Revenge of the Cranks by Chris Kennedy

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.

Your turn, Friend.

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!)

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.

Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity is also not justified. I am looking forward ...

Eckard

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.

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 other's clocks - would see the other's clock as running slower. To me, the paradox is the so called "time dilation effect," which is resolved by my claim that time is a property of matter, etc.

Basics

A) Yes, I learned long ago A. Einstein (AE) took a lot of ideas from others without always giving credit where due, which often resulted in the public thinking he was not as great a genius as we were taught he was. But I think he was, really, since he maneuvered his way well through the lethal labyrinth of naked emperors who fought fiercely, as some still do, to hold on to whatever status they managed to win by hook or crook.

B) Here, he gave Galileo some credit. However, the statement that starts out with, "That is, all motion at constant velocity is to be considered relative...." puzzles me because constant velocity here seems out of place. Since all objects are in motion, all motion is relative, not just motion at constant velocity. What is your opinion on that?

To you, it seems the issue is the way AE concocted his explanations to resolve the TP, when all he had to say is that time is a property of matter and it passes inversely proportional to an object's speed. In order for the spaceship to leave earth and then return to it, it had to speed up. It did not have to turn around if it made a circular round trip, but if it did, the speeding up - relatively to the earth - is necessary to catch with the planet once more. Is that correct, or not?

The train experiment and others like it support AE's relativity also. So if he made up his math, it would not be the 1st time, but even so, the simplest explanation for any paradox is one like mine, I think, because it does not need any math to confuse the issue. If AE could have done that, we all would have been much smarter faster.

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.

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.

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.

What train experiment?

And, sorry to say, but you are simply ignoring all of the facts that I have already presented.

You wrote:

>In your Triplet Example, there is no time dilation because there is no acceleration >on the part of the three ships in space.

No, acceleration is not needed to cause time dilation because

[1] it cannot because it has zero effect upon clock rates (tested experimentally up to 10^18g) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

and

[2] As Throop said, Ann aged differently from Copy-Bob despite the fact that no one accelerated.

If you cannot digest these two simple facts (not given just by me, but by much more reputable people), then I will have to stop discussing this with you.

In any debate, one must not discard the facts at hand.

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.

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

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

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

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 [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] 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