Not all, Carl. Didn't <span style="font-style: italic;">I</span> 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. <div><br><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px;">>>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... </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px;">they each see all sorts of bizarre Relativity observations...</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></div><div>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.</div><div>Now if you are agreeing that these effects are illusory, you are going against Einstein, if you are not, then why call them bizarre?</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Hollings<br>
<br>
----Original Message----<br>
From: cj@mb-soft.com<br>
Date: 09/11/2016 16:24<br>
To: <physics@tuks.nl><br>
Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 9<br>
<br>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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. <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html">http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html</a></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Carl Johnson</span></div>
<div> </div>
_______________________________________________<br>Physics mailing list<br>Physics@tuks.nl<br>http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br><br>
<br>
</div></div>