Revenge of the Cranks by Chris Kennedy

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.

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]-->

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

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

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

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

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]-->

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

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!

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. :)

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."

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.

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.

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

Chris,

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

Garcia, I admit that this stuff can be a bit tricky.

It is, however, possible for your two observers to have the exact same speed through space whilst still moving differently relative to Earth.

For example, let's say that our Earth is moving to the right through space at 50 mph (50 miles per hour absolute speed through space). This of course means that the observer who is at rest on Earth is also moving at 50 mph to the right through space.

Now let the train move to the left at 100 mph relative to Earth. This means that the train is moving at 50 mph relative to space, just as is the other observer.

I would post a diagram of this, but I have no idea how to control it in this forum. Perhaps someone can give me a hint?

As for your claim that your observers did not look at each others' clocks, they did not really have to actually do this in order for the reciprocal time dilation to be involved. But if you think about the train observer looking at a light beam that is moving straight down in the other observer's frame, then you can see that the train observer would see the same diagonal as did the other observer see for the train's light.

Since your observers could be moving at equal speeds through space (as I showed above), this means that their clocks would really be running at the same rate, so all we have left is the fake slowing of special relativity - its reciprocal "time dilation" where each observer sees the other clock running slow.

By the way, it is much, much easier to show this fake time dilation by simply letting a single clock in one frame pass two clocks in another frame. This will reveal that the true cause of this reciprocal "time slowing" is simply Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, which, of course, does not truly synchronize clocks but instead leaves them asynchronous.

At the risk of making another mess, I will try to show this diagrammatically.

[4]-->passing clock

[4]--------------------[5]

-----------------------[6]-->

[6]--------------------[7]

Note that all 3 clocks moved up by 2 hours, so they are actually all running at the same rate; however, since the two clocks in the bottom frame are not absolutely or truly synchronous, the observers in this frame "see" the passing clock as "running slow." (It "fell behind" by 1 hour.) This is clearly a ridiculous and not-worthy-of-science situation of no more importance than the fact that two departing people see each other "shrink."

You wrote:

"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."

I did not say that A & C were stationary, so I do not know why you said that. (Also, it is not necessarily true that "all objects are in motion" - any number of objects could very well be at absolute rest in space for all we know. Certainly, nothing prohibits this!)

As for SR showing that the passage of time depends upon clock or object speed, this is not really the case because SR did not predict physical clock slowing - it merely incorporated it when it accepted the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, by extension, says that clocks must physically slow. The only kind of "slowing" given by SR per se is its silly and trivial reciprocal "slowing."

Let's look a little closer at this sentence of yours:

"SR clearly shows the rate of the passage of time for objects depends on their speed (not velocity)."

If you are speaking of a real, physical, intrinsic passage of time (the only passage that counts), then you cannot be speaking of SR because this would mean that SR admits to an effect of absolute motion because only such motion can have any effect on a clock's physical or a person's age.

Let's also look a little closer at this sentence of yours:

"From that, I draw the conclusion that time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to any discrete object's speed."

When you say "speed," are you referring to "absolute speed" or "relative speed"? You do not make this clear in your essay. Also, it time were solely a property of matter, then why does the speed of the matter also come into play? (And this time, I am speaking of an absolute speed through space.)

I would rather say that a person's aging is slowed by his absolute motion through space. (But we do not yet know the why of this.) The faster a person moves through space, the slower he ages. Taken to the extreme, one triplet could still be a mere baby whilst his triplet brother could be a great-grandpa or long dead.

A clue to the solution of the twin paradox:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/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