<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Consolas;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
PRE {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; COLOR: black; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal
}
SPAN.EmailStyle21 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
..MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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 bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Chip,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>When I talk about 'dislodging
Relativity' I'm referring to the mind-set that all states of motion are purely
relative and there is no absolute state of motion/rest - that's exactly what
(Einsteinian) Relativity IS.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The reason that I keep saying that
Relativity is mathematically self-consistent is precisely because people (like
you and Wolf) have for the past century tried to show an inconsistency (aka a
paradox) through variations of the Twins 'Paradox' (not). My absolute main
objective, personally, is to get people - particularly scientists responsible
for leading the world's thinking on physical reality - to realise that yes,
Relativity as an observational phenomenon is a reality - but NO, Relativity in
the sense of 'no absolute rest-state' (and so also no absolute measures of
motion-states) is NOT a reality, it IS an 'observational phenomenon' in the
sense that the effects and measurements experienced are in no small part down to
the altered state of perception in a moving observer. We are clearly both
very much in agreement about this!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I agree that NO
experiment has ever proved that Einsteinian Relativity actually holds
- EVERY experimental result that appears to do so can be fully explained in
terms of totally predictable observer effects. However, the reason that
I'm banging on about 'SR/GR is self-consistent' is that we do ourselves a
serious disservice by attempting to show holes in that self-consistency when
they don't exist. By doing this we reinforce the notion (held by mainsteam
physicists) that those who don't agree with Einsteinian SR/GR just don't
really understand it. MY position is "Yes, I DO understand very fully why
and how it's self-consistent - but it's still wrong!!!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As for 'curved space(time), don't get
me started on that! I agree that it's impossible for something that is in
fact nothing to be curved - but it goes much further than that:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(1) No-one has ever explained,
in direct terms, what they mean by 'spacetime is curved'; it's only ever
'explained' by analogy, in terms of objects following 'contours' in
spacetime. What are those contours formed from, and why would objects
follow them - how do they influence object behaviour?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(2) How is it that massive
objects create those contours? What is it about massive objects that gives
rise to these mystical contours??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(3) Not least: if the Higgs boson
causes mass (a premise that I do not subscribe to) then in what way does it give
rise to 'gravitational' effects? We're told that mass creates space-time
contours, we're told that the Higgs Field gives objects mass - then what exactly
is the connection between the Higgs and gravitation, causally???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It appears to me that mainstream
physics hs thrown the concept of causation out the window; it's about time that
they were called to account for that - called to account for causation, in other
words.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[By the way, I'm interested in your
notion of "logically self-consistent". I'm not quite sure how that would
pan out or how it could be shown to be not so? Clearly the Twins Paradox
ain't gonna do it!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></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=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 01, 2017 12:08
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<A title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip
Akins</A> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto: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-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<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>