<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Vivian <br>
</p>
<p>Thanks this is generally the Einstein gravity explanation I and
Albrecht have been arguing about for a couple of weeks.</p>
<p>You sate it well , thank you. <br>
</p>
<p>That does not mean I think it is the easiest and possibly correct
theory but it is what I believe one approach for explaining the
twin paradox.</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 12:02 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-3a158ae8-e8a4-4c77-8707-0e47c1e21a19-1497510142114@3capp-webde-bap51">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>However, an explantion invovling GR or acceleration
cannot account for time dilation per SR! Consider the
touch-tag version: The traceler is pre-accelerated before
touching the stationary partner in passing at full veleocity
to start the clockes. Likewise by the turn-around, arrange
to have a third party with -v touch the traveler to start
clocks. According to standard SR, the travel times computed
for the intervals between start, turn-around and stop
exhibit time dilations without considerations on
acceleration, gravity, magic or whatever! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back to the drawing board!</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> Donnerstag,
15. Juni 2017 um 05:43 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Viv Robinson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><viv@universephysics.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Chip Akins" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>,
"Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "'Darren Eggenschwiler'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"><darren@makemeafilm.com></a>, "'Innes Morrison'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>, "'Mark, Martin van
der'" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--body {
font-family: Helvetica , Arial;
font-size: 13.0px;
}
-->
<div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">Hi
All,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">The
best way to sort out a problem is to understand the
physics behind a situation and then use mathematics
to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect
attributed to it. Lets look at the so called "twin
paradox".</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">Two
observers O1 and O2 are next to and at rest with
each other. Both have accurate atomic or whatever
clocks. O2 is accelerated to speed v, travels for
time t at v, is decelerated to rest wrt to O1,
accelerated to v towards O1, again travels for a
time and finally is decelerated to rest next to O1.
They compare clocks. O2’s clock has slowed down wrt
O1. Yet O2 has observed O1 traveling at v. So why
doesn’t O1’s clock slow down wrt to O2?</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">The
answer is the acceleration. To accelerate O2, a
force is applied to it. The combination of force and
distance adds energy to O2 that is not added to O1.
That energy is added to O2 in terms of kinetic
energy or momentum change. No matter how small is
the energy that is added, it is split between mass
and velocity and causes a time dilation. They are
the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections.
That is something that O2 experiences and O1 does
not experience.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">The
fundamental difference that O2’s acceleration makes
is that its <span style="font-size: 13.0px;">mass</span><span
style="font-size: 13.0px;"> increases as well as
its velocity. Its time wrt O1 </span><span
style="font-size: 13.0px;"> decreases</span><span
style="font-size: 13.0px;">. So while O2 may see
O1 accelerating away, O1 is not the one
experiencing the acceleration. Therefore O1 is not
the observer whose mass is increasing and whose
time is dilating. That is the physical reason why
there is no "twin paradox". </span></div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">Time
dilation due to acceleration and deceleration
(calculable from gravity equivalence) appears to be
cumulative. Acceleration effects may make a
difference if O2 is rapidly accelerated to v and
then immediately rapidly decelerated to rest wrt O1,
followed by a rapid acceleration to v and an
immediate deceleration to rest next to O1. O2 will
show SRT time dilation effect equal to the
integrated effect of its relativistic velocity wrt
O1. Those interested could calculate the
acceleration effect from gravity equivalence and see
how they compare.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">Apart
from that the time delay O2 experiences is because
of the velocity multiplied by time effect. When the
time traveled is much longer than the acceleration
time, the time delay experienced by O2 will, for all
practical purposes, be due to the SRT correction. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">The
above has described the physics of the so called
“twin paradox”. There is no paradox. O2’s time slows
relative to O1 because O2 is the one that has been
accelerated. Einstein was correct on both
situations, the relativistic time correction and
that they are only experienced by the accelerated
observer. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;">Of
course you are free to disagree with the above.
However if you feel compelled to point out that it
is wrong, it is best done by forwarding the physics
that makes it wrong and then present the mathematics
required to show the magnitude of the physical
effect. Then show how it agrees with experimental
observation. In doing that remember that
experimentalist using accurate atomic clocks have
many times verified the SRT time corrections. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:
Helvetica , Arial;font-size: 13.0px;margin: 0.0px;"> </div>
<div class="bloop_sign"
id="bloop_sign_1497485432753332992"> </div>
<div>There are two ways by which the SRT corrections
can be applied. One is that there is an absolute
zero reference somewhere in space and all
corrections are applied from it. The other is that
the SRT corrections are a property of any particle
moving wrt another. I have previously published some
calculations that suggest that the rotating or
toroidal photon model for the structure of matter is
responsible for the SRT corrections of matter. With
all sub atomic particles, proton, neutron electron
and neutrino having a rotating or toroidal photon
structure, the SRT corrections are automatically
inbuilt into every particle. As such I am happy that
Einstein’s SRT corrections will always apply. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Remember that all linear motions are relative to
the observer. However accelerations and <span
style="font-size: 13.0px;">circular motions</span><span
style="font-size: 13.0px;"> are absolute. O1 and
O2 may start out at 0.5 c wrt O3. O2 may be
decelerated to rest wrt O3, remain at rest wrt O3
and then accelerated back to 0.5c to return to
rest next to O1. O1 will still see O2’s clock as
having lost time. O3 will see an entirely
different situation. But remember O3 can only see
what is happening to O1 and O2 by using photons.
O3’s time dilation observations of O1 and O2 must
include the SRT corrections as well as Doppler
effect and distance changes. Complex but
calculable to those interested.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chip, regarding your analogy of A and B. At one
stage in their life they were at the same place at
the same time, even if it was only at birth. To find
out which will be the younger you need to establish
their background. If A remained at rest and B was
accelerated away from A, B will be the younger when
they both meet up again. If they both travelled away
with equal accelerations, velocities and time they
will both appear the same age. Both would be younger
than a person born at the same place at the same
time and remained at that place when they all met up
again. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am quite happy to accept that all linear motion
is relative. It agrees with SRT and experiment. I am
also satisfied that the rotating or toroidal photon
model for an electron (and other particles) gives a
physical description that matches both SRT and
observation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vivian Robinson</div>
<div>
<p class="airmail_on">On 15 June 2017 at 12:43:26
AM, Chip Akins (<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chipakins@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi John</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yes. When I used
the large circle example, I was afraid
that someone would divert the
conversation from Special Relativity. I
suppose I deserve that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Back to Special
Relativity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>One Twin (Twin B)
is moving at a constant highly
relativistic velocity toward Twin A.
Twin B thinks Twin A is moving, Twin A
thinks Twin B is moving. When twin B
arrives at Twin A’s location, Twin A
expects Twin B to be younger, Twin B
expects Twin A to be younger. Mutually
exclusive conditions (if all motion is
relative). So all motion is not
relative. Simple, even for post grads,
like you and me.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I welcome
constructive, logical, suggestions, but
please refrain from condescension, it
does not help the cause.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 14,
2017 4:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Darren Eggenschwiler
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"><darren@makemeafilm.com></a>;
Innes Morrison
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>;
Mark, Martin van der
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR
twin Paradox</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;">Hi Chip,<br>
<br>
What happens for a circulating
(near) lightspeed object is, not
that local time or length changes,
but the ring appears to get smaller
for the participant - shrinking to
zero length ring at lightspeed.
Clocks onboard act normally. They
will feel, however, feel an
acceleration unless in free-fall,
which can occur for a curved space
-time or round the edge of the
universe, for example. You really
need to expand your thinking to
General relativity (which is, of
course, itself not the most general
of all the possible proper
descriptions of space and time, as
it has only a simple scalar
curvature) to get a proper grip on
this.<br>
<br>
Someone mentioned a muon storage
ring. the stored Muons decay
normally according to themselves,
but see a much smaller ring. They
also feel a permanent transverse
acceleration. The is also
(synchrotron)radiation, but this is
from the system ring+muons, rather
than from the muons themselves.<br>
<br>
Most of the rest of the discussion
on this has been at a level usually
treated at undergraduate level.
Grahame is right: you will not find
a mathematical contradiction in
special relativity. All this stuff
has been done before.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps,<br>
<br>
Cheers, John.<br>
<br>
Regards, John W.</span></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align: center;"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="2"
align="center"></div>
<div id="divRpF617198">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Chip Akins
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 13,
2017 11:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
STR twin Paradox</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi
Grahame</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
reason for the huge circle in my
thought experiment, is so that
the velocity can be very close
to c, causing relativistic time
dilation, and that velocity
dependent time dilation would
dominate the experiment, while
acceleration induced time
variation would be far less
significant.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>And I
agree with you that space
possesses a reference rest frame
where time is not retarded in
any of these or similar
circumstances.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But the
important thing, I believe, is
that all motion cannot be
relative, and there cannot be
full reciprocity regarding the
effects of motion. For if all
motion is relative, then there
is just no solution which
satisfies the equations and does
not present a paradox. If all
motion is relative, then twin A
will be younger than twin B, and
twin B will be younger than twin
A. But of course these are
mutually exclusive answers, so
all motion is not relative.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>So as it
stands, if I am reading the
comments correctly, you, me,
Chandra, and Albrecht, agree
that there is a more Lorentzian
form of relativity, (which I
feel is caused by matter being
made of confined light-speed
energy) which is the proper
physical form of relativity in
or universe.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank you
for your thoughts and
comments!!!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr
Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June
13, 2017 2:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light
and Particles - General
Discussion <<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Hi
chip,</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">I'm
100% with you on this!</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">I
really don't understand the
notion that 'the universe is
an observer effect' - it
makes no sense to me
whatsoever. By the same
token, the notion that
'collapse of the
wavefunction' is
precipitated by
observation/measurement is
to me quite fanciful - for
me there is a much more
straightforward explanation
for the phenomenon referred
to as 'wavefunction
collapse' (which I don't
believe to be a collapse of
any kind!)</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">I'm
sorry for not responding to
your previous post sooner; I
was planning to send a
comment, but have been fully
occupied with other pressing
matters of late. My
observation relates to your
thought experiment in which
each 'twin' sees the other
as travelling in a large
circle at high speed. For
me there is no paradox at
all in this from the SR
perspective (though like
you, I am of the firm
opinion that there
exists one unique
objectively static
rest-frame [subject to
Hubble expansion, of
course], all other 'rest
frames' are in motion in
absoolute terms).</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">If
one twin is seen by the
other as moving in a circle
- however large - but
regards themself as being at
rest, then they will instead
experience a force which the
other twin will regard as
acceleration towards the
centre of the circle but
that they themself will
regard as influence of a
gravitational field (if you
doubt this, just posit an
accelerometer on their ship
with a readout that can be
seen by, or communicated
to, their twin). That
influence will be directly
comparable with the
centripetal force of
constant-speed circular
motion and will be regarded
by that twin as causing
identical time dilation for
them c.f. one outside the
influence of that field.
They will therefore expect
their OWN clock to be slowed
by an exactly corresponding
amount from the perspective
of one not subject to that
'gravitational field' - so
they will fully expect their
clock and that of their twin
to be retarded by a
precisely-equal degree, and
so that both clocks would
show identical times on
comparison when again
passing each other.</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">[As
a point of detail, making it
a very BIG circle in no way
reduces the validity of this
analysis, it simply requires
more accurate
instrumentation - as is
always the case with regard
to details of SR & GR.]</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">As
I said in my previous
comment, it very much
appears to me that SR is
100% self-consistent
mathematically. This does
not make it correct as a
representation of physical
reality - but trying to
discredit SR by attempting
to find a flaw in the math
is to me a non-starter! SR
will ONLY be shown to be an
incorrect assumption (in
respect specifically of
equivalence of all inertial
reference frames) by
consideration of the
energetic formation of
particles (which can also be
approached indirectly by way
of the Energy-Momentum
Relation).</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">[Another
point of detail: I have
included a fairly exhaustive
analysis of Hasselkamp et
al's experiment in my book:
this shows that even
so-called '2nd order Doppler
effect' cannot be used to
detect motion of the earth
wrt the objective universal
rest state, no matter how
accurate readings or
instrumentation. SR is a
VERY tightly-meshed cage!]</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Best
regards,</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Grahame</span></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:
none;border-left: solid navy
1.5pt;padding: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in
4.0pt;margin-left:
3.75pt;margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-right:
0.0in;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">-----
Original Message ----- </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span><a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chipakins@gmail.com'; return
false;" target="_blank"
title="chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">Chip
Akins</span></a><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">'Nature
of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'</span></a><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> Tuesday,
June 13, 2017 5:34 PM</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
windowtext;">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color:
windowtext;"> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color: windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi
Chandra</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I don’t
know if the others are not
receiving my posts or if they
are just being ignored.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
current exchange is quite
disheartening however.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>To
postulate that an observer
creates the universe he
experiences is absurd in so
many ways, and counter to the
evidence in so many ways, that
I cannot believe we have spent
so much time in such a
discussion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>All the
evidence suggests the universe
existed before observers, and
continues to exist as each of
us dies. The universe does
what it does whether we
observe it or not. We can
only make very slight,
insignificant changes to the
overall state of the universe.
When we cause an interaction
to occur by observation, it
has an effect, but that does
not mean that the universe is
observer-centric. It just
means that the universe does
what it does. When
interactions occur a set of
rules exist which govern those
interactions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In a
universe which is in effect
created in the mind of the
observer, I am the only
observer that I know to
exist. The rest of the
mentally imagined observers I
interact with are figments of
my mind. So it does no good to
communicate with those
figments and try to convince
those imagined others of
anything.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Experience
indicates that this is not the
type of universe we live in.
Other sentient minds are
present, all of us finding
that Washington DC is located
in the same spot and has the
same buildings. We live in a
single universe which has many
sentient minds all seeing
principally the same thing. We
know this because we
communicate with others, and
compare notes.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Once we
understand the physics well
enough we can see that
wave-function collapse is NOT
required to explain an
interaction. So the reason for
some quantum physicists
overreaching and concluding
that the observer has a
significant bearing on physics
then is a mute argument.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>We, as
a species, seem to tend to
look for the most “mentally
stimulating” explanations,
rather than sticking to the
scientific approach, and
looking for the most
theoretically economical and
practical answers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
universe has many lessons for
us embedded within. One of
the most striking lessons is
the elegant simplicity of how
everything works. If we keep
this elegant simplicity in
mind as we look for the rest
of the answers, we are far
more likely to find the right
answers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Warmest
Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Charles
(Chip) Akins</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span
style="color:
windowtext;"> </span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________<br>
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:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a> </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________ 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>