Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?

[as58]

Maybe we're using a different definition of "distinguish"? You asked how a distant observer can tell the difference between two reference frames.  Well, they have different mass, don't they? That is a difference that can be "distinguished".

I didn't say the laws of physics are different between two reference frames. I accept that all the math is exactly the same for the ship and the galaxy. And that when the ship accelerates, it may actually be slowing down to a dead stop (relative to what though?) while the rest of the universe flies by.  But acceleration acts on one reference frame and not another.  I don't get to Centauri by sitting still and demanding the universe accelerate towards me.

Our galaxy is moving towards the Large Attractor at about 0.0033c which is not relativistic.  That whole structure defines a single reference frame.  And yes it is "special" as it's incredibly massive and there isn't another one anywhere else in this corner of the universe. Not special in terms of physics. Special in terms of mass and being the one common frame of reference.

So now, according to our big massive common reference frame, our two stars are 5ly apart and everyone agrees on that. Our ship accelerates to 0.6c and the two stars are observed to be 4ly apart.  All the math works (because ship clock is running slow).  But the stars did not move 1ly closer together in the big massive common reference frame. They did not move relative to the reference frame, the ship did.

An observer's state of motion cannot affect an observed object, but it can affect the observer's observations of the object.

The big massive frame of reference defines our reality. The stars are 5ly apart in our reality. A relativistic ship doesn't change that, and doesn't move the nova event 7.5 years into the future.  That is only what the ship observes. As real as it is mathematically, it is not real in our physical reality where we are bound to this reference frame.

So do you admit that you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity?

[meberbs]

I didn't say the laws of physics are different between two reference frames. I accept that all the math is exactly the same for the ship and the galaxy.

If you accept that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, then when proposing FTL/ansibles, you cannot argue that FTL has to be measured relative to any given frame, or that all ansibles only communicate instantaneously according to a special frame.

Also, relativistic effects would clearly be noticeable at 0.0033c , it means gamma of 1.0000054, and that kind of experimental sensitivity is decently common. Also, when combined with interstellar distances, it is plenty to create a scenario where an ansible allows time travel. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Earth's orbital velocity around the sun and 10 light years is enough.

[Norm38]

I haven't decided yet. I'm agnostic and not ready to accept every aspect of Relativity with all my heart. Notably the time axis shift that creates the paradox. But I seem to be upsetting people so I think I'll just stop here.

[WarpTech]

I haven't decided yet. I'm agnostic and not ready to accept every aspect of Relativity with all my heart. Notably the time axis shift that creates the paradox. But I seem to be upsetting people so I think I'll just stop here.

Thanks. I happen to agree with almost everything you've said. Your intuition is spot-on. As for me, I would ask @as58 and @meberbs;

Why is "c" constant to all inertial observers, regardless of their relative motion?

If they have an answer other than "it just is", then they will have to reconcile the same points that we have been trying to make. Acceleration, and work done to matter, does in fact alter time and length "for that object". Expanding space is isomorphic to a contracting ruler, and time dilation is isomorphic to harmonic oscillators losing energy to power dissipation.

[as58]

Thanks. I happen to agree with almost everything you've said. Your intuition is spot-on. As for me, I would ask @as58 and @meberbs;

Why is "c" constant to all inertial observers, regardless of their relative motion?

c being constant leads to a mathematically beautiful theory, though that is of course a matter of opinion.

However, special (and general, though that's not relevant here) relativity has also survived very stringent experimental tests and there's been no sign of any violation.

[meberbs]

Why is "c" constant to all inertial observers, regardless of their relative motion?

"Why" can be used to mean a lot of things, ultimately if you ask why enough times, you get down to "That is how God made the universe" (or an agnostic equivalent.)

At some point before that you could instead say something more along the lines of "The speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe tied to the strength of electromagnetic forces, and because the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, the speed of light also must be a constant." There are many variations on this possible, because the laws of physics are like a puzzle where all the pieces fit together, and there is more than one set of starting conditions you can use to derive the rest.

I think what you are trying to ask is more along the lines of "what physical mechanism allows the speed of light to be constant in different reference frames." The answer to that is clearly time dilation and length contraction.

There is no reconciliation that needs to be done about acceleration altering the rulers and clock on an object, because the resulting behavior once the acceleration is done does not depend in any way on the original speed, or the rate or path of acceleration. Any claim otherwise would imply that 2 objects right next to each other travelling at the same speed would have their clocks in disagreement (i.e. ticking at different rates). (Remember flat space-time so there are no nearby significant gravity wells)

[dustinthewind]

I have no issues with c being constant locally while at the same time c "not" being constant non-locally.  Basically for space in a gravitational well the plank length contracts and time slows while c slows non-locally.  Locally everything remains constant and physics remains preserved. 

In a gravitational well if we length contract the plank length of space - imagine some cubes of space where near a gravitational well these cubes contract in length.  This forces a curvature on space because of the change in size.  For c to remain constant in that cube with the contracted length, c non-locally must slow down. 

For a ship accelerating that ship must absorb energy.  That energy becomes effective mass.  It's space and time axis tilts towards the light cone.  The universe does not gain this energy.  The universe which didn't accelerate experiences no change in the tilt of its space and time axis, nor the change in temperature of the CMBR, nor does it show signs of slowing its aging via the space time axis tilt (twin paradox).  Those aboard the ship observe the change in temperature of the CMBR, and the unvierse as pancaked in one axis, having a tilted time and space axis they physically travel through time slowing their aging.  The ship which reaches near c is the one with the tilted time/space axis and not the universe
. 
Why then do those aboard the ship observe the universe as having a tilted time/space axis?  Because this unvierse/CMBR is their tilted time/space frame.  The universe observes the ships local frame as tilted - not its frame.  There is no disagreement between them. 


There are two effects of time travel.  time effect # 1 is time physically slowing down which goes hand in hand with the plank length contracting.  This happens to the ship accelerating, and from the ships perspective the universe but this just preserves c in all frames. 

Time effect # 2 is that what is length contracted via dt=gamma(t-v*dx/c^2) equation was missing c^2 at the very end determines whose local frame is being distorted in time, and who will live longer (who is the time traveler). This is where with distance dx and velocity v change in time increases with distance which is responsible for the length contraction.  The universe does not time travel through its frame but the ship does. 

This ship is always stuck traveling forwards so always forwards in time (the future) preserving the travelers life time. 

[KelvinZero]

Hi, new question..

..if we go with the "CMB rest frame as special" solution to allow FTL, or (I think equivalently) define "instantaneous" as travel to another point that has the same CMB temperature..

Then what is the most ugly, weird, or counterintuitive phenomenon that we could encounter in such a universe?

I believe we can see the order of cause and effect being reversed in our own frame, if different from the CMB rest frame, but not in a way that allows grandfather paradoxes.

[Norm38]

"what physical mechanism allows the speed of light to be constant in different reference frames." The answer to that is clearly time dilation and length contraction.

Sorry, I have one more question.  Time dilation and length contraction don't create the FTL paradox, so c being constant in all frames isn't the issue.  It's the time axis shift and the concept that different velocities (with the exact same physics) give a different now for the exact same event.

Has that been experimentally confirmed to be real, and not just observation? Or is it still mathematical theory, but this isn't an ala carte menu?

[meberbs]

..if we go with the "CMB rest frame as special" solution to allow FTL, or (I think equivalently) define "instantaneous" as travel to another point that has the same CMB temperature..

Then what is the most ugly, weird, or counterintuitive phenomenon that we could encounter in such a universe?

First you would have to define what you mean by "special." In general, it means the principle of relativity is not true, so none of the results of special relativity would be valid. No time dilation, speed of light is relative to the rest frame, etc.

You could try to imagine a universe where the only thing special about the CMB frame is that FTL speeds are restricted relative to it, and otherwise the principle of relativity holds. Such FTL drives would have to be powered by a completely new, unknown law of physics that is the one exception to the principle of relativity. (And no, GR is not an exception to the principle of relativity, it is an extension of it) I do not know where to even begin formalizing such a theory, and we currently have no evidence of any such effects.

"what physical mechanism allows the speed of light to be constant in different reference frames." The answer to that is clearly time dilation and length contraction.

Sorry, I have one more question.  Time dilation and length contraction don't create the FTL paradox, so c being constant in all frames isn't the issue.  It's the time axis shift and the concept that different velocities (with the exact same physics) give a different now for the exact same event.

Has that been experimentally confirmed to be real, and not just observation? Or is it still mathematical theory, but this isn't an ala carte menu?

It is the last option (although there may be some specific experiment that clearly depends on it, and I am just not aware of). It is all one package, the math describing time dilation and length contraction also needs the time axis shift to describe a consistent universe. All of these are not separate effects, but just one (Lorentz transformation) that we conceptually break down its effects to wrap our heads around easier. Given that time dilation occurs symmetrically for both someone on Earth and someone travelling relative to Earth, the only way to consistently describe the situation from the "twin paradox" is to recognize the rotation of the travelling twin's time axis when they do their u-turn.

[KelvinZero]

..if we go with the "CMB rest frame as special" solution to allow FTL, or (I think equivalently) define "instantaneous" as travel to another point that has the same CMB temperature..

Then what is the most ugly, weird, or counterintuitive phenomenon that we could encounter in such a universe?

First you would have to define what you mean by "special." In general, it means the principle of relativity is not true, so none of the results of special relativity would be valid. No time dilation, speed of light is relative to the rest frame, etc.

You could try to imagine a universe where the only thing special about the CMB frame is that FTL speeds are restricted relative to it, and otherwise the principle of relativity holds. Such FTL drives would have to be powered by a completely new, unknown law of physics that is the one exception to the principle of relativity. (And no, GR is not an exception to the principle of relativity, it is an extension of it) I do not know where to even begin formalizing such a theory, and we currently have no evidence of any such effects.

That last option is what I mean. Maybe wormholes are real but they are closed by firewalls of infinite energy if you try to connect two points where the universe is in a different state of entropy. Maybe we live in a simulation. Whatever.

Im not aware of anything pointing to this being real, and it would be entirely above my abilities to argue it if it was.

Im just talking about problems like paradoxes, and failing that, ugly things like perpetual motion machines and non-conservation of momentum etc.

[WarpTech]

"Einstein's 1905 theory is referred to as the "special" theory because it is limited to bodies moving in the absence of a gravitational field."

I found this on http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/SpecialRel.html and similar statements elsewhere.

Does everyone agree with this statement? That SR is "Special" because of the absence of a gravitational field?

If so, this is why I reject SR in favor of GR and why we argue about a special reference frame. SR is an approximation where, in GR we assume that a small patch of space-time tangential to the curvature, can be considered an "inertial frame". This has been referred to as a "local inertial tangent plane" back when I learned it, and this is where SR is applicable within GR; "locally".

The key words here are "small patch", "local" and "approximation". The tangent plane is only flat over a short distance, compared to the curvature of the gravitational field. When we discuss this FTL paradox, we need very large distances that are presumed to be "flat". This is inconsistent with the idea of a "local" inertial tangent plane and seems to require a globally flat space-time.

What Norm38 and I have been saying, is not that there is a special reference frame, but that length contraction and time dilation are caused by the gravitational field, AND motion relative "to it". In the sense that, inside a gravity well time and the speed of light, are slower than outside it. Where the object starts from "rest", is in a gravity well of "something". Any acceleration from that location is "relative" to that location within the overall gravity well. So the special reference frame is not the CMBR and is not universal. Instead, it's the gravitational field that the "ship" interacts with that gives us a background reference frame for FTL, but it's still relative to other gravity wells. (i.e., galaxy, solar system, planet.)

I wonder... have there really not been any experiments done in flat space-time, only in approximations thereof?

[aceshigh]

I haven't decided yet. I'm agnostic and not ready to accept every aspect of Relativity with all my heart. Notably the time axis shift that creates the paradox. But I seem to be upsetting people so I think I'll just stop here.

This is not up to accepting or not accepting. It has passed all tests and most or all predictions coming from it were confirmed.

To better understand the SPEED OF CAUSALITY, watch the video below. Specially the part about the electric monkey over the pony and the strenght of the magnetic field.

Without relativity, you can't decide the strenght of the magnetic field, it will be different for each observer. A stationary observer will add the speeds of the monkey over the pony plus the pony.

But from the pony point of view, he will get a different strenght, based on his stationary point of view with only the monkey moving over him.

[Norm38]

Parasitic reactance between reference frames?  Dissipation, entropy to lower energy states, based on mass. Quantum mechanics.  Dark energy?

[WarpTech]

Parasitic reactance between reference frames?  Dissipation, entropy to lower energy states, based on mass. Quantum mechanics.  Dark energy?

Yep. Have you read my paper from the Estes Park conference?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY

[meberbs]

The key words here are "small patch", "local" and "approximation". The tangent plane is only flat over a short distance, compared to the curvature of the gravitational field. When we discuss this FTL paradox, we need very large distances that are presumed to be "flat". This is inconsistent with the idea of a "local" inertial tangent plane and seems to require a globally flat space-time.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but all of those words you put in quotes are concepts that can be quantified, and given the strength of gravity and the distances between stars, distances of light years can be treated as flat in our universe. If you think otherwise you will have to show: 1. That interstellar space is not flat to a reasonable degree of accuracy. 2. That this non-flatness somehow leads to completely different results from special relativity (when in the flat case general relativity IS special relativity) 3. That specifically the general ways of producing time travel are in all cases prevented by this.

Note the need for #3 beyond #2 is because just "General relativity predicts things SR doesn't" doesn't invalidate the ways that FTL in SR produces time travel, it makes the math many times harder, but the SR effects are still present in GR, so it is hard to believe that the result of FTL = time travel would suddenly go away.

What Norm38 and I have been saying,

Actually, it seems to me that Norm38 has been saying fairly different things from you. He has been questioning some basic aspects of relativity including some that you have clearly recognized as necessary. Norm 38 has not gotten to the point where he would be discussing the effects of gravitational fields on time dilation, his posts were clearly at a higher level. You thinking that Norm38 is advocating the same viewpoint as you is one more thing on the list making me question "do you really know what you are talking about" Although in this case I think it is more of a natural human reaction of wanting someone else to be agreeing with you and unconsciously filtering their words so that you think that is the case.

Any acceleration from that location is "relative" to that location within the overall gravity well. So the special reference frame is not the CMBR and is not universal. Instead, it's the gravitational field that the "ship" interacts with that gives us a background reference frame for FTL, but it's still relative to other gravity wells. (i.e., galaxy, solar system, planet.)

When you make these statements, it seems that you are making an implicit assumption that objects somehow remember the history of what gravity well they previously had been in. In reality it really doesn't make much sense to think this matters, because their rulers and clocks should always sync up with someone local and moving with the same velocity, even if their histories were different.

[WarpTech]

...

Any acceleration from that location is "relative" to that location within the overall gravity well. So the special reference frame is not the CMBR and is not universal. Instead, it's the gravitational field that the "ship" interacts with that gives us a background reference frame for FTL, but it's still relative to other gravity wells. (i.e., galaxy, solar system, planet.)

When you make these statements, it seems that you are making an implicit assumption that objects somehow remember the history of what gravity well they previously had been in. In reality it really doesn't make much sense to think this matters, because their rulers and clocks should always sync up with someone local and moving with the same velocity, even if their histories were different.

I concede that, given the STR and the Lorentz Transformations, the STR leads to a paradox for FTL. However, IMO it is ridiculous to use a theory based on a constant speed of light to discuss FTL travel in the first place. A variable speed of light (VSL) model would be more appropriate. Such a model is the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity, where the coordinate speed of light is used in the coordinates of a distant observer, c/K. I keep trying to bring this into the conversation and you keep kicking us back to SR and LT's. So let me try one last time.

First, there is no "memory". You are misinterpreting my words. To resolve this, I will explain it differently. Instead of a Minkowski background, let's start out with a Schwarzschild time-independent background metric for space-time. In the Schwarzschild background (SB), a null geodesic (light) has a coordinate speed;

ds² = c²dt²/K - K*dr² = 0

dr/dt = c/K

dr = dr₀/√K
dt = dt₀*√K

It is the gravitational potential that causes gravitational length contraction and time dilation for K > 1. The Schwarzschild solution is;

K = 1/(1 - 2GM/r*c²)

Since I don't think intergalactic travel will be possible anytime soon, let's stick to interstellar, within our own galaxy. The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at it's center, and a lot of mass near the center that increases the gravitational potential at our solar system, relative to the center of gravity, (CoG) of the galaxy.

To summarize, all matter in the galaxy is immersed in a background gravitational field that sets the "base line" for length contraction and time dilation as variables, between r = ∞ and the event horizon of the BH, r = R_s.

Now, we turn on "time" so that the model is no longer time-independent and let things move. Any motion is relative to the CoG of the galaxy. Any object that accelerates to a high velocity such as 0.6c, has increased its total Energy, and therefore its potential energy relative to the CoG. As such, time dilation and length contraction increases "relative" to the base line position it started from. Any other object (with negligible rest mass) that is also moving at that speed and location, will be at the same gravitational potential and therefore has the same scaling of time and distance.

In this model, we can draw a Minkowski diagram at r=∞, and as r→R_s the space axis contracts and the time axis gets longer, per the equations above. The light cones get narrower. However, at any value of r, say r_h we can renormalize the diagram so our light cone is 45-deg again, per our local measurements. Using this chart, looking at events where r>r_h, it will appear that it is the space axis which is longer and the time axis that is shorter. The light cone will be flatter and FTL relative to r_h, is observable. Consider hovering near the event horizon and looking up. It will appear that the rest of the galaxy is in Fast Forward.

In this formulation, there is never an opportunity to go backwards in time. There is no paradox and it is more "realistic" than the STR. Now, we could take a Machian/Woodward view, where in flat space-time an object still has a gravitational potential relative to the distant stars. In which case, the same argument applies. Any change in the relative energy of an object changes it's gravitational potential energy relative to the distant stars. However, STR is the special case where there is no gravitational field. Hence, it is not applicable in this model.

[meberbs]

A variable speed of light (VSL) model would be more appropriate. Such a model is the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity, where the coordinate speed of light is used in the coordinates of a distant observer, c/K. I keep trying to bring this into the conversation and you keep kicking us back to SR and LT's. So let me try one last time.

VSL to me typically would mean a local observer measures a different speed of light. Can we agree to reserve that term for that to avoid confusion (and then proceed to not use it, because neither of us are discussing that. (At least I don't think you mean to.)

Since I don't think intergalactic travel will be possible anytime soon, let's stick to interstellar, within our own galaxy. The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at it's center, and a lot of mass near the center that increases the gravitational potential at our solar system, relative to the center of gravity, (CoG) of the galaxy.

I stuck to interstellar in my example as well, but if you are proposing FTL, intergalactic starts to sound more feasible, and should be consistent as well.

To summarize, all matter in the galaxy is immersed in a background gravitational field that sets the "base line" for length contraction and time dilation as variables, between r = ∞ and the event horizon of the BH, r = R_s.

You seem to have forgotten your own comments from earlier, but from a local frame the absolute value of K is irrelevant and immeasurable. You also seem to have lost track of what you need to be arguing. I gave you a numbered list before. The first thing you need to do is show that there are different curvatures/K values across the interstellar distances. Without this, it doesn't matter that there is a black hole 50000 light years away, the local gradient of K is negligible across a distance of 10 light years, and not even necessarily in a direction governed by that black hole. (If you disagree, give a numeric example please.)

Now, we turn on "time" so that the model is no longer time-independent and let things move. Any motion is relative to the CoG of the galaxy. Any object that accelerates to a high velocity such as 0.6c, has increased its total Energy, and therefore its potential energy relative to the CoG.

This is an assertion that the center of the galaxy frame is special in a way that is simply contradictory to both SR and GR. This is not just an "interpretation of GR" but a completely new theory and it is unclear if it makes a single prediction consistent with experimental data.

In this formulation, there is never an opportunity to go backwards in time.

You have not shown this in any way, shape, or form.

There is no paradox and it is more "realistic" than the STR. Now, we could take a Machian/Woodward view, where in flat space-time an object still has a gravitational potential relative to the distant stars. In which case, the same argument applies. Any change in the relative energy of an object changes it's gravitational potential energy relative to the distant stars. However, STR is the special case where there is no gravitational field. Hence, it is not applicable in this model.

GR reduces to SR in flat space time. When you set up a scenario like this where spacetime is effectively flat, it doesn't matter if there is gravity, the results of SR hold. If you say SR doesn't hold in flat spacetime, you are saying GR doesn't either. You are then talking about a new, distinct theory. Good luck formalizing it and showing that it explains experimental observations at least as well as GR. "Relative to the distant stars" really is a poorly defined concept anyway.

[WarpTech]

A variable speed of light (VSL) model would be more appropriate. Such a model is the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity, where the coordinate speed of light is used in the coordinates of a distant observer, c/K. I keep trying to bring this into the conversation and you keep kicking us back to SR and LT's. So let me try one last time.

VSL to me typically would mean a local observer measures a different speed of light. Can we agree to reserve that term for that to avoid confusion (and then proceed to not use it, because neither of us are discussing that. (At least I don't think you mean to.)

There are no theories where a local observer measures something other than "c" locally. VSL is generally accepted as the type of theory I am describing. See R. Dicke 1957...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Since I don't think intergalactic travel will be possible anytime soon, let's stick to interstellar, within our own galaxy. The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at it's center, and a lot of mass near the center that increases the gravitational potential at our solar system, relative to the center of gravity, (CoG) of the galaxy.

I stuck to interstellar in my example as well, but if you are proposing FTL, intergalactic starts to sound more feasible, and should be consistent as well.

It would be consistent, but realistically, unless we can achieve speeds 1000's of times > c, it's not gonna happen.

To summarize, all matter in the galaxy is immersed in a background gravitational field that sets the "base line" for length contraction and time dilation as variables, between r = ∞ and the event horizon of the BH, r = R_s.

You seem to have forgotten your own comments from earlier, but from a local frame the absolute value of K is irrelevant and immeasurable. You also seem to have lost track of what you need to be arguing. I gave you a numbered list before. The first thing you need to do is show that there are different curvatures/K values across the interstellar distances. Without this, it doesn't matter that there is a black hole 50000 light years away, the local gradient of K is negligible across a distance of 10 light years, and not even necessarily in a direction governed by that black hole. (If you disagree, give a numeric example please.)

Now, we turn on "time" so that the model is no longer time-independent and let things move. Any motion is relative to the CoG of the galaxy. Any object that accelerates to a high velocity such as 0.6c, has increased its total Energy, and therefore its potential energy relative to the CoG.

This is an assertion that the center of the galaxy frame is special in a way that is simply contradictory to both SR and GR. This is not just an "interpretation of GR" but a completely new theory and it is unclear if it makes a single prediction consistent with experimental data.

No. This is an assertion that time dilation and length contraction depend solely on the relative gravitational potential. Velocity just changes the energy content of the ship "relative" to the CoG base-line it started with.

In this formulation, there is never an opportunity to go backwards in time.

You have not shown this in any way, shape, or form.

There is no paradox and it is more "realistic" than the STR. Now, we could take a Machian/Woodward view, where in flat space-time an object still has a gravitational potential relative to the distant stars. In which case, the same argument applies. Any change in the relative energy of an object changes it's gravitational potential energy relative to the distant stars. However, STR is the special case where there is no gravitational field. Hence, it is not applicable in this model.

GR reduces to SR in flat space time. When you set up a scenario like this where spacetime is effectively flat, it doesn't matter if there is gravity, the results of SR hold. If you say SR doesn't hold in flat spacetime, you are saying GR doesn't either. You are then talking about a new, distinct theory. Good luck formalizing it and showing that it explains experimental observations at least as well as GR. "Relative to the distant stars" really is a poorly defined concept anyway.

You need to do your homework. I used the Schwarzschild solution of GR as the background metric in my previous post. There was nothing new there except my interpretation. I changed nothing. I have already given you numerous references that refute your assumptions and the conclusions you keep jumping to, that this is somehow inconsistent with GR. I can't plug this knowledge into your head, you need to actually try to learn something new. This model has been around since 1957 and its "numerical" equivalence to GR was shown by Puthoff in 1999, and updated by J. Depp in 2005. The references are posted on page 7 of this thread.

Start here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909037.pdf

I'm saying that time dilation and length contraction are due to the relative potential in the gravitational field. The energy content of the moving body simply changes that potential, but no matter what the gravitational potential is, or what the rate of time on a clock is; it's just a relative potential. Time still moves forward.

[as58]

No. This is an assertion that time dilation and length contraction depend solely on the relative gravitational potential. Velocity just changes the energy content of the ship "relative" to the CoG base-line it started with.

What exactly do you mean by gravitational potential in the context of GR?