<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">You are right. I have mentioned that below - see italics, repeated here “.. </font><i style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px;">the time delay experienced by O2 will, for all practical purposes, be due to the SRT correction". </i>However unless accelerated to a velocity, O2 will not leave O1 and there will be no velocity difference for any SRT correction between O1 and O2 to apply. The proposition holds.<font size="3"> No magic or other whatever required. </font></div> <div id="bloop_sign_1497510572629018112" class="bloop_sign"><br></div><p class="airmail_on">On 15 June 2017 at 5:03:11 PM, af.kracklauer@web.de (<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<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"
<viv@universephysics.com><br>
<b>An:</b> "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com>, "Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "'Darren Eggenschwiler'"
<darren@makemeafilm.com>, "'Innes Morrison'"
<innes.morrison@cocoon.life>, "'Mark, Martin van der'"
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><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;"><i>
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. </i></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">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
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<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
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Darren Eggenschwiler <darren@makemeafilm.com>;
Innes Morrison <innes.morrison@cocoon.life>; Mark, Martin van
der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><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 align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></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
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<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">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">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> <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='chipakins@gmail.com'; return false;" target="_blank" title="chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">Chip
Akins</span></a> </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> <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"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">'Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span></a> </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
viv@universephysics.com<br>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><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 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>
_______________________________________________
<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv@universephysics.com
<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
<br>Click here to unsubscribe
<br></a>
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>