[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Sep 3 23:02:11 PDT 2017 

I'm glad you are taking a fresh look at this relative ve. absolute question.

Interesting that you say "But anyway, this strong equivalence principle 
is clearly falsified." By introducing a charge are you not extending the 
principle ? Did Einstein say the an accelerating frame was equivalent to 
a coulomb force? If you stick to masses, gravity, and inertia --it seems 
Inertia is to gravity as electricity is to magnetism. I believe Lorenz 
worked on that formulation of gravity, and Sciama used it to show 
inertia is due to the interaction with the distant masses.

I think the Lorenz force and the gravity and rotation have a very 
similar structure. What is missing is how the two domains are connected.

Any ideas

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432al
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 9/3/2017 1:20 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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 atphys 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>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170903/414fe6b7/attachment.htm>

More information about the General mailing list