<!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"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The difference between invariability
and reciprocity is quite clear-cut - at least on the surface. When one
looks further into it one then also needs to distinguish clearly between
objective reality and subjective impressions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As you say,
Einsteinian Relativity ASSUMES reciprocity - by assuming that all inertial
frames are symmetric (hence the use of hyperbolic rotations in 4-D spacetime to
represent changes in velocity). In a universe (the one that you and I know
to be the case) where inertial frames are NOT symmetric (since all motion is
relative to one unique objectively static reference frame) then of course
reciprocity is not an objective reality - it could not be. If I am in that
objectively staic frame my clock will not slow down, whatever any moving
observer may think (or even perceive) to be the case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>However, it unquestionably IS the
case that experimental evidence appears to support such reciprocity. How
can this be so? Well, detailed analysis shows that the moving observer's
own misperception of events will lead to their view - supported by the
instrumentation that is moving with them - that a static observer or system IS
contracted as if they were in motion and that the static clock IS slowed, just
as if that moving observer were static and the static system actually
moving.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I believe that it is this reciprocity
(supported by experiments such as Fizeau's, which is actually a total red
herring!) that leads most physicists to disregard any suggestions that SRT is a
misinterpretation of the available evidence - indeed, even to ridicule those who
would wish to show them otherwise, without even being prepared to consider
the facts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Invariability is very easily shown to
be an observer effect. Reciprocity is significantly less easily explained
- but nevertheless it can be, quite thoroughly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[On acceleration: I am broadly in
agreement with what you say.]</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>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<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> Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:19
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>I try to understand where you see the exact difference between
invariability and reciprocity. A clear example of reciprocity where we seem to
have both the same understanding is the case of two observers in motion who
observe and see the clock of the other one slowed down. It is truly a better
example than the constancy of the speed of light. Both observers make the same
observation. Now I understand your definition in the following way: <BR></P>
<P>In Einstein's SRT where all inertial frames are completely equivalent, so
reciprocity can be concluded. In the Lorentzian SRT where the equivalence is
only an apparent one, an equivalence of measurement results, it is in your
view not reciprocity. Is this a correct understanding of your definition?</P>
<P>Acceleration: time dilation under acceleration is in fact the summation of
the actual speeds. To be done carefully, yes; but that is achieved by an
integration over the speed values passed. I think, it is nothing more. If in
the case of the twin paradox the phase of acceleration back is not too long,
it does not have a considerable influence to the result.<BR></P>
<P>Best regards<BR>Albrecht<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 04.06.2017 um 16:22 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:2846D70545BE43469ECAA292E18B1355@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht (et
al.),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>