Revenge of the Cranks by Chris Kennedy

Hi Chris,

I think that you could find debate about that topic, for sure, and probably with more learned people than I. :) All I know is that I've been told that acceleration such as that would not directly cause a time dilation effect. I've been told that the time dilation effect would result only due to the velocity gained during/by the acceleration itself.

If it were otherwise, and acceleration had an effect like such, then wouldn't the Moon undergo gravitational time dilation, kinematic time dilation, and this "acceleration" time dilation?

I ask this because (and I think you agree) that gravitational time dilation isn't really from the acceleration per se, but just from being in the gravitational field itself -- like, a test particle at the centre of the Earth would not undergo acceleration (Newton's shell theorem), but it would definitely undergo gravitational time dilation because the Newtonian potential at the centre of the Earth is non-zero.

So basically, you're proposing three kinds of time dilation? I imagine that the effect would be smaller than the kinematic time dilation, because you'd probably also have to consider a time dilations from the 1st derivative of acceleration, 2nd derivative, etc. It's an interesting thing to think about anyway, even if most people have told me "no, not possible".

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.

Relativity theory gave us clock dilation and length contraction. The subject matter is time dilation. Without proof of it, relativists are faced with justifying their theory's basis. Since time is not revealed to relativists or anyone else in empirical evidence, there is nothing that theorists can say about time that is not pure theory.

James Putnam

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

From T. Garcia

To absolutely Nobody

Your 3-clock reply does not refer to the question.

Your absolute-time reply requires a link to support it.

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.

Okay, thanks Chris.

The 't' problem with relativity theory:

The 't' in physics equations never referred to the property of time. It referred to a number of cycles of activity with respect to an accepted standard cycle of something else. The true unwritten units of the physics' 't' are cycles(B)/cycle(A). The standard cycle (A) is certainly not time itself. We must use a recurring reliable effect for our standard and effects are always about a change of distance and/or direction with respect to a cycle of something or other.

From a message above of mine:

"The subject matter is time dilation. Without proof of it, relativists are faced with justifying their theory's basis. Since time is not revealed to relativists or anyone else in empirical evidence, there is nothing that theorists can say about time that is not pure theory."

This statement stands as fact. Relativity theory unadmittedly uses cycles(A)/cycle(B) for its 't'. Both A and B refer to activities of objects.

The unraveling of relativity theory begins with its slight of mind substitution of the word time for cycles(A)/cycle(B), and, space in place of length variation as measured by one object compared to another object. The key point to understand is that cycles(A)/cycle(B) is referring to the speeds at which one activity is occurring with respect to another activity.

The importance of this to theoretical physicists must be that it is the cause of the activity that is changing its potency and, thereby, the rate of the activity varies. Time is not a cause. No one knows what cause is. All knowledge of physics involves effects. All conjecturing about cause are theoretical with no possible empirical verification. Effects cannot explain what is cause.

It is time to put relativity theory aside and develop theory that is empirically based. All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. All velocities are measured as distance per second. Seconds are the name assigned to cycle(A)/cycle(B). There is no empirical justification for claiming that seconds define a property that is not limited to identifying it as cycle(A). Cycle (A) refers to activity of an object.

All activity occurs in time. Seconds are a measure of activity with respect to activity. Seconds occur in time and are not time itself. Theoretical conjecture aside, neither space nor time are verified as parts of any physics equations.

James Putnam

Chris,

I did feel that my message might be moving too far from your essay's point. But I also thought that maybe it would help to emphasize that we know only about effects on objects. There are no known effects about time. The effects upon objects are recorded as patterns in changes of velocity. There is no empirical evidence to conclude that time has velocity or experiences changes of velocity.

"... But if you look at the possibility that every atom is not only keeping its own time with its cycles (that can be measured with other observing cycles) but the cycles (behaviors) actually "are" time and things like gravity and increased velocity place a local stress that could slow the rate of these cycles compared to cycles that are not in gravity or do not accelerate to a higher velocity."

I admit that I firmly resist the substitution of the word time for cycles of activity so long as that use of the word time is put forward as representing the property of time. Objects do what they do in time. Now the cause of their activities is important to know and it surely is not time. The cause is affected by both gravity and velocity, but, not pure velocity. It must be velocity with respect to the gravitational field. At least that is what I think and have extensive work done to support it.

What I do see clearly is that you are pointing to a contradiction in the relativity explanation. That is a difficult enough chore without mixing my story into it. I was thinking about writing a followup message about the twin 'paradox' and what I see happening by viewing it without mixing time into it nor giving credence to special relativity. I will not write it and rather will wait. Maybe it will sometime become useful and maybe not. For now I think not.

Physicsts like to ignore your kind of argument because they has been so successful with the mathematical models derived for relativity theory. However, I think it cannot be successfully ignored because the models don't make sense and lack empirical support for relativity's fundamental assumptions such as time dilates. Again, that is just what I think.

James

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.

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.

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/clock.html

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

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.

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.

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).