[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

I'm sorry Wolf, but it seems that you're still not getting it.

This situation can be explained fully logically WITHOUT either twin making any assumptions about SR or GR - simply from their own observations and from well-proven experimental findings.

If we label the twins A and B, then their situations are effectively symmetric* - so we'll consider the scenario from the viewpoint of twin A.
A considers him/herself static, and all motion to be attributable to twin B.  So - and this agrees with experimental observation of clocks at high speed (in planes and in GPS satellites) - twin A will observe twin B's clock running slow, if A's own clock is not upset by any effect.  HOWEVER, since A is actually travelling in circular motion, (s)he will experience a centripetal force; assuming him/herself to be static, this will necessarily be attributed to gravitational effects - and it's well known from experiment (Pound-Rebka and successors) that gravitational fields cause time dilation - so A will expect their own clock to be running more slowly also due to that 'gravitational' effect (note that this is not any assumption of SR or GR, simply inference from proven experimental results) [and so also A's observation of B's clock, measured against A's own clock, will not fit the standard SR time-dilation model, for reasons that A will fully comprehend].  For A, the cumulative time-dilation for B's perceived relative speed and for A's own perceived 'gravitational' effect exactly balance - so A will fully expect both clocks to coincide when the twins meet again (as B will also).

No paradox.

* It needs to be said that further study of causation of 'relativistic time dilation' leads to the understanding that this is an objective effect due to travelling at speed relative to the unique objectively-static universal reference frame.  So if the centre of the circle traced out by A and B is itself in motion relative to that reference frame then it cannot be assumed that A's and B's motions will be symmetric; in that case their clocks may well not be precisely synchronised on their meeting again.  This is an observation relating to physical reality, which in no way contradicts the self-consistency of SR (or GR) as a mathematical system.

Best regards,
Grahame

=======
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wolfgang Baer 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 3:09 AM
  Subject: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox


  Dear John W,  Grahame nd Albrecht:



  I cannot let this request for help go unanswered: 



  I do not believe we have a any fundamental disagreement with the twin paradox.  It never was anything more than a semantic problem. If two twins with identical and locally synchronized clocks are set on equal circular orbits in opposite directions and meet again and compare clocks, I believe it is an experimental fact that the clocks will run at the same rate (neglecting solar gravity if experiments are conducted near earth)

  <!--[if !vml]--> 


       
       
       
       

        

       

       
       <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]--> <!--[endif]--> 
              Fig 1

              <!--[if !mso]--> 
        <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !vml]--> 
  <!--[endif]-->  




























              The appearance of a twin paradox in my opinion is completely due to Einstein’s sloppy writing. In his 1905 paper, which I looked up, he explicitly stated that a clock making a round trip at velocity “v” will slow down compared with a stationary observer. The argument that both observers applying Einstein’s theory would NOT come to this paradoxical conclusion is based on an interpretation by a host of well meaning physicists of Einstein’s original paper that suggests that each observer, knowing relativity would use this knowledge analyze the situation as shown in figure 1 above and therefore not expect the other clock to slow down. As Kracklauer correctly pointed out that there is an original SRT that had the twin paradox people justly criticized Einstein for it and a slightly revised SRT that explains it away is usually not mentioned. I think we all understand this and I have no argument with Albrecht on this point.



  Now however I insist that the speed of light is NOT constant because it depends upon the situation the material (observer material) finds itself in a gravitational field. As long as the field in that material is fairly homogeneous the speed of light in that observers material is representative of the speed of EM interactions and is constant. And recognizing this dependency is critical to making progress in physics by eliminating the crazy adjustments to classical physics the wrog interpretation of bith SRT and GRT has hoisted upon us.



  Now Albrecht correctly states that synchrotron experiments show that the speed of light is constant and the mass is varying. 











  <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> 

   


  <!--[if !vml]--> 


       

       <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]--> <!--[endif]--> 
              Fig 2

              <!--[if !mso]--> 
        <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !vml]--> 
  <!--[endif]-->  








  Now we have the situation of a charged particle traveling around a circular orbit. Like the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom, except much faster. Now my CAT theory assumes that charge and mass are held together by a Force that I have introduced for example in the Vigier 9 paper. This means the internal structure of the orbiting electron would be expanded and the extra energy is stored not in a mass increase but in the stretch of the spring metaphorically holding the two together.

               Interestingly enough both particles woul exhibit an internal rotation I believe is spin. I think I could duplicate Sommerfelds fine structure correction but have not had the time to do so and would welcome help.




  But I thing I have a new and better interpretation od both SRT and GRT - I've been trying to get this across to Albrecht and I believe we now have tangible analysis problem before us to resolve our disagreement





  So let me steer the conversation to this new challenge




  Best wishes

  Wolf






Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.comOn 8/25/2017 7:48 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
  Dear John W and Grahame,




  I think that I should explain a bit about this discussion between Wolf and myself. Why this discussion is as it is.





  I find the topic of Wolf about conciousness very interesting and very important. So I have continued with this discussion. But, unfortunately in my view, Wolf is basing his thoughts on a wrong understanding of relativity. The finds that this "incorrect" theory 'SRT' is an indication of our human failure to understand physics and so of our misleading consciousness. - But not SRT is incorrect (as some of you have already and repeatedly written) but Wolf's understanding is wrong. - I am trying to give Wolf a correct understanding as a precondition for a successful development of the issue of consciousness. I see that this may be boring for those who have understood relativity. But what else can we do to get ahead?

  Any ideas?

  Albrecht




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
  Click here to unsubscribe
  </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/e3f764bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/e3f764bb/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/e3f764bb/attachment-0001.gif>