<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I agree with Kracklauer <br>
</p>
<p>And of course you can always say "Each of the two can calculate
what the other sees (if they know relativity)" This is the
argument that has been presented in this discussion and it is a
fake argument because as Kraklauer indicates it is introducing not
the relativity that Einstain proposed but another version,
sometimes in the same text.</p>
<p>No what einstein proposed as SR is that if twin one remains
stationary and twing two make a round trip then when they get back
together the traveling twins clock will slow down. And I believe
the correct answer to this predition is that SRT's twin paradox is
real, that it shows a real flaw in SRT, and for that reason
EInstein was forced to develop general relativity and introduce
gravity and inertia <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/22/2017 11:45 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-4f8181b4-d820-4137-bcf5-3d435a1b92d0-1503470742376@3c-app-webde-bap56">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>The real problem, John, is that textbooks have two
explanations; which they pull out often within the same page!
In one the time or space alterations are actually
ontological, in the other just apparitions or artifacts of
perception as realized using the E&M interaction.
Something is misunderstood or wrong.
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
23. August 2017 um 03:48 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>,
"'Viv Robinson'" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><viv@universephysics.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "'Darren Eggenschwiler'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"><darren@makemeafilm.com></a>, "'Innes Morrison'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>, "'Mark, Martin van
der'" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
p.airmailon, li.airmailon, div.airmailon {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
span.EmailStyle18 {
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
--><!--P {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
-->
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">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><font size="3"
face="Times New Roman,serif"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><font 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.</font></span></font></span>"
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>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF271226" style="direction: ltr;"><font
size="2" face="Tahoma" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Chip Akins [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<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</font><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">Hi Vivian</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">Thank you for the careful
explanation offered in the email below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">We have two identical clocks,
moving relative to each other.</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.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">An observer with clock A thinks
clock B is moving.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">An observer with clock B thinks
clock A is moving.</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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">They cannot both be correct. </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:
black;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<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;"> Viv Robinson
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>; Nature of
Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Darren Eggenschwiler'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"><darren@makemeafilm.com></a>; 'Innes
Morrison'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>;
'Mark, Martin van der'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Hi All,</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Cheers,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Vivian Robinson</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="airmailon"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">On 15 June 2017 at 12:43:26
AM, Chip Akins (<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chipakins@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Back to Special
Relativity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I welcome
constructive, logical,
suggestions, but please refrain
from condescension, it does not
help the cause.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Darren
Eggenschwiler <<a
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='darren@makemeafilm.com'; return
false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">darren@makemeafilm.com</a>>;
Innes Morrison <<a
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='innes.morrison@cocoon.life';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">innes.morrison@cocoon.life</a>>;
Mark, Martin van der <<a
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='martin.van.der.mark@philips.com';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;">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></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align: center;"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center"
width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF617198">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;"><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Chip Akins
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<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></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi
Grahame</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I
agree with you that space
possesses a reference rest
frame where time is not
retarded in any of these
or similar circumstances.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank
you for your thoughts and
comments!!!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] STR twin
Paradox</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Hi chip,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">I'm 100% with
you on this!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">[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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">[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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Grahame</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:
none;border-left: solid
navy 1.5pt;padding: 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in
4.0pt;margin-left:
3.75pt;margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-right:
0.0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">-----
Original Message
----- </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><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;">
</span><a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chipakins@gmail.com'; return
false;"
target="_blank"
title="chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;">Chip
Akins</span></a><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">
</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;">
</span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;">'Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'</span></a><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">
</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;">
Tuesday, June 13,
2017 5:34 PM</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</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi
Chandra</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
don’t know if the others
are not receiving my
posts or if they are
just being ignored.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The
current exchange is
quite disheartening
however.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmest
Regards</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Charles
(Chip) Akins</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________<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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='viv@universephysics.com'; return
false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>