<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>John and Chip:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>your discussions on the twin paradox resemble the one I am having
with Albrecht in the sense of who is right. In this it is quite
important to identify the SRT</p>
<p>Einstein actually published from how it has morphed. Specifically
the understanding that there is no paradox because both twins
would understand the theory sufficiently to calculate results
based upon their knowledge of physics , which when "correctly"
applied does not lead to a paradox, is in my opinion suspect.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So I have gone to the Source: <br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein,
A.
(1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">The Principle of Relativity; a collection of original
memoirs on the
special and general theory of relativity</i>, Edited by A
Sommerfeld,
Translated by W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications,
p35-65
ISBN486-60081-5</p>
</p>
<p>on page 49 he writes:" If one of two synchronous clocks at A is
moved in a closed curve with constant velocity unitil it returnes
to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has
remained at rest the traveled clock on its arrival ast A will be
1/2 t v2/c2 slow. Hence we conclude that a balanced clock at the
equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount than an
otherwise similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions.'</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If I read this statement it clearly tells me that Einstein meant
the moving clock slows down simply because of its relative motion.
No qualification is made about the acceleration or its relation to
gravity. The reference to the north pole and equator was simply to
provide an example of relative motion. I believe SRT and the clock
slow down as Einstein presented it was intended to apply to any
motion along a closed curve. Whether such a curve is produced by a
gravitational orbit, a clock at the end of a string, or a
spaceship. Therefore I conclude that a clock paradox was built
into SRT as Einstein proposed it, and I believe Einstein
recognized this limitation and began working on GRT because there
are no closed curved trajectories without gravitation and/or
acceleration at play. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Until we nail down which SRT we are talking about both paradox
and no paradox proponents can be right.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<p><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 6:38 PM, John Williamson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C923A94400@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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}
-->
</style>
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Grahame,<br>
<br>
I'm pleased you enjoy the regular posts. I'm sorry you hear the
"I am right" afterwards because my contributions here have been
only on the interpretation of "physics as it stands". I did not
say to Chip that he was "wrong", only that he was mistaken. What
I would rather be (and I am sure Chip would too!), in fact is
wrong. Precisely because then there is something to learn. I
hope (and strongly believe, knowing him) that Chip is not
offended. If he were I would apologise profusely!<br>
<br>
Neary all the interactions with this group discussion so far
have been merely didactic. Wrong, indeed, on my part on many
occasions, though not yet usefully wrong. Mine have been been
silly mistakes, typos and, as Al put it once "shooting from the
hip", mistakes so far. This is why several people who could have
made proper contributions to this discussion, and have done so
earlier, have simply given up on it as a waste of time and
effort. this is not to say that face to face discussions with
group memebers have not been useful. <br>
<br>
Remember I said "<span style="background-color:white;"
lang="en-US"><font face="Tahoma" color="black" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt;" dir="ltr"><font face="Cambria"
size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;">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. </span></font></span></font></span>"<br>
<br>
What I was asserting to Chip, within these limitations is that
there is no logical contradiction within SR on the grounds he
had put forwards, precisely because of the symmetry between the
twins. I was further asserting that working within ANY
mathematical framework limits you to that framework - and is
hence a waste of time if one attempts to apply it to results
outside that framework (such as the gravitational slowing of
clocks in general relativity, for example). Any "contradiction"
at this point is no such thing as the theory does not purport to
say anything about that scenario, real or not. What I was NOT
saying is that I thought SR, with all the modern connotations,
was in some sense "true". It is far far too simple to be the
whole story. Please read this properly!<br>
<br>
To go further, I also agree that, for any object in absolute
motion w.r.t. to the universe as a whole there will be an
additional (relativistic) mass, and hence gravitational field,
that , just as is the case for any mass in any gravitational
field, slows down the clocks. Clocks on earth run slower than
clocks in space. Look at the current situation: you have now
asserted that I was "wrong" on these grounds, when, in fact,
there was no movement onto that ground whatsoever. There is
absolutely no point in moving onto an argument in GR when one
has problems at the level of SR. That will make one consider
oneself kind of ok at the SR level, but only with problems at
the GR level, which has not been the case here.
<br>
<br>
This, and indeed GR considerations, does not alter the fact that
any local clock, in a spaceship or on earth, if defined of light
and by light, will always appear to the local observer to run
exactly normally if in an inertial frame. This is because the
local observer is defined by light and of light. Hence, no
contradiction with SR either way. Also, the scenario I described
at length last time, of the two spaceships blasting of in
opposite directions with almost infinite initial acceleration
(hance the unphysicality names), was purely on the grounds of
SR. Since this already gives a near zero time for apparent
travel to Vega any further slowing of clocks, while it would be
present, is of no consequence further to the argument in the
"twin paradox". Also, in my view, the apparent "clock slowing"
in GR itself has a deeper reason anyway. Merely entering it as a
GR effect of the local space is then also to take a good dose of
the general Kool aid.<br>
<br>
What do you think I meant by "<span
style="background-color:white;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Tahoma" color="black" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt;" dir="ltr"><font face="Cambria"
size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;">Maths can help
you see, but maths can make you blind"? Remember I am
not (yet, if ever) one of the "establishment". I wish
I was, then I could go fishing.<br>
<br>
Regards, John W.<br>
</span></font></span></font></span><br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF287362" style="direction: ltr;"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
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 Dr Grahame Blackwell [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">John</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I really
feel that, to redress the balance somewhat, I need to
say "No, John, YOU are mistaken (IMO)".</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Best
regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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"><b>From:</b>
<a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
John Williamson</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
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" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Darren Eggenschwiler</a> ; <a
title="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
Ariane Mandray</a> ; <a
title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
Mark,Martin van der</a> ; <a
title="innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
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-face
{font-family:Cambria}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
body
{scrollbar-base-color:undefined;
scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;
scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}
body
{scrollbar-base-color:undefined;
scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;
scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}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}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}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}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}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}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"
lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" 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="" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" 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=""> </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="" lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" 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="" lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" 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="" 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 id="divRpF312942" style="direction:ltr"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
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> 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 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"></span> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>