<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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 type="cite"
cite="mid:2846D70545BE43469ECAA292E18B1355@vincent">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style></style>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi Albrecht (et
al.),</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="3" face="Times New Roman"
color="#000000">.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Best regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht
Giese</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>