<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>To Tom Hollings:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regarding BOTH SR and GR, yes, Einstein was right
when he noted that "aging" and "observed mass" and "observed distance" are
all very precisely affected. But my point was different. Yes,
the Earth observer for Einstein SAW each of those effects. But in no way
would he ever DETECT any of those effects himself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I ask each of you to remember that Einstein made
clear (regarding SR effects) that EITHER perspective is perfectly
valid. Specifically, when that "other observer" looked at the "rapidly
receding Earth", he sees all of those OBSERVED effects. (Bur he never
FEELS or detects any of them). IF your "one sided reasoning" was true,
then we on Earth would "age slowly", "move shorter distances" and "have greater
mass", none of which are true.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My point was that each of you needs to be very
careful regarding assumptions and speculations, where strict logic really needs
to follow the Thought Experiments of Einstein. With the result resembling
what you describe, that each of the Special Relativity effects are NEVER
actually felt or detected at either end, only OBSERVED from the other
end.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Your comments here seem to recognize my point that
BOTH the Earth observer sees slower aging of the other scientist AND that other
scientist sees our Earth and its scientists also aging slowly. You never
got around to explaining HOW you see this happening, although I guarantee that
it is a fact. They each OBSERVE the other aging and clocks at 80% the
rate. If you choose to descreibe that as "illusory" you are free to do
so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But if you apply brutally strict logic in that, you
encounter really difficult issues. The actual solution for that is really
obvious, that one or the other of them would have had to accelerate and later
decelerate to everr meet, meaning that General Relativity applies AND that it
has an OPPOSITE effect from SR, that is a "time speeding". If you apply
logic really carefully, the cumulative effect is that the Time Dilation (of SR)
exactly balances out the "time speedinng" (of GR) if the two are ever to meet
again in the same Inertial Rest Frame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I also noticed in a different note today from
yours, someone said that at Earth's equatorial radius, the acceleration is
rather small. True, but due the math or look in the Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics for the Centripetal Acceleration. And then do the math for the
Equivalency Principle using that acceleration. (It is actually about one
three-hundredth of our surface gravitational field, actually not that
tiny.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I just ask that IF any of you are going to rely on
Einstein (or the young Tesla), please be very careful regarding your strict
logic. THEN, you can have great discussions with each other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>