Twin paradox "resolution" article

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I take it we are agreed that SR can be discarded, even if not agreed about why. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think it is as important to agree about why. My personal opinion is as follows: Einstein, in the spirit of formalism of his time, developed a theory that is mathematical but due to the nature of its postulates cannot be refuted experimentally. I do not agree that time is another dimension. As a matter of fact, I do not believe time is anything special or specific at all. However, I think the speed of light invariance he introduced in an important concept and contribution. If I recall correctly now, Einstein called his theory "the Theory of invariances" and the name SR was given later by others. I can't find the reference now who called it SR.

If we reject the speed of light as an invariance, we must find something else to replace it with. There must be an invariance out there, otherwise we must go back to the aether idea, which has many problems. I take it you are proposing an "elysium" of some short (LCM) but I have trouble with material flux ideas so I reject that idea also. Not many choices left out there, aren't they?

makis or Tom,

What is your feeling about the following link. It is sound but is being suggested as being applicable to light as well. If so Relativity is based on a false premis in the first place.

home.tiscali.be/leo.gooris/src2/

Hi Mac,

I quote from the conclusion:

"...the sole real argument against Newtonian physics and in favour of the special relativity is invalidated.

Except for the singularity v = c, Newtonian and relativistic physics are completely equivalent in the description of nature.

The Lorentz transform now becomes a handy mathematical instrument to simplify problems in Newtonian physics, too complex to investigate directly."

It sounds like they are in extreme pain...an aspirin or the Tylenol you use in the states may help.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: There must be an invariance out there, otherwise we must go back to the aether idea, which has many problems.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We have been working on those problems, and solved them one by one. The old aether idea remains dead. But the modern idea is looking good. It is an extension of the Lorentz Ether Theory, modified as suggested by Tangherlini, Beckmann, Hatch, and myself -- and using the Lorentz transformations in the form proposed by Mansouri & Sexl. We call this modern aether, somewhat entrained by every mass, "elysium".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I take it you are proposing an "elysium" of some sort (LCM) but I have trouble with material flux ideas so I reject that idea also. Not many choices left out there, are there?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Indeed, the choices are limited. It seems important to me not to rule any of them out without sufficient cause. As everywhere in science, it is important to insulate our judgments from our biases. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

As everywhere in science, it is important to insulate our judgments from our biases. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree, and that's proven very difficult to do.

I appreciate you participation in this discussion. Although in the past we have experienced some kind of harsh exchange, there is no doubt in my mind that you, your work and knowledge represent a real asset in today's scientific confussion. Especially, your effort to "salvage" what has been left is tremendous but I must point out that I do not agree on several counts with your theories, for whatever it worths.

I have a last comment or proposal to wrap up this discussion of your article. In your twin paradox interpretation that involves a constant travelling velocity, the reciprocity may break down if the moving twin experiences an accelaration for an interval dt, sufficient enough to excert a force on her. Although the equivalence principle states that gravitational and inertial accelerations are indistinguishable, only the moving twin will "feel the force". In this way, reciprocity breaks down, by way of "experiencing a force", which of course is a sort of a consious activity.

What is your opinion about the above approach of establishing non-reciprocity?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: What is your opinion about the above approach of establishing non-reciprocity?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My opinion is formed in large part from the experimental evidence that neither force nor acceleration can have any effect on clocks or time for any observer, apart from the known effect of velocity.

Therefore, a twin accelerating does nothing more to "break reciprocity" (symmetry) than does one twin wearing a red dress and the other a blue dress. The mechanism of "Lorentz boosts" allows any acceleration to be approximated as accurately as we please by a series of discrete velocity changes. According to SR, as the "traveling twin" orbits AC, remote time switches from past to future and back to past as the direction of that twin's velocity changes due to acceleration.

It is difficult to swallow that such changes in remote time are real, especially when the on-board "GPS clock" always correctly indicates what the age of the Earth-twin will be whenever the traveling twin drops back into the Earth frame. But it would be even more difficult to deny that is what SR requires. So this line of reasoning becomes another argument for LR over SR. -|Tom|-