[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 9

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

Not all, Carl. Didn't I reply? I have so many emails coming in and going out that it would take an age to look through them all. You say that you are a theoretical physicist, and therefore must have a degree (at least). I completely agree with you that only the remote observer will "see" any effects. 
>>None of you seem to realize that BOTH of them (each in Non-Accelerating Inertial Rest Frames) sees the other as ageing obviously >>more slowly than himself... they each see all sorts of bizarre Relativity observations...
You seem to be agreeing that these effects are not real, just observed. But Einstein ( before he recanted - Academy of Prussian Scientists 1922, if memory serves me), insisted they were real, and caused such things as mass increase. I chose that one because it is often used as the explanation as to why a rocket for example, cannot accelerate past the speed of light. If the mass increase was just an illusion it could have no possible effect.Now if you are agreeing that these effects are illusory, you are going against Einstein, if you are not, then why call them bizarre?
Tom Hollings



----Original Message----

From: cj at mb-soft.com

Date: 09/11/2016 16:24

To: <physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 9






As a Theoretical Physicist, I find it amusing that 
you all seem to agree that there is "variable time".  Have any of you had 
any Education (and Degree) in advanced Physics?  And specifically about 
either form of Relativity?
 
I had earlier tried to clarify for all of you a 
major logical error you all seem to agree on.  The EFFECTS that you assume 
happen to a "moving person"  do NOT include any sensation of any time-rate 
difference effect.  Only an OBSERVER (usually  at a distance, and 
usually non-moving at a considerable distance, has ANY sensation of either form 
of Relativity time-rate difference.
 
I have NO innterest in getting invollved in your 
arguments, but I WILL mention that Einstein clearly stated that ANYONE in an 
Inertial Rest Frame of Reference has an equally valid perspective (and 
math).  So, in all your assorted speculations, you each really should try 
to visualize the situations from "the other point of view".  The 
traditional example used, of an Earth observer watching a receding planet or 
spacecraft radially receding at 0.6c, certainly WOULD OBSERVE that the "moving 
person" seemed to age at 0.8 times the rate.  Fiine.  You are right 
there.  But consider how the Universe looks FROM that "moving 
person".  He does NOT think he is  moving, but he looks out  and 
SEES the  Earth receding from him at 0.6c.  Strangely enough, 
HE OBSERVES the Earth person appear to be aging at 0.8 times the 
rate.
 
None of you seem to realize that BOTH of them (each 
in Non-Accelerating Inertial Rest Frames) sees the other as aging obviously more 
slowly than himself.
 
The significant fact regarding your arguments is 
that NEITHER (per Einnstein) would EVER sense any "time rate difference" 
regarding himself.  Because it actually does NOT EXIST.  As OBSERVERS, 
they each see all sorts of bizarre Relativity observations, in  this case 
even where BOTH of them OBSERVE the other to be aging more slowly than himself 
(due to SR) but the REALITY, which none of you seem to realize, is where the 
REALITY is no different than any  of us might normally expect (as long as 
they are OBSERVING from a non-accelerating inertial Rest Frame of 
Reference.
 
Some of you seemed to be critical that a very 
precise example I used  in a recent example to you specifically mentioned 
an OBSERVER standing at the North Pole of the Earth.  http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html
 
entirely to ensure that he was in such a 
non-accelerating inertial rest frame (which does NOT apply to  any of the 
rest of us on Earth, who are all daily circling and therefore radially 
accelerating downward toward the center of the Earth.
 
Carl Johnson
 
_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161109/9b2c4390/attachment.html>