[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Sep 3 13:20:41 PDT 2017
Hi Grahame, hi Chip, hi All,
This is an interesting discussion here about the question whether
*motion is relative or absolute*. And I find the fact particularly
interesting that this has a historical background. Because it was also
subject of discussions between Einstein, Mach, and Lorentz. Let's have a
look at it.
When Einstein developed SRT, in his view motion could be taken as
relative (which war also believed by Galileo). Hendrik Lorentz
developed, prior to Einstein, his version of Special Relativity. He
referred to an existence of an ether, where the only property of the
ether used by Lorentz was the existence of an absolute frame. Einstein
preferred a theory which did not need an ether, because he followed at
that time the philosophy of positivism and this philosophy asked to
avoid assumptions (or physical entities) which are not open to
measurement. The result of Michelson-Morley was, as we know, that an
ether could not be measured (ether was, however, not falsified even
though some people still say this).
Both versions of SRT, the one of Lorentz and the one of Einstein, are
mathematically consistent with itself, so no math problem. But with
respect to GRT the situation became more complicated. Mach and Lorentz
used an argument which also came up in the preceding mails here:
Rotation and acceleration would need an ether in the sense of an
absolute frame, otherwise both phenomena would be undefined. Mach
related his absolute frame, as we know, to the background of fixed
stars. Lorentz only saw the necessity of an absolute frame without
further assumptions. He used in his discussion with Einstein a thought
experiment of two conductors placed around the equator of our earth and
he assumed that a standing wave was generated in these conductors. One
conductor was assumed to move with the earth's surface,and he argued
that it would be observable that the "hills" and "valleys" of these
standing waves move relative to the earth's surface. The other conductor
was to be moved relative to the earth so that the "hills" and "valleys"
of this standing wave do not move relative to the conductor. So, there
would be an absolute determination of rotation possible.
Einstein understood this problem and to get out of it he introduced the
"strong equivalence principle". In his view, gravitation and
acceleration are two terms for the same physical phenomenon, so not
distinguishable. - I must confess that I have not really understood this
logic, why makes this assumption the relativity of rotation possible
(e.g. for the Foucault pendulum)? Does anyone of you see this?
But anyway, this strong equivalence principle is clearly falsified. If
an observer has a charged object with him, this object will radiate at
acceleration but not at rest in a gravitational field. And the other
difference that there is dilation in a gravitational field but not
according to acceleration, is not so easily observable in practice, but
it also shows that both phenomena are different. - These facts prove in
my view that
(1) rotation is in fact absolute
(2) Einstein's GRT is falsified.
Best wishes
Albrecht
Am 01.09.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> 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 <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *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 <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170903/3734755c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list