Revenge of the Cranks by Chris Kennedy

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

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.

"Einstein's 1918 inanity": nope---Schutz doesn't describe this as a result of acceleration, as Einstein did (which Chris detailed in his essay), but as a result of the fact that the moving twin changes reference frames. Therefore, in that instant, due to the relativity of synchronicity (which describes, at that event, what is synchronous in the two different coordinate systems), the sedentary twin's clock goes from reading 2 years to 48 years. That's the "reality" of what's going on on Earth according to the observer who instantaneously switches reference frames BUT

*always claims that what's happening synchronously on his clock is really what's simultaneously taking place in reality*.

Schutz' resolution of the "paradox" is consistent with the description that's given according to the special relativistic framework I've set out in my essay.

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.

Thank you for this well-written essay. You know how to let the reader in by telling a story.

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. 聽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. 聽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 @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

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

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 Doppler shift, which is now both proved and DISproved! IEEE Trans. On Inst&Measurement. Vol 52. No.5 2003 http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Eather/ejo7t3n8Thim.pdf

I've published in the UK Skeptics magazine (2011) that Hafele & Keating were co-erced into omitting their actual atomic clock results, which were not consistent with SR, to get published. This is also mentioned, with Hafele's own quote, in Kingsley's essay here.

I agree with you that Einstein's solution to the effects of lateral shift which ARE found is illogical. There is a better solution, which recognises the quantum process of scattering at 90 degrees; The light signal measured is NOT the original signal. It is a new signal scattered (re-emitted by Raman/Compton scattering) from the particles CHARGED BY the primary signal. This has even greater implications. A receiver in relative motion cannot then use 'Proper Time' to estimate the original speed of a 'light pulse' from the sequence of individual scatterings from the particles. He can then quite validly find APPARENT c+v for that original signal relative to his own frame.

This is indeed hard to first get your head around, then suddenly everything falls into place, like solving a hierarchical 3D moving jigsaw puzzle. Surprisingly, the postulates emerge unscathed, but can now have a logical explanation. space-time and SR emerge direct from QM, if both slightly re-interpreted. It's all about the effects of the 'detection' process.

I hope you'll read my essay (slowly!!) and comment on the quite beautiful logical solution that emerges. You've made far better inroads through the quagmire than most so should grasp it, though it's slippery as an eel until the old assumptions are abandoned!.

Very best wishes.

Peter

Superb straight-talking essay! Well done.

Best wishes for the competition,

Alan

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.

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...

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...

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

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 reality.

Einstein's principal ideas were called the "General Theory of Relativity" and "Special Theory Of Relativity." They purported to explain mathematically how the Universe operated in three unified spatial dimensions.

One real appearing Universe can only be perpetually occurring in one real here for one real now always staying in one real dimension once. All real stuff has to always stay in one real dimension once. There is only one real or imagined 1 of anything once.

According to Einstein, An abstract ever expanding Universe can appear in a unified three abstract space/time dimensions. That is unreal. How is the abstract stuff distributed? Does the heavy abstract stuff helpingly congregate in abstract space/time dimension A, abstract medium mass stuff gather in abstract space/time dimension B, and the abstract light matter stuff only convene in abstract space/time dimension C. It is like the old graphic puzzle where you have to draw three separate lines representing water, gas, and electricity piping all going into three separate houses without any of the lines crossing.

Einstein's theories depend exclusively on what abstract observers ought to observe, and how abstract clocks should read. Always keep in mind that the theoretical shortest distance between two theoretical points is not a straight line. It is a theoretical limited point of a lesser dimension. The farthest theoretical distance two abstract points can be placed apart is an abstract straight line of infinite length. The only real distance between two real points is a real curve.

No two snowflakes of the trillions that have fallen have ever been found to be identical. One real Universe can only obey one real law. Every one of those sparks created at CERN has to be unique. There is only ever 1 of anything real or imagined once.