<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My responces interspersed below:</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> Montag, 26. Oktober 2015 um 04:22 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "'Joakim Pettersson'" <joakimbits@gmail.com>, "'Anthony Booth'" <abooth@ieee.org>, "'Ariane Mandray'" <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--P {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
-->
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">
<div>Dear Al,<br/>
<br/>
I do not buy this "two versions of relativity" thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: Neither do I. But there clearly are two interpretation of the Lorentz-tranformatiom consequences known as time-dilation & LF-contraction. One, that they effect the receiver (perspcetive) and two, the sender (ontological). So much is obvious from the literature. <br/>
<br/>
In reality, there is only one. Proof. Imagine there exists two, both purporting to be a more "true" version of relativity. Either they are in every respect the same, in which case there is only one. Alternatively they differ in some respect. Experiment should then be designed to differentiate between the two. If one agrees, and the other does not, then that which corresponds less closely with experiment should be discarded, leaving only one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: Agreed, but so what? The required speeds to see these effects are so high that simple, direct experiments are not (yet?) doable. The doable experiments all involve complex situations from which a chain of assumptions need to be made to draw a conclusion. Thus, we (+scads of others) debate. Again, only the ontological interpretation is questioned. NOT SR per se. I see not contraditicon in the rest of it.<br/>
<br/>
Now I do not claim that my understanding of relativity is perfect, however I am not aware of any experimental property of space of time with which it is in (experimental) conflict. This includes a perfect understanding, within the narrow framework of SR, of why muon decay and the decay of other particles, is observed to slow. Now my view of SR has nothing to do with synchronising clocks - on the contrary - so do not paint me with that. I am not concerned with what other people do not (supposedly) get - only with what I do not get and what you do not get.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: Of cousrse all the "experimental" effects have experimental verification! Totologically. LF-contraction, for example, has NO experimental verification. But, it is as much a feature of SR and time dilation. Thus, one is permitted (actually logically obliged) to recognize that SR, however right in some circustance, contains a fundamental open question.<br/>
<br/>
Now I do not (yet) understand why your version of relativity does not do that for you, neither is it my place to explain something I think is well explained elsewhere. So where is it you think we actually disagree, in that I get why clocks slow and you do not? I feel that the confusion you have comes about in thinking that projection is somehow a visual thing (as in your argument about what you thought Terrel and Penrose were on about earlier). Please correct me if I am wrong.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: If there is a cogent explantions for ontological consequences of the L-xforms, please advise me, i.e., citations or something. BTW, I get the clocks slowed, but I also get too many other objects besides the clocks slowed, in principle---but not observed. SR is mutual, (Relativity Principle) so that per its rules-of-the-game, a cosmic ray anwhere, consdering itself as at rest in its frame, should have slowed all cocks throughout the whole universe! In short, SR+ontological interpretation, is not self-consistent, even while if one uses it with skill to a particular sequence of events, it seems to account for observations. This problem is a symptom of deeper error, which if solved can be expected to contribute to new physics.<br/>
<br/>
Now Terrel just uses standard relativity - as he explains in the paper. That contraction is not observed VISUALLY, is neither here nor there. The actual observed relative contraction and slowing of clocks is real. As measured in experiment. They can and do both go slow, symetrically. Just as both observers far away from each other each perceive the other to be small. I really really do not get where you see the contradiction lies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: As noted above, the contradiction is most evident OUTSIDE the experiment. What determines what legitimately belongs just to the experiment and what the rest of the universe? A fully correct theory would not present such a dicotomy. Like QM and the shifty boundary to the classical world? These features are flatout symptoms of misunderstnading/incompleteness/contradiction, who knows?<br/>
<br/>
I read the Dieks papers for the first time just now. While I do not think he has explained, or got, the whole story (who has!), he makes some interesting points. Amongst others is precisely why, where acceleration is present, the physical origin of the clock slowing arises. You claim he does not get it, but I'm interested in your view of just precisely where you think he falls short.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: Then Dieks point coinsides with AE (Naturwissenschaften, ca. 1917) in which he blamed GR for time dilation. Since then, any number of critics have pointed out that a touch-tag version of the twin setup in which only info is traded in flyby's between twins, i.e., there are no accelerations involved at all, SR still predicts the same age disparity on return. Plane text: GR is not the culprit and this AE paper can only be taken as an indightment of his 1905 round trip analysis. Thus, Dieks' paper (idea in it) is not novel (AE was first) and not correct (subsequent coounterexamples).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: From previous (now dated) personal contact I know that Dieks has much to say, some of it insightful, but none of it contributes to the resolution of the major challenges facing physics theory. And, granted parochially, I have a hard time with those who fail to see what to me were always obvious clefts in logic and reasonableniss in QM & SR. Always seemed to me their position was more sociolgically dertemined than honest intelletual persuit of understanding. Among technologists this consideration is gratuitous, "who cares if the damn bridge doesn't fall, that's all we'r after!"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL: I hope my views are not overly vested with ad hominum emotion. While I can't avoid it totally, in fact I'm more fired up by the objective, professional dispute. People come and go; electrons are forever!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>AL; regards</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br/>
<br/>
Regards, John W.</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr/>
<div id="divRpF521884" style="direction: ltr;"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 24, 2015 7:04 PM<br/>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; 'Joakim Pettersson'; 'Anthony Booth'; 'Ariane Mandray'; 'ARNOLD BENN'<br/>
<b>Subject:</b> [SPAM?] Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers</font><br/>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Dear Mark & followers:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>SR critics object only to what I describe as the "ontological" model of time-dilation & LF-contraction, not the "perspective" model (often easily recognized by the appearance of the term "synchronized" time). Unrestricted SR supports respond to this criticism almost always by explaing how the "perspective" view point explains many historical 'paradox's'. But, of course, their explantion is beside the point, as the critics already do not object to the perspctive view point. Always, the outsider criticism pertains to some phenomena in which there is a direct geometrical modification of some material entity, say, Bell's string between rockets, the rim of Ehrenfest's disk, the biological age of 'twins', etc. A few of the supporters of the ontological model actually hypothesize SR effects modifyoing molecular forces determinig the size of atoms. I don't see it. Dieks us a very suave and cultivated gentleman, but as a physicist, he is either just as confused as most, or an addicted crowd pleaser (tell'em what they want to hear).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Muon expriemnts are still a problem (for me for certain). They appear to show time dilation alright, but not as a perspective effect involving light rays back and forth to an observer. Of course, the muons are in fact in E&M interchange with the lab in storage rings, so there is hope there, maybe. But I can't yet fathom the details. All E&M interchange is equivalent to "observation," so in this sence perspective has a material effect on the interaction of all chages and all charge ensembles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Re: EPR experiments: Whatever you think, mostly just hear, Bell's so-called "theorem," absolutely precludes explaining the experiments with a both 'local' and 'real' (where this means no human induced wasve packet collapse, i.e., the moon is there even when nobody is looking) model. If one grants that classical physics meets these creiteria, then EPRniks have a problem. As can be found in my past papers (all available on <a href="http://www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com" target="_blank">www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com</a>) you will see that so far I have not found an EPR experiment that cannot be explained with classical optics. I do not walk on water or multiply fishes; this is no miracle! It is easy becasue Bell made a mistake---as Jaynes discovered. (I am convinced Jaynes, and students, would have found these classical explantions first had he not died shortly after publishing his Bell criticism.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is also concievable that Bell then died of shock when he read Jaynes' report a year or so latter. At the time he virtually had a ticket to Stockholm in his pocket, that went up, not as smoke, but, maybe, as a "collapsed wave packet"!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, the use of the singlet state introduces a profound mystification within EPR analysis, It is a state, supposedly ontological, that has NEVER bees seen. It is said that, measuring one side collapses both---von Neumann again. Further, it is a logical aboniation: as the sum of two mutally exclusive options. [What I see it as, is a proxy for the ensemble of equal numbers of its component parts. It has the same average, and therefore in certain calculations gives the same result. But it itself is not a memeber of the ensemble. This would be Einstein's view too; QM is just a statistical meta theory, like Thermodynamcis. All of its results pertain to "expectations" or averages.] In any case, with these concepts it takes no logical jujitsu to explain EPR or the subsequent entanglement experiments. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In fact, whatever the relationship of QM is to SR, entanglement and its imagined uses, has no rational connection to SR or GR or, especially, optics of any breed. It is an animal fantasized in the effort to consider QM a complete (not statistical) theory. Give that up, as Einstein advocated, and the wizardry can be sent back to Hollywood.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>