a2k Mgmt, yes probly this'n is 'way too long and maybe too technical; though I do 'mem your runnin' at least one of my past postin's--mebbe some 5-10 yrs ago--which was equally technical. Anyhow I am hopin' you won't delete this'n as it's the result of a lifetime interest in Einstein and relativity; so if we're lucky maybe one or two partip'ts will also find it interesting and even comment
Anyhow thanks for a2k, and thanks also for keepin' several of my recent OP's that earlier might have got deleted. I should explain however, that yes, Steve Hunt is the Ed In Chief of or excellent Vctorville, Ca Daily Press, and the note in intalics asking him if he 'mem's it
Steve I've not the foggiest idea when I wrote this, no 'mem' atall, nor of your q to which I was apparently responding; so of you don't either, then of course no repl reqd
However I was contemplating another Letter on this subject, asking the reader to suggest a market for my theory; or in the event that a reader or two understands this kind of stuff, to comment upon its legitimacy. In my youth I did read a lot about relativity, thought about it for years, then just recently came up with this 'Relative Relativity' resolving the Twin Paradox and explaining to the satisfaction of the intuition, all those strange changes apparently taking place with an object as it approaches the velocity c
Anyhow thanks for your evident interest in my rantings, and incidentally for runnin' that last Letter 'bout God.
Steve [my letter begins], very good q [evidently an even earlier inquiry by Steve H concerning my RR], underlain by an unspoken assumption concerning time-at-a-distance. My approach, which I call 'relative relativity,' finally settles the Twin Paradox, as well as explaining --to the satisfaction of our intuition--all the apparent changes in an object approaching the arbitrary velocity c
I confidently assert ‘settles’ ‘cause it’s so hard for purp of our intuitions to accept how that instant of your acceleration could possibly account for all the subsequent diff [based on a not-entirely-new observation in which the skeptic is asking how all those apparent changes to a moving object could possible persist, once the object had quit accelerating]
My notion, which I’ve haltingly tried to explain in a number of earlier OP's, denies q as absolute and establishes a kind of relativity to time-at-a-distance. It doesn't deny Einstein nor the importance of the number c but simply suggests a 'different way of looking at the whole thing' [Hence had called it 'Relative Relativity]
Briefly, it assigns a kind of 'relativity' to time-at-a-distance where in effect c is infinite while your twin is traveling into the past. So for simplicity let’s say you depart not at (what we suppose) 0.8 c but at very nearly 1.0 c ; The apparent difficulty in ever achieving c not due to your mass increase but in our underestimating your velocity
So in effect you’re traveling into my past because you’re traveling faster than our supposition and reporting back he’s still your age ’cause he made the trip almost instantly
Yea hard to grasp, but for evidence in favor of my assertion, consider those relativistic changes approaching c: (1) He seemed more massive after takeoff because he’s going faster than you assume; (2) Your twin’s clock seems to have stopped throughout the trip ‘cause it was 'actually'
instantaneous [The " ' " 's 'roud 'actually' since it really isn't. Yes, agree most will be confused by this usage, with Dale's apolos]
[So,] Steve let's simplify the whole thing by assuming we [you and I] originally pass with both clocks reading zero but at a relative velocity very nearly c. During the five minutes we look back at each other we see the other's clock reading zero [Owing to the Einsteinian concept of apparent clock-stoppin']
In the traditional description of the twins paradox, only "Betty" (the travelling twin) accelerates.
[I should explain that this quote is from an imaginary source discussing the Twin Paradox, with Betty as one of the movin' participants]
Yes that's as I [Dale] understood it too. But to simplify, let's assume Betty takes of not at 0.8c but at very nearly 1.0 c [where] I stay home while she takes off; then ten minutes later I see her land on Mars, not having aged, her clock still reading zero
[That's by conventional Albie's theory, five minutes for her to get there, then five minutes more, before we see her land or fire her retros. Of course we're ignoring any relative motion during all this, 'tween Earth and Marty's home]]
However, since that thought experiment started out presuming the initial acceleration just as I did in this one
Sorry Steve [Here was assuming Steve as the imaginary inquirer] but here's where I get confused, by '...presuming the initial acceleration just as I did in this one...' In yours where two ships pass out in space somewhere, you hadn't specified any acceleration at all, unless you're assuming one of 'em must
have accelerated in order for them to pass one another