<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to
understand relativity in general and dilation in particular, if
one assumes that there is an absolute frame of rest, and that the
motion with respect to this frame causes (among other phenomena)
dilation. But it is a specific property of relativity that every
observer in any inertial frame can assume that his frame is the
frame at rest. And in his observation the physical world behaves
indeed as if his frame would be the absolute frame at rest.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a proper
use of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why it is
this way. It is a bit of work to make these calculations, but it
is possible and one may say that this work is a necessity to
understand special relativity.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.07.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:04b601d2f64c$1e6182a0$5b2487e0$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;
color:black;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.heading1char0
{mso-style-name:heading1char;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">First, I want to say that I was not
offended by any of John’s comments. It seems to me that John
and I are both looking, for not just answers, but the
correct answers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Next, my thoughts are that a moving clock
does slow, but not due to “relative” motion but rather due
to absolute motion in the fixed frame of space. I also feel
that there is a quantifiable “frame dragging” of space
surrounding massive objects. Which has a tendency to make
motion seem more relative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">And lastly, I do not feel that the
“observer” has any more to do with physics than interaction
caused by observation. Interactions have the same kinds of
results, whether caused by an observer, or some other
circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 05, 2017 11:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>John and Chip:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>So I have gone to the Source: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein,
A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, <i>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<o:p></o: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.'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Until we nail down which SRT we are talking about both
paradox and no paradox proponents can be right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>best wishes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/15/2017 6:38 PM, John Williamson
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">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><span style="background:white">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><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">"<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><span
style="background:white">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>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF287362">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [<a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">John</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">I
really feel that, to redress the balance somewhat,
I need to say "No, John, YOU are mistaken (IMO)".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best
regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target="_blank"
title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
moz-do-not-send="true">John Williamson</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Cc:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"
target="_blank" title="darren@makemeafilm.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Darren Eggenschwiler</a>
; <a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
target="_blank"
title="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
moz-do-not-send="true">Ariane Mandray</a> ; <a
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
target="_blank"
title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Mark,Martin van der</a>
; <a href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
target="_blank"
title="innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
moz-do-not-send="true">Innes Morrison</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:30 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. 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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Regards to all, John W.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">I
will go blue below</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></span></div>
<div id="divRpF312942">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Chip Akins [<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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</span><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are absolutely
right regarding rotations, and the need
for a more complete theory as in General
relativity to describe them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, the point of
my thought experiment was to take a look
at a specific aspect of Special
Relativity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The concept in Special
Relativity that all motion is relative is
logically flawed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me pose a modified
thought experiment to illustrate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our experiment begins
with all the following conditions in
place…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During the experiment
there is no acceleration applied to either
spaceship.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Receivers are set up to
record the time and date information (and
are tuned to accommodate any blue shift
from either spaceship).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The receivers are
adjacent to Spaceship A just for an
example.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:blue">Good so far</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this situation
Spaceship A expects Spaceship B time to be
running slower. And Spaceship B expects
Spaceship A time to be running slower. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:blue"><br>
This is where you go into the mist. No.
Both expect each others time to be
running normally.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If all motion is
relative this is what they MUST expect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:blue">No - precisely the
opposite. If all is relative they must
expect the situation to be EXACTLY
SYMMETRIC, as it is.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But those two outcomes
are mutually exclusive, so logically, all
motion is NOT relative. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:blue">No the two outcomes
are exactly the same, as one must
expect.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we feel all motion
is relative then there is a logical error
in our theoretical basis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>