<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am not interested in such an observer-centric theory. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I find it illogical, given all the different ways we can test such a theory, and the fact that almost all of the results of such tests tell us that this just is not the way the universe is made.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Frankly I do not want to waste any more of my time on it. I think you are grasping at straws with this one. I think it is only fair that I be honest with you about this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This sort of “way out there” approach has a certain popularity and appeal with some personality types, and regrettably many of those “types” wind up in “science” <b>looking for the bizarre</b>, instead of looking for the sound, solid, logical, simple, and explainable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Virtual particles, simultaneous superposition of states, wavefuction collapse, and this belief that the observer plays such an important role, are in my opinion, fantasies, which will be laughable, and subjects of derision, once we come to better understand our universe.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Other than this subject, I have enjoyed our discussions, and find your contributions valuable and often insightful. <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><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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 14, 2017 4:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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>Chip and Graham:<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>as specifically limited to physical realities" </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>and want to stay within the limits of your definition of physical realities and exclude how </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>the nature of perception, and your(my) truism that perception is a tool of the conscious mind, </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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." </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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 </span><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>in</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> 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! </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Graham 4: "</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle!" </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Best wishes</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Wolf</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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 7/12/2017 6:27 PM, Chip Akins wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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 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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox</span><o:p></o:p></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">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">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 ----- </span><o:p></o:p></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">Albrecht Giese</a> </span><o:p></o:p></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">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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><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">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">"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 border=1 cellpadding=0 style='border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt'><tr><td width=58 style='width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><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"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=46 height=29 id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td width=473 style='width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><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"><span style='color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a> </span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table></div><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">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">"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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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></body></html>