<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have tried. I'll try just
once more.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>You are wrong in stating that "the
straightforward interpretation of Einstein's words suggest that there is a
paradox".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>YES, Einstein states very clearly
that a clock travelling around a curve will experience a reduction in the time
on the clock on arrival. However there are NO circumstances under which
this gives rise to a paradox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Considering the motions of twins A
and B from the perspective of a third observer:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>1. If A remains static and B travels
in a large circle to return to A, then B's clock will record a lesser time than
A's - exactly as Einstein states. But ALL THREE of the parties, A, B and
the observer, will EXPECT that to be the case: from the view of A and the
observer, it's exactly as Einstein states; from B's point of view, B will
consider themself to be static and A and the observer to be moving - but B will
themself experience a force which (considering themself static) they will
interpret as a gravitational force. And B knows that gravitation causes
time dilation - so he/she will fully expect their own clock to be
slowed, even more so than A's clock (when the maths is done in detail) - so
B will fully expect their own clock to show less elapsed time than A's. No
paradox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>2. If both A and B traverse opposite
halves of a circle, as perceived by the observer: A and B will each see the
other as moving whilst they themselves are static, so they will expect the
other's clock to be slowed (as Einstein says). BUT they will also each
experience a force (since from each other's view and the observer's view they
are accelerating); being 'static' from their own perspective they'll interpret
this as a gravitational effect (and GR says that interpretation is totally
valid) and so they will expect their own clock to be slowed also. Again
the maths, from each perspective, determine that each of the two clocks will be
retarded by identical amounts and so match on re-meeting, as all three of them
expect. No paradox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>All of this is exactly as Einstein
says, and all of it ensures that all three parties will agree on the states of
the two clocks on re-meeting. No paradoxes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As for the Equivalence Principle:
This simply states that the effects of acceleration and the effects of
gravitation are identical <STRONG>from the point of view of the one experiencing
those effects</STRONG>. One very simple illustration is the man in the
box, with light coming in through a small hole in the side of the box: the light
curves (from the man's point of view) if the box is accelerating - so it
also curves in a gravitational field.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It is taking the EP too far to
suggest that it means that ALL parties, in all frames, see effects on
people/objects in other frames as equivalent. This can be very simply
demonstrated by considering that man in a box, static with respect to a
distant observer, in a gravitational field. The man in the box is
unable to tell whether he's accelerating or in a grav field - but the observer,
well away from the strong influence of that field, will have no doubts whether
the box-man is static or accelerating from his (the observer's)
perspective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Again, I am not saying that Einstein
is right - I am simply saying that his SR&GR Theory is fully self-consistent
and not susceptible to being refuted by simple hypothetical situations.
Refutation of SR/GR requires careful consideration of the structure of matter
itself - it can be done purely by reference to universally-agreed results
without having to introduce new hypotheses, but trying to argue Relativity
against itself will not do it!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </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=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:54
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>I've now looked up the reference from "on the Electrodynamics of moving
Bodies" by Albert Einstein translated from Annalen der Physik
17,1905 in The Principle of Relativity by H.A. Lorentz, A
Einstein, H. , wit notes by A Sommerfeld p 49 in Section #4</P>
<P>" If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the the clock
remained at rest the traveled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 t
v<SUP>2</SUP>/c<SUP>2</SUP> seconds slow." <BR></P>
<P>Am I wrong in interpreting these words as implying a twin paradox.? I'm not
claiming that there is a twin paradox.</P>
<P>Only that the straight forward interpretation of Einstein's words
suggest there is a paradox <BR></P>
<P>best</P>
<P>Wolf </P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>AND</FONT></P>
<P>I'll be sending a small explanation of my charge mass postulate soon right
now i'm working on a deadlne for a book publication on the topic</P>
<P>However I simply do not understand what relativity theory you refer to.
<BR></P>
<P>If Einstein then surely the equivalence principle clearly states there is
an equivalence between inertial and gravitational forces. If you do not agree
with that principle then you do not agree with Einstein's GR , <BR></P>
<P>The same is true for SR Einstein in his 1905 paper clearly stated that a
second observer traveling at a velocity around a closed loop would when
arriving at the start point have his clock slowed down compared with the
stationary observer, this statement lead to the paradox and motivated Einstein
to develop GR.</P>
<P>Again if you have different interpretation of what Einstein said then
please specify whose theory of relativity you agree with and please give us a
name or school we can use to refer to this interpretation.</P>
<P>I think you make good points but we need to be clear about what theory we
are actually talking about.</P>
<P>best</P>
<P>Wolf<BR></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><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 8/29/2017 3:41 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:85328F3496EE444CAE0459B5C85FD35F@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Regrettably, you appear to have
misread my text. If you read it again more carefully, you will see
that at NO point do I propose, or even suggest, that acceleration gives rise
to time dilation. I am well aware that, as you say, "gravity and
acceleration are different regarding [time] dilation" - so your attempts to
persuade me of this are quite unnecessary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The whole point of my text was,
as I said at the outset, to resolve the 'twins going opposite directions
around a circle' paradox, with reference to classical SR (and GR, as it
happens - bear with me on this). For SR to be self-consistent (which I
believe it is - that's not the same as it being correct!) there has to be an
explanation that fits the terms of Relativity which explains how it can be
that both A and B would expect their clocks to coincide on re-meeting - as
they clearly would from the perspective of a third observer, static with
respect to the circle centre, and so they must of course coincide from
everyone's perspective. If it can be shown that they'd expect their
clocks to be different then Relativity is dead - but it is most definitely
not that simple! [That's why it's survived for over a century; it's
not just that thousands of other physicists over that century have been
incapable of such analysis!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Relativity states that any
scenario can validly be assessed from the perspective of any individual, who
may consider themself to be static - and that their assessment of that
scenario is equally 'correct' to any OTHER assessment from any other frame
of reference. SR restricts such assessment to inertial frames, GR
extends it to non-inertial frames - but this same principle holds
true.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>We can add to this the fact that
if such an observer experiences what we might refer to as a 'G-force' acting
on them then they will know that they must be in a non-inertial frame.
The term 'G-force' is convenient for our purposes as it is used to apply
both to forces due to gravitation and to accelerating forces; it is implicit
in GR (through the Equivalence Principle) that the observer will not know
which of these two applies (Einstein's 'man in a box' thought experiment),
but that if (as he fully validly may, under Relativity) he considers himself
to be at rest then he must necessarily attribute such forces to
gravitational effects (without having to ascertain where those effects arise
from - that could be tricky in our example scenario!)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Please not that I am NOT saying
that these principles actually apply in our physical reality - I am simply
stating the mantra of Relativity, both SR and GR, since that's the
mathematical framework in which I'm seeking to show self-consistency.
Others in the group are proposing that Relativity is disproved by this
'twins thought experiment', I'm observing that it is not; the truth or
falsehood of Relativity as a model of true reality is not what I'm about
here - in fact I'm seeking to show that Relativity CANNOT be disproved by
such a simple setup, it needs rather more thought than that!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Albrecht, I think you
misunderstand my purpose here. It's not my intention EITHER to prove
OR to disprove Relativity; my sole intention is to show that this 'twins
scenario' does NOT show an inconsistency in Relativity - it is NOT a
paradox. In this respect the question of whether Relativity does or
does not match true objective reality is totally irrelevant; the only
question is whether or not Relativity agrees with itself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The importance if this exercise
shouldn't be underestimated: if we are to challenge the fundamental premises
of Relativity, it has to be on FAR stronger ground than a proposed 'paradox'
that has been refuted time and time again over the past 100 years - we do
ourselves, and science, a serious disservice if we convince fans of
Relativity that our view that it's wrong is based on a simplistic
misunderstanding of its basics!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>So, again: external observer sees
A and B perform mirror images of each others' manoeuvres - so of course
clocks will match on re-meeting. So A and B will also see clocks
coinciding - and fully expect that to be the case. How come, given
that Relativity allows each to see their position in the universe as
static?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Simple: since the external
observer sees A (for example) as experiencing acceleration towards the
centre of the circle, A him/herself will inevitably experience a G-force
acting outward from the centre of that observer's circle. Considering
him/herself static in space, A will have no option but to regard that as a
gravitational effect from some unknown source (note that physicists have no
trouble envisaging gravitation acting from unknown sources - we're told that
such sources make up the vast majority of the mass-energy in our
universe!). Since A knows that gravitation causes time dilation (NOTE
THAT I AM <STRONG>NOT</STRONG> PROPOSING, HERE OR ANYWHERE, THAT
ACCELERATION CAUSES SUCH DILATION), he/she will inevitably expect their
clock to have been slowed, as well as knowing that B's motion will have also
slowed B's clock. So matching of clocks on re-meeting is to be totally
expected by A (and B) - no paradox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This is all
about perceptions from different perspectives, and the assertion
in Relativity that all such perceptions are equally valid/true.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With regard to assessing time and
distance of B, as assessed by A: whilst not relevant to this analysis, the
question has arisen - so let's look at it from A's perspective. A
sends out a broadcast radio signal in the general direction of B; on
receiving that signal, B sends a time-stamped response (broadcast in A's
general direction); From the time between sending and receipt, 'knowing'
such signals to travel both ways at c relative to him/herself (according to
SR), A can calculate the distance to B at the time B responded - which will
be halfway between send and received, from A's perspective; A will also have
a record of B's clock-time at that point halfway between A's send and
receive - and so an indication of how B's time is progressing compared with
A's [This is all according to SR 'rules', I'm not proposing that A's
assessments will in fact be correct in absolute terms - though of course SR
considers them to be equally correct to any other view].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Having glanced briefly at Wolf's
latest response, I'd just say that mass-energy considerations can also be
very misleading in a Relativistic scenario, unless handled exceedingly
carefully with full regard for different perspectives. As a very
simple illustration: A single photon observed from one reference
frame may be red- or blue-shifted when observed from a different frame,
and so carry different energy. Extension of this to massive energetic
particles, and applying mass-energy equivalence, makes it clear that we
can't simply assess the mass-energy characteristics of an object or system
from one frame then simply carry those measures across to another
frame. I don't know whether this has a bearing on Wolf's comments, I
didn't get to see much of what you sent previously, Wolf, for some
reason.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 28, 2017 4:21
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT size=-1 face=Arial>Hi Grahame,</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=-1 face=Arial>sorry, but I find a very fundamental error in
your arguments: You describe a pair of twins which observe each other in a
situation where they are permanently accelerated. And then you argue with
dilation caused by gravity. But that does not fit the physical
reality.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=-1 face=Arial>Gravity and acceleration are different
regarding dilation. Gravity causes dilation, no question. But acceleration
does not cause dilation. How can one know? 1) You find this in every
textbook about special relativity; 2) it was experimentally proven in the
Muon storage ring at CERN. The extension of the life time of the muons was
only dependent on the actual speed of the particles, not on the very
strong acceleration in the ring. If that would have been an effect
according to an equivalent gravitational field, their lifetime would have
to be extended by an additional factor of roughly 1000 compared to the
results observed.<BR></FONT></P><FONT size=-1 face=Arial><BR></FONT>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><FONT size=-1 face=Arial>Am 27.08.2017 um 22:18
schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:</FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm afraid I have to disagree
with you on a couple of points.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>First, I agree completely
that gravitation doesn't come under SR. However the concept of
gravitation is essential to explanation of the 'twins going in opposite
directions around a circle and meeting on the far side'
(non-)paradox. [It may be that in your view this scenario cannot
then be simply a playing-out of SR, it must be a GR issue?]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Consider: Twin A and twin B
each view themselves as being static, with the other twin tracing out a
path that takes them away and then brings them back into proximity from
a different direction, having formed a loop of some kind; however, from
the point of view of an observer static with respect to the centre of a
large circle, A and B have started together at some point on the
perimeter of that circle and have each followed opposite halves of that
circle to meet again on its other side. I.e. from the perspective
of that observer the motions of A and B are symmetric, so their clocks
(synchronised at the start) will still be synchronised when they meet
again. [We're assuming here that this all takes place in deep
space, far from any gravitational
influences.]</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>None of the twins can view himself as being
static, because they are accelerated all the time and they will notice
that. So the laws of SR are not applicable for this process in a simple
way.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>From A's point of view, A has
remained static and B has performed a large loop in space, finally
coming back alongside A. According to SR, therefore, A will
observe a slowing-down of B's clock and so will expect B's clock to have
lost time, in real terms as measured in A's frame (if it were an
inertial frame). <BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>No, it is not an inertial
frame.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[We can deal with
the issue of A reading B's clock whilst B is on the move by B digitally
emitting their clock-time at intervals, to be received by A who will
assess those transmissions on the basis of their crossing space at speed
c across the distance that A measures B to be from him at times of
transmission - this could be done fairly easily by A keeping a record of
B's distance at all times as measured on A's
clock.]</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>Also this is not possible. A can receive signals from B, but he
does not know the distance. According to SR this distance is not clearly
defined because the assessment of any distance depends on the motion state
of the observer. Which speed will A assume for himself? He cannot assume
to be static as he notices to be accelerated.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>B will have a corresponding
mirror-image experience of A's motion, and so will expect A to have lost
time in real (B-frame) terms. This appears to suggest that both A
and B would each expect the other's clock to have fallen behind their
own - a paradox.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>Also regarding time a similar problem like for
distance is applicable. When are signals in different frames synchronised
or when is time is running faster or slower? For any observer in different
frames the result of this question may be different.
</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>However, our external
observer will have seen A performing a circular course - so A will
inevitably have experienced a 'G-force' of some kind (centripetal, from
our observer's persective). Since A considers him/herself to be
static, he/she MUST attribute this to some gravitational influence
- indeed, from the SR/GR perspective there must indeed be a
gravitational influence in A's frame, from the perspective of that
frame; one just does not get G-force without either acceleration or
gravitation. (Here, of course, Relativity begins to become
unravelled, as A is far from any massive body that could give rise to a
gravitational field - maybe they'll need to start inventing their
own local 'dark matter'). Note that the scenario being considered
- A and B traversing opposite sides of a circle - involves NO
gravitational fields - BUT A and B would HAVE TO PRESUME the
existence of such a field in their reference frame if they are to
reconcile a force they're experiencing with their assumption that they
are static (a totally valid assumption, in Relativity
terms).</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>As said above, even if both, A and B, attribute the force of
acceleration to gravity, they are in error; and it does anyway not help
the situation. For your consideration they need a gravitational field for
dilation, but this does not exist, and acceleration does not replace
it.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Resolution of this (apparent)
paradox, as I said before, rests on A (and likewise B) considering
themselves to have been subject to a gravitational field - and
experiment shows us that gravitational fields slow time - so their own
clock will have slowed as well as the others. So they will both
expect their clocks to be synchronised on
re-meeting.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>That is anyway true also in the absence of
dilation.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As I say, this is where
Relativity begins to become unravelled: A and B will either each have to
acknowledge that they are NOT in fact static, or they will have to
invent a convincing explanation for a gravitational effect in the
absence of any 'ponderous mass' (to use Einstein's term). But
given that, synchronisation of clocks is not an issue - as long as we
allow A and B to each presume existence of a gravitational field in
their frame (which, as you say, takes it into the sphere of
GR).</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>Not applicable as mentioned above.</FONT></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Second point: in your case of
the travelling-twin versus the stay-at-home twin, the traveller would
again experience G-force, which they could if they wish regard as a
gravitational effect (since under Relativity they are free to
consider themselves as static). They would therefore expect their
clock (including biological clock) to have slowed (Pound-Rebka again),
and so know that they have actually been travelling more than one year
in 'objective' terms - whatever that might mean in this
context.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>The twin travelling, B, cannot assume that he is static because
he has to notice his acceleration. And that is different from gravity. And
even if it could be identified with gravity this would not solve the
example which I have given.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>But of course the reality is
that slowing of time is NOT symmetric, it's a consequence of motion with
respect to the unique objectively-static universal reference
frame. Only when serious scientists start asking WHY
Relativity does (or appears to do) what it does will we make any
progress on this issue.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>Which progress to you expect? There is no symmetry
in the case where twin B returns and so you cannot conclude anything from
symmetry.</FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I think we're agreed on the
key issues. Perhaps it's time to stop discussing how a
self-consistent mathematical system (which doesn't happen to match true
reality) copes with paradoxes of its own making!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>As I have mentioned in the other mail: It is in
conflict with Einstein's relativity to compare clocks residing in
different frames. The result of any comparison depends on the motion state
of the observer. That is what Einstein says.<BR><BR>But the other solution
is to follow the Lorentzian relativity. In that case the imagination
becomes easy (in contrast to Einstein).<BR><BR>Greetings
back<BR>Albrecht.<BR></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent
type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 27, 2017
7:48 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT
twin Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Hi Grahame,</P>
<P>without going into details of this discussion I only want to point
to the following fact:</P>
<P>Whereas you are of course right that the twin situation is not a
paradox but logically clean, what we all as I think have sufficiently
discussed here, the following is not correct in my view:</P>
<P>The twin situation has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with gravity.</P>
<P>Two arguments for this:</P>
<P>o The so called twin paradox is purely Special
Relativity. Gravity on the other hand, is General Relativity. This is
the formal point.</P>
<P>o From practical numbers it is visible that gravity cannot be
an explanation. Take the usual example saying that one twin stays at
home and the other one travels - as seen from the twin at home - for
twenty years away and then twenty years back. From the view of the
twin at home, at the other ones return 40 years have gone. For the
travelling twin only one year has gone (This case is theoretically
possible if the proper speed is taken, about 0.9997c)). Then the
travelling twin would have saved 39 years of life time. Now look at
the possible influence of gravity: Assume it takes the travelling
twin a year to change his speed from almost c to almost - c ,
then, even if the speed of proper time would decrease to zero, he
would have saved only one year. But, in this example, he has saved 39
years. How could this work? No one in physics assumes that proper time
can run inversely. So this is no possible explanation.</P>
<P>How is it explained? I do not want to repeat again and again the
correct (but a bit lengthy) explanation, but I attempt to give a short
version: In Einstein's relativity the run of time in different frames
can logically not be continuously compared, it can only be
compared at interaction points where two clocks (or whatever) are at
the same position. And the determination of the situation at such
common position has to be done by the Lorentz transformation. And this
determination works, as many times said here, without logical
conflicts.</P>
<P>If you solve this problem using the Lorentzian SRT, then the result
is the same but the argument is different, more physics-related, and
also better for the imagination. If wanted, I can of course explain
it.</P>
<P>Albrecht<BR></P>
<P><BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 27.08.2017 um 01:13 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:CCE2F4D7ECF5430E943629241B634443@vincent
type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm sorry Wolf, but it
seems that you're still not getting it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This situation can be
explained fully logically WITHOUT either twin making any assumptions
about SR or GR - simply from their own observations and from
well-proven experimental findings.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>If we label the twins A
and B, then their situations are effectively symmetric* - so we'll
consider the scenario from the viewpoint of twin A.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>A considers him/herself
static, and all motion to be attributable to twin B. So - and
this agrees with experimental observation of clocks at high speed
(in planes and in GPS satellites) - twin A will observe twin
B's clock running slow, if A's own clock is not upset by any
effect. HOWEVER, since A is actually travelling in circular
motion, (s)he will experience a centripetal force; assuming
him/herself to be static, this will necessarily be attributed to
gravitational effects - and it's well known from experiment
(Pound-Rebka and successors) that gravitational fields cause time
dilation - so A will expect their own clock to be running more
slowly also due to that 'gravitational' effect (note that this is
not any assumption of SR or GR, simply inference from proven
experimental results) [and so also A's observation of B's clock,
measured against A's own clock, will not fit the standard SR
time-dilation model, for reasons that A will fully
comprehend]. For A, the cumulative time-dilation for B's
perceived relative speed and for A's own perceived 'gravitational'
effect exactly balance - so A will fully expect both clocks to
coincide when the twins meet again (as B will also).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>No paradox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>* It needs to be said
that further study of causation of 'relativistic time dilation'
leads to the understanding that this is an objective effect due to
travelling at speed relative to the unique objectively-static
universal reference frame. So if the centre of the circle
traced out by A and B is itself in motion relative to that reference
frame then it cannot be assumed that A's and B's motions will be
symmetric; in that case their clocks may well not be precisely
synchronised on their meeting again. This is an observation
relating to physical reality, which in no way contradicts the
self-consistency of SR (or GR) as a mathematical
system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best
regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1048"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1026" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:106.5pt;margin-top:8.5pt;width:156pt;height:163.5pt;z-index:1'
coordorigin="3910,3784" coordsize="3120,3270">
<v:oval id="_x0000_s1027" style='position:absolute;left:3910;top:3974;width:3120;
height:3080;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/>
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t202" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="202" path="m,l,21600r21600,l21600,xe">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1028" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:4910;top:3784;width:510;height:480;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1028'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>1</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1029" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:5430;top:3814;width:510;height:480;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1029'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>21</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:line id="_x0000_s1030" style='position:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="6010,3914"
to="6890,4404" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:line id="_x0000_s1031" style='position:absolute;flip:x;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="3910,3974"
to="4820,4584" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:shape id="_x0000_s1032" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:5020;top:5254;width:810;height:490;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mass</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1033" style='position:absolute;left:5040;top:5194;
width:750;height:650' filled="f"/>
</v:group><v:shape id="_x0000_s1034" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:166.5pt;margin-top:177.3pt;width:45pt;height:22pt;z-index:2;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:oval id="_x0000_s1035" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:61.5pt;margin-top:2.1pt;width:214pt;height:214pt;z-index:3;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><v:shape
id="_x0000_s1036" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;margin-left:155.5pt;
margin-top:-26.9pt;width:25.5pt;height:24pt;z-index:4;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1036'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>m</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:line id="_x0000_s1037" style='position:absolute;z-index:5;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="184.5pt,-15.4pt"
to="235.5pt,-14.9pt" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:shape id="_x0000_s1038" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:148pt;margin-top:122.7pt;width:40.5pt;height:24.5pt;z-index:6;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mass</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1039" style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.5pt;
margin-top:79.35pt;width:29pt;height:26pt;z-index:7;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"/><v:group id="_x0000_s1041"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.5pt;margin-top:11pt;width:33.5pt;
height:28.1pt;z-index:9' coordorigin="7340,2020" coordsize="670,562">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1042" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:7360;top:2032;width:650;height:550;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1042'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>ch</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1043" style='position:absolute;left:7340;top:2020;
width:590;height:500' filled="f"/>
</v:group><v:shape id="_x0000_s1044" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:150.5pt;margin-top:79.75pt;width:31pt;height:24pt;z-index:10;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ch</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1045" style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.85pt;
margin-top:-13pt;width:25.55pt;height:34.5pt;z-index:11;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' coordsize="511,690"
path="m293,v26,67,53,135,10,180c260,225,,257,33,270v33,13,462,-22,470,-10c511,272,95,325,83,340v-12,15,348,-7,350,10c435,367,93,427,93,440v,13,337,-22,340,-10c436,442,133,493,113,510v-20,17,163,-10,200,20c350,560,341,625,333,690e"
filled="f">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1046" style='position:absolute;margin-left:151.85pt;
margin-top:94.7pt;width:25.55pt;height:34.5pt;z-index:12;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' coordsize="511,690"
path="m293,v26,67,53,135,10,180c260,225,,257,33,270v33,13,462,-22,470,-10c511,272,95,325,83,340v-12,15,348,-7,350,10c435,367,93,427,93,440v,13,337,-22,340,-10c436,442,133,493,113,510v-20,17,163,-10,200,20c350,560,341,625,333,690e"
filled="f">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1047" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:187.5pt;margin-top:-36pt;width:113pt;height:20pt;z-index:13;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>~c speed of light</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_s1040" type="#_x0000_t202"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:140pt;margin-top:4.2pt;width:45pt;
height:22pt;z-index:8;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><![endif]--></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</A>
<a href=<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><BR>
<TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 55px; PADDING-TOP: 18px"><A
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true"><IMG
style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px" alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
width=46 height=29 moz-do-not-send="true"></A></TD>
<TD
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #41424e; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei.
<A style="COLOR: #4453ea"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</A>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<P></P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>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:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A><BR><a
href=<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><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>
<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>