<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)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My intent is not to dislodge relativity. Relativity is a fact. But one part of SRT is not, the “all motion is relative” part.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I find it interesting that in order to “defend” SRT’s all motion is relative postulate, GR is apparently always used. During the pre GR era, SRT was interpreted to support the idea that space is not a medium and that all motion is relative. Then with GR space has to be curved. And it is hard to curve what does not exist.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You keep saying that “Relativity” is mathematically self-consistent. And I agree. But nothing in SRT proves that all motion is relative. It is just an arbitrary addition to the theory. No experiment has proven that all motion is relative. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>While SRT may be mathematically self-consistent, SRT’s “all motion is relative” is not logically self-consistent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></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;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 01, 2017 5:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Sorry Chip, but you're not going to dislodge Relativity like that.</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Under Relativity circular motion is NOT absolute - I have most definitely 'questioned that' in my last several emails. The whole point of my recent missives is to make it clear that Relativity allows a person undergoing circular motion to consider themselves at rest - and that view is as valid as any other, under Relativity.</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>That's why GR then has to come into it. Because even whilst considering themselves to be at rest, that person will experience a force - and GR allows them to regard that force as a gravitational effect (and considers that as valid a view as any other).</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>The whole point of GR was to extend 'relativity' to non-inertial frames - so to claim that a non-inertial frame is 'absolute' and then extent that to embrace SR is a complete misunderstanding of Relativity.</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Sorry!</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>To:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> <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;color:windowtext'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi All<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We have discussed the “twin paradox” and many have said that there is no paradox. But using SRT alone this is not strictly true. The postulate that “all motion is relative” is an arbitrary and so far experimentally unsupported part of SRT. This postulate alone causes a paradox.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But there is another way to consider these issues<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We have established that circular motion is absolute, and no one has questioned that, because we have experimentally been able to verify that is the case.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now let us take that circular motion toward the limit, and continue to enlarge the radius of that motion. Still, no matter how large the radius, circular motion is absolute. At what point, at how large a radius, would you say that the laws of motion change from absolute to relative?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The fact is, the laws of motion do not change from absolute to relative, even if the radius is so large that we cannot measure the curvature. All motion is not relative.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>