<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip;</p>
<p>WE are having some interesting and pertinent discussion on charge
mass separation in "A composite Electron"</p>
<p>If we consider space to be either filled with EM and
Gravitoinertial Fields or possibly charge and matter densities
with some connecting forces between charge and mass then a
propagation of Em disturbance through such a media could do the
pulling together you are talking about</p>
<p><span style="color:#002060">"There is a very small time constant
in the reaction of space to displacement which causes this
delta. This time constant is due to the velocity of propagation
of longitudinal displacement of space." <br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#002060">canyou tell me more about this time
constant? How are longitudinal displacements generated in
Herzian transverse waves, although I think we are always
neglecting the near field effects when discussing light.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#002060">Wolf<br>
</span></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 9/24/2017 5:53 AM, Chip Akins wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:057501d33534$2b256980$81703c80$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"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;
line-height:105%;
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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comment embedded.<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" style="line-height:normal"><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
[<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>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Relativity and Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Energy
pulling on space? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">so
you mean that the energy of a photon has some mass by E/c<sup>2</sup>
and thus like any other mass produces a curvature<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">or
perhaps a simpler way of saying it is that mass collapses
unless there is some EM counter force keeping it apart<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#002060">Not exactly. The photon does not
possess the thing we normally call mass. But it does possess
the thing we call momentum. Momentum is caused by a delta in
the force Fc at the leading and trailing edges of
transversely propagating displacement. There is a very small
time constant in the reaction of space to displacement which
causes this delta. This time constant is due to the velocity
of propagation of longitudinal displacement of space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#002060">Mass, as we define it, does not occur
unless the transversely propagating displacements of space
are confined in 3 dimensions, as in the electron. The
photon displaces two components of space, from opposite
directions, which provides a balancing force which then
allows the photon to be confined in two dimensions and
propagate at c in the third dimension. The electron only
displaces one component of space, so it does not have this
capability. The electron is therefore confined in 3
dimensions, which, in turn, creates mass (as we normally
define mass). Since only one component of space is
displaced in the electron, the electron has charge as well.
And since all the energy of the electron is pulling on only
one component of space, the electron has more of the force
Fc, and its action radius is smaller, making it a spin ½
particle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
agree with you contention that time is not a fourth dimension
except when we draw it on a piece of paper and then a 1cm
length corresponds to a time interval of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">1/3
x10<sup>-10</sup> sec. - there is some relationship between
our way of displaying time that makes us think we are moving
through it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#002060">Yes. Time is our way of perceiving
serial events as we occupy Euclidian space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/22/2017 5:59 AM, Chip Akins wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for reading the paper.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your first question, “Is there a
mechanism for the force…<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
</span>Is this force a kind of self-field?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The source of the force, the mechanism of
confinement, is simply energy which pulls on space to
displace space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The force is created by energy pulling on
space toward the center of the photon. In this way a more
energetic particle becomes a smaller particle because energy
can pull on space more, and therefore confine itself more.
This is part of the reason E=hv for a photon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note: The radius, is a radius in
Euclidian 3 dimensional space. I do not believe there is a
“time axis” in space. Time is separate from space.
Fundamental time is the serial development of cause and
effect, not a 4<sup>th</sup> dimension.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The spherical symmetry of the electron is
due to (at least) two perpendicular spin components. The
illustration of electron spin in the paper is probably too
simplified, but I am having a hard time figuring out how to
represents this spin graphically.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<br>
<br>
<br>
<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" style="line-height:normal"><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 [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 22, 2017 12:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Relativity and Gravity</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I read your paper and generally like your approach<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Light
propagates forward through space at <i>c,</i> and matter
is made of confined “light-speed” energy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
there is lots of discussion about the size of a photon.
MOst people would say the size of a photon is determined
by the boundary conditions <br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Your
claiming and effective radius in flight? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part4.060B6C88.71AF0C55@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="38" width="72" border="0"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">and
a force holding it together?<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><img
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part5.0916C82E.1A28468C@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="35" width="114" border="0"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Is
there a mechanism for the force. This is a problem I have
with Albrecht's elementary particle model as well. He
postulates force and gives field stregth equations but the
only macroscopic force in nature are gravito-inertial and
Electro-magnetic and both require sourcesof mass and
charge respectively. "P c" is twice the kinetic energy of
a particle traveling along the time axis and is
essentially mc<sup>2</sup> so "r" is the radius of
curvature of a time axis. "pc' is also "qA" where q is the
charge and A the Em vector potential . Is this force a
kind of self field?<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">'"space
is comprised of two components." What would these
components be? I usually think there is a medium of charge
and mass in a background space of in equilibrium that is
perturbed by light and when confined in vertices make
particles .</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="line-height:105%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"Confined
momentum creates the inertial mass property of the
electron"</span> <span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:part6.547AE129.9C02AF7A@nascentinc.com" class=""
height="34" width="223" border="0"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">nice but how does this become a 3D
symmetric presumably the pr is rotating around a kind of
spin axis which is not spherically symetric, or what am I
missing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enough for now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">very interesting relationships.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal">On 9/1/2017
7:03 AM, Chip Akins wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been jotting down some notes,
into something which may one day become a paper.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is still pretty crude but it might
provide some food for thought.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am coming to believe that neither
gravity nor relativity are near as strange as we have been
led to think.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That rambling set of notes is attached.<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>
<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;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 8:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Hi
Chip,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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!!!"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">(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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">(2)
How is it that massive objects create those contours?
What is it about massive objects that gives rise to
these mystical contours??</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">(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???</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">[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!]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">-----
Original Message ----- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
title="chipakins@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Chip
Akins</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Friday, September 01, 2017 12:08 PM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin
Paradox</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Sorry
Chip, but you're not going to dislodge Relativity
like that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Sorry!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">-----
Original Message ----- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
title="chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Chip Akins</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="color:windowtext">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<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>
</body>
</html>