<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXVariants-Bold;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle19
{mso-style-name:emailstyle19;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.mi
{mso-style-name:mi;}
span.mo
{mso-style-name:mo;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Hi John, thanks for the Terrell paper. Indeed this is at least part of what I meant when I suggested a book about “perspective in/on special relativity”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">There is an interesting point to be made here, I believe. There is a difference between diffusively glowing objects, diffusively scattering objects (being lit by a source of some, perhaps other
velocity) and specular or directionally emitting objects, such as mirrors or lasers.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">In any case, that Terrell says that a sphere looks like a sphere, whatever, makes me very happy. Note that the electron picture in our paper (though illustrative and just an artist impression)
is not explained too well since the electron looks like an ellipse, just like (and consistent with) its field lines depicted in the Feynman lectures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I have to read Terrell first before I possibly comment any further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Cheers, Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> zondag 18 oktober 2015 11:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; quicycle@gmail.com; ARNOLD BENN<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Muon decay and energy in a bottle<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">This is a reply to another thread - but have started a new one because its is also relevant to another. It is a reply
to Al - on relativity and particle decays.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">From John W: …
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Hi Al, I am quite sure we actually agree in almost every respect. It is only, really, the reality of relative time as measured in clock experiments
and in particle lifetimes – or am I wrong? I have put my contributions this time round in dark blue – my older comments in light blue. I am very interested on ideas of “absolute time” as well – do not get me wrong. I would also be very interested if any lifetime
experiments for certain particles varied by a factor of 2 (if anyone knows anything about these). Sorry the reply has taken a long time – am just ridiculously busy with the day job (which has turned into a bit of a night and weekend job too). The paper I’ve
attached is on perspective in relativity and also has a bit on Wolf’s light-in-the-bottle from the lit at the end. Enjoy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">True.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"><br>
<br>
"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">AK: Take note here that I said "be", not "appear." (Even Einstein always said "appear"!)<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">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
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">(Agreed). </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">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."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Of course not. Just who is saying it is?</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"><br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">AK: No. they see each other's VIRTUAL image of the other's clock running slow. That makes sense.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Nope, to say this better imagine two blind observers: they observe (by listening to the robot voice readout
from both clocks) that the clock that has accelerated rapidly moved away for some time, then accelerated and come back, then accelerated to stop and rejoin the first clock has run slow in the meantime. This is just exactly where Dingle (and Selleri) did not
get it. Blinded by logic! Indeed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Glad we are on the same page with Terrel.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Here is his abstract for "Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction" with red emphasis from me: ...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">It is shown that, if the apparent directions of objects are plotted as points on a sphere surrounding the observer, the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a conformal transformation on the surface of this sphere.
Thus, for sufficiently small subtended solid angle, an object will <span style="color:red">
appear—optically</span>—the same shape to all observers. A sphere will photograph with precisely the same circular outline whether stationary or in motion with respect to the camera. An object of less symmetry than a sphere, such as a meter stick, will
<span style="color:red">appear</span>, when in rapid motion with respect to an observer, to have
<span style="color:red">undergone rotation, not contraction</span>. The extent of this rotation is given by the aberration angle (<span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic">−</span></span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:STIXVariants-Bold">′</span></span>),
in which <span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic">θ</span></i></span> is the angle at which the object is seen by the observer and
<span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:STIXVariants-Bold">′</span></span> is the angle at which the object would be seen by another observer
at the same point stationary with respect to the object. Observers photographing the meter stick simultaneously from the same position will obtain precisely the same picture,
<span style="color:red">except for a change in scale given by the Doppler shift ratio</span>, irrespective of their velocity relative to the meter stick. Even if methods of measuring distance, such as stereoscopic photography, are used, the Lorentz contraction
will not be visible, <span style="color:red">although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be presen</span><span style="color:blue">t</span>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">I have attached the paper. Terrel is, indeed, talking about what one literally “sees”. As in with vision.
Not about what actually happens in the variation of time and space in SR. The last paragraph in the paper (attached) says this explicitly. What he says is that SIZES will not appear Lorentz contracted. They will (appear) (visually) contracted (or expanded)
– but only by a DOPPLER SHIFT. Exactly as I said in the previous emails and in the papers. Also this Doppler shift – as I explain in my papers – is at the root of the reason WHY muons live so long in storage rings. Because everything is made of light-like
stuff it is all different sizes in different frames (but always the same size in its own frame). This is NOT a contradiction – it is just the simple maths of the Doppler shift. Likewise clocks coming towards you will not appear to vibrate slow – but fast.
Going away they will look (visually) slow. I know there is a lot said online in Wikipedia and in textbooks that betrays a lack of understanding of the author as to what is going on. This is perfectly normal. No one understands everything! What is shocking
is that it took more than fifty years (and smart people like Terrel and Penrose) to get this stuff into print explicitly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">The reason one “sees” – (by which I do not mean “look at” I mean measure or observe) time going slow IS
perfectly well understood in standard relativity. I still do not get why anyone has a problem with this (who understands relativity). It is BOTH simply understood in relativity AND is what you actually measure. The reason is that light in free space travels
in straight lines at lightspeed (neglecting gravity) in ALL possible frames. This means anything rod shaped in one frame appears (visually) rod shaped in every frame – by simple projection. All one sees with eye or photo is a ROTATION. Just as Terrel argues.
Martin mentioned this earlier in the “seeing the gunman round the corner” reference. Actually one sees nothing – because humans take a tenth of a second or so to process anything visual so all one actually “sees” is a rapidly expanding and receding rather
small and insignificant planet.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">True: poor muon is not one of the most gifted visual entities! This shows why and how we have been talking
at cross-purposes. To see or not to see, anyone? Anyway – everyone knows that muons are she’s –its gotta be anti-muons that are the boys.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> And, if he did "see" the Earth approaching, it would have to be (as we just agreed) a virtual image.)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">No: this is merely vision, not the underlying reality.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">This out is (kind of) available for atmospheric muon experiments, but not for lab-created or other particles
where both creation and decay ARE observed. The simple fact is that the slightly straighter paths (fractionally closer to lightspeed) do go tens or hundred of times further. There is no out. However much you may want it. It is not a conspiracy of silence on
these experiments. I know. I have done them myself. Thousands and thousands of them. I analysed the biggest dataset in the world at the time on the worlds most powerful (then) computer. Short-lived hadronic particles do go for metres when they usually decay
in nanoseconds. They just do. Even light only goes a foot in a nanosecond – so how do they do that then? Relativity of time and space does explain this. If there is another theory which does I am happy to talk about it – but whatever it is it has to deal
with what is observed in experiment.<br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Sorry Al – I was not referring to you in those comments – but to others in the same thread who appeared to
be wishing SR away.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">AK: These comments show that you are not taking on board what I have actually said.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">This is certainly true – when you talked about things actually stretching and contracting I should have realised
it was joke.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> I have never rejected SR. That complex afflicts others, not me.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Good!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> 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! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">No. The slowing of clocks and the long life of short-lived particles is real. It is measured. If you want
to say it is sci-fi YOU, have to say why and explain the clock-slowing experiments in an equally convincing way. Sorry, this is the scientific method and it is brutal!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> 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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">BTW, maths per se cannot confirm some assertion, just negate it. Can be that the maths coincide for wildly different
entities or processes. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Could indeed be so (and probably is!).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white">ciao, Al</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";background:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Cheers, John W.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1">The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>