<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=utf-8"><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: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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 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;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.airmailon, li.airmailon, div.airmailon
{mso-style-name:airmail_on;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
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 vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><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'>Questions. Do you feel that when you add energy to an electron it causes its frequency to increase so that E=hv? If so, then do you believe that accelerating an electron causes this same effect? And if so, do believe that a relativistic electron has a smaller spin (action) radius than an electron at “rest”?<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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Viv Robinson<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 26, 2017 8:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> Albrecht Giese <phys@a-giese.de>; 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><div id="bloop_customfont"><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>On more than one occasion I have indicated that the best way of solving a problem is to state the scientific or physics principle upon which your point of view is based and then use mathematics to determine the magnitude of that principle’s effect. This is still the best method of getting a point of view across. However this “twin paradox” debate continues on opinion alone. Participants seem more interested in expressing a view to prove their point than demonstrating it scientifically with physics and calculations. Central to many participants viewpoint is that Einstein’s special relativity theory sin error.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>Those holding that view should at least give an experimental result that doesn’t match an SRT prediction. I would remind participants that SRT (and sometimes general relativity theory) calculations give us highly accurate global positioning systems. If you believe the SRT calculations are in error, state an example.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>The "twin paradox” is often started as one example.It is here that I refer to Chip’s two space craft with beeping lasers. So Chip, let us consider the whole situation. One space craft is launched from Earth, another from a planet in a neighboring star system. Both use a universal frequency and send beeps, same or different period, it doesn’t matter. They have spent years traversing deep space. Separate violent events sends both off course and no way of knowing where they were when they regained control of their craft. By a strange co-incidence they find themselves detecting each other’s signals. They approach each other with no way of knowing their position or actual speeds. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>They soon determine their relative speeds and their clocks are synchronized. They approach each other. At their closest approach they exchange time information. Chip, I believe that is a situation you propose. Allowing for Doppler effects, when they exchange times. Space craft A will detect its clock as being slower than space craft B. Space craft B will detect its time as faster than A. This indicates space craft A is going faster than space craft B. Perhaps you could take that as an indication that there is an absolute reference against which all speeds are measured. Not so!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>The stars in our neighboring region of the galaxy are in a reasonably fixed positions wrt each other. Planets revolving around their habitat zone would have approximately the same speed. In effect both space craft would head out from objects that have approximately constant separation distance from each other. That is they are at relative rest wrt each other. Both can be considered as starting from the zero velocity wrt each other. Even though both crews have lost all knowledge of their whereabouts in relation to their origins, the space craft have been subjected to all the relativity corrections wrt speed from their origins. Because their origin velocities were approximately the same, their reference is approximately the same. Therefore they would know which was traveling the faster from their origin point and hence wrt each other compared to their starting velocities. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>The only variation to this is if both space crafts were traveling at approximately the same speed from their origin and their measuring equipment was super accurate. In that case, by referencing their positions and velocities wrt the background stars, they would be able to work out which space craft emerged from the deeper gravitational potential and possibly the speed difference at launch. Earth’s general relativity correction is about 10^-8. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>In short, there is never any twin paradox because both twins were originally at the same place and time. The internal SRT corrections will always be adjusted to that reference. Likewise there is no time paradox for independent travelers because their origins were almost at rest wrt each other. If you managed to get intergalactic travelers from hundreds of millions of light years away you could get an additional redshift imposed upon the relatively velocities. I don’t intend to work out how to calculate that effect because I consider it an unlikely situation during my lifetime.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>So what is the physical reason for that? IMHO it is that the SRT corrections are due to the rotating or toroidal photon structure of matter. In other words, it is an inherent property of matter. It is not a property of space. If it were a property of space then all corrections would be referenced to a single point in space. If that were the case, that single point would be close to the Earth’s centre because SRT calculations are required to get accurate navigation information. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>At the risk of sounding repetitive, If you want people to follow your logic, give the physics behind it and back it up with mathematical calculations. Not everything in standard model physics is wrong. That some people don’t understand Einstein’s calculations doesn’t make them wrong. They are wrong when they don’t match observation. Using some small effect with questionable interpretation is not a sound foundation to dismantle an otherwise working theory.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal>Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="bloop_sign_1503699575355990784"><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=airmailon>On 26 August 2017 at 12:49:20 AM, Albrecht Giese (<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>) wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p>Dear John W and Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p><p>I think that I should explain a bit about this discussion between Wolf and myself. Why this discussion is as it is.<o:p></o:p></p><p>I find the topic of Wolf about conciousness very interesting and very important. So I have continued with this discussion. But, unfortunately in my view, Wolf is basing his thoughts on a wrong understanding of relativity. The finds that this "incorrect" theory 'SRT' is an indication of our human failure to understand physics and so of our misleading consciousness. - But not SRT is incorrect (as some of you have already and repeatedly written) but Wolf's understanding is wrong. - I am trying to give Wolf a correct understanding as a precondition for a successful development of the issue of consciousness. I see that this may be boring for those who have understood relativity. But what else can we do to get ahead?<o:p></o:p></p><p>Any ideas?<br><br>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am 24.08.2017 um 11:35 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Very well put, John - I totally agree.</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'>Both Albrecht and Wolf are addressing important points - but they are quite different points.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>It's absolutely true that Albrecht has the right of it within the context of the sort of stuff that this forum is primarily about. But by the same token, Wolf is raising significant points, points that just don't really happen to fit with the main substance of this group 'discussion'.</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'>Wolf, I find your input fascinating, many times I've wanted to exclain "Yes!" - but it tends too much to take us away from the physical-realm based stuff that really needs to be pinned down if physics is to progress at that level. The consciousness issue also needs (very importantly) to be addressed - I believe our progress will be severely limited until/unless we DO address it - but as quite a different topic. (Maybe we need a separate discussion group...)</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'>Thanks, John, for drawing that very helpful distinction.</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:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</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> <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:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark, Martin van der</a> ; <a href="mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com" title="piet.delaney.2@gmail.com">Pete Delaney</a> ; <a href="mailto:d.e.a.eggenschwiler@gmail.com" title="d.e.a.eggenschwiler@gmail.com">Darren Eggenschwiler</a> ; <a href="mailto:innesdmorrison@gmail.com" title="innesdmorrison@gmail.com">Innes Morrison</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'> Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:47 AM<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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Dear Wolf and Albrecht.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Please forgive me if I am wrong, and you are both really communicating deeply, but I do not think the two of you are really communicating at all on any meaningful level.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Albrecht, you do not seem to get what Wolf is talking about at all, and keep trying to draw him back to the limited grounds of SR, which is quite irrelevant to most of what he is trying to say. On another forum his approach would be taken to be the majority view.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Wolf, you should not be trying to go onto the grounds of the argument with SR as this is not what you are about. You are going to lose on those grounds as SR is perfectly self-consistent and does describe the physics of synchrotrons perfectly. Albrecht is right: otherwise they would not work. This is not to say that SR is in any way the whole story. It is not, as is being discussed in some of the other threads.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>This whole back and forth has become a prime example of both of you making up what you think the other is talking about and then arguing with that instead of conducting a proper discussion with each other. You are both arguing, effectively, with yourself. This is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, as one or both of you may come to the realisation that you have something to learn and that is always a good thing. It has become pretty tiring for an outside observer though.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Regards, John.</span><span style='color:black'><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></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>