[General] STR twin Paradox

Wed Aug 23 10:32:27 PDT 2017

Hi Grahame

Very well said!! Exactly!

The science of physics should be to determine cause. 

That is what it used to be, before being diverted.

My concern is that we are so easily enamored by mentally stimulating
conjecture and we far too readily accept such as theoretically sound. 

Why do we so easily dismiss fundamental cause for each effect from our
requirements for establishing a theoretical foundation?

I can only speculate that it is in part due to our ignorance of the
potential causes for what we observe.

I forget which prominent physicist said that we are currently in what we may
in the future call the dark ages of physics.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Chip,

I'm as certain as one can be that I'm not mistaken.  However I'm also
totally confident that the myth/spell of SR CAN and WILL be broken - before
very long.

The secret is to get scientists back on the track that they appear to have
abandoned for the past century: investigating the 'why' of observed effects
- in this case the 'why' of effects attributed to SR.  To simply say "Well,
that's just how the universe is" - and then accept all the illogical baggage
that goes with that - is no sort of investigation of the 'why', and
certainly no sort of explanation of the causation of those effects (which
is, as I say, what I understood physics is all about...)

The reason that I'm so confident is that there IS a way to break this
particular variation of the da Vinci Code, so to speak.  That way is to do
exactly what Einstein did in respect of Brownian Motion - consider the
nature of the structure of matter (in that respect, I'm totally baffled how
the one who published a seminal paper on the causation behind Brownian
Motion could possibly also consider Fizeau's Experiment supportive of his SR
concept - but that's another story).  We need to get a bit deeper into
matter formation, into the energetic composition of elementary particles: at
that level the self-contradiction of SR stands out very sharply.

In short, as soon as physics moves on from the mind-set of Bohr, that the
indeterministic nature of quantum outcomes is a dead-end, and recognise with
Einstein and de Broglie (and others) that there is a deeper reason for that
apparent indeterminism - namely the wave-based structure of elementary
particles (for which zitterbewegung is a massive clue, FGS!) then we can
move on to some truly new physics, rather than century-old assumptions that
are still peddled as 'new physics' even today.

The time is coming - let's just hope that it comes soon enough to help
resolve some of the pressing scientific issues that our species is facing!

Cheers, Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  ; 'Viv Robinson'
<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>  

Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com>  ; 'Innes
Morrison' <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life>  ; 'Mark,Martin van der'
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 3:28 PM

Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Grahame

Thank you.  

I hope that you are mistaken, and that there is a way to eventually dispel
myth and obstacles so we can build a better foundation of physics.  History
has shown humanity accomplishing such changes many times.  But we have been
stymied, or “hogtied” as you say by a couple of theories, for more than 100
years now, and no immediate resolution in sight.

But I remain optimistic, principally because the number of voices,
recognizing the current set of problems, is increasing, and the proofs of a
more correct resolution are becoming clearer.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:35 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; 'Viv Robinson'
<viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com> >
Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <darren at makemeafilm.com
<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> >; 'Innes Morrison'
<innes.morrison at cocoon.life <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> >; 'Mark,
Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Chip et al,

I've tried to stay out of this as there are numerous prior (unsupported)
assumptions flying around that generate plenty of heat but no light.

Chip, I agree with you 100% that effects attributed to relativity can be
explained fully by reference to mechanistic processes - there is absolutely
no need for some metaphysical property of space-time that results in objects
BEING (not just appearing) different lengths just because observers are in
different states of motion and two clocks BOTH going slower than each other.
With no logical requirement for such absurdities, belief in them makes
belief in some old guy sitting on a cloud running the universe seem pretty
tame by comparison. Those 'scientists' who deride the concept of a supreme
being (or, more reasonably, universal nonphysical consciousness) should see
to the log in their own eye before falling about in hoots over the speck in
someone else's.

Having said that, I'm afraid, Chip, that you are NOT going to disprove SR by
reference to the mathematics of space-time as embodied in that theory.  SR
is entirely self-consistent (even though wrong), a faultless body of math
that just doesn't happen to correspond to reality.  Hammering away at the
twins paradox - or any variation thereof - is batting on a losing wicket.
Physics is totally hogtied by the math of SR - that's why it's so difficult
to shift perceptions on the matter.

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  ; 'Viv Robinson'
<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>  

Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com>  ; 'Innes
Morrison' <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life>  ; 'Mark,Martin van der'
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:20 PM

Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi John W

Thank you for your comments my friend.

One thing which seems evident from your response is that you underestimate
my understanding of SRT and relativity theory in general.

Both you and Viv have gone back to the same explanations, which I used to
give, to try to explain the problem.  You see I have studied relativity with
great interest for many decades. I have no problem thinking about relativity
in spacetime terms. I spent years believing the form of relativity you and
Viv suggest was correct. But once we spend enough time, effort, and thought,
trying to force fit all the pieces of a puzzle in the wrong manner, we
sometimes have an epiphany, and awakening, which helps clear the picture so
we can see how it should fit.

What I have found, and am attempting to share with this intelligent and
inquisitive group, is that portions of SRT are quite arbitrary, unnecessary
to explain what we see in experiment, and probably just simply wrong.  The
transformations are pre Einstein, and were appropriated by Einstein for SRT,
but the part of SRT which is unnecessary to explain what we observe, is
specifically the “all motion is relative” part.

John Stewart Bell apparently also ran into these issues in his research as
well.  This prompted him to write
.” I would say that the cheapest
resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before
Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an
aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments
were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion
through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a
preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference
(some) things do go faster than light”
” Behind the apparent Lorentz
invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz
invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and
Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity
theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions
and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not
detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of
view.”

What Bell wrote does not outline my full perception of the subject, but it
is very close to what I have come to understand after many years of
research.  Just want to mention that I suspect there is also a specific form
of “frame dragging” caused by the gravitation of quite massive objects which
has to be considered.

Experiment has not verified the all motion is relative part of SRT.
Experiment has verified the transformations!

Euclidian space, and the constitution of light and matter, cause, quite
naturally, a form of relativity which agrees with SRT, except the notion
that all motion is relative.

SRT was developed with the notion that the laws of nature remain the same
for moving bodies. The form of relativity mentioned above causes the laws of
nature to remain the same for moving bodies.  This is the point.  A form of
relativity built on cause and effect is likely much more useful, and
accurate.

It is easy to establish cause and effect for relativity, but in that form of
relativity all motion is not relative.  Motion is related to the background
of space, in that causal form of relativity. In that form of relativity
there are no logical inconsistencies, there are no mutually exclusive
outcomes.

One thing which caused me considerable grief a couple of years ago was
realizing that I had built so much of my theoretical foundations on a flawed
principle. It requires a lot of work to go back and redo so much work.  I
know that this is the case for many.  But the results are worth it.

So John, my friend.  You may choose to disregard the suggestion that the all
motion is relative portion of SRT is in error. We all have our theoretical
preferences.  

I seldom make predictions, but I will make one now. 

It may not happen within our lifetimes, but I feel that experiment will
prove that all motion is not relative, and that motion is actually relative
to the background of space.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:48 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; 'Viv Robinson'
<viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com> >
Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <darren at makemeafilm.com
<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> >; 'Innes Morrison'
<innes.morrison at cocoon.life <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> >; 'Mark,
Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Dear Chip and everyone.

This is very old problem. Martin, Viv and I have all had a go at explaining
this over the last years, but all we are doing is repeating stuff which you
should be reading in the textbooks. If you analyse special relativity
properly there is no paradox here. There never was and there never will be.
The first time I met this was in third year at University. I have had exam
questions on it (though do not know if I got the answer right!).

Where you are making your mistakes is right in your first premises. You say
"For the sake of this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of
synchronizing their clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to
start recording data at the same time, like when each reaches a
predetermined distance from the other." At this point you are already lost.
You have assumed there is such a thing as a "place" and that one can define
a "time". You need to understand that, in relativity, one mans space is
(partly) another mans time. Each of the two can calculate what the other
sees (if they know relativity), and conclude for them the space is at
another time and vice versa. If you start from a point where you assume
there both exists an absolute space with an everywhere defined "time" and
the laws of relativity hold, then you will come to conclusions which give a
paradox, indeed. This is not a problem for relativity, which explains
perfectly what is observed (and does not have an absolute space or time),
but a problem rather for your initial assumptions, or your way of thinking. 

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:40 PM
To: 'Viv Robinson'; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler'; 'Innes Morrison'; 'Mark, Martin van der'
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Vivian

I would like to return to a discussion briefly which was ensuing a couple of
months ago.

Thank you for the careful explanation offered in the email below.

However the point I was attempting to make a couple of months ago, deals
only with the concept that all motion is relative in SRT. 

So let us set up an experiment which excludes all effects of GRT,
acceleration, gravity etc. and only evaluates this notion of SRT that all
motion is relative.

We have two identical clocks, moving relative to each other.

For the sake of this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of
synchronizing their clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to
start recording data at the same time, like when each reaches a
predetermined distance from the other. (All Doppler effects accounted for.)

An observer with clock A thinks clock B is moving.

An observer with clock B thinks clock A is moving.

After the “relative” motion has occurred for some time, the two clocks pass
by in very close proximity to each other and exchange their data.

The observer with clock A assumes the reading from Clock B will indicate
that time has passed more slowly for B than for A.  The observer with clock
B assumes the reading from Clock A will indicate that time has passed more
slowly for A than for B. Both cannot be correct.

Clearly because of this, there IS A PARADOX, and that paradox is undeniably
embedded in the notion that all motion is relative. Bringing in arguments
from other theories, and proclaiming that there is no paradox does not
dismiss this logical problem inherent in SRT’s notion that all motion is
relative.

If one clock is more stationary with regards to the CMB it is likely that is
the one which will be more correct in their prediction of the clocks
readings.

They cannot both be correct. 

If they cannot both be correct, then all motion is NOT relative, but time is
slowed for objects moving relative to space itself.

Chip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170823/ffbae708/attachment.htm>