Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

GI, Tom, etc.:
You guys seriously need to learn the difference between dynamics and kinematics.

Thanks DeltaV. What Mendell Sachs wrote is just as obvious as that fact that there are mountains on the Moon. It is, however, impossible to convince dogmatic Cardinals tnat it is so even when they see that it must be so. Amazing that ANY person can be so deluded to conclude that two clocks subject to the SAME laws of physics can keep different time rates. It is obviously a statement that is a contradiction in terms: Similar to GIThruster-Intelligence

Clock rates are determined by "Change" in Nature and "Change" is determined by the laws of Nature. The same laws of Nature CANNOT cause two identical perfect clocks to keep time at different rates.

[GIThruster]

"This is a logical paradox since it implies that after the round trip of one of the brothers relative to the other, he would be both older and younger than his brother. But when we recognize the subjectivity of motion (as Galileo discovered) and that the transformation of time measures is only a scale change, used by one or the other brother in viewing his moving brother, there is no paradox because there is no prediction of a change in the aging of a body by virtue of its motion relative to an observer."

The last sentence looks to me like slight of hand. I have to say, this is pretty common, where someone declares "there is no paradox" without explaining it. At least, this "explanation" makes no sense to me, but I haven't time to read the whole paper.

Are you saying that this distinction he's drawing makes the difference?

Surely you've noted that Sachs has not actually coped with the real situation found through experiment that the two brothers do indeed age differently, based upon time dilation? Sachs isn't addressing this important fact of the matter at all.

And of course Johan likes this slight of hand, because it seems to support his delusional point of view, but the FACT of the matter is that time passes differently for the two twins.

Again, people can rail all they like but the fact remains we've checked many times, and the universe can tell the difference between the brother who moves and the one who doesn't. Their V's are relative to some invariant, and that is, in the case of Mach and Einstein, believed to be the FOAM and the "starry sky" respectively.

[DeltaV]

Surely you've noted that Sachs has not actually coped with the real situation found through experiment that the two brothers do indeed age differently, based upon time dilation?

I must have missed their interview on 60 Minutes. What were the brothers' names?

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?

7. Conclusions

The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.

[TallDave]

What about Gravity Probe A? The muon storage ring?

[johanfprins]

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the postulate that there is no absolute refrence frame, like the ether, relative to which different speeds for different inertial refrence frames can be measured. Why did he postulate this if he knew there is actually a "foam" or the "fixed stars" which do play such a role? He should at first have consulted with the "geniuses".

[GIThruster]

That's a test for frame dragging, not the Twins Paradox. Doesn't matter, both have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the case of the Twins Paradox, the time differential has been demonstrated many times, from atomic clocks aboard satellites to astronomical observations. Most strikingly is the evidence I posted yesterday, that the decay of a Muon was extended 29.3X by accelerating it to very high velocity. Higher velocity means slower time. We know this from observation. It is a dictate of special relativity. The Paradox that arises from the twins, is in all likelihood the result of an invariance where velocity ultimately relates to the distant stars, just as Mach and Einstein believed.

The simplistic version of relativity that Johan has been proposing is only held by people with no training in relativity, and after all, Johan's PhD is not in physics. He really needs to stop pretending to teach about subjects he is not proficient in.

[johanfprins]

What about Gravity Probe A?

It is prudent to first settle the interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity before mixing in gravity.

The muon storage ring?

Within the FOR of the laboratory the moving muons within the ring are indeed observed to decay SLOWER. But what you are measuring is the TRANSFORMED lifetimes of the muons. Although this proves that time dilation has a real effect, a clock moving with the muons will measure the same lifetimes for the muons trapped within the storage ring, than another clock stationary within the laboratory will measure for muons within the laboratory which are NOT moving: This is so since the physics, within the reference frame moving with the muons, is the same as the physics for stationary muons within the laboratory.

The muons now act as clocks and this result indeed confirms that two clocks moving relative to one another MUST keep the same time within their respective inertial reference frame. The moving muons decay at the same rate (age at the same rate) within their inertial reference frame than the stationary muons decay (age) within their inertial reference frame. Thus one twin cannot age faster within his/her inertial reference frame than another twin ages within his/her inertial reference frame.

[GIThruster]

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the postulate that there is no absolute refrence frame, like the ether, relative to which different speeds for different inertial refrence frames can be measured. Why did he postulate this if he knew there is actually a "foam" or the "fixed stars" which do play such a role?

If you were to actually study SR and GR, two of the first things you would find are that:

a) Einstein really wanted to call them theories of "invariance" rather than "relativity" because he wanted to avoid people like you making these sorts of simplistic mistakes.
b) It was because of things like the twins Paradox that Einstein went on to develop GR. What he was really after was to show that Gravity, rather than motion, is relative.

He did indeed believe that motion's relation to the distant stars was the solution to the Twin's Paradox, taking his lead from Mach's Far Off Active Mass. It's important to note here, that the principle of relativity does say there is no "preferred or privileged" frame of reference where the laws of physics would be identifiably simpler and easier, but it does NOT say that there is no objective reference to which motion occurs. It is because people equate the two--this loose way that people use the term "relative"--that leads them astray as to what relativity is all about.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8605/1/ ... -field.pdf

There's little point arguing about it when the facts are in. The twins age at different rates. We know this from putting clocks on aircraft and satellites, Muon decay, etc. Also, the GPS satellites have built-in corrections for the effect; if you turn off the correction (which has been done) they start giving the wrong answers. To deny the Twins age at different rates is simply to demand you must be right while the whole world is wrong, about a subject you've no real training in. You might as well tell a plumber he can't use solder on copper pipes because your intuition tells you the pipes will melt.

[DeltaV]

Also, the GPS satellites have built-in corrections for the effect; if you turn off the correction (which has been done) they start giving the wrong answers.

No one is denying that Special Relativity affects the observed clock rate and that corrections are therefore needed.

Why do you insist on equating the extrinsic, kinematic measurement with the intrinsic, dynamic aging?

[tomclarke]

Also, the GPS satellites have built-in corrections for the effect; if you turn off the correction (which has been done) they start giving the wrong answers.

No one is denying that Special Relativity affects the observed clock rate and that corrections are therefore needed.

Why do you insist on equating the extrinsic, kinematic measurement with the intrinsic, dynamic aging?

Given two clocks, one inertial, one accelerated to move relative to first, show different elapsed times in exact (1%) correspondence with SR time dilation when brought together, it is difficult to interpret SR time dilation as anything other than intrinsic.

[DeltaV]

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

[tomclarke]

Surely you've noted that Sachs has not actually coped with the real situation found through experiment that the two brothers do indeed age differently, based upon time dilation?

I must have missed their interview on 60 Minutes. What were the brothers' names?

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?

7. Conclusions

The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.

What do you think of the analysis I posted from wiki, which references the original experiment, the Kelly criticism (which you posted) and further analysis which shows why Kelly did not understand how atomic clock measurements are made and just got it wrong? Or about the followup experimennts (see my post)?

[GIThruster]

Also, the GPS satellites have built-in corrections for the effect; if you turn off the correction (which has been done) they start giving the wrong answers.

No one is denying that Special Relativity affects the observed clock rate and that corrections are therefore needed.

Why do you insist on equating the extrinsic, kinematic measurement with the intrinsic, dynamic aging?

The history and scope of the Twins Paradox is clear. Common sense says that if all motion is relative, then the twins once rejoined, must have clocks that agree, no matter which of them left and returned. Time Dilation is however not in this sense "relative" and the clocks do not agree. Playing at "transforms" in and out of frames merely confuses the issue. The FACT is, the clocks do not agree! Take two clocks, wind them up side by side, put one on a plane or satellite and send it around the world as fast as you can, and when they're rejoined, if you can measure carefully enough (and we can) you'll find that the clocks no longer agree.

Why am I so comfortable with this reality? Because this view is the one that Einstein himself held for decades despite this was not tested in his time, and because it's elegant proof of Mach's Principle, and Jim Woodward's physics. It's because this is true, that Jim Woodward's M-E physics is able to lift us from this rocky orb and set us free to wander the cosmos. Its BECAUSE the clocks do not agree, that we have the strongest reasons to suspect gravinertial propulsion will work.

[tomclarke]

And here is a summary of all the direct "twins paradox" tests.

Including criticism of the above test, and thorough demolition of the criticism explaining why it is wrong. You can criticise anything if you don't bother to read the relevant background.

Also a much more recent test.

of Kelly:

His criticism does not stand up, as he does not understand the properties of the atomic clocks and the way the four clocks were reduced to a single “paper” clock. The simple averages he advocates are not nearly as accurate as the paper clock used in the final paper—that was the whole point of flying four clocks (they call this “correlated rate change”; this technique is used by all standards organizations today to minimize the deficiencies of atomic clocks).

DeltaV if you want to continue to support Kelly's arguments we'll go to source and work out whether this is true?

[DeltaV]

I'm not a statistician, so I can't help you there.