<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht (et al.),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm sorry but, like so many others,
you appear to be confusing reciprocity with (apparent)
invariability. Until one squarely addresses the issue of reciprocity
(which is widely confirmed by experiment, for example in the LHC and by
anomalous aberration of starlight), one is in no position to counter the
conventional claim that all inertial reference frames are
equivalent - that there is no unique objectively static reference
frame<FONT color=#000000 size=3 face="Times New Roman">.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It's of course axiomatic that any
physical effect that leads to physical contraction in an object's direction of
motion will also cause contraction of a ruler in that direction - so the object
length will appear to be unaltered; likewise, it's axiomatic that an effect
leading to reduction in passage-of-time effects in a moving object will cause
corresponding reduction in rate of a clock (of whatever nature - including the
one in an observer's brain) travelling at that same speed - so speeds, including
the speed of light (for a slightly different reason), will appear
unaltered. This is apparent invariability - it is NOT
reciprocity.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Reciprocity requires that if I am
moving at speed v and you are static, not only will you see my clock moving at a
slower speed as defined by time dilation - but I will, to precisely the same
degree, see your clock as moving with the same time-dilation factor as YOU
observe in MY clock; likewise, you will see the length of my spacecraft (or
whatever) contracted in accordance with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction - and
from MY perspective YOUR spacecraft (or whatever) will appear to be contracted
to precisely the same degree. THIS is reciprocity, and it cannot be so
lightly brushed aside as you brush aside (correctly) the phenomenon of apparent
invariability (which is in fact TRUE invariability of ratios of measurements in
the same inertial frame).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It is reciprocity, not simply
invariability, that leads to assertions of frame symmetry. Clearly, if (as
you and I both are certain is the case) there IS a unique objectively static
inertial frame, then reciprocity cannot be simply a comparison of ratios in
different frames: in a moving frame time dilation and contraction WILL apply, in
the static frame they will NOT. So how do we square this
circle?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The answer is, once again, observer
effects. It is nothing like so easy as your dismissal of apparent
invariance - but it CAN be shown that something which is clearly NOT the case in
a static object (time dilation, contraction) will APPEAR to be so from a moving
reference frame. This is a significant feature of my published work, and
it's absolutely essential to explaining SRT 'frame symmetry' from the
perspective of a system that includes a uniquely static inertial reference
frame. SRT as it's generally accepted IS a myth (Hence the title of my
latest book: "The Relativity Myth"), but it's a very pervasive and persuasive
myth and one that needs firmly and thoroughly debunking if physics is to
progress beyond this point at which it's currently stalled.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With regard to your comments on
acceleration: I agree completely that acceleration is significantly different
from gravitational effects, and that time dilation under acceleration is simply
a summation of speed-based dilation; however that summation must of course be
handled rather more carefully than simple constant-velocity time dilation, which
involves simply a constant factor. It's for this reason that the twins
paradox resolves itself quite satisfactorily without breaching the bounds of
standard SRT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">Albrecht Giese</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Fw: STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Hi Grahame,</P>
<P>the point of <U>acceleration</U> is a very important one in my view, as 1.)
it is misunderstood by many and 2.) it points to an error in GRT which I shall
detail further down. <BR></P>
<P>The case of SRT is easy. Time dilation and contraction (of fields, space,
.. whatever) only depends on the actual speed of a system. Whether this speed
is part of an acceleration process or a constant speed has no influence. You
will find this also in textbooks about SRT. There is nowhere a formula given
which relates dilation (or whatever) to the actual acceleration.<BR></P>
<P><U>Reciprocity</U> in SRT is given. It is formally and physically given if
we follow the SRT interpretation of Einstein. It is also formally given but
physically violated in the interpretation of Lorentz because for Lorentz there
is an absolute frame at rest. The apparent reciprocity in calculations and
experiments is caused here by the fact that at motion in relation to the fixed
system the physical quantities change but at the same time the measurement
tools change so that the effects exactly compensate. Example is the speed of
light which is in the Lorentzian system in no way constant but is measured as
constant because clocks etc. change at motion in the way needed.<BR></P>
<P>Regarding GRT, however, <U>acceleration</U> is a very critical point. The
strong <U>equivalence principle</U> is the essential basis for Einstein's GRT.
However, this principle is violated. Acceleration and gravity are physically
different and can be distinguished. Two examples for this: 1.) An electron
radiates when accelerated, it does not radiate when at rest in a gravitational
field. 2.) Clock time is slowed down in a gravitational field but it is not
slowed down with respect to any acceleration. If an object is accelerated and
so in motion, time is slowed down but only with respect of the actual speed,
not with respect to the acceleration. A clear experimental proof for this was
the muon storage ring at CERN. The life time of the muons was extended, but
the extension was in relation to the speed (close to c), but not in relation
to the enormous acceleration in the ring. If that would have an effect, the
life time should have been extended by another factor of at least 1000.
<BR></P>
<P>That is an interesting point because without the strong equivalence
principle the GRT of Einstein has no logical basis. <BR></P>
<P>And anyway, I want to warn of the uncritical use of "principles". A
principle is in my view not a physical law but a preliminary detection of a
rule. Could we imagine that a particle "knows" that it has to follow a
principle? That would be like religion. -- So, if a principle is
detected, the next goal should always be to find the physical law(s) behind
the principle. In the case of SRT this is not done by Einstein but by
Lorentz.<BR></P>
<P>Albrecht<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 04.06.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:8B188D8509FE471BA7D89B497A179CF9@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I agree fully with at least your
first four paragraphs. It looks as if you may not have read my email
in full: in my 4th-from-last paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which
effectively summarise all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4
paras.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm not sure that I agree,
though, with your observation on acceleration. Constant acceleration
is of course just a steady transition through inertial frames, so that
transition has an effect on relationships between an accelerating frame and
a non-accelerating frame (or another constantly-accelerating frame) that
fits with principles of SR; I suppose it depends on what you mean by "does
not play any role". I believe that the Equivalence Principle, equating
effects of acceleration to effects of an equivalent gravitational
field, has pretty good experimental credentials.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For me, though, the important
thing is the claimed <STRONG>reciprocity</STRONG> of SR, which in turn
leads to the claim of frame symmetry. The fact is, that reciprocity is
also borne out by experiment, including in particle accelerator
experiments. The critical point here, though, is that this reciprocity
is reciprocity of <STRONG>measurement</STRONG>. That's why I refer to
aspects of SR as 'observer effects'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Apart from in my own writings I
haven't seen <STRONG>any</STRONG> explanation for that observed reciprocity
that doesn't depend on objective inertial frame symmetry. Such an
explanation is essential to non-symmetric explanations of anomolous
aberration of starlight, for example, as well as various particle
accelerator experiments. I have fully explored this issue and have
derived reciprocal relationships for observers on the move who observe
events in a static frame: I have shown that for fully subjective reasons
such observers (and instruments) will yield results that appear to show the
Lorentz Transformation acting reciprocally - thus 'proving' objective frame
symmetry. Without such an explanation any claim that SR is
<STRONG>not</STRONG> an objective reality cannot hold water.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I agree also that principles that
establish SR as an explainable phenomenon can be extended to GR, including
every aspect of the Equivalence Principle. But this of course depends
on a rational explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance'
interaction of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by such bodies
comes about. This I have also done, simply by reference to phenomena
already discussed and widely agreed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>