[General] Fw: STR twin Paradox

Tue Jun 6 13:19:26 PDT 2017

Hi Grahame,

I try to understand where you see the exact difference between 
invariability and reciprocity. A clear example of reciprocity where we 
seem to have both the same understanding is the case of two observers in 
motion who observe and see the clock of the other one slowed down. It is 
truly a better example than the constancy of the speed of light. Both 
observers make the same observation. Now I understand your definition in 
the following way:

In Einstein's SRT where all inertial frames are completely equivalent, 
so reciprocity can be concluded. In the Lorentzian SRT where the 
equivalence is only an apparent one, an equivalence of measurement 
results, it is in your view not reciprocity. Is this a correct 
understanding of your definition?

Acceleration: time dilation under acceleration is in fact the summation 
of the actual speeds. To be done carefully, yes; but that is achieved by 
an integration over the speed values passed. I think, it is nothing 
more. If in the case of the twin paradox the phase of acceleration back 
is not too long, it does not have a considerable influence to the result.

Best regards
Albrecht

Am 04.06.2017 um 16:22 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> Hi Albrecht (et al.),
> I'm sorry but, like so many others, you appear to be confusing 
> reciprocity with (apparent) invariability.  Until one squarely 
> addresses the issue of reciprocity (which is widely confirmed by 
> experiment, for example in the LHC and by anomalous aberration of 
> starlight), one is in no position to counter the conventional claim 
> that all inertial reference frames are equivalent - that there is no 
> unique objectively static reference frame.
> It's of course axiomatic that any physical effect that leads to 
> physical contraction in an object's direction of motion will also 
> cause contraction of a ruler in that direction - so the object length 
> will appear to be unaltered; likewise, it's axiomatic that an effect 
> leading to reduction in passage-of-time effects in a moving object 
> will cause corresponding reduction in rate of a clock (of whatever 
> nature - including the one in an observer's brain) travelling at that 
> same speed - so speeds, including the speed of light (for a slightly 
> different reason), will appear unaltered.  This is apparent 
> invariability - it is NOT reciprocity.
> Reciprocity requires that if I am moving at speed v and you are 
> static, not only will you see my clock moving at a slower speed as 
> defined by time dilation - but I will, to precisely the same degree, 
> see your clock as moving with the same time-dilation factor as YOU 
> observe in MY clock; likewise, you will see the length of my 
> spacecraft (or whatever) contracted in accordance with 
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction - and from MY perspective YOUR 
> spacecraft (or whatever) will appear to be contracted to precisely the 
> same degree.  THIS is reciprocity, and it cannot be so lightly brushed 
> aside as you brush aside (correctly) the phenomenon of apparent 
> invariability (which is in fact TRUE invariability of ratios of 
> measurements in the same inertial frame).
> It is reciprocity, not simply invariability, that leads to assertions 
> of frame symmetry.  Clearly, if (as you and I both are certain is the 
> case) there IS a unique objectively static inertial frame, then 
> reciprocity cannot be simply a comparison of ratios in different 
> frames: in a moving frame time dilation and contraction WILL apply, in 
> the static frame they will NOT.  So how do we square this circle?
> The answer is, once again, observer effects.  It is nothing like so 
> easy as your dismissal of apparent invariance - but it CAN be shown 
> that something which is clearly NOT the case in a static object (time 
> dilation, contraction) will APPEAR to be so from a moving reference 
> frame.  This is a significant feature of my published work, and it's 
> absolutely essential to explaining SRT 'frame symmetry' from the 
> perspective of a system that includes a uniquely static inertial 
> reference frame.  SRT as it's generally accepted IS a myth (Hence the 
> title of my latest book: "The Relativity Myth"), but it's a very 
> pervasive and persuasive myth and one that needs firmly and thoroughly 
> debunking if physics is to progress beyond this point at which it's 
> currently stalled.
> With regard to your comments on acceleration: I agree completely that 
> acceleration is significantly different from gravitational effects, 
> and that time dilation under acceleration is simply a summation of 
> speed-based dilation; however that summation must of course be handled 
> rather more carefully than simple constant-velocity time dilation, 
> which involves simply a constant factor.  It's for this reason that 
> the twins paradox resolves itself quite satisfactorily without 
> breaching the bounds of standard SRT.
> Best regards,
> Grahame
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>     *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:10 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
>
>     Hi Grahame,
>
>     the point of _acceleration_ is a very important one in my view, as
>     1.) it is misunderstood by many and 2.) it points to an error in
>     GRT which I shall detail further down.
>
>     The case of SRT is easy. Time dilation and contraction (of fields,
>     space, .. whatever) only depends on the actual speed of a system.
>     Whether this speed is part of an acceleration process or a
>     constant speed has no influence. You will find this also in
>     textbooks about SRT. There is nowhere a formula given which
>     relates dilation (or whatever) to the actual acceleration.
>
>     _Reciprocity_ in SRT is given. It is formally and physically given
>     if we follow the SRT interpretation of Einstein. It is also
>     formally given but physically violated in the interpretation of
>     Lorentz because for Lorentz there is an absolute frame at rest.
>     The apparent reciprocity in calculations and experiments is caused
>     here by the fact that at motion in relation to the fixed system
>     the physical quantities change but at the same time the
>     measurement tools change so that the effects exactly compensate.
>     Example is the speed of light which is in the Lorentzian system in
>     no way constant but is measured as constant because clocks etc.
>     change at motion in the way needed.
>
>     Regarding GRT, however, _acceleration_ is a very critical point.
>     The strong _equivalence principle_ is the essential basis for
>     Einstein's GRT. However, this principle is violated. Acceleration
>     and gravity are physically different and can be distinguished. Two
>     examples for this: 1.) An electron radiates when accelerated, it
>     does not radiate when at rest in a gravitational field. 2.) Clock
>     time is slowed down in a gravitational field but it is not slowed
>     down with respect to any acceleration. If an object is accelerated
>     and so in motion, time is slowed down but only with respect of the
>     actual speed, not with respect to the acceleration. A clear
>     experimental proof for this was the muon storage ring at CERN. The
>     life time of the muons was extended, but the extension was in
>     relation to the speed (close to c), but not in relation to the
>     enormous acceleration in the ring. If that would have an effect,
>     the life time should have been extended by another factor of at
>     least 1000.
>
>     That is an interesting point because without the strong
>     equivalence principle the GRT of Einstein has no logical basis.
>
>     And anyway, I want to warn of the uncritical use of "principles".
>     A principle is in my view not a physical law but a preliminary
>     detection of a rule. Could we imagine that a particle "knows" that
>     it has to follow a principle? That would be like religion. --  So,
>     if a principle is detected, the next goal should always be to find
>     the physical law(s) behind the principle. In the case of SRT this
>     is not done by Einstein but by Lorentz.
>
>     Albrecht
>
>
>     Am 04.06.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>>     Hi Albrecht,
>>     I agree fully with at least your first four paragraphs.  It looks
>>     as if you may not have read my email in full: in my 4th-from-last
>>     paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which effectively
>>     summarise all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4 paras.
>>     I'm not sure that I agree, though, with your observation on
>>     acceleration.  Constant acceleration is of course just a steady
>>     transition through inertial frames, so that transition has an
>>     effect on relationships between an accelerating frame and a
>>     non-accelerating frame (or another constantly-accelerating frame)
>>     that fits with principles of SR; I suppose it depends on what you
>>     mean by "does not play any role".  I believe that the Equivalence
>>     Principle, equating effects of acceleration to effects of an
>>     equivalent gravitational field, has pretty good experimental
>>     credentials.
>>     For me, though, the important thing is the claimed *reciprocity*
>>     of SR, which in turn leads to the claim of frame symmetry.  The
>>     fact is, that reciprocity is also borne out by experiment,
>>     including in particle accelerator experiments.  The critical
>>     point here, though, is that this reciprocity is reciprocity of
>>     *measurement*. That's why I refer to aspects of SR as 'observer
>>     effects'.
>>     Apart from in my own writings I haven't seen *any* explanation
>>     for that observed reciprocity that doesn't depend on objective
>>     inertial frame symmetry.  Such an explanation is essential to
>>     non-symmetric explanations of anomolous aberration of starlight,
>>     for example, as well as various particle accelerator
>>     experiments.  I have fully explored this issue and have derived
>>     reciprocal relationships for observers on the move who observe
>>     events in a static frame: I have shown that for fully subjective
>>     reasons such observers (and instruments) will yield results that
>>     appear to show the Lorentz Transformation acting reciprocally -
>>     thus 'proving' objective frame symmetry.  Without such an
>>     explanation any claim that SR is *not* an objective reality
>>     cannot hold water.
>>     I agree also that principles that establish SR as an explainable
>>     phenomenon can be extended to GR, including every aspect of the
>>     Equivalence Principle.  But this of course depends on a rational
>>     explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance'
>>     interaction of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by
>>     such bodies comes about.  This I have also done, simply by
>>     reference to phenomena already discussed and widely agreed.
>>     Grahame
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170606/bd0bdfd2/attachment.htm>