[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

[Chip Akins]

Hi Grahame

 

I understand you point.  It is a good one.  So I will have to try to find another approach to point out the logical inconsistency in the “all motion is relative” notion.

 

Thank you for getting me back on track here.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 4:03 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/20170904/18f3d8a7/attachment.htm>