<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF238509"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" 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> Monday, October 26, 2015 1:33 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'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most, maybe all, of what you attribut to me, is not mine, although a good portion of it was rediscoved, as expericed it, by me, then I recognized it in lots of other places. The conventional view, as you too seem to me to support it, is like a magic contraption
in a box which annhilates good luck, say. The crowd rejoices, parties and congradulates itself on having such a stupendous invention. But a child in the crown screems, whoo, there is no box, the contraption is lose and eating us all! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If SR is fully correct as laid out in texts and cited by (uncritical) thinkers, then a cosmic ray zipping along the x-axis is compressing the universe into a flatish (relative to its x) y-z plane.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">I do not get (at all) why you think this is, in any way what standard SR is saying. I thought we had agreed about that. Cosmic rays do not do t<font color="0000FF">ha</font>t. SR never did in any text book I recall. Which one? For example?
Are you ref<font color="0000FF">ferring to? None of this would even conserve energy - let a<font color="0000FF">lone space and time. In the observer frame the particle length is reduced along z (s<font color="0000FF">ay). Equally, in the
<font color="0000FF">particle frame the observer length is reduced along z. Neither has been squashed - it is space that has deform<font color="0000FF">ed into time and time into sp<font color="0000FF">a</font>ce -relatively and equally. There are no forces.
No one was e<font color="0000FF">ver saying there were.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<br>
Other rays on the y and z dimentions are doing the same. Thus the universe in stuffed into a black hole! Will we ever get out? No we'll never get out!. That includes Charley and the rest of us.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fables are always lose enought to wiggle out of, which we all know, so don't bother. My point is, with the ontological view point there are serious global contradictions. If you study carefully the apologetics offered by the main-liners you might see
that their tact for dealing with the problem is always to jump from the ontological interpretation problem to the perspective story, as noted earlier, this jump is often signaled by use of the word "synchronization" of time. The word is not illegitimate,
it has an essential place in explaining the perspective interpretation, correctly so. But, it fails in the case of ontological modifications that persist, say the bilogical age discrepancy of the twins, or Bell's broken string, etc. Such changes are not synchronization
issues in the end, but the result of work done on the subject entities. BUT, not just the entities, the whole universe! Or, where is the rule in SR that tells the user to which objects these phnomena apply and which not. Jusr like QM, where IS that damn
boundary? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">The muons live longer, I do not contest that---period. The question is: how is that to be understood? The options I now see are 1) rejigger the story
to be interpretable (self consistently) in the perspective mode, 2) consider extrainous effects or phenomena that generate more muons down stream than are presently recognized, 3) identfy a process that stabelizes muons somewhat in the ato. or a storage ring.
Maybe, more. <br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">The earth does not affect the incoming muon in any way. In its frame it decays perfectly normally. Noth<font color="0000FF">i</font>ng contracted at all. Not even a bit.</font><br>
</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">SR is not just for the lab, or specific experiments, it, if it is what physics theories purport to be, is a model for universal being and happenings, it
pertains to everything at once. But, where have all the other contractions/dilations gone?
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">One needs to find a smooth maths in which this all makes sense - reciprocally. In every
<font color="0000FF">frame. For all time. In such a way that everything is reciprocal (this is
<font color="0000FF">perhaps an even better word tha<font color="0000FF">n "perspective" though still not perfect. </font></font></font>
<font color="0000FF">T</font>he key is gamma = 1/2 (x+1/x). Sum of thing and inverse. what is thing for one is inverse for the other and inverse for the one thing for the other.<font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"></font></font></font>
As in my papers for SPIE and in dozens of other places. It is already there - and was already there in the
<font color="0000FF">M</font>axwell equations way before Einstien. It is <font color="0000FF">
just blindingly obvious! (Perhaps just a bit too blinding by<font color="0000FF"> the looks of it!).
</font></font></font></span><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em"><font color="0000FF">Here
I will coin a better word in Germano-english. <font color="0000FF">T</font>hingy<font color="0000FF">inversythingy. Th<font color="0000FF">is shoul<font color="0000FF">d</font> be written in a circle
<font color="0000FF">like ourobouros. <br>
</font></font></font></font></span></font></font></font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">Both QM and SR are part of the truth. Basta! Both have gaps, they are human contrivances. Why not fix um?<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
This is just what I think I have done! I have put in relatively properly - absolutely and what comes out is what waves
<font color="0000FF">(</font></font></span><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em"><font color="0000FF">
root energy</font></span>)</font> and what it is waving in - space and time<font color="0000FF"> and their
<font color="0000FF">projections/inverses</font></font>. A solution which is a wavefunction<font color="0000FF">-as-it-should<font color="0000FF">-be. Properly relativistic in all frames, g<font color="0000FF">overned by a single parameter R which goes smoothly
from very <font color="0000FF">small, through 1 to very large - and char<font color="0000FF">act<font color="0000FF">erise<font color="0000FF">s just one thi<font color="0000FF">ng - the relative transformation of space and time.
<font color="0000FF">In the simplistic parlance - t</font>he size of the rulers and the rates of the clocks. Symettrrical<font color="0000FF">ly!</font>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>As in the papers. Forget proving where you think every<font color="0000FF">one else wrong. Tell me where I am wrong<font color="0000FF">!<br>
</font></font></font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">ciao, Al<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Cheers, John.</font><br>
</span></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">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 26. Oktober 2015 um 10:01 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">
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:10.0pt">
Good morning Al!<br>
<br>
My responses interspersed with your interspersions<br>
<br>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0.0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
*.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Hi John:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">My responces interspersed below:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> 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</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">Dear Al,<br>
<br>
I do not buy this "two versions of relativity" thing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">Agreed. What interests me is not a bunch of people who have not yet thought clearly but to get to the root where we differ.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">So what? I am describing the electron as a lightspeed vortex in momentum space. A single electron has to work in all of the many frames in which the object exists - simultanously! I need to get
this or I cannot possibly understand my own theory. That is why!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">Also: simple direct experiments ARE do-able. It did not occur to me to extract lifetimes of the billions of pi-mesons I reconstructed during my PhD and correlate how far they
went with their Lorentz contraction. I just took it as read. They really do live longer. Experimentally. Could have done the experiment though. Would have taken a LONG time then (my these</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">is used three months of the, then, worlds biggest, fastest computer). That would be about fifteen minutes on my new phone then!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">The two are just different aspects of the same thing. One girls space is another mans time.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">I think you are simply wrong here. Indestructible physics girl coming in with the muon measures both creation and decay. She measures where it was created (upper atmosphere ( and where it decayed)
(in that room with the particle detector). She measures how long it lived (2 microseconds). She, sitting still in her indestructableness, saw a planet (ours) coming towards her at seven nines of the speed of light. She concludes the distance between creation
and decay of our hero, the muon, must have been about 2000 feet. That is what the maths tells you. That is what would happen. That is Lorentz contraction - not what you see with light, but what hits you between the eyes. Of course, planet earth would be destroyed
along with all humans in the resulting back-yard nuclear explosion that fragmented the earth around miss indestructible - but perhaps we deserved it!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">AL: If there is a cogent explantions for ontological consequences of the L-xforms, please advise me, i.e., citations or something.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">Me. I'm feeling a bit lonely though! They are in my two papers to SPIE. Read them. Tell me where you think I am wrong. I will be delighted! Michael Mobley has also published similar stuff, if I
remember rightly.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> 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!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">Not so. Nobody's clocks have gone slow. No one is saying they do. You have read too much into what Terrel and Penrose were ACTUALLY saying.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> 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.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">I think, as I said before, the error lies in your mind and is only one little revelation away from enlightenment. I do not know how you have managed to convince yourself you do not get this - but
you have. You are not the only one.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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?</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">There is, simply, no contradiction. You see it. I do not see it. I understand why the time difference comes about. Perfectly symmetrically. If indestructible boy had developed a lab on earth - and
he had a muon too - he would observe pretty much the same as indestructible girl. Maybe 1.5 microseconds, but that would end the discussion!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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!"</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">I care. I am an engineer! Apart from that I agree with much of what you say. I also see lots of holes in Diek’s logic. I wonder if we see the same set of holes? Now that would
be interesting!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma">Al, I am going to go personal. Me too. You want to really get to the bottom of things. Qudos and deepest respect. This is proper intellectual thinking of the first
class and the first order. There are so many things I have assumed in my career and then had fixed by someone coming along and showing me wrong. That person, for me, was usually Martin (thanks mate!). You are one of the few in the group who have who have taken
me on, and dared to express where you think me wrong. David is another, John D another, Chip a third, Richard – of course and Chandra has been there too. This is what we all need: people strong enough to both argue – and gracious enough to concede if required.<span>
</span>Naturally, so far I think you were pretty much all wrong (where you differed with my view) in most respects – but the case where I now know I was wrong (David- on phat photons) is something to treasure in my development. Thank you David. You are my kind
of men. Say what you want. Please hit me everyone! Calm and civilised would be a bonus. Not needed though. I prefer straight to the point. You have not offended me – none of you. I know the deep argument is about the ideas and our shared passion for them.
I am anyway not easily offended. As Viv says: if there is anywhere you think me wrong, please let me be the first (or at least one of the first!) to know.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">AL; regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:blue">Regards back, John W.</span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:16.0px">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF677416" style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" 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> Monday, October 26, 2015 8:05 AM<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'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers</font><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My responces interspersed below:</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:10.0px 5.0px 5.0px 10.0px; padding:10.0px 0 10.0px 10.0px; border-left:2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229)">
<div style="margin:0 0 10.0px 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>
<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>
<font color="0000FF">Agreed. What interests me is not a bunch of people who have not yet thought clearly but to get to the root where we differ.
</font><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>
<font color="0000FF">So what? I am describing the electron as a lightspeed vortex in momentum space. A single electron has to work in all of the many frames in which the object exists - simultanously! I need to get this or I cannot possibly understand my own
theory. That is why!</font><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.<br>
<br>
I think you are simply wrong here. Indestructible physics girl coming in with the muon measures both creation and decay. She measures where it was created (upper atmosphere ( and where it decayed) (in that room with the particle detector). She measures how
long it lived (2 microseconds). She, sitting still in her indestructableness, saw a planet (ours) coming towards her at seven nines of the speed of light. She concludes the distance between creation and decay of our hero, the muon, must have been about 2000
feet. That is what the maths tells you. That is what would happen. That is Lorentz contraction - not what you see with light, but what hits you between the eyes. Of course, planet earth would be destroyed along with all humans in the resulting back-yard nuclear
explosion that fragmented the earth around miss indestructible - but perhaps we deserved it!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Me. I'm feeling a bit lonely though! They are in my two papers to SPIE.
<font color="0000FF">Read them. Tell me where <font color="0000FF">you think I am wrong. I will be delighted!</font></font></font><br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Not so. Nobody's clocks have gone slow. No one is saying they do.</font><br>
<br>
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>
<font color="0000FF">I think, as I said before, the error lies in your mind and is only one little revelation away from enlightenment. I do not know how you have managed to convince yourself you do not get this - but you have.</font><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>
There is, simply, no contradiction. You see it. I do not see it. I understand why the time difference comes about. Perfectly symetrically. If indestructible boy had developed a lab on earth - and he had a muon too - he would observe prtty much the same as indestructible
girl<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> </div>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:16.0px">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">
Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>