<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Hi Grahame, hi Chip, hi All,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">This is an interesting discussion here about the
question whether <b><font color="#000000">motion is relative or
absolute</font></b>. And I find </font><font size="-1"
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">the fact </font><font
size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">particularly
interesting that this has a historical background. Because it
was also subject of discussions between Einstein, Mach, and
Lorentz. Let's have a look at it.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">When Einstein developed SRT, in his view motion
could be taken as relative (which war also believed by Galileo).
Hendrik Lorentz developed, prior to Einstein, his version of
Special Relativity. He referred to an existence of an ether,
where the only property of the ether used by Lorentz was the
existence of an absolute frame. Einstein preferred a theory
which did not need an ether, because he followed at that time
the philosophy of positivism and this philosophy asked to avoid
assumptions (or physical entities) which are not open to measurement.
The result of Michelson-Morley was, as we know, that an ether
could not be measured (ether was, however, not falsified even
though some people still say this). <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Both versions of SRT, the one of Lorentz and the
one of Einstein, are mathematically consistent with itself, so
no math problem. But with respect to GRT the situation became
more complicated. Mach and Lorentz used an argument which also
came up in the preceding mails here: Rotation and acceleration
would need an ether in the sense of an absolute frame, otherwise
both phenomena would be undefined. Mach related his absolute
frame, as we know, to the background of fixed stars. Lorentz
only saw the necessity of an absolute frame without further
assumptions. He used in his discussion with Einstein a thought
experiment of two conductors placed around the equator of our
earth and he assumed that a standing wave was generated in
these conductors. One conductor was assumed to move with the earth's
surface,</font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" color="#330000"> and he argued that it would be
observable that the "hills" and "valleys" of these standing
waves move relative to the earth's surface. The other conductor
was to be moved relative to the earth so that the </font><font
size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">"hills"
and "valleys" of this standing wave do not move relative to the
conductor. So, there would be an absolute determination of
rotation possible.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Einstein understood this problem and to get out
of it he introduced the "strong equivalence principle". In his
view, gravitation and acceleration are two terms for the same
physical phenomenon, so not distinguishable. - I must confess
that I have not really understood this logic, why makes this
assumption the relativity of rotation possible (e.g. for the
Foucault pendulum)? Does anyone of you see this? <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">But anyway, this strong equivalence principle is
clearly falsified. If an observer has a charged object with him,
this object will radiate at acceleration but not at rest in a
gravitational field. And the other difference that there is
dilation in a gravitational field but not according to
acceleration, is not so easily observable in practice, but it </font><font
size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">also
</font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">shows that both phenomena are different. - These
facts prove in my view that <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">(1) rotation is in fact absolute<br>
(2) Einstein's GRT is falsified.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font
color="#330000">Best wishes<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
</font></p>
<font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif">Am 01.09.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05379664D3AE477B8D7F04E6719C3426@vincent">
<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]-->
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi Chip,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(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 size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">[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> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Chip
Akins</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">'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
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">'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> </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:phys@a-giese.de">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">"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: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>