Jump to content

# Theory of Time-distance Relativity

## Recommended Posts

I agree that locking down the various frames of reference is key. May I suggest you consider the Earth and the other planet as stationary with respect to each other for simplicity. That way thay are in the same reference frame.

So there are now two frames:

1) The Earth/other planet reference frame.

and

2) The light (photon) reference frame.

Say the Earth and the other planet are one lightyear apart (in the Earth/other planet frame).

(And think of only sending a single photon, again for simplicity.)

From the Earth/other planet reference frame, the photon (message) is emitted by us on Earth at time zero. One Earth year later, this photon is received by the other planet. Aliens on this other planet then send their return message (another photon) to Earth. One more Earth year later (year 2), the photon is received back on the Earth. Because the Earth and other planet are in the same reference frame, there is no time dilation or length contraction. (No relative motion so no shrinking of time or space).

From the initial photon's reference frame, it is standing still and the Earth and other planet are moving at the speed of light. So the photon sees the ultimate time dilation and length contraction. From the photon's point of view, the distance between the Earth and the other planet has contracted to zero. From the photon's point of view, it travels from the Earth to the other planet instantaneously! Any photon going from place to place (in a vacuum) goes at the speed of light. Thus for it, time is frozen (it never ages) and all distances are contracted to zero.

• Replies 52
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

I was going to edit my last reply and say that my theory is wrong in its current form. I don't think I can say that light transmission is instantaneous without mixing up reference frames.

From the initial photon's reference frame, it is standing still and the Earth and other planet are moving at the speed of light. So the photon sees the ultimate time dilation and length contraction. From the photon's point of view, the distance between the Earth and the other planet has contracted to zero. From the photon's point of view, it travels from the Earth to the other planet instantaneously! Any photon going from place to place (in a vacuum) goes at the speed of light. Thus for it, time is frozen (it never ages) and all distances are contracted to zero.

Is this valid? Does a photon have a "point of view"? I think there is something wrong there, because in any valid frame of reference, the speed of light is constant c relative to the frame. What speed would a photon "see" other photons traveling at? I think we're talking about literally invalid things, and won't come to any completely paradox-free conclusions.

I agree in principle... according to a photon, length is contracted to zero; it has no experience of "it's own time" passing (it has no frame within which you can describe a clock).

However, if you say that it travels from the Earth to the other planet, you're speaking of a relative distance, and I think you have to use the relative time of that frame. So you can say that the photon travels no distance in no time (in it's own invalid frame). Or you can say that in moving from Earth to the the other planet, one year of time passes on the other planet, so the photon moves one light-year in one year, even if the photon "experiences" that passing of relative time in an instant.

I'm not sure at all about what I'm saying here. I wonder if Einstein went through so many frame mixups and wrong interpretations of things as he figured it all out.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

From the initial photon's reference frame, it is standing still and the Earth and other planet are moving at the speed of light. So the photon sees the ultimate time dilation and length contraction. From the photon's point of view, the distance between the Earth and the other planet has contracted to zero. From the photon's point of view, it travels from the Earth to the other planet instantaneously! Any photon going from place to place (in a vacuum) goes at the speed of light. Thus for it, time is frozen (it never ages) and all distances are contracted to zero.

I am also wondering if it is valid.

point by point:

From the initial photon's reference frame, it is standing still and the Earth and other planet are moving at the speed of light.
Yes, I suppose it is correct.
So the photon sees the ultimate time dilation and length contraction.
Yes, I suppose it is correct too.
From the photon's point of view, the distance between the Earth and the other planet has contracted to zero.
I am not sure. SOL has a specific value, roughly 300.000 km/sec. The inverse of this value (sec/km) is not zero. if SOL were infinite, the inverse would be zero, but that is not the case.What we know (or what we think we know) is that a photon knows nothing about Time. Time does not exist for a photon. So I tend to conclude that only space exist. And not to conclude that space = 0.
From the photon's point of view, it travels from the Earth to the other planet instantaneously
I am not sure if we can apply such a word (instantaneously) to something that knows nothing about time. It could be 'infinitely" as well since we don't know whether t=o or t=infinite for a photon. I guess it's all wrong. Edited by michel123456
##### Share on other sites

I am not sure. SOL has a specific value, roughly 300.000 km/sec. The inverse of this value (sec/km) is not zero.

I'm not sure where inverses come in but we're talking about length contraction as described by the Lorentz transformation. As v approaches c, gamma (length contraction factor) approaches infinity.

Note that if v = c, it's undefined (divide by zero), which confirms what I'm talking about: Imagining an observer at c leads to contradictions (loss of definition, paradoxes, whatever).

I am not sure if we can apply such a word (instantaneously) to something that knows nothing about time. It could be 'infinitely" as well since we don't know whether t=o or t=infinite for a photon. I guess it's all wrong.

I pretty much agree with the first sentence. I would sum it up as such:

- There are no "observational frames of reference" for photons. Any reference frame that you imagine traveling at the speed of light is non-observational (if it's even valid at all).

- Proper time is undefined for a photon. For all intents and purposes, time doesn't exist in non-observational frames.

When we say something is "undefined" we don't mean it's infinite (the limit can approach infinity but it can also approach -infinity). We don't mean that it can be any value in between. It is undefined. Using it as a value in arithmetic or logic pretty much invalidates your conclusions.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

- There are no "observational frames of reference" for photons. Any reference frame that you imagine traveling at the speed of light is non-observational (if it's even valid at all).

Proper time is undefined for a photon. For all intents and purposes, time doesn't exist in non-observational frames.

But if one want to understand what a photon reference frame would look like, beginning from the spacetime continuum, for the photon it is 0% Time and 100% Space. It is something we think we know about: something like a ruler, indicating distance, with no mention of time. It is a concept we believe we know: it is 3d space only. Can you imagine that?

##### Share on other sites

But if one want to understand what a photon reference frame would look like, beginning from the spacetime continuum, for the photon it is 0% Time and 100% Space. It is something we think we know about: something like a ruler, indicating distance, with no mention of time. It is a concept we believe we know: it is 3d space only. Can you imagine that?

But it's not 0% time and 100% space. Time dilates asymptotically to infinity, and length contracts asymptotically to zero, as v approaches c. At that limit, there is no length. But you can't get into that frame (mathematically) from an inertial one, and you can't get from the frame of one photon to another. How are we to understand what a photon reference frame would look like, based on our experience with inertial frames?

##### Share on other sites

Please help me here; I just don't understand the theory of relativity at all. It doesn't make sense to me. How can time slow the faster an object moves? Isn't time just a measurement? Doesn't that mean it follows the same rules as any other measurement? If we are talking about time as something more, like an entity of some sort, or an enrgy all of it's own, then maybe something like this would make sense, but if not, then going fast would just mean getting there sooner and going slower would mean getting there later. You can't just change the measurements because something is moving faster. That would be like saying grams weigh more the faster you increase the weight. No, you just have more weight because you added more weight. I don't know. I'm probably way off on this.

##### Share on other sites

No... Any use of my theory to predict something different from special relativity means my theory is wrong (doubtful , though certainly many of the details are still wrong), or special relativity is wrong (extremely doubtful), or that there is a problem in the way I've explained it and/or the way it's interpreted (most likely).

Your example is easily confusing.

Yes, whenever someone sends or receives a message, it is *their* present. No one will say "Hold on I haven't got your message yet... wait... Okay! Now I got it yesterday (or tomorrow)."

But... No, the present is not the same for everyone, according to everyone else.

My theory would basically describe what you did in this way:

According to observers on the remote planet, they will receive in their present, a message that we sent at the time that they observe us at right now (they observe us as being one year in the past relative to them, so they observe that we sent the message one year in the past). They reply immediately. That's all that they "see" in this example.

On Earth, we send that first message to the remote planet, which we see as being 1 year in the past. So we don't expect them to receive the message until they catch up to our present, which will take one year. But since we're also one year in *their* past, if they send a reply immediately, we won't get it until we catch up to the time (according to them) that they sent the message.

In other words, after 2 years have passed, we see that the aliens that are 1 year in our past have sent a reply 1 year in our past.

Observationally, this is no different from special relativity.

I think I got it now.

You're saying that light will travel one lightyear instantly but in doing so it will travel one year into the future so it still appears to have traveled at the speed of light.

Is that right?

##### Share on other sites

I think I got it now.

You're saying that light will travel one lightyear instantly but in doing so it will travel one year into the future so it still appears to have traveled at the speed of light.

Is that right?

I saw this comment on /. today: http://idle.slashdot...72&cid=33669610

"When you travel at the speed of light, and you go to a place 45,000 light years away, you arrive the moment you left. No time passes. Just for the rest of us it seems like it takes a long time to get there, but for you in the craft, speed is infinite. If you want to get there in 5 minutes, you have to go a bit slower. If you want to arrive yesterday, then you'll have to go even faster than the speed of light...."

I read this and thought, "Oh! So it's already known!" -- Well... the "faster than c" part is impossible.

That comment though pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Anywhere you travel, you will end up in the present. If you're in the same place as someone, you're both in the present of that location. "Traveling a year into the future" is misleading.

But essentially yes, that idea is right. If you travel to a remote planet one light-year away, then one light-year (and more) of relative time (measured by a clock on the planet) will have passed, no matter what your speed is. Time dilation equations will tell you how "fast" that clock's time changes relative to your own clocks. (I think...)

Here's another way to think of it: If you're looking right now at that planet that's a light-year away (and relatively at rest), you're seeing it as it was one year in the past. If you move toward it, when you get there, you will see it as it is in its present*. If you watch it as you move toward it, you will need to see it age from its "one year in the past" to its "present". This is a non-relativistic effect... time dilation makes it more complicated, and can add additional "time modifiers" let's say.

I believe that special relativity says that you'll see most of its aging happen as you accelerate and decelerate (or when you "switch frames", as the Twin Paradox is usually explained). Its time will run faster than yours. In between, any time you are traveling at a constant relative velocity, you'll see its time slowed relative to yours.

* Also note that time continues to pass, on the planet, so unless you make the trip instantly (calculated as relative v = c), then you'll actually see the planet age a year plus dilated travel time.

Please help me here; I just don't understand the theory of relativity at all. It doesn't make sense to me. How can time slow the faster an object moves? Isn't time just a measurement? Doesn't that mean it follows the same rules as any other measurement? If we are talking about time as something more, like an entity of some sort, or an enrgy all of it's own, then maybe something like this would make sense, but if not, then going fast would just mean getting there sooner and going slower would mean getting there later. You can't just change the measurements because something is moving faster. That would be like saying grams weigh more the faster you increase the weight. No, you just have more weight because you added more weight. I don't know. I'm probably way off on this.

Give me a month or a year or 105 years to figure out the details, and I'll be able to explain this!!!

I promise a better explanation though...

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

Anywhere you travel, you will end up in the present. If you're in the same place as someone, you're both in the present of that location. "Traveling a year into the future" is misleading.

Plus, wherever you go or stay for a year, at the end of the year you will be a year into the future relative to yourself a year before.

The problem comes when you measure time from two different clocks moving at different speed, both visible from the same observer. Do you measure your own time relative to the other clock, or do you measure the other clock's time relative to the one in your gravity/velocity situation?

Edited by lemur
##### Share on other sites

Please help me here; I just don't understand the theory of relativity at all. It doesn't make sense to me. How can time slow the faster an object moves? Isn't time just a measurement? Doesn't that mean it follows the same rules as any other measurement? If we are talking about time as something more, like an entity of some sort, or an enrgy all of it's own, then maybe something like this would make sense, but if not, then going fast would just mean getting there sooner and going slower would mean getting there later. You can't just change the measurements because something is moving faster. That would be like saying grams weigh more the faster you increase the weight. No, you just have more weight because you added more weight. I don't know. I'm probably way off on this.

Have a read here

http://www.einstein-online.info/

I saw this comment on /. today: http://idle.slashdot...72&cid=33669610

"When you travel at the speed of light, and you go to a place 45,000 light years away, you arrive the moment you left. No time passes. Just for the rest of us it seems like it takes a long time to get there, but for you in the craft, speed is infinite. If you want to get there in 5 minutes, you have to go a bit slower. If you want to arrive yesterday, then you'll have to go even faster than the speed of light...."

I read this and thought, "Oh! So it's already known!" -- Well... the "faster than c" part is impossible.

That comment though pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Anywhere you travel, you will end up in the present. If you're in the same place as someone, you're both in the present of that location. "Traveling a year into the future" is misleading.

So you (light) will end up (or stay) in your present but in travelling you have gone a year into the planets future.

But essentially yes, that idea is right. If you travel to a remote planet one light-year away, then one light-year (and more) of relative time (measured by a clock on the planet) will have passed, no matter what your speed is. Time dilation equations will tell you how "fast" that clock's time changes relative to your own clocks. (I think...)

Here's another way to think of it: If you're looking right now at that planet that's a light-year away (and relatively at rest), you're seeing it as it was one year in the past. If you move toward it, when you get there, you will see it as it is in its present*. If you watch it as you move toward it, you will need to see it age from its "one year in the past" to its "present". This is a non-relativistic effect... time dilation makes it more complicated, and can add additional "time modifiers" let's say.

Let's say it's 2010 on Earth, it's also 2010 on this planet but when we look at this planet the year we see is 2009. If we send a message to this planet and it gets there infinitely fast then it arrives there in 2010 or 2011. Can you explain what happens here?

I believe that special relativity says that you'll see most of its aging happen as you accelerate and decelerate (or when you "switch frames", as the Twin Paradox is usually explained). Its time will run faster than yours. In between, any time you are traveling at a constant relative velocity, you'll see its time slowed relative to yours.

I believe that special relativity says that you'll see most of its aging happen as you accelerate and decelerate

I get the impression other people think this too, I think it's completely wrong.

Take a look here

http://www.einstein-...ights/TwinsRoad

here's an extract

"But how does this work - why is the acceleration so important? Did the travelling twin stay young because time went especially slowly for him during the acceleration phase? Not at all. In order to get a clearer picture, consider the following analogy that is not about time intervals, but about distances in space."

##### Share on other sites

I also found it hard to believe that time slows down with motion when I first read about it. I suspect most everyone does. But we know from experiments with atomic clocks on airplanes, on rockets and in satellites that time does really slow down with relative motion. We also know this from the measured lifetimes of subatomic particles in our atmosphere and in particle accelerators. Yes, this so-called time dilation is crazy. Yes, it violates our common sense; but it's true! I like what the famous physicist Richard Feynman said (he said it about quantum theory, but I think it also applies to relativity): "Mother Nature doesn't care whether we believe it or not, this is how She works."

And yes, this relative slowing of time due to motion implies time travel. In fact, we do it all the time! It's just such a tiny effect at every day speeds that we don't notice it. See link:

(IF LINKS DO NOT WORK DIRECTLY, COPY THEM AND PASTE THEM DIRECTLY. ON YOUR BROWSER. THEN THEY WILL WORK)

http://www.marksmodernphysics.com/Mark's%20Modern%20Physics/Musings/It's%20Relative.html

All experiments show that it is the object which accelerates which undergoes the relative slowing of time. See link below for detailed explanation:

www.marksmodernphysics.com/Mark's%20Modern%20Physics/Musings/Musings%20-%20The%20Twins%20Paradox.doc

Hiope this helps.

Edited by I ME
##### Share on other sites

I also found it hard to believe that time slows down with motion when I first read about it. I suspect most everyone does. But we know from experiments with atomic clocks on airplanes, on rockets and in satellites that time does really slow down with relative motion. We also know this from the measured lifetimes of subatomic particles in our atmosphere and in particle accelerators. Yes, this so-called time dilation is crazy. Yes, it violates our common sense; but it's true! I like what the famous physicist Richard Feynman said (he said it about quantum theory, but I think it also applies to relativity): "Mother Nature doesn't care whether we believe it or not, this is how She works."

And yes, this relative slowing of time due to motion implies time travel. In fact, we do it all the time! It's just such a tiny effect at every day speeds that we don't notice it. See link:

(IF LINKS DO NOT WORK DIRECTLY, COPY THEM AND PASTE THEM DIRECTLY. ON YOUR BROWSER. THEN THEY WILL WORK)

http://www.marksmodernphysics.com/Mark's%20Modern%20Physics/Musings/It's%20Relative.html

All experiments show that it is the object which accelerates which undergoes the relative slowing of time. See link below for detailed explanation:

www.marksmodernphysics.com/Mark's%20Modern%20Physics/Musings/Musings%20-%20The%20Twins%20Paradox.doc

Hiope this helps.

Don't know if that's directed at me

Time slows down with velocity not acceleration. If for instance A is travelling faster than B then A will experience time slower relative to B.

But it seems like people are saying that A and B have relative velocity and therefore they both see the same time dilation in each other.

Then A accelerates and whilst A accelerates it experiences time at a slower rate compared to B.

Then, when A stops accelerating and returns to uniform, albeit greater, speed, there is relative velocity between A and B again

A and B see the same time dilation in each other again but both see A is now a little behind B.

Is that what people are saying? If so they are mistaken.

I'm not understanding how others here think relativity works, perhaps people can explain.

##### Share on other sites

I also found it hard to believe that time slows down with motion when I first read about it. I suspect most everyone does. But we know from experiments with atomic clocks on airplanes, on rockets and in satellites that time does really slow down with relative motion. We also know this from the measured lifetimes of subatomic particles in our atmosphere and in particle accelerators. Yes, this so-called time dilation is crazy. Yes, it violates our common sense; but it's true! I like what the famous physicist Richard Feynman said (he said it about quantum theory, but I think it also applies to relativity): "Mother Nature doesn't care whether we believe it or not, this is how She works."

And yes, this relative slowing of time due to motion implies time travel. In fact, we do it all the time! It's just such a tiny effect at every day speeds that we don't notice it.

Ah jeez...

I'm working on a theory (the original theory posted at the beginning of this thread, except that it's gone through about 8 major revisions, several times changing its meaning completely), that explains relativity. Or uh... it will... when I'm done...

What I've found so far:

- Relativity *does* make common sense, once we have a better understanding of time. There are simple thought experiments that show that any relative motion doesn't make sense without time dilation (even if it's unnoticeably small).

- Relativity does *not* imply time travel (in the sense that you could travel to the past or future). ON ONE HAND, one could say that the simple passing of time (either at a normal rate or a modified rate) is time travel, but it's not *really*: whether you sit still and pass time, or move around differently relative to different locations, and thus pass time relative to those locations at different rates, no matter what you do, you will be in your present. Anywhere you go, you will be in that location's present. It can all be explained without using the word "future".

Relativity is consistent. All observers will agree on the relative age of any two objects (twins or clocks or anything) that are in the same place. That means no one can observe you in one time relative to your location, while another observer sees you in another time relative to your location. No time travel.

You *can* see weird time effects across a distance (loss of simultaneity, no common chronology, etc... IE you can be observed in different times relative to some location, by different observers), but you can't interact with distant locations without requiring the passing of time (there's not remote time travel or time-travel of information).

Anyway you slice it, any event (interaction, transfer of information, etc) will have a single location and occur at a single time at that location.

Time slows down with velocity not acceleration. If for instance A is travelling faster than B then A will experience time slower relative to B.

But it seems like people are saying that A and B have relative velocity and therefore they both see the same time dilation in each other.

Then A accelerates and whilst A accelerates it experiences time at a slower rate compared to B.

Then, when A stops accelerating and returns to uniform, albeit greater, speed, there is relative velocity between A and B again

A and B see the same time dilation in each other again but both see A is now a little behind B.

Is that what people are saying? If so they are mistaken.

Well, it sounds mostly true except that last line. They may only "both see the same thing" when they are brought together, and maybe need to be relatively at rest.

##### Share on other sites

Well, it sounds mostly true except that last line. They may only "both see the same thing" when they are brought together, and maybe need to be relatively at rest.

Then you do not understand Relativity. Not all frames have relative motion, some have absolute motion. How can applying a force to A cause B to accelerate???

##### Share on other sites

But it's not 0% time and 100% space. Time dilates asymptotically to infinity, and length contracts asymptotically to zero, as v approaches c. At that limit, there is no length. But you can't get into that frame (mathematically) from an inertial one, and you can't get from the frame of one photon to another. How are we to understand what a photon reference frame would look like, based on our experience with inertial frames?

Hm. I must be wrong then. I forgot that time dilation & length contraction are observations from another FOR, not the FOR of the photon. When you say that "Time dilates asymptotically to infinity, and length contracts asymptotically to zero, as v approaches c", the photon doesn't observe that. We are observing that.

##### Share on other sites

Don't know if that's directed at me

Time slows down with velocity not acceleration. If for instance A is travelling faster than B then A will experience time slower relative to B.

But it seems like people are saying that A and B have relative velocity and therefore they both see the same time dilation in each other.

Then A accelerates and whilst A accelerates it experiences time at a slower rate compared to B.

Then, when A stops accelerating and returns to uniform, albeit greater, speed, there is relative velocity between A and B again

A and B see the same time dilation in each other again but both see A is now a little behind B.

Is that what people are saying? If so they are mistaken.

I'm not understanding how others here think relativity works, perhaps people can explain.

Say Al is moving uniformly (at a constant speed and in a constant direction) with respect to Betty.

From Al's point of view, he is standing still, and Betty is moving. So Al sees his clock running normally and Betty's running slower.

From Betty's point of view, she is standing still and Al is moving. So Betty sees her clock running normally and Al's running slower.

Now let's say Al is stationary on the Earth and Betty takes a rocket flight at 87% the speed of light into outer space and back. Al's clock on Earth says that 10 years have passed from the time Betty left Earth and returned. Per special relativity, Betty's clock on-board the rocket says that only 5 years have passed for her round-trip. So it is Betty and only Betty who experiences the slowing of time (by half). Why? Because it is Betty who has experienced acceleration, On her trip, she had to turn-around to return to Earth. Duiring this turn-around, she undergoes a change in speed and direction or acceleration.

So Al has in the same inertial (uniform motion) reference frame. But Betty has been in two inertial reference frames; one going outbound and another coming back. (They can't be the same inertial frame because they are going in opposite directions.) This is why it is Betty whose time is slowed and not Al. When they meet again back on Earth, Betty will have aged 5 years but Al will have aged 10 years. Please read the link I mentioned earlier for details. Again it is:

http://www.marksmodernphysics.com/Mark's%20Modern%20Physics/Musings/Musings%20-%20The%20Twins%20Paradox.doc

Edited by I ME
##### Share on other sites

I have another question. If light is the absolute speed that energy or information can travel, what is the force that makes these things travel that fast? Why does light move... at the speed of light? I've been reading into everything everyone has said and I'm starting to finally see where this is all going. But I'm still a "why" guy. Also, what I've been reading says that Velocity is indeed what slows time, but you can't achieve velocity without acceleration, so, in turn, acceleration is necessary for time to slow.

##### Share on other sites

Say Al is moving uniformly (at a constant speed and in a constant direction) with respect to Betty.

From Al's point of view, he is standing still, and Betty is moving. So Al sees his clock running normally and Betty's running slower.

From Betty's point of view, she is standing still and Al is moving. So Betty sees her clock running normally and Al's running slower.

Yes they are in Galilean frames. They will continue with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other. They will both see each other as time dilated by the same amount. Here you got it right.

Now lets say they are stationary relative to each other ie they are not in uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other, they no longer have the special circumstances that constitute the 'special' part of special relativity. Special relativity shows you the consequences of following a very specific set of rules. One of the rules is only frames with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other are considered. It simplifies motion and the 'mechanics' of space but if you change the rules from uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other to stationary relative to each other or one frame travelling faster than the other then you change the outcome.

http://www.einstein-...ights/TwinsRoad

http://www.einstein-...potlights/Twins

http://www.einstein-...e_dilation_road

If a force is applied to Betty then she IS accelerated and she IS moving faster than Al. They do not have the same relative velocity. That is what the law of inertia describes. She is now traveling faster than Al she will experience time slower than Al. If she wants to work out how Al's time changes with respect to hers she will have to give him a negative value for velocity in her equations. She will see his time going faster This is exactly what Leonard Susskind says in this lecture

Time dilation doesn't happen only in the acceleration phase as it seems some people are suggesting. Acceleration causes them to be travelling at different speeds, that's why they show different times when one twin returns.

Edited by between3and26characterslon
##### Share on other sites

Yes they are in Galilean frames. They will continue with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other. They will both see each other as time dilated by the same amount. Here you got it right.

Now lets say they are stationary relative to each other ie they are not in uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other, they no longer have the special circumstances that constitute the 'special' part of special relativity. Special relativity shows you the consequences of following a very specific set of rules. One of the rules is only frames with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other are considered. It simplifies motion and the 'mechanics' of space but if you change the rules from uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other to stationary relative to each other or one frame travelling faster than the other then you change the outcome.

http://www.einstein-...ights/TwinsRoad

http://www.einstein-...potlights/Twins

http://www.einstein-...e_dilation_road

If a force is applied to Betty then she IS accelerated and she IS moving faster than Al. They do not have the same relative velocity. That is what the law of inertia describes. She is now traveling faster than Al she will experience time slower than Al. If she wants to work out how Al's time changes with respect to hers she will have to give him a negative value for velocity in her equations. She will see his time going faster This is exactly what Leonard Susskind says in this lecture

Time dilation doesn't happen only in the acceleration phase as it seems some people are suggesting. Acceleration causes them to be travelling at different speeds, that's why they show different times when one twin returns.

I know that time dilation doesn't happen only in the acceleration phase. If you look at my prior post (and link) on the twins paradox, you'll see that time dilation occurs during the entiire trip. But the reason the traveling twin is the one who shows the slowing of time (and not the stay at home twin) is because only the traveling twin has experiences acceleration (when she turns around to head back to the Earth). And acceleration is both a change in speed and/or change in direction. The traveling twin does both when she turns around to return to the Earth. So I think we agree here.

##### Share on other sites

I'm working hard but sporadically on a new version of the paper, which fixes a lot of problems in the original. I'm trying to get it finished before Oct 5th, which as you all know is when they select the recipient for the nobel prize in physics.

I'd like to thank those who've tried to "get" my theory, even though I haven't explained it well (I too am struggling to understand it). The new version, whenif it comes out, should be a great improvement in that.

So far though, I'm not aware yet of anyone who seems to get it (or thinks it's important). Admittedly, what I've made available so far is full of errors.

But anyway, here are a couple misconceptions I want to clear up:

"If one location is in the past relative to another location, then from another point of view, some location can be considered to be in the future..."

No no no, and as I said there's really no place for a concept of a "relative future" in this theory. No matter the observer, everything else is observed in the past.

Another way to put this is that time is equivalent to distance. If the distance from A to B is 1 light-year, we don't say that the distance from B to A is -1 lightyear. If some location is relatively in your future, then you are a negative distance from it, which is nonsensical. The sign of neither time nor distance depends on direction.

"It is the present in all locations, so if it's the year 2010 on earth and the year 2010 on a planet a light-year away then..."

Different locations will have different clocks, and thus different calendars (which are basically large-unit clocks). Different locations can have clocks and calendars that pass at different rates depending on relative velocity. It is possible to synchronize calendars across distance, but it will be difficult to keep them in sync. If some remote planet keeps track of its time in Earth seconds and years, but "sees" Earth under time dilation, then one Earth-year may seem to take longer than a year; it will seem to take different amounts of time when it has different relative velocity.

If A is set up so its clock matches the clock it observes at remote location B, then B will not see B's clock match what it sees at A. Speaking about it being 2010 on a distant planet means that you are using the clock at one location (Earth) to describe the clock at another location. To speak of "the present" at multiple locations, it is best not to confuse things by using one location's clock to describe the time at the other location.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

But anyway, here are a couple misconceptions I want to clear up:

"If one location is in the past relative to another location, then from another point of view, some location can be considered to be in the future..."

No no no, and as I said there's really no place for a concept of a "relative future" in this theory. No matter the observer, everything else is observed in the past.

Another way to put this is that time is equivalent to distance. If the distance from A to B is 1 light-year, we don't say that the distance from B to A is -1 lightyear. If some location is relatively in your future, then you are a negative distance from it, which is nonsensical. The sign of neither time nor distance depends on direction.

Right. (applause).

I agree on everything.

Especially "If some location is relatively in your future, then you are a negative distance from it".

You wrote "No matter the observer, everything else is observed in the past" and "time is equivalent to distance".

Here is the way I see things:

Here I am, the observer, and I look at the world around me. Everything I see around me is in the past. If an object is far away from me, it is long ago. If it is close to me, it is "now". But even objects near to me are in the past. Some nanoseconds ago, but still in the past. If I want to look at an object in the present, I have to collate my eye on it: I have to reduce the distance to zero. In fact, the present is where I am. The past is all around. Where is the future? Inside me.

##### Share on other sites

Einstein's theory of relativity is based on well established and accepted laws of physics and is logically derived from those laws. It requires that the 'principle of relativity' is accepted and that the law of intertia is observed. It requires that Cartesean coordinate systems are used which observe the rules of Euclidian geometry which in turn give a physical meaning to distance and length. He also gives a definition of time and much more.

Euclidian geometry gives us a definition of distance, Einstein gives us a definition of time and from that we can work out speed as distance over time.

There are strong foundations upon which relativity is built. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of all the things that relativity is built on the the theory would be where they all overlap.

I don't see this with your theory of TDR. That's not to say it's wrong, in fact it could well be right but it seems to be out there on its own and not built upon existing understanding of physics. It may not exclude or contradict existing laws but doesn't necessarily require them either thus making them redundant (in terms of your theory) and then you have to ask why have a theory that doesn't require certain laws of physics which you do require to interpret the theory in an everday sense.

##### Share on other sites

Where is the future? Inside me.

An interesting idea. Pretty much all I have to say about the future is that it can be predicted, but can't be observed. Would you connect in any way this "future inside me" with the mind's ability to predict the future?

I don't see this with your theory of TDR. That's not to say it's wrong, in fact it could well be right but it seems to be out there on its own and not built upon existing understanding of physics. It may not exclude or contradict existing laws but doesn't necessarily require them either thus making them redundant (in terms of your theory) and then you have to ask why have a theory that doesn't require certain laws of physics which you do require to interpret the theory in an everday sense.

The more I work on my theory, the more it appears to be exactly like special relativity (sometimes I even wonder if there's a difference). My current view of it is that Time Relativity provides a new definition of time that works perfectly with special relativity (SR). It doesn't replace relativity, just its definition of time. In fact, I might be able to sort of "slip it in before special relativity", and use it to explain some of the "existing understanding of physics" that SR is based on.

I definitely don't know enough about the physics of everything connected with relativity. I haven't even considered "mass" (so I can't show E = mc2, kind of an important part of SR). All I can say is "I'm not aware of any contradiction between this theory and SR". I will also try to claim that time relativity corresponds to special relativity. Certainly, any prediction made by this theory that deviates from SR could potentially disprove it.

Why have this theory?

1. It explains a lot of relativity junk in an intuitive way (which I've yet to do...).

2. It provides a better definition of time that might be immensely useful in quantum mechanics (this is yet to be seen).

##### Share on other sites

An interesting idea. Pretty much all I have to say about the future is that it can be predicted, but can't be observed. Would you connect in any way this "future inside me" with the mind's ability to predict the future?

No. It's about physics, not about mind & predictions. Future cannot be observed because its distance from us is negative, that's all. You can draw that in a spacetime diagram without any difficulty. The interesting part is that the whole scene looks like a continuous expansion, or implosion, depending the way you look at it. There is a continuous flow from inside to outside, or the reverse. Everything is focused on the observator. Each observator looks around himself and sees the world vanishing in the past. If the arrow of time is oriented from the past to the future, then it is much like an implosion.

The more I work on my theory, the more it appears to be exactly like special relativity (sometimes I even wonder if there's a difference).
I guess so.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.