[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

Fri Sep 1 06:55:02 PDT 2017

Hi Chip,

When I talk about 'dislodging Relativity' I'm referring to the mind-set that all states of motion are purely relative and there is no absolute state of motion/rest - that's exactly what (Einsteinian) Relativity IS.

The reason that I keep saying that Relativity is mathematically self-consistent is precisely because people (like you and Wolf) have for the past century tried to show an inconsistency (aka a paradox) through variations of the Twins 'Paradox' (not).  My absolute main objective, personally, is to get people - particularly scientists responsible for leading the world's thinking on physical reality - to realise that yes, Relativity as an observational phenomenon is a reality - but NO, Relativity in the sense of 'no absolute rest-state' (and so also no absolute measures of motion-states) is NOT a reality, it IS an 'observational phenomenon' in the sense that the effects and measurements experienced are in no small part down to the altered state of perception in a moving observer.  We are clearly both very much in agreement about this!

I agree that NO experiment has ever proved that Einsteinian Relativity actually holds - EVERY experimental result that appears to do so can be fully explained in terms of totally predictable observer effects.  However, the reason that I'm banging on about 'SR/GR is self-consistent' is that we do ourselves a serious disservice by attempting to show holes in that self-consistency when they don't exist.  By doing this we reinforce the notion (held by mainsteam physicists) that those who don't agree with Einsteinian SR/GR just don't really understand it.  MY position is "Yes, I DO understand very fully why and how it's self-consistent - but it's still wrong!!!"

As for 'curved space(time), don't get me started on that!  I agree that it's impossible for something that is in fact nothing to be curved - but it goes much further than that:
(1)  No-one has ever explained, in direct terms, what they mean by 'spacetime is curved'; it's only ever 'explained' by analogy, in terms of objects following 'contours' in spacetime.  What are those contours formed from, and why would objects follow them - how do they influence object behaviour?
(2)  How is it that massive objects create those contours?  What is it about massive objects that gives rise to these mystical contours??
(3) Not least: if the Higgs boson causes mass (a premise that I do not subscribe to) then in what way does it give rise to 'gravitational' effects?  We're told that mass creates space-time contours, we're told that the Higgs Field gives objects mass - then what exactly is the connection between the Higgs and gravitation, causally???

It appears to me that mainstream physics hs thrown the concept of causation out the window; it's about time that they were called to account for that - called to account for causation, in other words.

[By the way, I'm interested in your notion of "logically self-consistent".  I'm not quite sure how that would pan out or how it could be shown to be not so?  Clearly the Twins Paradox ain't gonna do it!]

Regards,
Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chip Akins 
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
  Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

  Hi Grahame

  My intent is not to dislodge relativity. Relativity is a fact.  But one part of SRT is not, the “all motion is relative” part.

  I find it interesting that in order to “defend” SRT’s all motion is relative postulate, GR is apparently always used. During the pre GR era, SRT was interpreted to support the idea that space is not a medium and that all motion is relative. Then with GR space has to be curved.  And it is hard to curve what does not exist.

  You keep saying that “Relativity” is mathematically self-consistent.  And I agree.  But nothing in SRT proves that all motion is relative. It is just an arbitrary addition to the theory.  No experiment has proven that all motion is relative. 

  While SRT may be mathematically self-consistent, SRT’s “all motion is relative” is not logically self-consistent.

  Chip

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
  Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:49 AM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
  Subject: Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

  Sorry Chip, but you're not going to dislodge Relativity like that.

  Under Relativity circular motion is NOT absolute - I have most definitely 'questioned that' in my last several emails.  The whole point of my recent missives is to make it clear that Relativity allows a person undergoing circular motion to consider themselves at rest - and that view is as valid as any other, under Relativity.

  That's why GR then has to come into it.  Because even whilst considering themselves to be at rest, that person will experience a force - and GR allows them to regard that force as a gravitational effect (and considers that as valid a view as any other).

  The whole point of GR was to extend 'relativity' to non-inertial frames - so to claim that a non-inertial frame is 'absolute' and then extent that to embrace SR is a complete misunderstanding of Relativity.

  Sorry!

  Grahame

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

    From: Chip Akins 

    To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 

    Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM

    Subject: Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

    Hi All

    We have discussed the “twin paradox” and many have said that there is no paradox. But using SRT alone this is not strictly true.  The postulate that “all motion is relative” is an arbitrary and so far experimentally unsupported part of SRT. This postulate alone causes a paradox.

    But there is another way to consider these issues

    We have established that circular motion is absolute, and no one has questioned that, because we have experimentally been able to verify that is the case.

    Now let us take that circular motion toward the limit, and continue to enlarge the radius of that motion.  Still, no matter how large the radius, circular motion is absolute. At what point, at how large a radius, would you say that the laws of motion change from absolute to relative?

    The fact is, the laws of motion do not change from absolute to relative, even if the radius is so large that we cannot measure the curvature. All motion is not relative.

    Chip

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20170901/88a35eab/attachment.htm>