<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><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 name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">From John W:<br/>
<br/>
Al, Albrecht is right. There is no contradiction - just something you need to understand about the symmetry. You seem to see a contradiction where there is none present. You make some statements as though they are fact which are not fact.<br/>
For example you say >>></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">AK: Albrecht is at least ambigious if he doesn't make the distinction between appearances via projection and ontological modifications via mysterious consequences for "molecular force" and the like. His e-mail, as are mine and everybody else often, was written on the fly. Incomplete. </span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">AK: Take note here that I said "be", not "appear." (Even Einstein always said "appear"!)<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Yes they can. Yes they must, it has to be symmetric! Saying something does not make it true, however sensible it may seem to the sayer. There is no actual dilation. The existence of another entity somewhere has no bearing on the local properties elsewhere. All is as viewed, all is perspective (good word). If this is what you are on about then we agree.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;">AK: Evidently, we agree (to some extent). I hold the view (not mine by orignation) that the perspective view-point is self consistent, but that the ontological-modification view-point leads to contradictions. An entity in its own frame cannot BE both long and short. As I recall this is what the logicians call the "Principle of Excluded Middle."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><br/>
<br/>
<span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">It seems to me though that is not all those textbook writers that are missing something but you. Both observers DO see each other clocks running slow. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;">AK: No. they see each other's VIRTUAL image of the other's clock running slow. That makes sense.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">The Muon in the muon decay sees the earth as approaching it at near lightspeed -in its primary stillness and pure stationary state. The Earth it observes is still round - but as round as a pancake. The muon decays in 2.2 microseconds, in its frame, as usual. This layers multiple kilometres into the earth in the earth frame though. This is because the muon thinks the earth is as flat as a pancake. No contradiction - no problem. If it were two earths colliding, with muons in them, each muon in each earth would see the other earth as flat. Perfectly symmetrically. Both sets of observers (as their last act in this case) would observe muons to live longer when moving fast in their frame.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">AK: Your assertions, made, as you claim mine are, "ex cathdra," are in crass conflict with Terrell analysis of what a relativistic traveler sees. His analysis is nowadays generally accepted by the so-called main-stream even. So, I'd say it pays not to dictate what a muon sees. He doesn't see a damn thing (or least makes no use of it in the analysis of the decay. And, if he did "see" the Earth approaching, it would have to be (as we just agreed) a virtual image.) I argue that the analysis of the muon story is a "dog's breakfast" of both some valid and mostly rejected (as being not from perspective-viewpoint) SR folklore notions. A direct out from this situation would be to show that the ensemble of muon generation events is actually distributed down stream from the presumed (never observed) source location.<br/>
<br/>
This is all symmetric. The base reason (for space and time contraction) is explained in the first of my two papers to SPIE (where gamma is derived from photon energy transformations E=H nu) , and arises, simply, from the linearity and conservation of energy. It is just derivative of the Doppler shift of photons. Dead simple. Do the maths! You can discard SR if you like, but you must also lose energy conservation and the relation E=h nu if you do. SR is that relation which maintains energy linearity and conservation of energy for light. Chandra is right: there are some things that are simply more fundamental than other things. Energy (and hence frequency) is, apparently, more fundamental than space and time scales. You need to get this! Read my paper!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;">AK: These comments show that you are not taking on board what I have actually said. I have never rejected SR. That complex afflicts others, not me. SR as 4-D space-time projection o 3/2 D is fine, as an agent of the modification of time (which I tend to see as absolute, contrary to clocks) is wild sci-fi! Symmetry is also to be called upon carefully. John Bell's string will not break becasue some cosmic ray passes the rocket ship complex with v ~ c. Or, at least, the premise to his story would have to be rejected becasue the string could never be tied, given the profusion of cosmic rays, in the first place!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;">BTW, maths per se cannot confirm some assertion, just negate it. Can be that the maths coincide for wildly different entities or processes. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;">ciao, Al</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0cm;"><br/>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin-top: 0.0cm;
margin-right: 0.0cm;
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
p {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
pre {
margin-top: 0.0cm;
margin-right: 0.0cm;
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0cm;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: "Courier New";
}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar {
font-family: Consolas;
}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0 {
font-family: Consolas;
}
span.emailstyle18 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.emailstyle21 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle24 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style></div></body></html>