<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Gentlemen:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding "time dilation," many consider the situation altogether unclear---not without reason. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The argument about mesons seen at sea level seems not to take account of the cosmic rays reaching the lower atomosphere before initiang the chain pi->mu->e. At CERN, the 10 or so detectors had to be put inside the ring (so I'm told) for lack of space and the results recalibrated theoretically to compensate! Thus, there was enough wiggle room here to protect reputation and !! funding.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Clocks-around-the-workd has been criticized for two reasons: 1) the data was post-selected (i.e., some thrown out becasue it "obviously" didn't fit) and 2) the stability of atomic clocks then (probably now too) was at least two order of magnitude too low for the experiment. Also note, this experiment was funded by the Navy resulting in the fact that the raw data was classified! This may still be the case although I think I remember hearing that at least a portion was sprung by the Irishman who was then first to discover and point out the data manipulation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>At the end of the day, perhaps the best account of the two SR effects can be called: "Minkowski perspective." Which means that no objects are LF contracted, nor are clocks (time intervals) dilated; rather just their reports to observers in different inertial frames get the info so as to form an aborrated "virtual image," which is modified, just like objects seen from a distance appear smaller in Newtonian physics. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even Einstein always said: "As SEEN from the observer's (stationary) frame" regarding all supposed LFcontrated displacements and dilated intervals.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 11:07 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys@a-giese.de" <phys@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"><br/>
Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an "at hoc" assumption? The dilation is<br/>
- easily visible; one can move a clock forth and back and compare it later to another clock which was at rest all the time. The clock in motion is then retarded. This fact is used (and so also proven) at the operation of GPS satellites.<br/>
- there are a lot of indications that in elementary particles there is a permanent motion at c (speed of light), "zitterbewegung". This is a simple physical reason for dilation. It does not even need a relativity principle.<br/>
<br/>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
pre {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: "Courier New";
}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 8.0pt;
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar {
font-family: Consolas;
}
span.apple-converted-space {
}
span.BalloonTextChar {
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
}
span.EmailStyle22 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
ol {
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
}
ul {
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
}
--></style></div></body></html>