[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Hello Everybody:

The back-and-forth debates (idea/counter idea exchange) are going fairly well on this web.
My key drive has been to provoke self-awareness in our individual thinking logics. We unconsciously subordinate ourselves to personal thinking logics, which are propagated through our biology and our complex global culture.
We have recognized in the past (i) Plato’s shadow analysis by trapped cave men and (ii) the Asian blind men collaboratively and iteratively discovering better and better models for the Cosmic Elephant.

Here is another example as to why we should become perpetual introspective thinkers. Robots can now pass the tough exams of the Japan’s premier university, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
https://www.ted.com/talks/noriko_arai_can_a_robot_pass_a_university_entrance_exam?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-09-02&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image

A robot’s “creativity and intelligence” is firmly limited to the BASIS LOGIC SET given to them to logically analyze “Big Data” to come to come to the most probable answer. This capability is pre-determined into the embedded software. To make the robot more intelligent, incorporation of evolving better software using enhanced logics, is essential.

We need to learn to self-analyze our own thinking-software and consciously push it for perpetual evolution.
If we accept the foundational postulates of the prevailing “working” theories as unquestionable, better physics theories are not going to emerge out of the human brains. Remember, the prevailing “working” theories have historically been evolving out of the prevailing epistemologies in each epoch. So, those set of postulates simply cannot be blindly added up to create the foundation for a new possible unified theory to model Cosmic Elephant.

This mode of thinking and teaching are not encouraged by our universities and major publishers. We need to pro-actively re-energize enquiring minds of our younger generations.

Chandra.



From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 5:03 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

Chip,

Just because a body within a frame has inertia (as it always will!) that doesn't make it an inertial frame.  An 'inertial frame', as the term is used in this context, is one in which the inertial mass has no bearing on the motion of the object - i.e. it is neither being accelerated nor is it subject to gravitational effects (since gravitational mass = inertial mass - for reasons conventional science chooses to bypass, but which shed significant light on the whole issue if they'd just do their homework properly!) - I'm afraid you can't simply redefine the term 'inertial mass' to suit your own view!

You don't help your own case by using the terms "very slightly" and "slightly" - if a person is 'slightly dead' then they're still dead!  ANY degree of curvature, no matter how "slight" introduces forces into the equation - you can't get away from that by making them just "slightly"!  And as soon as you have forces you no longer have an inertial frame!!  NO conventional physicist would agree with your assertion that "a slightly changing inertial frame is still an inertial frame", if that change involves curvature of the object's path.

Chip, you're not just changing the discussion (even slightly!), you're changing the definition of the terms used in that discussion!

This is all rather by-the-by, since we're both agreed that conventional SR and GR are off-beam - but we're not going to get physics back on track by misrepresenting what it says at present.

Best,
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 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

Hi Grahame

But there is a point we need to consider.  A body in motion is in an inertial frame, whether the motion is linear or is very slightly curved depends on whether there is a transverse acceleration. The presence of a very slight transverse acceleration does not cancel the inertia of the body, or erase the existence of an “inertial frame” but it does slightly alter that frame with time.

So a slightly changing inertial frame is still an inertial frame, but in order to fully evaluate the small effect of curvature, in such a case, we have to use a more complete formulation of relativity.

I understand this very well.  I also understand that when one changes the discussion to avoid the issue at hand, that I am probably wasting my time.

Chip


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170904/30184ba8/attachment.htm>