Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.

On Nov 14, 1:35 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You've blinded yourself.

In Lorentz's theory the helicity of the shafts is due to measurement
error only. The moving  observers' clocks and measuring sticks are out
of calibration wrt those in the proper frame. Thus, if a moving
observer measures by means of light signals the rotational phases of
the gear at different points along x, and assumes incorrectly that the
signals propagate at c wrt him, then he will get strange albeit
noncontradictory results..

Niether shaft will be helical wrt proper frame, however, and since the
proper frame determines the "actual" state, then there is no
contradiction. The transformation doesn't  change the physical state,
but only the perception of it.

But in Eirstein's view the helicity of the moving shaft is not merely
a measurement artifact, but an actual deformation of one shaft wrt the
other, i.e., of moving clocks wrt each other.

Lorentz's view of the twins paradox also differs considerably.
If the platform on which both twins are initially located is moving at
v wrt proper frame, and then one twin decelerates to zero speed wrt
proper frame, he is now aging (objectively) faster than the twin on
the platform.  When he accelerates back to v, the two are aging at
equal rates once more. The displacement that has accrued between them
isn't an issue, as you'll see.

If the platform then decelerates to zero speed wrt proper frame, then
the two can walk over to each other at equal speeds and compare their
relative ages, and find that the twin who never left the platform is
the younger of the two..

This same sequence, from Einstein's perspective, and letting the
platform represent the proper frame, would call for quite the opposite
conclusion. The traveling twin ages less.

Go work on your "philosophy" on your own time. This is not a
philosophical difference being discussed here. The theories are not
equivalent. This means that your "Lorentz" approach to a solution to
the paradox is a strawman. You can't provide a solution in special
relativity because there isn't one.

I already know what objections you're going to try to implant into the
argument above, so here's a slightly different version.

Twins are initially at rest at the same position on a platform that is
moving at v wrt the rest frame (proper frame) K. Their clocks are
syncronized. One twin decelerates quickly to a speed of zero wrt K.
He is now aging at a faster rate than the twin who stayed on the
platform. The travelling twin then accellerates quickly back to v, and
is once again at rest wrt the platform and wrt his twin. He is now
older than the stay-on-the-platform twin.

This holds both in Lorentz's and in Einstein's views, for the observer
in the proper frame K. But if instead the platform is taken as proper
frame initially, which would be justifiable according to Einstein, but
not according to Lorentz, then the two will disagree on the outcomes.
In Einstein's view the travelling twin is now aging slower than the
stay-on-the-platform twin. When the travelling twin sets back down on
the platform he will be the younger of the two, which is contradictory
to the prediction made in the frame K. But in Lorentz's view, the
travelling twin is still the older of the two, even if the twins are
themselves unable to objectively identify that fact, i.e., because of
their out of calibration measuring instruments.

Thus there is no contradiction in Lorentz's view, but there is a
contradiction in Einstein's view. The fact that one theory has been
discounted by the argument and the other hasn't, should be sufficient
evidence to confirm that the theories are not equivalent.

The spinning shaft/gear argument drives a similar wedge between the
two theories, proving that if such a twisting effect of the shafts is
seen, then it is necessarily a measurment artifact only, because an
actual twisting of one shaft wrt the other would cause gear binding,
and an illusory twisting would not cause binding. Einstein's view,
you see, has physical changes occuring to objects in the universe
brought about by nothing other than a change in ones perspective of
it. This is absolutely an absurd notion, one that Lorentz neither
agrees with, nor predicts.

I'm not trying to argue the difference between the two theories here,
but the fact is, you tried to resolve the gear argument using Lorentz,
and thus were answering a question that I didn't ask, nor even did I
imply it. I specifically specified the predictions of "special
relativity". If you cannot see that they are in fact contradictory,
then look again. A straight line cannot be superposed over a helix.
In Lorentz's version this contradiction doesn't appear.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: May sound silly, but then it isnt my theory.
    ... of calibration wrt those in the proper frame. ... Niether shaft will be helical wrt proper frame, however, and since the ... If the platform on which both twins are initially located is moving at ... and then one twin decelerates to zero speed wrt ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: May sound silly, but then it isnt my theory.
    ... of calibration wrt those in the proper frame. ... If the platform on which both twins are initially located is moving at ... and then one twin decelerates to zero speed wrt ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: May sound silly, but then it isnt my theory.
    ... Twins are initially at rest at the same position on a platform that ... moving at v wrt the rest frame K. Their clocks are ... He is now aging at a faster rate than the twin who stayed on the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Paradox in need of resolution.
    ... > Two identical masses, at equal initial heights wrt the ground, drop ... > simultaneously from a moving platform. ... Wrt an observer, who is at rest ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Paradox in need of resolution.
    ... Wrt an observer, who is at rest on the platform, the accelerations of the two masses under the force of gravity commence simultaneously. ... Wrt the platform observer the masses will strike the surface simultaneously, having equal distances to fall, and equal simultaneous accelerations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)