they are, and gravity has no effect on this. So how can anyone justify the idea that if I accelerate to half the speed of light, only "local" events will respond to the Lorentz Transformation?
     
  17. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    I certainly agree with all that. The good characteristics of my simultaneity method, in my opinion, are that it has no discontinuities in the age correspondence diagram (ACD), it is causal, its ACD is easy and quick to compute, and the home twin's age NEVER decreases ... i.e., she never gets YOUNGER, according to him. Some of these characteristics are also characteristics of the other three simultaneity methods, but none of the other methods have ALL of these characteristics.

    When I first read that description, I initially thought you were proposing a 5th simultaneity method. But after a more careful reading, I think you are just talking about the CMIF method.

    If you are talking about me and my method in the above statement, then I don't understand why you are saying that. The relativity of simultaneity is just a statement that not all observers draw the ACD (her current age, plotted versus his age) the same way. None of the four simultaneity methods contend that the relativity of simultaneity is a bad thing. They each produce an ACD that differs from the ACD that the home twin produces, and that's their goal.
     
  18. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    I think they SHOULD be. Halc is arguing that SR is only local, because Cosmology (and in particular, inflation) results in some signals never reaching us. But under the ASSUMPTIONS of SR itself, there are no significant masses anywhere near our proposed trip, and there is not any spatial inflation happening that affects our trip ... space by definition is completely static and flat in SR, and it is infinite in extent.

    Even in the real universe as it is (or as we currently think it is), if we could take a relativistic-speed trip out to 50 lightyears or so, and which avoided going anywhere near any large stars or blackholes, the results obtained using special relativity would very well approximate what actually happens on the trip. It's wrong to think SR is no longer useful, just because we now know a lot about GR and Cosmology (specifically, about blackholes and inflation).
     
  19. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Oh, I agree that SR is fine for the thought exercises in this thread. I was just commenting on Doolin's 'philosophy'.

    SR is local because it has no compensation for dark energy or for gravity, and I picked examples illustrating each to show why it fails outside of the special conditions where it is valid.
     
  20. Jonathan Doolin Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Here is an example of what I mean by saying SR is valid globally: "Stellar aberration" was detected (empirically) by James Bradley in 1727.

    That effect is easily modeled by the Lorentz Transformations. It essentially causes their images to be always Lorentz boosted forward towards the direction of Earth's motion around the sun, just a bit. There's no gravitational pull or dark energy that prevent the Lorentz Transformations from operating on events that are an infinite distance from earth.

    Notice, here, I use the word "model" whether or not I believe the model is correct. I believe that the Lorentz Transformations give the correct model for Stellar Aberration. However, scientifically speaking, I also think one could find a way of modeling the phenomenon using Galilean Transformations with the sun embedded within a universal ether.

    Empirically speaking, all we have to go on is redshift and magnitude measurements.

    A model that claims "some signals never reach us" is not an entirely empirical model, because any signal that will never reach us would never be observed or experienced; hence the opposite of empirical.

    Regarding gravity, I think this is the third time I've said this: gravity is a local phenomenon, so it would make more sense to say that SR is global, while gravity is local.

    Regarding dark energy, it is energy that has never been detected, so again, the opposite of "empirical".

    It is also goes somewhat counter to the scientific method that the supposedly "correct" model of the universe is one that makes a prediction that has so far never been observed. In introductory science, when your hypothesis predicts a phenomenon, and then, when tested, that phenomenon does not occur, that hypothesis does not become theory. Instead, one is supposed to go back to the observation stage with an open mind to form new hypotheses.
     
  21. Mike_Fontenot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    My monograph on "A New Simultaneity Method for Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity" is available on Amazon for $5.00. You can find it by searching on "simultaneity method".
     

Share This Page