On Feb 20, 2005, at 10:49 AM,

long as you stick to global inertial frames.
=20
That means there is no REAL "two clocks" problem at all for SR! Look yo=

algebraically-challenged Laputonian Meta-Theoretical Pundefecator=20
spewing Malapropisms and trite observations as if they were profound=20
insights of genius in a Rossini comic opera - all you need is the black=

wide-brimmed Pedant's Hat in The Barber of Seville! No doubt you shined=

at the Academy of Laputa's Floating Castle where your brilliant thesis =
was how to get cucumbers from Lady Circe's piggywigs!=20
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html ;-)
=20
1. Special Relativity is a GLOBAL THEORY by construction for truly flat=

Minkowski space-time. It ONLY deals with GLOBAL INERTIAL FRAMES (GIFs).=

The translation group T4 is a GLOBAL PHASE SYMMETRY in SR that, when=20
LOCALLY GAUGED, reduces the Lorentz group to a LOCAL SYMMETRY in the=20
tangent fiber of the now warped base space. The GIFS are replaced by=20
LOCAL LIFs & LNIFs. In 1905 SR the base space and the tangent space are=

degenerate - the same thing, no distinction. In the LOCAL GAUGING of T4=

to Diff(4) the compensating gauge potential, analog to Au in U(1) local=

gauging to get Maxwell's EM, is
=20
Bu =3D bu^aPa/h =3D (Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
=20
h =3D Planck's constant
=20
Pa is the energy-momentum generator of T4
=20
The Einstein-Cartan tetrad (that can include torsion fields) is
=20
bu^a =3D &u^a + bu^a
=20
&u^a is the trivial holonomic tetrad for SR, i.e., the Kronecker-Delta
=20
bu^a is the non-trivial anholonomic tetrad that has all the NEW PHYSICS=

of Einstein's 1916 GR beyond his 1905 SR.
=20
guv(Einstein) =3D (&u^a + bu^a)nab(Minkowski)(&v^b + bv^b)
=20
The above equation IS EEP!
=20
Gauge transforms of Bu <-> Diff(4) GCTs
=20
=20
But if there really is no problem here, than why have card-carrying=20
physicists been arguing about its resolution for all these years? Do yo=

really imagine that all these people have overlooked your one-line=20
formal "solution"? In all this time?
=20
Like who? Where? Cite references!
=20
=20
If you actually read Einstein's 1905 paper, you will see that you are=20
supposed to have full physical reciprocity of the effects of uniform=20
relative motion on clocks, as given by the Lorentz-Einstein=20
transformation rules.
=20
AND SO YOU DO! There is no reciprocity problem in 1905 SR kinematics.
=20
Yes you do get full reciprocity in global inertial frames; but when you=

try to apply SR to the rest frame of a moving clock that is not globall=

inertial, the accumulated clock retardation effect is *not additive*=20
across different inertial segments; whereas the clock retardation of a =
clock that is *actually* moving is additive in this sense.
=20
This is meaningless gibberish. You simply calculate the frame-invariant=

path-dependent integral of ds/c. There is no problem when forces=20
accelerate the clock to different global inertial frames. Everything is=

consistent and reciprocal. It does not matter which GIF you choose to=20
look at the process. You will always get the SAME INVARIANT ANSWERS for=

the PROPER TIME of the clocks, ONE, TWO, .... INFINITY. This is the=20
first problem Phil Morrison addressed at Cornell when he introduced SR =
and Hans Bethe certainly did not disagree when I took his Senior Honors=

Seminar (1960) on experimental tests of 1905 SR. How come your "two=20
clocks problem" never came up? Simple Paul. It is a figment of your=20
deranged imagination, but of course you know better than Bethe,=20
Morrison, Rindler, Wheeler, Thorne, Misner, Penrose, Hawking! What do=20
they know about the logical foundations of 1905 SR compared to the Grea=

Zielinski who, Samson-like, leaves The Temple of Einstein's Relativity =
in ruins! Paul, could you be a victim of delusions of grandeur perhaps?=
=20
So if you are switching inertial frames, you do NOT have full cumulativ=

physical reciprocity of time dilatation, which I am arguing breaks the =
supposed physical symmetry of the theory. In other words, you have=20
formal kinematical "relativity" without actual *physical* relativity.
=20
Hogwash.
=20
My versions of the two-clock experiment show very clearly that this has=

nothing to do with the physical effects of acceleration on the moving=20
clocks, and has nothing to do with the appearance of inertial fields in=

the turnaround (as in some textbook solutions to the probem). It shows =
that it has only to do with the *purely kinematical* change of inertial=

frames that in SR are governed by the Lorentz-Einstein transformation=20
rules, as to the effects of relative *inertial* motion on the readings =
of the clocks.
=20
Hand-waving with no algebra, no math in a worked-out concrete example.

=20
I actually worked out the simple GIF INVARIANT algebra for your Fig 1 t=

=20
s(Green) =3D s(Red) =3D (1/2)^1/2(1 - (v/c)^2)^1/2s(Blue)
=20
there is no problem with reciprocity.
=20
=20
So I am saying that this is a deep internal issue inside 1905 SR that I=

think points clearly to a fundamental theoretic distinction between=20
actual and relative motion.
=20

Hogwash! What is true is that one CAN have an absolute rest frame and=20
still not violate the current battle-tests of 1905 SR (e.g. Reg Cahill'=

& Consoli's conflicting experimental claims on Michelson-Morley (MM)=20
rotation fringe shifts and two-laser frequency beats) as O(1,3) SBVS=20
(Spontaneous Broken Vacuum Symmetry) in which a particular space-time=20
direction (AKA "rapidity") is preferred as "absolute rest", i.e. no n=20
=3D/=3D 1 MM rotational fringe shifting) exactly like a preferred direc=

in space appears in a ferromagnetic ground state below the Curie point =
in a FINITE domain. These are CONTINGENT "More is different" (PW=20
Anderson) emergent collective phenomena.
=20
Anyone who thinks there is such a problem that rocks the foundations of=

this trivial kinematical part of special relativity is simply=20
incompetent in the subject and doesn't understand the basic concepts of=

relativity.
=20

Jack, I don't think it's quite this simple.
=20
Of course the theory still works fine, and is formally consistent; and =
has a beautiful geometric model -- but if I'm right, the meaning=20
traditionally attached to it is simply not supportable.
=20
Z.
=20
You are not right. You are not even wrong and it is completely crackpot=

for you to persist in this delusion in spite of empirical evidence and =
rational argument.
=20
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
=20
Paul, this below is what interests me not your weak-minded lame-brained=

meta-theoretic philofarcical Laputonian Malapropic misunderstandings of=

elementary secondary school special relativity. Your relativity writing=

are static, noise.
=20
re: http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
=20
Space-Time Warps & Theory of Everything
=20
All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic =93force-without-force=94=

fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical=20
action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by=

the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS=20
effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry=20
intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan =93tetrad=94/=94Ri=

rotation coefficients=94 extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are =
analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the=20
Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields,=

but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads=

bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 int=

Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in =
Shipov=92s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the=20
disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a=20
vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the=20
dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to =
close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear eve=

in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature=20
disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging o=

the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total=20
energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the=20
local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity=20
generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J =3D L + S (space-spa=

rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in=20
instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this=

dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The=20
lack of preferred space-time frames with =93absolute velocity=94, as in=

usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the=

vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost=20
sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular =
=93rapidity=94 (direction in4D space-time) of =93absolute rest=94 is se=

a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction i=

selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged =
this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not=20
consistent with each other. It=92s too soon to know if there is any mer=

to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is=

=93More is different=94 spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in=

off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and=20
possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent=20
ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) an=

non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H.=20
Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).
=20
Bu =3D bu^aPa/h =3D (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
=20
{Pa} =3D Lie algebra of T4
=20
guv(Einstein LNIF) =3D (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)
=20
&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting th=

curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.
=20
=20
=20