<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Verdana;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Consolas;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Times;
}
@page WordSection1 {margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
H1 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 24pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
PRE {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
SPAN.Heading1Char {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri Light",sans-serif; COLOR: #2e74b5
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY: Consolas
}
SPAN.EmailStyle21 {
COLOR: black
}
..MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=#ffffff vLink=purple ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Perversely, I always enjoy your
regular assertions to others of: "You are mistaken", or "You are wrong" - which
of course carries the unspoken follow-on of "and I am right".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I really feel that, to redress the
balance somewhat, I need to say "No, John, YOU are mistaken (IMO)".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This is not to say that I agree with
Chip's interpretation of the 'circling twins' scenario: for me, even though I am
100% persuaded that there IS a unique objective universal rest-state - a unique
objectively static (in universal terms) reference frame - SRT very
adequately explains that scenario without any paradox, apparent or
otherwise. Each twin, on believing themself to be at rest, will also
consider themself to be subject to a gravitational field that exactly parallels
the perceived state of motion of their other twin; they will therefore expect
their 'gravitationally-affected' clock to be slowed to a corresponding degree
that they see as their twin's slowed time-sense. No paradox in the maths
of SRT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>No, my "You are mistaken" relates to
your assertion that time is not running slower in either ship. >From the
perspective of photonically-generated material particles, taken to its logical
conclusion - a unique objective universal rest-state - there is a very
cogent basis for clocks NOT in that universal rest-frame to be registering the
passage of time more slowly than one in that rest-frame. This leads
unequivocally to objectively different rates of the passage of time in different
inertial frames.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This is a totally different issue
from whether or not SRT is internally self-consistent: a model can be perfectly
self-consistent without being a true representation of any physical reality;
indeed, a model can be 100% self-consistent AND bear a remarkable similarity to
general perception of physical reality without being an objectively true
representation of same. As the semanticist Alford Korzybski famously
observed: "The map is not the territory; however, to the degree that the map
reflects observed reality, to that degree it may prove useful". This is
unquestionably true of SRT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Another quote that seems higly
relevant, this time from Mark Twain: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of
the majority, it is time to pause and reflect". Of course this is in no
way a denigration per se of those adopting the majority view- but it IS very
definitely saying "Just because something is believed by a majority - even a
very significant majority - doesn't mean that it's correct". (Another
quote I saw some time back , but cannot now re-trace the source, from a notable
and highly respected physicist: "We're all drinking the same Kool-ade" - I leave
you to figure how that's relevant.)</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>
<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=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=darren@makemeafilm.com
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">Darren Eggenschwiler</A> ; <A
title=ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">Ariane
Mandray</A> ; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=innes.morrison@cocoon.life
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">Innes Morrison</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:30
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</STYLE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>No Chip you are mistaken. <BR><BR>Time is not running "slower" in
either ship. It is only the perception of time that differs. It is a common
misconception in relativity that "clocks slow down". The fact that the
misconception is widely believed and widely quoted does not make it more true.
Both folk in both spaceships should know this and should be able to calculate
exactly what the other observes. Pretty simple really as it is wholly
symmetric.<BR><BR>In(general covariant) relativity, the point is that each
inertial observer considers their frame "stationary". In fact every observer
can be aware of their motion w.r.t. the cosmic microwave background, so there
is an absolute frame -obviously. This is not, however, the purview of special
relativity which deals with, in its simplest form, only space and time and
velocity, I say "in its simplest form" because many folk move the line as to
what "special relativity" is. The fact there is clearly a given frame, the CMB
does not contradict general covariance. In a slightly more extended
relativity, some would go for the Lorentz group (which contains rotations and
boosts). It matters little, if you put yourself inside any mathematical box
(including the concept of general covariance!) you can only say things about
the situation in the box, and can not even describe the boundaries of the box
(Wittgenstein, Godel). To try then to talk about things outside the box is
simply meaningless, and a complete and utter waste of time. <BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>Looking at this conversation going past I have agreed with most of
what some folk have said (Viv, Grahame and Al, for example), but I know that
we all differ at some level on this (ref my earlier conversation with Al, for
example). It is not really that one of us is "right" and the others are
"wrong" or that we are all "wrong". What we are doing is, as Viv says, setting
up a conceptual framework and then considering it faithfully (as faithfully as
we can anyway) within those boundaries. What I am saying is that SR is in NO
WAY a starting point, but is a simple derivative of deeper consideration.
These deeper considerations have a multitude of possibilities, only one of
which is the concept of "general covariance", which is what we are talking
about. For example, my derivation of SR has nothing at all to do with
general covariance. It looks at the properties of self-confined mass-light. It
is another starting point, one of very many, which also gives SR as a
consequence. Always a consequence. Never a starting point. SR is not a
scientific “holy cow”, it is more a scientific pint of pasteurized,
homogenized milk from an international set of cows, mostly non-holy. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I would appeal to everyone to put this
conversation to bed as it is neither useful nor decorative and, go and make a
nice hot cup of tea (or a glass of warm milk).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>Proving SR true within its realm of validity (likely) or even false
in some experiment is anyway of very little consequence for the maths of SR
itself, which will prove to be a limiting case anyway. If one gets a "false"
where there is gravity and/or acceleration, for example has reference only to
the super-theory, as SR does not make any claims to include acceleration or
gravitation. When I say that to understand it you need to step outside SR and
consider (at least) acceleration, I am talking about understanding the (maths)
box. Remember that this is a box of ones own creation. Maths is just marks on
paper one makes up. It is the physics and the understanding that counts. Maths
can help you see, but maths can make you blind.<BR><BR>Coming back to the
physics, personally, I do not think acceleration alone cuts this although this
is vital to getting the so-called "paradox". I think one needs to look at
energy conservation and the very mechanism of the generation of the universe
(itself a zero-energy system) and the way in which the elementary processes
cause this to come into being to make any real progress.<BR><BR>In short I
think the whole conversation has been a complete waste of time in making any
actual progress, as all the examples brought up have been long-considered, but
has perhaps been useful in getting people to think further.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US><BR>Regards to all, John W.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#0000ff>I will go blue below</FONT><BR><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: blue" lang=EN-US></SPAN></P><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr" id=divRpF312942><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June
15, 2017 3:52 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">You are absolutely right
regarding rotations, and the need for a more complete theory as in General
relativity to describe them.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">However, the point of my thought
experiment was to take a look at a specific aspect of Special
Relativity.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">The concept in Special
Relativity that all motion is relative is logically flawed.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Let me pose a modified thought
experiment to illustrate.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Our experiment begins with all
the following conditions in place…</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Spaceship A thinks it is
stationary (not moving) in space, Spaceship A views Spaceship B approaching at
a highly relativistic speed. Spaceship B thinks it is stationary and
thinks that Spaceship A is approaching at the same highly relativistic speed.
When the Spaceships are 1 light year apart they both transmit their reference
time (and date). When Spaceship B passes very close to Spaceship A they again
both transmit their time and date.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">During the experiment there is
no acceleration applied to either spaceship.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Receivers are set up to record
the time and date information (and are tuned to accommodate any blue shift
from either spaceship).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">The receivers are adjacent to
Spaceship A just for an example.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If in fact Spaceship B is the
moving ship, the signal transmitted 1 light year before the ships pass each
other, will arrive at the receiver Adjacent to A moments before Spaceship B
passes Spaceship A.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><FONT color=#0000ff>Good so
far</FONT><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">In this situation Spaceship A
expects Spaceship B time to be running slower. And Spaceship B expects
Spaceship A time to be running slower. <BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#0000ff><BR>This is where you go into the mist.
No. Both expect each others time to be running normally.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If all motion is relative this
is what they MUST expect.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#0000ff>No - precisely the opposite. If all is
relative they must expect the situation to be EXACTLY SYMMETRIC, as it
is.<BR></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">But those two outcomes are
mutually exclusive, so logically, all motion is NOT relative.
<BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><FONT color=#0000ff>No the two
outcomes are exactly the same, as one must expect.</FONT><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If we feel all motion is
relative then there is a logical error in our theoretical basis.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>