Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Merryman: on 5/1/13 at 21:50pm UTC, wrote Chris, " there is no compensation that can be applied to either clock (or...

John Merryman: on 5/1/13 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote Chris, Keep in mind Big Bang cosmology is based on the fabric of...

Chris Kennedy: on 5/1/13 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote John, Your line: so if we were to position various clocks in different...

John Merryman: on 4/30/13 at 22:22pm UTC, wrote Chris, "It seems like he's hinting that no matter where you are, there can...

Chris Kennedy: on 4/30/13 at 17:21pm UTC, wrote John, It seems like he's hinting that no matter where you are, there can...

John Merryman: on 4/30/13 at 1:42am UTC, wrote Chris, Then consider this; "But if you shrink the volume a clock...

John Merryman: on 4/30/13 at 1:01am UTC, wrote Chris, Thank you, though probably shouldn't associate your comments with...

Chris Kennedy: on 4/30/13 at 0:03am UTC, wrote John, Thanks. I just posted a follow up on Woit's. I asked for...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c=..." in The Nature of Time

Zeeya Merali: "You're invited to a special free film screening and panel discussion event,..." in Film Screening: "Infinite...

Georgina Woodward: "How we identified brain patterns of consciousness,the conversation.com" in Searching for Physical...

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician, so the math part is mostly lost on me. And I'm..." in Structure Invention by...

Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "It would be nice to imagine that the Germans are working on gravity..." in Generalised Integrated...

RECENT ARTICLES

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

FQXi FORUM
July 15, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Revenge of the Cranks by Chris Kennedy [refresh]

Author Chris Kennedy wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay engages in a detailed, historical examination of the proposed causes of time dilation through a careful analysis of special relativity and the twin paradox.

Author Bio

Chris Kennedy is an investigative science writer and an education and training consultant.

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Chris Kennedy,

This look timely. Get ready for perhaps 200+ messages :)

James

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
A clue to the solution of the twin paradox:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Ho
ffmann/dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Note that, according to special relativity, time dilation can only be measured in the system with (at least) two clocks - it cannot be measured in a system with a solitary clock. Hence the trick used by Einsteinians: thought experiments described in textbooks implicitly convert the sedentary twin's system into a full-blooded measurement system (that is, capable of measuring time dilation) while the travelling twin's system is reduced to a solitary clock moving between clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system. As a result, the travelling twin always returns younger and Einsteinians fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Any scenario converting the sedentary twin's clock into a solitary clock moving between clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system, if analysed correctly, leads to the conclusion that, at the end of the journey of the travelling twin, the sedentary twin is younger. The "paradox" is, in fact, an absurdity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Excellent, Chris - you will get 10 points from me. But you have mistakes, too. For instance, you believe gravitational time dilation does really exist. Yet the following text (written by a very important Einsteinian) may make you hesitate:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-H
offmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 19:39 GMT
Doublethink:

1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPa
rtI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 20:07 GMT
Pentcho,

Have you read Bernard Schutz' treatment of the 'paradox' in his intro GR textbook? I think he's right on the money.

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
He's not. During the almost instantaneous turn-around of the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock jumps suddenly from reading 2 years to reading 48 years. Einstein's 1918 inanity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Chris,

Congratulations on a very focused and well written essay. Don't expect any establishment figures to address it though, when multiverses and string theory have all their attention. In the future, I think the current generation of theoretical physicists will get far more attention in psychology textbooks, than in physics textbooks.

I have to say the most logical explanation for time dilation I ever read, is that since nothing can travel faster than C, atomic activity in an accelerated(rather than accelerating) frame has to slow down, so the combination of electron spin and frame velocity doesn't exceed C. Though I must say this presents a far more convincing argument for space as an inertial frame, than for the "fabric of spacetime." One only has to consider centrifugal force to understand motion is not only relative to other points of reference, as it is an effect of motion relative to inertia.

To the "shut up and calculate crowd though, it's all about what can be measured, so time is a measure between two events and space is a measure between two points. Then two additional linear dimensions create volume and that is space. Which is about as logical as saying latitude, longitude and altitude create the earth. Reductionism has its uses, but reality is inherently wholistic. All the parts are necessary to explain the whole.

I'm hoping something can come of this contest, possibly drawing attention to broader dissatisfaction with the fantasy reality being promulgated by establishment figures. I think that the hunt for the Higgs being a climb up a lonely mountain and not a stairway to heaven of ever more exotic particles has created a situation where future physicists will have nothing better to do than pull at the many loose threads in current theory. Revolutions build for a long time, before exploding.

Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
John,

Thanks. I am looking forward to reading your essay. We have similar (but not identical) viewpoints on time anyway. As for the revolution - its already here.

John Merryman replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
Chris,

Hmm. There are definitely bubbles forming in the bottom of the kettle, but it's not quite to a boil yet.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Excellent essay! Yes, for mainstream physicists, all the money is in perpetuating the string theory/multiverse non-science hoaxes; not in asking and contemplating foundational questions!

Chris writes, "When GPS technology first became known, mainstream physicists were so excited they had another experiment that proved relative time, they didn’t realize that it also disproved Einstein’s...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Elliot,

Thanks for the great review! That's one of the great things about shaking the impossibilities out of physics. It makes the investigation of other theories possible. We both agree on what's wrong with relativity. From there you and I have different theories of what can take its place. You have MDT and I have the fundamental behavior theory of time. If I turn out to be correct - you can ship me a bottle of diet soda from California. If you turn out to be correct, you will have to let me know what your beverage of choice is (not too expensive though).

Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:39 GMT
Dude! I don't drink anything expensive either--no alcohol as my hero is Kelly Slater who leads a clean lifestyle.

But I want to hear about the "fundamental behavior theory of time!"

You've been seeing the problems, so your solution will be cool!

When do we get to see it? You may wish to copyright it online first at copyright.gov, along with all your other essays. :) Now and then I run into folks who say they came up with MDT. :)

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:54 GMT
Mr. Kennedy,

Your essay speaks to a knowledgable method of investigation combined with a high level of objectivity, and the combination wrks superbly for you. If I must be critical, though, I would say you may have taken the long and unnecessarily complex route to explain the issue.

My essay gives a very simple reason why one frame is "preferred" over another - without a single equation to help it do that. However, yours is to me the most rational one here so far wrt the topic of time. That is why I wish you would read my contest entry, "On The Nature of Time" by me. Then please let me know what you think about it, pro or con.

I still have one problem with it, which is, unfortunately, the same one you brought up. My answer to it would be at this time that since it may not be possible for one twin to know the other's time rate whenever they differ, then knowing why both will see the same time rate on the other may not be relevant.

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Thomas,

Thanks. Yes I can be long winded. I do that sometimes to try to be as inclusive as possible since readers have varying levels of expertise. I will try to get to your essay soon.

Bill Miller wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
I love your essay's title, but your analysis of the twin paradox is misguided. When one twin stays in one inertial frame, and another is in two different inertial frames plus a non-inertial frame, the symmetry in the picture is broken. The twins age differently because consistency in the universe is preserved; they don't age according to how human intuition thinks they should age.

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:19 GMT
Bill,

Thanks but I never described any step or frame from a human intuition point of view so I'm not sure what you think is misguided about my careful step-by-step analysis.

Jack Mallah replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Wow, Bill. He latched onto your last sentence which was a short comment and pretended it was your whole post, ignoring your obvious technical point about the asymmetry. In this short exchange Chris thus displays a perfect example of crackpot mentality. When you deal with crackpots, it's necessary to keep the editorializing to a minimum. Just analyze the whole thing in a single inertial frame - it doesn't matter which one - and it's easy in SR to derive the standard result in which they have aged differently by the time they reunite.

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT
Hi Jack,

Nice of you to chime in. I think if either of you actually read the entire essay, you would have realized that I acknowledge and distinguish between the inertial and non-inertial frames. I recommend that you attempt to comprehend the essay for what it truly is and not what your intuition is telling you it is.

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 01:26 GMT
Thank you for this well-written essay. You know how to let the reader in by telling a story.

report post as inappropriate

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 06:58 GMT
Hi Chris,

I agree with what you written, I enjoyed some of your arguments and style, sadly it will fall on mostly deaf ears, you need different arguments. I give you two.

I presented in my essay a new paradox challenging SR. The Michelson Morley Einstein paradox in section 2.3 and elaborated in the endnotes will challenge the academia.  I will appreciate your opinion.

Regarding the twin paradox consider following. Two laser beams A and B of equal frequency pointing at each other. We construct a clock by counting cycles received from A and B summing them to C=A+B, C now is our clock.  This clock if moving up and down the laser beam will never loose sync with a similar stationary clock and will always tick at the same rate and this too will challenge the academia.

Regards

Anton @  (  /topic/1458  )

PS stay in touch and mail me, address in essay.

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Thanks Anton and Jeffrey for taking the time.

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 11:22 GMT
Chris

Worth a top score if just for the title! Very good and nicely written analysis. I believe I have valuable contributions, see my essay, and took up your challenge ref GPS a while ago; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 (probably now in need of updating).

One shock was a revelation about the 'overwhelming evidence' for clocks falling out of syc, and the cause of apparent lateral...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Peter,

Thank you. Good to hear from you again. I just read your 2010 paper in the above link you provided. I will recommend it along with your essay. We focus on different areas of relativity, which is good. After a careful review of both of our works – it will be interesting to see what is left standing. You have admirable focus for taking on the speed of light issue. I purposely do not. As you may have seen in my essay – I give conventional relativists a pass on just about everything: Hafel-Keating, speed of light, all forms of time dilation, adjustments for sagnac, simultaneity, etc.. and I basically say “I’ve taken everything to have told me to be true about relativity, accepted it and isolated out only the relationship between relative motion and time dilation from SR and if you understand that there is relative motion between the ground and the satellites, then everything Einstein says about time dilation would indicate that the clock system would be impossible to sync yet it does quite nicely.”

I look forward to a continuing discussion.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:54 GMT
Superb straight-talking essay! Well done.

Best wishes for the competition,

Alan

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Thanks Alan.

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Chris,

Nicely written essay which shows much consideration to the inner inconsistencies of the theory. That said, are you aware that the GPS argument may be invalid. See article at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm .

Daniel L. B.

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT
Daniel,

Thanks - however I read the link you provided and do not agree with that analysis. It seems the author is arguing that relativistic effects are insignificant by taking a snapshot in time rather than acknowledging that the error can be quite significant even after a few hours. I recommend you read the Ashby link provided on my reference page.

Take care.

Darth Sidious wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
The title of this essay is similar to the title of the film which inspired my nickname, i.e. "Revenge of the Sith". On the other hand, the result will be different. The Siths in the film dominated a galaxy. Indeed, it is impossible that the Cranks will dominate the physics...

report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
Darth,

"Indeed, it is impossible that the Cranks will dominate the physics..."

Of course it is. I do not believe that Chris meant to say any such thing. What do you think of his technical arguments? What is wrong, and, is anything right or, at least reasonably arguable?

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:19 GMT
Thanks James.

I'm just looking for a good responsible discussion that can increase our knowledge of these topics.

James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Chris,

You initially asked: "So you think you know relativity?" Will, in my case, no I don't - however, I do think I understand it a little better having read the introduction of your fine essay! It's the rest of it that confuses me - it gets pretty complicated for me.

I'm compelled to make one comment - IMO acceleration is essentially identical to deceleration; only their relative directions are different. In both cases directional energy is applied, affecting a clock's momentum, effective mass and rate of progression. Similarly to the 'arrow of time', motion and velocity have only a single direction: forward. I think there is no backward motion, except in relative terms considering an object's topography or other objects.

I suggest that it may not be the relative velocity between two clocks that affects their rate of progression, or two people's physiological processes' rate of progression, etc., but the absolute measure of energy applied to each, affecting their effective mass. Unfortunately, I can't do the math or apply this premise to all of the conditions imposed in your analyses...

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT
Jim,

Thanks. And you are correct about acceleration/deceleration. The best way to illustrate that is with the turnaround phase in the twin paradox journey: You have to decelerate before you turn and if the interior of the ship is a six-walled perfect cube with the front wall of the ship painted blue while the other walls are painted yellow – as you slow down, you will feel yourself pushing against the blue wall as if it were a “floor” in a gravitational field. After the turn, as you reaccelerate toward Earth, you will feel a force on that same blue “floor” and in both cases – you have simulated gravity.

By the way, when I first started to study Einstein’s 1918 resolution, I found a variety of mathematical treatments that filled in the blanks for Einstein. I emailed a physicist who is expert in the steps of this resolution, and he said that the acceleration at the very beginning and the deceleration at the very end produce the opposite effect as the turnaround. Meaning the traveling twin is in the “higher” gravitational position. The reason it is not usually mentioned in most resolutions, is that the “h” value (distance between the two clocks) is much lower at those two points and doesn’t affect the final clock discrepancy nearly as much as the turnaround (since at that point the “h” is at its maximum). This also demonstrates the very directional nature of this part of Einstein’s resolution. This comes in handy when I discuss the gravitational potential value and time dilation in an orbiting satellite where the induced gravity comes from centripetal acceleration.

As for your last comment – I messed with that idea myself at various times. The evidence seems to say otherwise but it certainly would have been a cleaner, more consistent model for time dilation if only gravity and acceleration were the only two causes!

Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Oops! Sorry to confuse...

On my above model - I forgot to mention the inner cube room of the ship (on a swivel) stays directionally constant as the rest of the ship rotates 180 degrees in the turn. Including that will certainly help to keep the blue wall as the floor!

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 08:09 GMT
I certainly need no help to become confused, especially about time dilation, especially at this hour!

Just a hint, please - what other causes of time dilation are there?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Chris Kennedy,

You are not alone. Maybe, you just decided to not mention the links I pointed to in my essay . Sapere aude is almost a who is who. I did not (yet) find Kennedy between Kempczynski and three Kelly's including Dr. Alphonsus (alias Alf alias Al) G. Kelly in Ireland to whose book I was just guided by Pentcho Valev.

On the other hand, the last contest was won by someone who fabricated a fictitious Newton who was of course so intelligent that he of course easily understood Einstein. This time, the perhaps most welcome to FQXi author did not just arrive at the benignly revisionist insight that singularities are not physically real but he also wrote arXiv:1008:0174 which seems to be formally correct while it omits the conclusion that SR is just a bizarre approximation.

Robert Schlafly does not just criticize Einstein's SR but he also deals with the surrounding propaganda. I would appreciate hints to other dissident essays.

What about me, I felt challenged to deal with foundational issues when a Hendrik van Hees blamed me for damaging the reputation of my university because I suggested that the ear cannot perform complex Fourier transform but cosine transform instead. While CT works well in MP3 too, Hees firmly believed in theory.

Meanwhile I am understanding Einstein's naivety more and more. I do not necessarily agree with Michelson & Morley and More, although I felt sympathetic to More when he was brutally asked to shut up. If the corrected by Lorentz interpretation of the experiment by Michelson and Morley was wrong, then even the Lorentzian interpretation is unfounded. Dealing just with Einstein's SR will perhaps not be sufficient.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Eckard,

It’s not that I decided not to mention the links in your essay, it’s just that I haven’t read it yet. (Sorry English majors, that’s a lot of negatives.) Regarding your SR comment: If you understand my essay, you will understand why my feeling is that we can keep time dilation, we just have to get rid of Einstein’s SR. I will try to read your essay soon and comment on your thread.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity is also not justified. I am looking forward ...

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Thank you all for your participation in this important discussion. I am currently making my way down the thread of posts and will resume the replies where I left of soon.

Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Chris Kennedy,

There is no way I can express my gratitude to you for your essay, so I will not even try. I now claim for myself the title of being the undisputed biggest crank ever. I can refute Einstein completely. If you would be kind enough to read my essay Sequence Consequence, you will be rewarded by finding out something Einstein apparently rarely thought about. It is called...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nobody wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 00:56 GMT
Hi, Mr. Kennedy,

All acceleration can easily be eliminated by letting a single clock pass two fixed clocks, as shown:

[C]-->

[A]------------------------[B]

----------------------------[C
]-->

[A]------------------------[B]

Since Clock C was already moving inertially prior to its reaching and passing Clock A, and since C does not stop at Clock B, but merely meets B in passing, there is absolutely no acceleration involved.

If clocks A and B were synchronized prior to C's arrival at A, and if C matches A when it passes A, then C will NOT match B when it passes B.

This raises the important question Why do Clocks B and C not match?

Unfortunately for those of us who wish for simplicity, there are still two possible causes involved, viz., (i) Einsteinian synchronization, and (ii) intrinsic clock slowing. (By the latter, I am referring to the similar physical situation where two people who were born at approx. the same time but whose ages now differ greatly. This is an intrinsic age difference.)

Fortunately, (i) can easily be eliminated by using triplets.

Let's use Ann, Bob, and Carl. At the start, Bob passes Ann as their ages match, then Bob goes on to meet Carl as their ages also match, but when Carl goes on to catch up with Ann, their ages do NOT match.

Bob passes Ann when they are both 5 years old:

----------------------[Bob5]-->

----------------------[Ann
5]

Bob goes on to meet Carl, who happens to be the same age as Bob:

-----------------------------------------[Bob9]-->.6c

----
------------------------------.6c

report post as inappropriate

Nobody wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
My post looked ok in preview. I will try again with the diagrams.

the 3-clock diagrams:

[C]-->

[A]------------------[B]

----------------------[C]-->

[A]------------------[B]

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

the 3-people diagrams:

Bob passes Ann when they are both 5 years old:

----------------[Bob5]-->

----------------[Ann5]

Bob goes on to meet Carl, who happens to

be the same age as Bob:

-----------------------------[Bob9]-->

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

report post as inappropriate

Nobody wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
OK, looks like I have to resort to words alone in the people case.

Bob passes Ann when they are both 5 years old.

Then Bob goes on to meet Carl when they are both 9.

Carl then catches up with Ann when she is 15 but

he is 13.

Looks like posting here is more difficult than

the theory of special relativity!

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
Dear Nobody, my essay will show that Bob can pass Ann when they are each 5 years old, but that requires Bob to be moving at a speed that makes him Ann's age when he passes by her.

Then, in order to meet Carl when they are both 9, Bob must have been traveling at a speed that will allow him to catch up w/Carl in 4 yrs for Bob, but in more yrs than that for Carl.

Thomas Garcia, "On the Nature of Time."

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 00:52 GMT
Hello, Garcia,

Could not locate your essay, and I do not understand your above. There need not be any history involved (such as your "but that requires Bob to be moving at a speed that makes him Ann's age when he passes by her"); we can start the process with two people of any age passing each other. (It's just for convenience that I made Ann and Bob both 5 years old at the start.)

For example, if Bob is 25 when he passes Ann when she is 5, and then Bob goes on to meet Carl when Bob is 29 and Carl is 40, we still have Carl catching up with Ann when she is 15 and Carl is 44, which means that Ann gained 10 years whilst Bob/Carl gained only 4 + 4 = 8 years. And we can also eliminate history by replacing people with clocks and setting them to read whatever times we want as they pass. (For example, we can set the "Carl" clock to match the "Bob" clock as they meet in passing.)

As for your second sentence above, I am just as confused as I was re your first sentence.

When Carl's entrance occurs, his history before that meeting with Bob is irrelevant. As I just said, it really does not matter if Carl's & Bob's ages are the same when they meet. All that matters is the end result, and that result is the fact that people in different inertial frames age differently. And special relativity theory has no physical explanation for this experimental result. This is - to be kind - a serious defect of the theory.

report post as inappropriate

Nobody replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:25 GMT
Hi, again, Garcia,

I *was* able to locate your essay - had a not-found false-negative error at first. Here are a couple of comments re the essay:

In your train example, the different observers do not necessarily have different speeds through space. This is just the standard case of reciprocal time dilation where each observer sees the other's clock as "running slow," so there is no proof here that observers who move at different speeds through space age differently. However, this is proved by the Triplet Example which I gave above (which of course was not original with me).

You said that the traveling and turning-around twin would be younger than the stay-at-home people "because his ship would have to accelerate." As the Triplet Example shows, acceleration has nothing to do with it.

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 04:32 GMT
Thanks, Nobody, for reading my entry, and for your feedback as well.

The train experiment shows time "dilation" better than the Twins Paradox, I think. I try to explain why both observers are moving through space at different speeds when they take their measurements. Both are on the earth's surface, so both are moving with the planet as it moves through space at the same speed. Also, both are moving with the spin of the earth at the same speed. However, their speeds are different from each other because one is moving on a train while the other is stationary with respect to the train's motion. Granted, that is a tiny difference in speed, but if it happens to the twins, it must happen to the train observers too, IMO.

The observers of my essay do not "see" the other's clock. If it is so that if they could do that, their clocks would appear to each other to be moving slower, I do not know why that would be, because I have not read that argument yet. If you have a link, I would appreciate reading it.

Your "Triplet example" cannot have A & C stationary because all objects are in motion. Thus, for space travelers to be a certain age as one passes by another and then reaches a third object requires dfferent speeds of all of them. SR clearly shows the rate of the passage of time for objects depends on their speed (not velocity). From that, I draw the conclusion that time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to any discrete object's speed.

Thomas Garcia

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
From: Thomas Garcia

Hello, Nobody, let me just say I am truly grateful to you for your part in this discussion. You make excellent points that I’m sure others would ask if they dared. I will try to respond in the clearest way I know. First, this riddle has been around since Man came out from the caves, I believe, so you are right – this stuff is tricky indeed.

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 01:47 GMT
The following will be a rather quick reply as I am pressed for time at the moment:

You wrote:

About your diagram, in order for the “passing clock” to pass the others, it must have a higher speed, thus that clock will show, correctly, a slower time rate. The falseness, if any, may lie in the claim that the others would also see the passing clock as moving slower in time. I am...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
From Thomas Garcia

To Anonymous

Your reply re: your diagram - If all 3 clocks are moving at the same speed, how can one pass one then reach the other? Seems you may have left out something?

About absolute time, I don’t think physics applies “absolute” to single discrete objects. It refers to time, temperature, space and other things. I believe Newton did that, but I understand it was replaced with spacetime relativity. I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by your method for obtaining universal abs. time. We already know light’s one-way speed in vacuum, but how will that give us our abs. speed? I have said all objects having the same speed will have the same time rate, with which you seem to agree, apparently, but I am unsure of that.

Your reply: “Time must slow because of round-trip light-speed invariance.” Then you quote Wheeler that both time and length must contract, which is not in contention in this discussion. Are you saying time rates only decrease and never increase?

report post as inappropriate

Nobody replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT
To Garcia from absolutely Nobody:

The part that I omitted in my three-clock diagram was simply the left arrow for the 2-clock frame. As I said, I was trying to simplify to avoid scrambled diagrams. If you recall, I *did* note that all 3 clocks moved up by exactly the *same* amount of time (2 hours each), so this was mathematical indication that they all ran at the same absolute or intrinsic rate.

As Einstein said, if we use the (absolutely) synchronous clocks of classical physics to measure the one-way speed of light, then it will vary directly with frame velocity, and this is absolute motion detection. (In Einstein's simple example, light wrt the embankment went at c, whereas light wrt the carriage went at c - v (less than c due to Einstein's usage of a departing ray of light). After observers in all inertial frames have determined their own absolute speeds through space, they can then mathematically correct for intrinsic clock slowing because the formula is known, namely, sqr[1 - (s^2/c^2)], where s is absolute speed. (A clock moving at absolute speed 0.6c will intrinsically slow by 20%.) Correcting for different intrinsic clock slowing in each frame will put all frames on universal absolute time. Bingo!

The fastest clocks in the universe are those which are at absolute rest. They are the only unslowed clocks, so are the only ones that can correctly measure time. (For example, only an unslowed clock can correctly measure the time it takes for a light ray to travel from point (0,0,0) to point (x,0,0).) Of course, if a fast-moving speed-wise clock slows down speed-wise, then of course it will speed up time-wise.

(It seems that we have partially hi-jacked Chris's area - sorry, Chris!)

report post as inappropriate

Jack Mallah wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
Chris,

If you are up for some math, the good news for you is that - if you take advantage of the opportunity - you will be able in the near future to learn something pretty cool. Namely, special relativity. I know you took physics in high school that touched on the subject but it's clear that you didn't really learn SR at that time, and after all, most high school students don't....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Jack,

Thank you for providing more detail on the issues you have with my essay. I have pasted in some of your comments below followed by my replies:

JM: I know you took physics in high school that touched on the subject but it's clear that you didn't really learn SR at that time, and after all, most high school students don't. Like I said, if you analyze it in any given inertial...

view entire post

S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT
Hi Chris,

Isn't it just awesome when some self-appointed demigod comes up to you and starts clobbering you on the head with labels like "crackpot"? :) Anyway, I'm pretty sure that you have the entire thing down pat, whether or not you agree with it, and that attacker's tilting at windmills.

I believe that general relativity is the most natural way to solve the Twin Paradox, but that doesn't have to mean that a gravitational field is involved. It just means that acceleration is relative and that you should probably judge the two twins based on which one is moving with regard to the "fixed background" of the rest of the Universe. Surely the twin that accelerates with respect to the "fixed background" is the one who is moving during the journey, and so is the one that undergoes kinematic time dilation. I'm not making myself very clear... What I'm trying to sell is Mach's principle as interpreted by Einstein.

I dunno. I thought your essay was pretty awesome. I loved its spirit.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT
Shawn,

Thanks. I have been called every name in the book for a few years now so I am used to it. I never take that stuff personally. Anyway, although I don't endorse Einstein's resolution, I will meet you halfway on the gravity issue. It's possible that the induced "gravity" due to acceleration may have an additional effect - just not in the way Einstein describes. The act of acceleration could be placing an additional "local" stress on that system which could slow the rate of all fundamental behaviors in that moving system (that we would emergently interpret as "time.") With this as a possibility it would allow us to look at a potential mechanism behind real gravity's effect on the clock in that field. It could be warping other field(s) or doing some other simple physical thing that makes the rate which all behaviors associated with time proceed more slowly. This could be producing the same "net" effect as velocity and acceleration - the only difference is that motion is warping something as a consequence of the motion itself, and gravity is creating that same warp on the objects that remain perfectly still.

Worthy of further study for sure.

Thanks again.

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Chris,

I read your entire essay. I believe that in your analysis you are overlooking the fact that whenever an object accelerates, it switches to a different inertial frame. This is the crux, the most important point, to understanding the twin paradox, but I did not see it mentioned in your essay.

Perhaps it helps if you consider a simpler situation to appreciate just how...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:32 GMT
Armin,

I have pasted some of your comments below with my replies as well:

ANS: I read your entire essay. I believe that in your analysis you are overlooking the fact that whenever an object accelerates, it switches to a different inertial frame. This is the crux, the most important point, to understanding the twin paradox, but I did not see it mentioned in your essay.

CK: In...

view entire post

Nobody replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT
Chris K wrote:

"When GPS technology first became known, mainstream physicists were so excited they had another experiment that proved relative time, they didn't realize that it also disproved Einstein's theory for why time is relative."

Nobody replies:

First of all, the GPS clocks are not absolutely synchronous, but are "synchronized" based on the assumption of light speed invariance. Second, the GPS clocks do not need to be highly synchronous because of simple geometric correction.

On the satellite side, timing is almost perfect because they have incredibly precise atomic clocks on board. But what about the receivers on the ground?

If the receivers needed atomic clocks (which cost upwards of \$50K to \$100K) GPS would be a lame duck technology. Nobody could afford it.

Luckily the designers of GPS came up with a brilliant little trick that lets us get by with much less accurate clocks in our receivers. This trick is one of the key elements of GPS and as an added side benefit it means that every GPS receiver is essentially an atomic-accuracy clock.

The secret to perfect timing is to make an EXTRA satellite measurement.

That's right, if three perfect measurements can locate a point in 3-dimensional space, then four imperfect measurements can do the same thing.

But all of this talk about GPS and acceleration, etc., is not needed to show what you wish to show.

You merely need 3 people or 3 clocks where persons A and B pass, then B goes on to meet C, who goes on to catch up with A. This simple experiment proves that people who move at different speeds through space age differently, and Einstein has no explanation because the explanation involves absolute motion.

This 3-person example eliminates all problems. It cannot be argued about. It proves that special relativity fails to explain intrinsic time dilation.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
Chris,

You said:" In my essay, I do address changing out of the first inertial phase and into a non-inertial frame at the bottom of page 4 and continue on to page 5. I address what changes occur from the perspective of each clock according to Einstein’s own 1918 paradox resolution. Please go back and reread it and if you need clarification, I would be happy to provide further elaboration."

I read that passage, and the explanation you provide there is largely irrelevant to the explaining the twin paradox. Using a largely irrelevant explanation for a phenomenon while overlooking the most relevant one and then arguing that that phenomenon cannot be explained one is called a straw man argument.

The explanation you provide there is largely irrelevant because it does not account for switching from one *inertial* frame to another *inertial* frame, which, I repeat myself, is the important aspect of the twin paradox. Relativity of simultaneity is precisely a consequence of the importance of switching *inertial* frames. Your paragraph only discusses the switch from an *inertial* frame to a *non-inertial* frame, which is not the most salient aspect of the twin paradox, it is only relevant to the extent that you need to switch at least momentarily to a non-inertial frame (i.e. accelerate) in order to be able to switch from one inertial frame to another inertial frame (that's why it is "largely" and not "completely" irrelevant).

I thought I could help you understand the twin paradox by providing a simpler scenario where the essence of the twin paradox's explanation (switching from one *inertial* frame to another *inertial* frame) is more obvious, but I realize now that I can't help you.

Good luck and take care,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
From T. Garcia

To absolutely Nobody

Your time-must-slow reply argues clocks can be at rest, yet you do not say how or why. Sure, anything is possible, in Philosophy, but in theoretical physics, some supporting remarks must be given to take ideas from fantasy to physical reality.

Clocks cannot be “at-rest” because everything in the universe is in motion. Objects cannot be observed to be in a state of absolute rest, thus we cannot see what time one would hold.

I see you agree a slower-moving clock runs faster time than a faster-moving clock, which is the point of my essay. Thanks so much for your comments. I am hoping Chris will respond to my last inquiry to him, and I too apologize to you, Chris, for using up your space here.

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
Garcia wrote to Nobody:

Here was the question:

>>>same speed, how can one pass one then reach the other?

>>>Seems you may have left out something?

>>The part that I omitted in my three-clock diagram was simply

>>the left arrow for the 2-clock frame.

My reply answers both questions because it tell what I left out (and why), and it tells you that the 2-clock frame was moving to the left at the same speed through space as was the 1-clock frame. (For example, both frames could be moving through space at half the speed of light. I honestly do not see why this is in any way confusing.)

I decided to focus on only your first objection first. Let's clear it up for sure before going on.

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Thomas,

I don't mind at all since your conversation with Nobody is relevant to my essay. I will have to reread the beginning of your back and forth and get an understanding of how Nobody is syncing A and B and get back to you.

Thomas Garcia replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 14:29 GMT
Okay, thanks Chris.

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:26 GMT
From: Thomas Garcia 09/10/12

To: Nobody

Dear Nobody, I may have understood your points better now. I am not always as bright as I like to think I am, heh.

You and I, sitting at our desks, are observing 3 objects, 2 of which are moving at constant velocity wrt each other. The 3rd object is moving toward the first 2, at the same speed as they are moving toward object 3. In this case, I state in my essay that they all have the same time rate because they are moving at the same speed. I state also that all objects moving at the same speed will have the same time rate regardless of their location and the distance between them.

You state that in my train example (one I did not invent), my two observers are not moving at different speeds in space, but instead it is a reciprocal illusion of time dilation that causes each observer to see the other’s clock “running slow.” The only illusion, however, is that each observer can see the other’s clock. I do not see how that is possible, and besides that, it is not relevant to the experiment. The experiment succeeds well enough in presenting relativity’s case of so-called time “dilation” as fact without that illusory observation. It serves only as a distraction, I think.

You state that your Triplet Example shows acceleration has nothing to do with time dilations. I agree, but your example cannot be used to show the time differences incurred in the Twin Paradox because they are not the same experiments. One has acceleration in it while the other does not. The whole point of the TP is acceleration, which requires the spaceship to accelerate in order to return to earth. I will wait on our other points too so we can be clear about them.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT
My intention here is to learn that which I don't know. Several posts above refer to a multiplicity of frames in ways I don't clearly understand. I think science - physics for sure - uses words that are ambiguous by design at times, perhaps to hide some naked emperor's confusion.

Frames of reference are made up to illustrate a particular scenario. To me, the Twin Paradox is a single ref. frame which has in it the earth and a location in space where one twin goes to from earth and then returns to earth and upon meeting again, he sees that the stay-at-home twin is notably older than s/he, the space-traveler twin.

Now, all of that happens in a single frame, as I understand relativity. If that's wrong, please explain why.

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
Nobody to Garcia:

Garcia wrote re the Twin Paradox:

>Now, all of that happens in a single frame, as I understand relativity. If that's wrong, please explain why.

Well, now I see why we are having communication problems. There are at least 2 primary frames in the Twin Paradox, and most likely 3. Anyone moving at a different velocity from you is in a different frame. ("Primary" means that we are ignoring all the frames involved in the acceleration periods.)

2-frame case:

Only if Earth is at absolute rest in space, and only if the traveling twin moves at the same speed through space during both trips (outward and return) will there be only 2 frames.

3-frame case:

But the odds are against the Earth being at absolute rest in space, so this means that the "traveling" twin (the one who leaves Earth) must travel faster or slower when he returns than when he left, so this makes 3 frames.

Look at the last sentence on this page (the *very* last sentence):

http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

Why would anyone want to involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated.

Garcia wrote:

>The whole point of the TP is acceleration, which requires the spaceship to accelerate in order to return to earth.

No, the whole point of the TP is the age difference, and this is the whole point because acceleration has no effect upon aging or intrinsic clock rates.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/cl
ock.html

"... it has been verified experimentally up to extraordinarily high accelerations, as much as 1018 g in fact ...."

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT
from Thomas Garcia to Nobody

I must disagree that the point of the TP is the age difference. To me, the whole point is Einstein's claim showing us there are time rate differences that occur between bodies when they move at different speeds. Two or more bodies moving at the same speed will accrue the same time rate.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Thank you for your response, Nobody.

It took me awhile to find where I went wrong, but I found it. It was my error in mixing up my notes and not noticing they did not match. I had just finished a long explanation why your Triplet example is a – wait for it – single frame of reference. I typed up my response, sent it, and went to bed. I am often wrong about things, unfortunately for me, so I try hard not to mess up, but this was a doozy! I could not be more embarrassed.

One thing I need to clear up. You said “anyone moving at a different velocity than you is in a different frame.” I may be wrong again, but I think it is not that simple. For one thing, we are usually observers of frames and not participants of one. Observers set the coordinates of a frame in order to measure the position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. I would say instead that any acceleration in a ref. frame creates a new frame of reference.

You asked, “Why would anyone…involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated.”

I would answer that it cannot be avoided. You avoid using that term by using “…a different velocity from you….” But that means the same thing, does it not? An inertial RF can have objects at rest or in motion, and an object’s velocity is changed by any acceleration, as you said so yourself.

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT
Garcia wrote:

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

One thing I need to clear up. You said 'anyone moving at a different velocity than you is in a different frame.' I may be wrong again, but I think it is not that simple. For one thing, we are usually observers of frames and not participants of one. Observers set the coordinates of a frame in order to measure the position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. I would say instead that any acceleration in a ref. frame creates a new frame of reference.

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

Hello, Garcia, you are correct of course when you say that acceleration creates a new inertial frame, but, as I tried to get across, acceleration is not the important thing when talking about inertial frames. Indeed, one definition of an inertial frame is that it contains no acceleration, i.e., its observers and its objects feel no acceleration forces.

Garcia also wrote:

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

You asked, 'Why would anyone involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated.'

I would answer that it cannot be avoided. You avoid using that term by using 'a different velocity from you' But that means the same thing, does it not? An inertial RF can have objects at rest or in motion, and an objects velocity is changed by any acceleration, as you said so yourself.

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

Garcia, did you not look at the cited web site? The whole point of using triplets was to avoid accelerations.

http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

Note that this website was fully endorsed by relativity experts; it is not my site. Even these SR experts fully agree that acceleration can indeed be avoided, even in the Twin Paradox case (by simply adding another person, making it Triplets).

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Dear Criss

Congratulations for your work and best luck in the contest

best regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT
Israel,

Thank you. My hope is to get a discussion going on what all of the existing evidence means and what can be implied by the results of the time dilation experiments to date. I have already read Darly's essay and plan on commenting soon. I have a list of essays to read over the weekend and have added yours and Wagner's to the list.

Jack Mallah wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT
Chris,

JM: Like I said, if you analyze it in any given inertial frame, you get the same result for the age difference.

CK: I’m not even sure what that means, since from the traveler’s perspective, he is not in an inertial frame for the entire journey.

Pick *any* inertial frame. It doesn't have to be a frame ever used by either twin, though it could be. For instance you could use the frame initially comoving with the twin who accelerates; after he accelerates he won't be at zero velocity in that frame any more. Analyze the situation. Solve for the difference in proper time between the twins. You will get the standard answer, if you do the math correctly.

Or, pick any non-inertial coordinate system. Analyze it using the methods of GR like Einstein did to see things from the viewpoint of the accelerated twin. Once again you will get the same result. The wikipedia page I linked you to explains what Einstein did, which was correct and a good demonstration of the fancy methods of GR. Just as you can choose different coordinate systems in non-relativistic mechanics and get the same result, in GR you can use even non-inertial coordinate systems and still get the *same* result though you will then attribute that result to gravitational fields that don't exist in an inertial coordinate system describing the same situation. GR is like that. But you don't even understand SR so you'd better stay away from thinking too hard about GR right now.

Well, I have tried to help you. I doubt it will do you any good. It will not be worth my time to try to help you any further because you are not open minded. Ironic but not surprising that you accuse the establishment your own failings; it happens with all crackpots.

Regards,

Jack

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
Jack,

Is there something getting lost in translation here? I am still not sure what your issue is with me? A fundamental assumption that I think is wrong is Einstein's explanation for how/why time slows down (and speeds up). I outline what his twin paradox resolution proposes and show what concerns I have with his resolution.

You appear to be offering solutions that vary from...

view entire post

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Nobody, I searched 5 pages looking for the site, to no avail. Now this time I found it right away. It is completely different than your first one, though.

The gist of your citation seems to be "A lot of [TP] explanations,,have claimed it is necessary to include a treatent of accelerations,or involve [GR]. Not so." In their example, they, like you, also change the TP into a different experiment by saying SR "seems" to imply that either twin can be seen as being "at rest. Then they say yes and no,and that SR's implication is the reason it is a paradox.

Then they say "Bob must change his inertial frame" in order to avoid restating "the problem with [only] the names changed." They do not understand that is what SR says, that either twin can be at rest while the other leaves then returns! Wayne et al seems confused at this point since when they change Bob's frame on the planet, they accelerate him! But Ann is never accelerated wrt to Bob in SR's TP! Clearly, theirs is no longer the same TP experiment, and that invalidates their claims against SR's time dilation effect.

Let's say Bob stays home. The coordinates include earth, Bob, the spaceship, and Ann. All are at rest rest relative to each other. Primary I.F. 2 shows Ann accelerating as she takes off on the ship. P.I.F. 3 shows her return trip to earth. Yes paradox.

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT
To Garcia:

The reason for my citing the web site was simple - it was to show how Triplets can remove all acceleration.

Here is a quote from the cited site that you finally sighted:

"To avoid accelerations in the thought experiments above, we can simply make the second Bob frame into a 'messenger' Carl that never accelerates, but passes by Bob as they set their watches together. Messenger Carl then travels to Ann and compares watches as they pass each other. That makes it clear that there are three distinct inertial frames involved."

Please note their key phrase "To avoid accelerations."

report post as inappropriate

Author Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:56 GMT
Thomas & Nobody,

Something to consider: If there is a resolution model that doesn't require acceleration from the POV of the traveler, then that must mean the traveling clock is experiencing a slowing that the Earth clock does not within the confines of inertial motion. And if that is the case - Galileo's Principle goes out the window. That's why Einstein kept the relative clock dilations reciprocal during inertial and required acceleration as a form of simulated gravity to invoke an Earth clock speed up due to difference in gravitational potential. I myself am not opposed to the possibility of Galileo's Principle going out the window.

Nobody replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 13:34 GMT
Hi, Chris,

Yep, the clocks do slow differently due solely to their different speeds thru space (inertial motions only), but this does not obliterate Galileo's principle - only Einstein's. (Gal's mechanical relativity still stands, but E's optical rel. falls - but it never held in the first place - so no big loss there!)

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Garcia wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 00:01 GMT
Nobody, we already agree there are 3 primary I.F.s. Our point of contention now is my claim that your citation is substituting the author's incorrect understanding of the TP which is not parallel to the TP and thus his is a false analogy to the TP, which makes it an invalid argument by the rules of logic.

An argument defeated in proper debate is an argument lost. Unless you can show I am wrong in my claim that it is an incorrect analogy to the TP, it remains an invalid argument.

report post as inappropriate
Nobody replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 18:35 GMT
To Garcia:

It really makes no difference what Throop said about the Twin Paradox because that case involves acceleration, which I am trying to avoid, and which can easily be avoided by simply adding a third person. This tells us in no uncertain terms that people age differently even sans acceleration. SR has no explanation.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT
One thing to consider is that if someone is aging faster, ie. has a faster clock rate, they are not traveling into the future more rapidly, but into the past faster. They die sooner. Time is not a measure or dimension from past events to future ones, but the process by which the future becomes the past.

Knowledge is created inductively, future possibilities condensing into actualities, but it is used deductively, applying past experience to predict the future.

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 23:52 GMT
T. Garcia to Nobody:

Nobody, I can only reply that the TP thought experiment has as its basic premise acceleration in it and if you take that out it is no longer the same experiment. Like if you want to measure the distance between earth & pluto but you can't because pluto is too far away. So you measure the distance to Saturn and say that is the same distance to Pluto.

Acceleration need not be a speed increase; it can a change of direction or up or down, or a slowing of speed. Acceleration is merely a change in motion. Why would anyone want to take acceleration out of the TP?

Without it, in fact, there can be no time changes, as per SR's explanation. An object moving at constant speed and direction is at constant velocity, while an object moving in a perfect circle is at constant acceleration.

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Tom,

I think it's more the velocity. As in traveling at the speed of light, time is stopped, since there is no internal activity to light, since the combination would exceed C. Acceleration also would slow the clock, ie. equivalence principle, but constant acceleration would quickly reach the speed of light, so that effect would be limited.

As Chris' essay shows, all these ideas are historically ambiguous and it's only tradition that canonizes them.

report post as inappropriate

Nobody replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 00:44 GMT
To Garcia from absolutely Nobody:

It's obvious why we need to get rid of all acceleration - this is the only way to simplify the TP so as to preclude any claims that acceleration has anything to do with the age difference.

Have you never heard of the KISS rule? We do not need overly-complicated examples for cases that are very simple. (This rule should also have been applied by Chris in his essay.)

Not to remention the fact that acceleration has *no* effect upon either clocks or twins anyway.

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
T. Garcia to Nobody:

Maybe this will help you see it is not acceleration that is needed to see the whole forest. It is needed to cause time dilation. In your Triplet Example, there is no time dilation because there is no acceleration on the part of the three ships in space. For time to "dilate," one ship has to change its speed from that which all three are moving at constant speed. That one ship's time rate will be different than the other two ships.

The effect of time dilation is a pardox which is clearly stated in the train experiment. There is nothing left to resolve unless one can sccessfully argue the time as measured by each observer is the same. Until then, the imaginary "time dilation" paradox does not exist anymore because we know now how it happens and why: It happens because time is a property of objects and passes inversely proportional to an object's speed.

report post as inappropriate

THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
T. Garcia to Chris Kennedy 09/13/12

Like you, Chris, I wonder in my essay why no one had previous to me noticed my essay theme that speed determines the time rates for objects. You wrote a fine piece and included what could be valid arguments for your POV. We have found different viewpoints, however, in that you see the paradox as being the claim that each twin – if they could see each...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 03:59 GMT
Hi Chris,

I have taken up your call to all cranks and crackpots willing

to take on this challenge.

I went after some low hanging fruit, you will like it.

See: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403

There is a lot of stuff that need to be reconsidered, thanks for reminding us.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Chris

Thanks for citing my gedanken to Thomas. I've also now posted on his blog with link to my last years gedanken analysis. All the gedankens resolve logically via the mechanism deriving space-time. Scoring time and I confirm you're in the upper echelon for me, I hope you won't forget mine amongst the plethora of good work we're swamped with this year. I wonder if any advances will really come of it all.

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Chris,

You've written an interesting essay including some historical context of which I was unaware. Certainly no one can blame you for demanding consistent explanations! I wouldn't mind discussing some aspects of your ideas a bit further; if you're interested, send me an email at bdribus@math.lsu.edu. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Chris Kennedy,

sorry it has taken so long for me to get to your essay. I like the first person style of it which takes us back over your personal exploration of relativity theory. That comfortable, easy to read, style of writing stands out from many of the other essays.

I have my own thoughts about why relativity theory is useful even though it does not completely describe the realities we inhabit. With many essays still to consider, now is not the best time to get into a lengthy debate. Though I have talked about the paradoxes in my essay and think that the explanatory framework that is introduced does resolve a lot of problems. High res. version of diagram 1. is in the discussion thread.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in your enjoyable, well written essay. Good luck in the competition. Georgina

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Thanks Georgina - and to Don, Peter and Ben too. Good luck to you all.

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:51 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Kennedy replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Sergey,

Thanks for the heads up but I'm not terribly concerned about my rank. I have had a lot of fun discussing ideas with many on this site. I only wish I had more time!

Concerned Public wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT
"Inconsistencies and incomplete explanations gnaw at me."

Continue to gnaw back, dear sir!

This is a delightful, well-written essay (FR: "attempt").

Thank you for the enjoyable time it gave me!

report post as inappropriate

Concerned Public wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
This "Sergey" is bombing the entrants' boards with the same "why your rating has dropped" message.

WTH? This is the third I've seen, dated Oct. 4, same message.

I noticed it on yours, and just HAD to comment, finally... I've seen one fine essay drop 89 (eighty-nine) positions, in "Community Rating" in the past 24 hours.

What is up with this weird vote/scaling? "Hackers Rule!", I suppose!

Well??? What else is one to think? The General Public is... watching.

report post as inappropriate
Chris Kennedy replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT
Concerned Public,

Regarding your comment on the voting - It is easy to see how essays can be manipulated up and down the chart. As I said earlier in a response to someone else, I'm not terribly concerned because I'm not in it to win it. I just wanted to get some interesting info on relativity out there and I'm thrilled that it reached so many people. A lot of good (sometimes heated) discussions resulted. Inconsistencies in Relativity is a topic that deserves more attention than it is getting and this contest definitely helped shine a light on it. (No pun intended.)

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Chris,

Good comment on the Smolin book review at Not Even Wrong. I tried giving some support and Woit actually left one of my posts up, but took down the subsequent one. Smolin does a masterful job of mathematizing your question to death.

My question to his reply was;

" "if you shrink the volume a clock occupies you make it tick faster because clocks are physical devices and their size affects their rates."

This seems identical to ideal gas laws. Would it be reasonable to propose a geometric model of volume and temperature, similar to spacetime?

It seems temperature and time are both fundamental measures of action, somewhat analogous to frequency and amplitude."

Peter took it down quickly, as he usually does to any of my posts there. I was actually surprised the first one was left up.

Good luck raising the issue. Any opportunity to shine a light into the fog is not to be passed up.

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 00:03 GMT
John,

Thanks. I just posted a follow up on Woit's. I asked for clarification on his size issue as well.

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 01:01 GMT
Chris,

Thank you, though probably shouldn't associate your comments with mine, given Woit's heavy hand with the delete button.

Question:

"But, even if you consider a particular object to be at absolute or preferred rest, it is still in some other object’s gravitational field even if by just a trace, and will have a miniscule deviation from the true global time. If I have that right, then doesn’t real global time become a theoretical value that is not experienced by anything in the universe?"

So wouldn't that "true global time" essentially be absolute zero? ie. absolute rest. So any material action does deviate from it, thus any structure as well. Now if time is an effect of action and action boils up as quantum fluctuations from the state of absolute rest, then there is the tendency for it to settle back down.

Now consider the two sides of the dichotomy of energy and mass; Energy radiates outward, as mass contracts inward. So energy would be a scaling up of that fluctuation and mass/gravity is the resulting contraction back to the flatline.

As I've argued before, there are two directions of time, the energy/medium going from past events to future ones, while the events/structure/message goes from being in the future to being in the past.

So then the bottom up energy is the boil of this rest state, while the top down structure is it consolidating and contracting back down again. So these two directions of time emerge from the action of that seemingly eternal rest state, that is the present. ?

I have to say, alot of people don't think my mind works very well at any time of day. Then again, I don't know that I agree with alot of what other people think.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
Chris,

Then consider this;

"But if you shrink the volume a clock occupies you make it tick faster because clocks are physical devices and their size affects their rates. This is evident in models of clocks called light clocks in which what ticks is a photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors."

Consider what happens as the volume falls into a galactic vortex. Is it really falling into a black hole, or is it getting spun around and shot out the poles, as jets of cosmic rays?

Which then go on to coalesce into other bodies. Past to future. So what is falling in is "shrinking," going into the past and what is radiating out is "enlarging," going onto the future.

For the clock of what falls in, its clock is slowing, while as a (light)clock to an external observer, it is speeding up. So there is a reciprocal in this relationship of observation of one state to the other.

Thinking out loud here.

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
John,

It seems like he's hinting that no matter where you are, there can be a possible orientation that would consider you at rest with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background. But I see your point about absolute zero and its a good one. would the internal motion of a "resting" molecular sytem be farther from preferred global time than a sitting electron right next to it?

Regarding the shrinking space/clock topic, I hope he responds to clarify how this new theory relates. By the way - I have to remember to be more careful with my terminology. In certain relativity circles - the mutual symmetrical effect of dilation and contraction is phrased as "reciprocal" although in general math language it is taken as equal but opposite. An object approaching a black hole or other mass increases the "time slowing" while that object sees the rest of the universe's time speeding up. I like Paul Davies observation that in order for an object to experience a complete cessation of time - the rest of the universe's time would have to go infinitely by. Tough to imagine.

report post as inappropriate