<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"><!--[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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
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;}
p.airmailon, li.airmailon, div.airmailon
{mso-style-name:airmailon;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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 lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Chip,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm as certain as one can be that I'm
not mistaken. However I'm also totally confident that the myth/spell of SR
CAN and WILL be broken - before very long.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The secret is to get scientists back
on the track that they appear to have abandoned for the past century:
investigating the 'why' of observed effects - in this case the 'why' of effects
attributed to SR. To simply say "Well, that's just how the universe is" -
and then accept all the illogical baggage that goes with that - is no sort of
investigation of the 'why', and certainly no sort of explanation of the
causation of those effects (which is, as I say, what I understood physics is all
about...)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The reason that I'm so confident is
that there IS a way to break this particular variation of the da Vinci Code, so
to speak. That way is to do exactly what Einstein did in respect of
Brownian Motion - consider the nature of the structure of matter (in that
respect, I'm totally baffled how the one who published a seminal paper on the
causation behind Brownian Motion could possibly also consider Fizeau's
Experiment supportive of his SR concept - but that's another story). We
need to get a bit deeper into matter formation, into the energetic composition
of elementary particles: at that level the self-contradiction of SR stands out
very sharply.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In short, as soon as physics moves on
from the mind-set of Bohr, that the indeterministic nature of quantum outcomes
is a dead-end, and recognise with Einstein and de Broglie (and others) that
there is a deeper reason for that apparent indeterminism - namely the wave-based
structure of elementary particles (for which zitterbewegung is a massive clue,
FGS!) then we can move on to some truly new physics, rather than century-old
assumptions that are still peddled as 'new physics' even today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The time is coming - let's just hope
that it comes soon enough to help resolve some of the pressing scientific issues
that our species is facing!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Cheers, Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> ; <A title=viv@universephysics.com
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">'Viv Robinson'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=darren@makemeafilm.com
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">'Darren Eggenschwiler'</A> ; <A
title=innes.morrison@cocoon.life
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">'Innes Morrison'</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">'Mark,Martin van der'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 3:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Thank you.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I hope that you are mistaken,
and that there is a way to eventually dispel myth and obstacles so we can
build a better foundation of physics. History has shown humanity
accomplishing such changes many times. But we have been stymied, or
“hogtied” as you say by a couple of theories, for more than 100 years now, and
no immediate resolution in sight.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">But I remain optimistic,
principally because the number of voices, recognizing the current set of
problems, is increasing, and the proofs of a more correct resolution are
becoming clearer.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Dr Grahame Blackwell<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 23,
2017 8:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; 'Viv Robinson'
<viv@universephysics.com><BR><B>Cc:</B> 'Darren Eggenschwiler'
<darren@makemeafilm.com>; 'Innes Morrison'
<innes.morrison@cocoon.life>; 'Mark, Martin van der'
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR
twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Chip et
al,</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I've
tried to stay out of this as there are numerous prior (unsupported)
assumptions flying around that generate plenty of heat but no
light.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Chip, I
agree with you 100% that effects attributed to relativity can be explained
fully by reference to mechanistic processes - there is absolutely no need for
some metaphysical property of space-time that results in objects BEING (not
just appearing) different lengths just because observers are in different
states of motion and two clocks BOTH going slower than each other. With no
logical requirement for such absurdities, belief in them makes belief in some
old guy sitting on a cloud running the universe seem pretty tame by
comparison. Those 'scientists' who deride the concept of a supreme being (or,
more reasonably, universal nonphysical consciousness) should see to the log in
their own eye before falling about in hoots over the speck in someone
else's.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Having
said that, I'm afraid, Chip, that you are NOT going to disprove SR by
reference to the mathematics of space-time as embodied in that theory.
SR is entirely self-consistent (even though wrong), a faultless body of math
that just doesn't happen to correspond to reality. Hammering away at the
twins paradox - or any variation thereof - is batting on a losing
wicket. Physics is totally hogtied by the math of SR - that's why it's
so difficult to shift perceptions on the matter.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">----- Original
Message ----- <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion'</A> ; <A title=viv@universephysics.com
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">'Viv Robinson'</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=darren@makemeafilm.com href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">'Darren
Eggenschwiler'</A> ; <A title=innes.morrison@cocoon.life
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">'Innes Morrison'</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">'Mark,Martin van der'</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Wednesday, August
23, 2017 2:20 PM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Re: [General] STR
twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John
W<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Thank you for your comments my
friend.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">One thing which seems evident
from your response is that you underestimate my understanding of SRT and
relativity theory in general.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Both you and Viv have gone
back to the same explanations, which I used to give, to try to explain the
problem. You see I have studied relativity with great interest for
many decades. I have no problem thinking about relativity in spacetime
terms. I spent years believing the form of relativity you and Viv suggest
was correct. But once we spend enough time, effort, and thought, trying to
force fit all the pieces of a puzzle in the wrong manner, we sometimes have
an epiphany, and awakening, which helps clear the picture so we can see how
it should fit.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">What I have found, and am
attempting to share with this intelligent and inquisitive group, is that
<I>portions</I> of SRT are quite arbitrary, unnecessary to explain what we
see in experiment, and probably just simply wrong. The transformations
are pre Einstein, and were appropriated by Einstein for SRT, but the part of
SRT which is unnecessary to explain what we observe, is specifically the
“<I>all motion is relative</I>” part.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">John Stewart Bell apparently
also ran into these issues in his research as well. This prompted him
to write…</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">”<I> I would say that the cheapest resolution is
something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when
people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an aether – a
preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were
distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through
the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame
of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference (some) things do go
faster than light”…” Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the
phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant, a
pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was
perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea
that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor
dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion
through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of
view.</I>”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">What Bell wrote does not
outline my full perception of the subject, but it is very close to what I
have come to understand after many years of research. Just want to
mention that I suspect there is also a specific form of “frame dragging”
caused by the gravitation of quite massive objects which has to be
considered.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Experiment has not verified
the all motion is relative part of SRT. Experiment has verified the
transformations!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Euclidian space, and the
constitution of light and matter, cause, quite naturally, a form of
relativity which agrees with SRT, except the notion that all motion is
relative.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">SRT was developed with the
notion that the laws of nature remain the same for moving bodies. The form
of relativity mentioned above causes the laws of nature to remain the same
for moving bodies. This is the point. A form of relativity built
on cause and effect is likely much more useful, and
accurate.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">It is easy to establish cause
and effect for relativity, but in that form of relativity all motion is not
relative. Motion is related to the background of space, in that causal
form of relativity. In that form of relativity there are no logical
inconsistencies, there are no mutually exclusive
outcomes.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">One thing which caused me
considerable grief a couple of years ago was realizing that I had built so
much of my theoretical foundations on a flawed principle. It requires a lot
of work to go back and redo so much work. I know that this is the case
for many. But the results are worth it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So John, my friend. You
may choose to disregard the suggestion that the all <I>motion is
relative</I> portion of SRT is in error. We all have our theoretical
preferences. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I seldom make predictions, but
I will make one now. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">It may not happen within our
lifetimes, but I feel that experiment will prove that all motion is not
relative, and that motion is actually relative to the background of
space.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> 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>John Williamson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 22, 2017
8:48 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>>;
'Viv Robinson' <<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</A>><BR><B>Cc:</B>
'Darren Eggenschwiler' <<A
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">darren@makemeafilm.com</A>>; 'Innes
Morrison' <<A
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">innes.morrison@cocoon.life</A>>;
'Mark, Martin van der' <<A
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Dear
Chip and everyone.<BR><BR>This is very old problem. Martin, Viv and I have
all had a go at explaining this over the last years, but all we are doing is
repeating stuff which you should be reading in the textbooks. If you analyse
special relativity properly there is no paradox here. There never was and
there never will be. The first time I met this was in third year at
University. I have had exam questions on it (though do not know if I got the
answer right!).<BR><BR>Where you are making your mistakes is right in your
first premises. You say "</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black">For the sake of
this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of synchronizing their
clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to start recording data
at the same time, like when each reaches a predetermined distance from the
other.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">" At
this point you are already lost. You have assumed there is such a thing as a
"place" and that one can define a "time". You need to understand that, in
relativity, one mans space is (partly) another mans time. Each of the two
can calculate what the other sees (if they know relativity), and conclude
for them the space is at another time and vice versa. If you start from a
point where you assume there both exists an absolute space with an
everywhere defined "time" and the laws of relativity hold, then you will
come to conclusions which give a paradox, indeed. This is not a problem for
relativity, which explains perfectly what is observed (and does not have an
absolute space or time), but a problem rather for your initial assumptions,
or your way of thinking. <BR><BR>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF271226>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday,
August 22, 2017 8:40 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Viv Robinson'; 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'Darren Eggenschwiler'; 'Innes
Morrison'; 'Mark, Martin van der'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi
Vivian<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I would like to return to a
discussion briefly which was ensuing a couple of months
ago.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Thank you for the careful
explanation offered in the email below.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">However the point I was
attempting to make a couple of months ago, deals only with the concept that
all motion is relative in SRT. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So let us set up an experiment
which excludes all effects of GRT, acceleration, gravity etc. and only
evaluates this notion of SRT that all motion is
relative.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">We have two identical clocks,
moving relative to each other.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">For the sake of this
experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of synchronizing their
clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to start recording data
at the same time, like when each reaches a predetermined distance from the
other. (All Doppler effects accounted for.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">An observer with clock A
thinks clock B is moving.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">An observer with clock B
thinks clock A is moving.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">After the “relative” motion
has occurred for some time, the two clocks pass by in very close proximity
to each other and exchange their data.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">The observer with clock A
assumes the reading from Clock B will indicate that time has passed more
slowly for B than for A. The observer with clock B assumes the reading
from Clock A will indicate that time has passed more slowly for A than for
B. Both cannot be correct.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Clearly because of this, there
IS A PARADOX, and that paradox is undeniably embedded in the notion that all
motion is relative. Bringing in arguments from other theories, and
proclaiming that there is no paradox <I>does not dismiss this logical
problem inherent in SRT’s notion that all motion is
relative</I>.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If one clock is more
stationary with regards to the CMB it is likely that is the one which will
be more correct in their prediction of the clocks
readings.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">They cannot both be correct.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If they cannot both be
correct, then all motion is NOT relative, but time is slowed for objects
moving relative to space itself.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>