<!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;
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;
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-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=#ffffff vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Chip et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></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=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 2:20
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 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
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<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
<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 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.<BR><BR><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<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; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> Viv
Robinson [<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">mailto:viv@universephysics.com</A>]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 14, 2017 10:44 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Chip Akins
<<A href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</A>>; Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</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</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
All,</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The
best way to sort out a problem is to understand the physics behind a situation
and then use mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect
attributed to it. Lets look at the so called "twin paradox".</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Two
observers O1 and O2 are next to and at rest with each other. Both have
accurate atomic or whatever clocks. O2 is accelerated to speed v, travels for
time t at v, is decelerated to rest wrt to O1, accelerated to v towards O1,
again travels for a time and finally is decelerated to rest next to O1. They
compare clocks. O2’s clock has slowed down wrt O1. Yet O2 has observed O1
traveling at v. So why doesn’t O1’s clock slow down wrt to O2?</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The
answer is the acceleration. To accelerate O2, a force is applied to it. The
combination of force and distance adds energy to O2 that is not added to O1.
That energy is added to O2 in terms of kinetic energy or momentum change. No
matter how small is the energy that is added, it is split between mass and
velocity and causes a time dilation. They are the special relativity theory
(SRT) corrections. That is something that O2 experiences and O1 does not
experience.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The
fundamental difference that O2’s acceleration makes is that
its mass increases as well as its velocity. Its time wrt
O1 decreases. So while O2 may see O1 accelerating away, O1 is not
the one experiencing the acceleration. Therefore O1 is not the observer whose
mass is increasing and whose time is dilating. That is the physical reason why
there is no "twin paradox". </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Time
dilation due to acceleration and deceleration (calculable from gravity
equivalence) appears to be cumulative. Acceleration effects may make a
difference if O2 is rapidly accelerated to v and then immediately rapidly
decelerated to rest wrt O1, followed by a rapid acceleration to v and an
immediate deceleration to rest next to O1. O2 will show SRT time dilation
effect equal to the integrated effect of its relativistic velocity wrt O1.
Those interested could calculate the acceleration effect from gravity
equivalence and see how they compare.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Apart
from that the time delay O2 experiences is because of the velocity multiplied
by time effect. When the time traveled is much longer than the acceleration
time, the time delay experienced by O2 will, for all practical purposes, be
due to the SRT correction. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The
above has described the physics of the so called “twin paradox”. There is no
paradox. O2’s time slows relative to O1 because O2 is the one that has been
accelerated. Einstein was correct on both situations, the relativistic time
correction and that they are only experienced by the accelerated
observer. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Of
course you are free to disagree with the above. However if you feel compelled
to point out that it is wrong, it is best done by forwarding the physics that
makes it wrong and then present the mathematics required to show the magnitude
of the physical effect. Then show how it agrees with experimental observation.
In doing that remember that experimentalist using accurate atomic clocks have
many times verified the SRT time corrections. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV id=bloop_customfont>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">There
are two ways by which the SRT corrections can be applied. One is that there is
an absolute zero reference somewhere in space and all corrections are applied
from it. The other is that the SRT corrections are a property of any particle
moving wrt another. I have previously published some calculations that suggest
that the rotating or toroidal photon model for the structure of matter is
responsible for the SRT corrections of matter. With all sub atomic particles,
proton, neutron electron and neutrino having a rotating or toroidal photon
structure, the SRT corrections are automatically inbuilt into every particle.
As such I am happy that Einstein’s SRT corrections will always
apply. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Remember
that all linear motions are relative to the observer. However accelerations
and circular motions are absolute. O1 and O2 may start out at 0.5 c
wrt O3. O2 may be decelerated to rest wrt O3, remain at rest wrt O3 and then
accelerated back to 0.5c to return to rest next to O1. O1 will still see O2’s
clock as having lost time. O3 will see an entirely different situation. But
remember O3 can only see what is happening to O1 and O2 by using photons. O3’s
time dilation observations of O1 and O2 must include the SRT corrections as
well as Doppler effect and distance changes. Complex but calculable to those
interested.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Chip,
regarding your analogy of A and B. At one stage in their life they were at the
same place at the same time, even if it was only at birth. To find out which
will be the younger you need to establish their background. If A remained at
rest and B was accelerated away from A, B will be the younger when they both
meet up again. If they both travelled away with equal accelerations,
velocities and time they will both appear the same age. Both would be younger
than a person born at the same place at the same time and remained at that
place when they all met up again. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I
am quite happy to accept that all linear motion is relative. It agrees with
SRT and experiment. I am also satisfied that the rotating or toroidal photon
model for an electron (and other particles) gives a physical description that
matches both SRT and observation. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cheers,</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Vivian
Robinson</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=airmailon><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On
15 June 2017 at 12:43:26 AM, Chip Akins (<A href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
target=_blank>chipakins@gmail.com</A>) wrote:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John<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">Yes. When I used the
large circle example, I was afraid that someone would divert the
conversation from Special Relativity. I suppose I deserve
that.<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">Back to Special
Relativity.<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 Twin (Twin B) is moving at
a constant highly relativistic velocity toward Twin A. Twin B thinks Twin A
is moving, Twin A thinks Twin B is moving. When twin B arrives at Twin A’s
location, Twin A expects Twin B to be younger, Twin B expects Twin A to be
younger. Mutually exclusive conditions (if all motion is relative). So
all motion is not relative. Simple, even for post grads, like you and
me.<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 welcome constructive,
logical, suggestions, but please refrain from condescension, it does not
help the cause.<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; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>John Williamson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 14, 2017
4:19 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<<A href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>><BR><B>Cc:</B>
Darren Eggenschwiler <<A href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"
target=_blank>darren@makemeafilm.com</A>>; Innes Morrison <<A
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
target=_blank>innes.morrison@cocoon.life</A>>; Mark, Martin van der
<<A href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
target=_blank>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Chip,<BR><BR>What happens for a circulating (near) lightspeed object is, not
that local time or length changes, but the ring appears to get smaller for
the participant - shrinking to zero length ring at lightspeed. Clocks
onboard act normally. They will feel, however, feel an acceleration unless
in free-fall, which can occur for a curved space -time or round the edge of
the universe, for example. You really need to expand your thinking to
General relativity (which is, of course, itself not the most general of all
the possible proper descriptions of space and time, as it has only a simple
scalar curvature) to get a proper grip on this.<BR><BR>Someone mentioned a
muon storage ring. the stored Muons decay normally according to themselves,
but see a much smaller ring. They also feel a permanent transverse
acceleration. The is also (synchrotron)radiation, but this is from the
system ring+muons, rather than from the muons themselves.<BR><BR>Most of the
rest of the discussion on this has been at a level usually treated at
undergraduate level. Grahame is right: you will not find a mathematical
contradiction in special relativity. All this stuff has been done
before.<BR><BR>Hope this helps,<BR><BR>Cheers, John.<BR><BR>Regards, John
W.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF617198>
<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, June
13, 2017 11:12 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<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
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">The reason for the huge circle
in my thought experiment, is so that the velocity can be very close to c,
causing relativistic time dilation, and that velocity dependent time
dilation would dominate the experiment, while acceleration induced time
variation would be far less significant.<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">And I agree with you that
space possesses a reference rest frame where time is not retarded in any of
these or similar circumstances.<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 the important thing, I
believe, is that all motion cannot be relative, and there cannot be full
reciprocity regarding the effects of motion. For if all motion is
relative, then there is just no solution which satisfies the equations and
does not present a paradox. If all motion is relative, then twin A will be
younger than twin B, and twin B will be younger than twin A. But of course
these are mutually exclusive answers, so all motion is not
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">So as it stands, if I am
reading the comments correctly, you, me, Chandra, and Albrecht, agree that
there is a more Lorentzian form of relativity, (which I feel is caused by
matter being made of confined light-speed energy) which is the proper
physical form of relativity in or universe.<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 thoughts
and comments!!!<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; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Dr Grahame Blackwell<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 13,
2017 2:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <<A href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
chip,</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I'm
100% with you on this!</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I
really don't understand the notion that 'the universe is an observer effect'
- it makes no sense to me whatsoever. By the same token, the notion
that 'collapse of the wavefunction' is precipitated by
observation/measurement is to me quite fanciful - for me there is a much
more straightforward explanation for the phenomenon referred to as
'wavefunction collapse' (which I don't believe to be a collapse of any
kind!)</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I'm
sorry for not responding to your previous post sooner; I was planning to
send a comment, but have been fully occupied with other pressing matters of
late. My observation relates to your thought experiment in which each
'twin' sees the other as travelling in a large circle at high speed.
For me there is no paradox at all in this from the SR perspective (though
like you, I am of the firm opinion that there exists one unique
objectively static rest-frame [subject to Hubble expansion, of course], all
other 'rest frames' are in motion in absoolute terms).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">If one
twin is seen by the other as moving in a circle - however large - but
regards themself as being at rest, then they will instead experience a force
which the other twin will regard as acceleration towards the centre of the
circle but that they themself will regard as influence of a gravitational
field (if you doubt this, just posit an accelerometer on their ship with a
readout that can be seen by, or communicated to, their twin).
That influence will be directly comparable with the centripetal force of
constant-speed circular motion and will be regarded by that twin as causing
identical time dilation for them c.f. one outside the influence of that
field. They will therefore expect their OWN clock to be slowed by an
exactly corresponding amount from the perspective of one not subject to that
'gravitational field' - so they will fully expect their clock and that of
their twin to be retarded by a precisely-equal degree, and so that both
clocks would show identical times on comparison when again passing each
other.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">[As a
point of detail, making it a very BIG circle in no way reduces the validity
of this analysis, it simply requires more accurate instrumentation - as is
always the case with regard to details of SR & GR.]</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As I
said in my previous comment, it very much appears to me that SR is 100%
self-consistent mathematically. This does not make it correct as a
representation of physical reality - but trying to discredit SR by
attempting to find a flaw in the math is to me a non-starter! SR will
ONLY be shown to be an incorrect assumption (in respect specifically of
equivalence of all inertial reference frames) by consideration of the
energetic formation of particles (which can also be approached indirectly by
way of the Energy-Momentum Relation).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">[Another
point of detail: I have included a fairly exhaustive analysis of Hasselkamp
et al's experiment in my book: this shows that even so-called '2nd order
Doppler effect' cannot be used to detect motion of the earth wrt the
objective universal rest state, no matter how accurate readings or
instrumentation. SR is a VERY tightly-meshed cage!]</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></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; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----
Original Message ----- </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><A title=chipakins@gmail.com
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Chip
Akins</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">'Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion'</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:34 PM</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi
Chandra<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 don’t know if the others
are not receiving my posts or if they are just being
ignored.<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 current exchange is
quite disheartening however.<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">To postulate that an
observer creates the universe he experiences is absurd in so many ways,
and counter to the evidence in so many ways, that I cannot believe we have
spent so much time in such a discussion.<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">All the evidence suggests
the universe existed before observers, and continues to exist as each of
us dies. The universe does what it does whether we observe it or
not. We can only make very slight, insignificant changes to the
overall state of the universe. When we cause an interaction to occur by
observation, it has an effect, but that does not mean that the universe is
observer-centric. It just means that the universe does what it does.
When interactions occur a set of rules exist which govern those
interactions.<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">In a universe which is in
effect created in the mind of the observer, I am the only observer that I
know to exist. The rest of the mentally imagined observers I
interact with are figments of my mind. So it does no good to communicate
with those figments and try to convince those imagined others of
anything.<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">Experience indicates that
this is not the type of universe we live in. Other sentient minds
are present, all of us finding that Washington DC is located in the same
spot and has the same buildings. We live in a single universe which has
many sentient minds all seeing principally the same thing. We know this
because we communicate with others, and compare
notes.<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">Once we understand the
physics well enough we can see that wave-function collapse is NOT required
to explain an interaction. So the reason for some quantum physicists
overreaching and concluding that the observer has a significant bearing on
physics then is a mute argument.<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, as a species, seem to
tend to look for the most “mentally stimulating” explanations, rather than
sticking to the scientific approach, and looking for the most
theoretically economical and practical answers.<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 universe has many
lessons for us embedded within. One of the most striking lessons is
the elegant simplicity of how everything works. If we keep this
elegant simplicity in mind as we look for the rest of the answers, we are
far more likely to find the right answers.<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">Warmest
Regards<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">Charles (Chip)
Akins<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><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">_______________________________________________
<BR>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at <A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"
target=_blank>viv@universephysics.com</A> <BR><a href="<A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>">
<BR>Click here to unsubscribe <BR></a> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<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>