<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip and Graham:</p>
<p>Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement regarding
Special relativity: "But I do agree that Special Relativity, as
written and discussed by Einstein himself, has a fundamental
paradoxical logical inconsistency, which cannot be explained away
by layers of additional “interpretation” of his theory." This was
my original intent. First 1) to show that inconsistencies exist in
SRT , second 2) to show that GRT was one avenue of development
that utilizes gravity and acceleration to address the problems in
SRT and to forward our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3) to
open the door for new directions. I did not anticipate getting
blind sided by alternative interpretations that then did not
further the discussion into step two and three. At least not in a
step by step logical way.</p>
<p>Chip second: "When several “observers” read the data then
collected and communicate about that data, it is clear to us that
we have all viewed the same data. It is therefore quite
ridiculous to assume that we, the “observers”, had a notable
effect on the outcome of the automated experiment weeks earlier."
It is ridiculous only within the context of an Aristotelian
framework of reality in which one assumes there is a thing called
"the same data". What if Plato, Kant and to some extent quantum
theory is correct and the data no matter how or when it is viewed
is and always has been in the eye of the beholder? Then the
observer does influence the outcome of the experiment because for
him the data he sees<b> is reality</b> and that reality will
depend upon how he sees it.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The question I ask myself is can a useful and quantitative
physics be built without "the same data" assumption. In
philosophy this is called the "naive reality" assumption and
Aristotle's view that we are looking out through the windows of
our senses at an objective real world has won the day for 500
years and it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats who have
come to this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "<font
face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">as specifically limited to
physical realities" <font color="#000000">and want to stay
within the limits of your definition of physical realities and
exclude how </font></font><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">the nature of perception, and your(my) truism that
perception is a tool of the conscious mind, <font
color="#000000">effects and to a large extent determines our
physical theories (which I believe is at the center of
understanding both SRT and GRT and why they are incompatible
with quantum theory) then I am sorry I interjected my
comments into your discussion. Please keep taking and I'll
just listen quietly.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2"><font color="#000000">However
I find it very important to have a polite foil to discuss what
I believe is the greatest of the grand challenges confronting
science - i.e. the unification of subjective and subjective
experience into a new integrated theory not of every thing,
but of every action.</font></font></p>
<p>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "<font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080">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
color="#000000">The key here is "observer or measuring
device moving with" I am only talking about an observer. A
measuring device only relays information someone must be
at the end of the chain to realize the information. The
observer is </font></font></font></font><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
color="#000000"><b>in</b></font></font></font><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font color="#000000"> the measuring device,
he cannot get out. He receives information and translates
it into his mental display. Both the apparently stationary
object "moving with the observer" and any apparently
moving object in his display will be subject to the
Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these appearances are
always created in the medium of that observers mind. I
believe it is a grave error to treat the properties of the
mind as an objective independent reality. But everyone
does it until Now! <br>
</font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">Graham3:
I have no disagreement with your reciprocity argument. I
only wanted to point out that in both the cases the human
observer experiences his motion relative to the radiation
source in his own display space. <br>
</font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">Graham 4:
"</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
size="2">philosophers arguing about how many angels can
dance on the point of a needle!" <font color="#000000">makes
perfect sense to people who believe in god, heaven, and
angels as the stake your life on it truth. Physicists
arguing about what two measuring objects will conclude
about each other also makes perfect sense to people who
believe observers can ride along with them and see them
as independent external objects without recognizing that
they (the observers) are doing the seeing that creates
these objects.</font><br>
</font></font></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">I'll try to get a copy of the
relativity myth , sounds like a good starting point for my 3d)
effort introduced in paragraph 1 above.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">Best wishes</font></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">Wolf</font></font><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 7/12/2017 6:27 PM, Chip Akins wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:023301d2fb77$3f24ebf0$bd6ec3d0$@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;
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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
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.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
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">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When a measurement is taken, of any
subatomic process, an interaction is required. Whether that
interaction is caused by a sentient observer, or an assembly
of electronic instrumentation, the requirement for interaction
is the same. This is an elementary issue, because if we are
made of atoms and molecules, which are made of particles, and
we want to study particles, we must somehow interact with that
which we wish to study. And interaction will cause a change
of state of the particle we study. We simply do not have any
tools to study particles without having a significant effect
on the particles we study.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To assume that interactions require
observation in order to occur is logically flawed. And to
assume that the observer plays a larger role that just that of
interaction is also therefore locically flawed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can build instrumentation which
automatically records events, and then, weeks later, or
longer, we can first review the data which was collected. We
can do this in a repeatable fashion, and expect the same or
very similar results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When several “observers” read the data then
collected and communicate about that data, it is clear to us
that we have all viewed the same data. It is therefore quite
ridiculous to assume that we, the “observers”, had a notable
effect on the outcome of the automated experiment weeks
earlier. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The assumption of uncertainty, and of
multiple simultaneous superposition of states, is simply due
to our lack of full knowledge of the state of the system
studied.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The universe has taught us that there is a
cause for each effect. The mistaken assumption that the
observe plays a larger role than just causing interactions
upon observation, was fostered by other, previous, mistaken
assumptions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One thing which seems to be a common goal
of this group is to try to remove the mistaken assumptions and
see what that says, and where that leads.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read your comments and discussions
regarding an observer centric universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry I cannot agree. Too many logical
problems which that approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I do agree that Special Relativity, as
written and discussed by Einstein himself, has a fundamental
paradoxical logical inconsistency, which cannot be explained
away by layers of additional “interpretation” of his theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Grahame, and many of us, have mentioned,
there is a form of relativity which is causal, and without
paradox.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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> Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:50 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>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I hope to be able to show you that the quantitative result
you are looking for can also be achieved by realizing a
completely different model of ourselves , one in which we are
a space of parallel activity cycles and create within it's
spatial cross section the observations upon which Maxwells
equations and the Lorentz transformations are built. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I was hoping that by showing you pictures of Einsteins body
conceiving of observers in his mind that it would be clear
that classic electrodynamics and Einsteins interpretation of
it are always conceived in a background space of the observers
mind , and therefore we are discovering properties of our own
way of displaying things within a framework we cannot get out
of. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As mentioned I am working on a book for Routledge in which I
hope to show the connection not only to the quantitative
results your desire, but to the quantitative results that
would be applicable to an expanded reality that incorporates
the consciousness and spirit of living beings and this
integration of mind and body will in my opinion open new
vistas desperately needed in our correctly materialistic
constrained world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So stay tuned<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best wishes <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<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 7/11/2017 4:04 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I have never denied that there is a difference between our
perception and a (possible) reality. What I always have said
is that this assumption does not help us in our attempt to
understand the world around us unless we understand the
difference between reality and our perception functionally,
or at least investigate our detectable errors in a <i>quantitative
</i>way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This last discussion about the important question in
relativity, whether there is a frame at absolute rest, can
easily be treated if using the Lorentz Transformation. This
L.T. shows us <i>quantitatively</i>, in which way the
results of measurements are influenced by relativistic
effects so that this impression of a frame at rest is caused
in any frame; and our perception reacts similar to the
measurement tools.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This was content of the discussion between Grahame and me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And using your example of dilation: this dilation is a
physical fact in the frame at rest; but it is only
perception in a frame not at rest by the effect of
relativistic synchronization, where the way of
synchronization is quantitatively given by the Lorentz
Transformation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 11.07.2017 um 08:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Graham;<o:p></o:p></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, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">observer
in a moving frame would be led to believe from
observation that their frame is static</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">a
consciousness inside a moving body would form his
perceptive experience believe he is stationary in that
body</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">(a)
time dilation and (b) length contraction in the
absolutely static frame</span><br>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">those
two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the
static frame</span><o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><br>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">they
are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of
their OWN motion).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">But
rather an artifact of producing the perceptive image of
the static frame in his own mind</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<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 7/9/2017 11:50 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also
my understanding. <o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></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? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Albrecht,</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'd
agree with all that you say here. I'd add just
one reminder, of what we've talked about before.</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">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).</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">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'.]</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">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.</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
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'?)</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">All
of this is shown in detail in my latest book,
published last year.</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>
<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:phys@a-giese.de"
title="phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht
Giese</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"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</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">
Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06 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] JW on STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="58">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="473">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<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"><span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><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"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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"><o:p> </o:p></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: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>