<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Comment for Wolf,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 size=2>(also an observation on current
discussion of 'greatness' of S Hawking as a scientist)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I don't recognise any correspondence
whatsoever between your observation below and the substance of my exchange
(agreement) with Albrecht. That exchange was specifically limited to
physical realities - including the physical reality of measurements that might
be taken by an instrument in motion, acting as proxy for a human observer.
Hopefully that description distinguishes our conversation from the point that
you are making relating to the nature of perception, and your truism that
perception is a tool of the conscious mind. I agree that we need to
recognise that our conscious experience is an artefact of our own perceptual
faculties as much as of our physical circumstances (I think we all agree on
that), but that is a different conversation from the one between Albrecht and I
- I understand from his response just received that this is how he sees it
also.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2>You have interpreted my text
as: "a consciousness inside a moving body would<FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>
from his perceptive experience </FONT><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>believe he
is stationary in that body". I wouldn't disagree with that, but your
supporting text indicates to me that you've failed to grasp my main point.
That main point is: If a suitably-designed electronic logic circuit
were equipped with instruments with which it could measure its
own characteristics and also those of another object - then, whether
it were static and the other object moving, or it were moving and the other
object static, the measurements that it took would lead it to the
(electronically!) logical conclusion that it was static and the other object was
in motion in both of those cases. This is wholly due to the fact that ANY
physical object, animate or inanimate - even a single atom - will respond to a
state of absolute rest OR of motion in such a way that an observer or
measuring device moving with that object will draw conclusions (by human
inference or solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and therefore they
are also) - wholly as a consequence of their/its own physical makeup being
altered by that state of motion. Likewise that moving observer/device will
assess an objectively static object (such as an atom) as being in a state of
motion, for exactly the same reason.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>Let's take a simple example: a radioactive source (an ensemble of
radioactive atoms) with a known rate of radioactive decay. If that source
is set in motion at a high speed, then a human observer or an instrument would
correctly read the rate of decay (emission) of that source as being
time-dilated by the appropriate factor for its speed of motion. However,
if instead the observer or instrument is in motion at that same speed, with the
radioactive source being static, then physical conditions (the motion of the
observer/instrument) would lead to that observer/instrument incorrectly
assessing the rate of decay as being slowed by precisely the rate of time
dilation that the observer/instrument are themselves subject to - and concluding
from this that they are static and that the radioactive source is moving at
the speed at which they themselves are in fact moving. THIS is the
reciprocity that we have been discussing, which demonstrates the
all-pervasiveness of what I refer to in my book title as 'The Relativity Myth' -
and THIS is why the mainstream scientific community is so dismissive of the idea
that they may yet have something to learn about SR (and, presumably, why in this
unique case they are happy to live with a physical phenomenon without
questioning WHY it is so or making any effert to discover why it is so - in
stark contrast to their response to EVERY other physical
phenomenon).</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>On the 'greatness' of Stephen Hawking (and possibly other
physicists)</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>===================================================</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>This reminds me far too much of the old adage about philosophers arguing
about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle! I'm also - sadly
- reminded of a reality tv-dating show episode I happened to see some time ago
in which a male contestant was jeered at by the audience for saying yes, his
allotted partner was gorgeous - but not 'drop-dead gorgeous'. I feel this
is about the level of the present interchange on this
subject.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>Surely greatness, like beauty, is (at least to some extent) in the eye of
the beholder. Personally I would attribute far more greatness to a
scientist who significantly reduced incidence of a crippling disease than I
would to one who discovered some new esoteric particle or obscure physical
principle or devised a new theory of multiple universes. Surely true
greatness will only emerge with the test of time, when the true significance of
a discovery is fully seen. I'm sorry, but for me if the question of
whether someone is 'great' or just 'very good' as a physicist turns on whether
their thoughts on evaporation of black holes are credible or not so, then it's
probably time for me to take up knitting - the outcome would certainly be more
useful!</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>Best to all,</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>Grahame</FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<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=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:03
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Graham;</P>
<P>I think you are saying something that I have been trying to make clear to
Albrecht which derives from my attempt to move physics away from the
Aristotelian belief that we see reality through the windows of our senses and
employ the Platonic belief that we see the 'shadows" - in modern therms-
we see our interpretation of the measurement reports from our sensors - in
this case our body built in coordinate frame. I then translate your statements
into more anthropomorphic observer inclusive language using larger font than
your comments, <BR></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>observer in a moving frame would be
led to believe from observation that their frame is static</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>a consciousness inside a moving body
would </FONT><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial> form his perceptive
experience </FONT><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>believe he is stationary in
that body</FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><BR></FONT></P>
<P><BR><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(a) time dilation and (b) length
contraction </FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>in the absolutely
static frame</FONT><BR><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>those two effects
are of course NOT objective realities in the static frame</FONT></P>
<P>When a conscious observer "sees" another reference frame it is NOT an
independent external reality but rather a mental image inside his own
perceptive experience. Therefore the time dilation and length contraction is
NOt an objective reality of the static frame<BR></P>
<P><BR><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>they are perceived by the moving
observer as a consequence of their OWN motion).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>But rather an artifact of producing the
perceptive image of the static frame in his own mind</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial>. <BR></FONT></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 7/9/2017 11:50 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:e0a372b2-0730-2ef7-c5fb-6bb08585c7c4@a-giese.de
type="cite">
<P>Grahame,</P>
<P>so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my understanding.
<BR></P>
<P>Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it is
in the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only available as a
hard copy?</P>
<P>One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this is the
case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes something like
an ether? <BR></P>
<P>Best regards<BR>Albrecht<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:BC12E9C8F2864ED5AD7AAAA553BAC217@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'd agree with all that you say
here. I'd add just one reminder, of what we've talked about
before.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For the 'unique absolute rest
frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny in the light of experimental findings
of SR, it's not only necessary to show that an observer in a moving frame
would be led to believe from observation that their frame is static - it's
also necessary to show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME
degree of (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely
static frame as would be seen from that static frame in the observer's
frame (those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the
static frame, they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence
of their OWN motion).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>To show that the moving
observer perceives themself as static is relatively (!!) easy; to show
that they perceive an actually-static frame as subject to relativistic
effects takes a little more thought - but it can be done, and shown to be
so. [This is what I have referred to previously as
'reciprocity'.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In addition, of course, it
needs to be - and CAN be - shown how EVERY experimental finding that's
considered to be evidence for frame symmetry can be fully explained
without any need for, or reference to, frame symmetry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>No paradoxes - just a little
more thought than most physicists appear to have wished to put into
explaining the 'how' of Relativity (which is what I always thought physics
was actually about - explaining the 'how'?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>All of this is shown in detail
in my latest book, published last year.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</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=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR
twin Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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> </P><!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[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]--></BLOCKQUOTE><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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<TBODY>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"><IMG
style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px" alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
width=46 height=29 moz-do-not-send="true"></A></TD>
<TD
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; COLOR: #41424e; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei.
<A style="COLOR: #4453ea"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</A>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><A href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="1" width="1"></A></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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>