<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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)"><!--[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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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 Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In your email you asked “How are longitudinal displacements generated in Herzian transverse waves…?”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>These transverse waves are the results we can sense because of the motion of the masses, as Al remarked. There is more than one way to cause this motion of mass.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Let me give you an example. In Software Defined Radio SDR, we often produce “Hertzian” waves of a specific frequency by building that wave out of short carefully timed pulses. We could similarly build a Hertzian wave with small equally spaced pulses which have a sinusoidal amplitude envelope.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The idea is just that what we perceive as waves is based on the reaction of mass to energy, and there is more than one way energy can cause mass to behave in this manner.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The only reason to consider that the displacements (fields) may be some more complicated arrangement than just a wave is because all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly to explain what we observe in nature if we consider this possibility. And the results we sense (the motion of massive charged particles) would be the same.<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 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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 26, 2017 12:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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>Chip;<o:p></o:p></p><p>WE are having some interesting and pertinent discussion on charge mass separation in "A composite Electron"<o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></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." </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#002060'>Wolf</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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 9/24/2017 5:53 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>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 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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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 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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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">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><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">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">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><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 border=0 width=72 height=38 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.gif@01D3376C.2948D130"><br><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><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><img border=0 width=114 height=35 id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image002.gif@01D3376C.2948D130"><br><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><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 border=0 width=223 height=34 id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image003.gif@01D3376C.2948D130"><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><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><br><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><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">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">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"><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">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">'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">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">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">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">'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 align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:windowtext'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></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">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">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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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">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">"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></body></html>