<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=iso-8859-1"><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: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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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><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'>Very well said!! Exactly!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The science of physics should be to determine cause. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>That is what it used to be, before being diverted.<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'>My concern is that we are so easily enamored by mentally stimulating conjecture and we far too readily accept such as theoretically sound. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Why do we so easily dismiss fundamental cause for each effect from our requirements for establishing a theoretical foundation?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I can only speculate that it is in part due to our ignorance of the potential causes for what we observe.<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 forget which prominent physicist said that we are currently in what we may in the future call the dark ages of physics.<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: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'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> 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 12:17 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Chip,</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'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.</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'>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...)</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'>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.</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 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.</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'>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!</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'>Cheers, Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>----- Original Message ----- <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 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:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> ; <a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" title="viv@universephysics.com">'Viv Robinson'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com" title="darren@makemeafilm.com">'Darren Eggenschwiler'</a> ; <a href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life" title="innes.morrison@cocoon.life">'Innes Morrison'</a> ; <a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" title="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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 3:28 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] 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 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: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'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> 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>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 <<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 class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> ; <a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" title="viv@universephysics.com">'Viv Robinson'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com" title="darren@makemeafilm.com">'Darren Eggenschwiler'</a> ; <a href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life" title="innes.morrison@cocoon.life">'Innes Morrison'</a> ; <a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" title="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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:20 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] 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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>.</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 PoincarŽe 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 PoincarŽe, 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: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'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>" 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 class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF271226><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> 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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></body></html>