[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed Aug 9 13:50:20 PDT 2017
Wolf,
this again is my mail of July 6 which you did not find. I am explaining
further down that the operation of a synchrotron is a permanent test of
the validity of the Lorentz transformation regarding the behaviour of
objects, which move at a speed close to c. So, your suspicion that the
according Lorentz transformation is only verified up to an accuracy of
(v/c)^4 is clearly falsified by the operation of a synchrotron (as well
as of all other particle accelerators).
Albrecht
Am 06.07.2017 um 14:13 schrieb Albrecht Giese:
>
> Wolf:
>
> the point is that I have given some explanations hoping that you
> answer to the arguments, not only state a different opinion.
>
>
> Am Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:42:33 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I answered to every one of your comments on your previous E-mails ,
>>
>> it is you who continues to not provide references for experiments
>> that "prove" fourth order compliance with Einsteins formulatrion . I
>> believe I have duplicated mathematically all of Einsteins
>> experimentally proven results but using a different world view and
>> interpretation. Arguments that I am not using equations correctly
>> only imply I am not using them according to your world view. It is
>> the interpretation of Lorentz transformations not the consistency of
>> the math I am arguing.
>>
>> I have said many times it is the SRT and GRT interpretation I object
>> to, an interpretation based upon his ability to derive Lorentz
>> transform equations form the assumption of constant light speed plus
>> a whole bunch of other modifications to classic physics.
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 7/3/2017 1:54 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> sorry, you are missing the point regarding our discussion. I have
>>> said in almost every mail that I do NOT believe that c is a
>>> universal constant, and you write to me in turn that you have a
>>> problem with me because I insist in the constancy of c. Then I have
>>> to ask myself why we continue this dialogue.
>>>
>> when you insist that (1/2)* m_0 * v^2 is wrong - I'm trying to tell
>> you that it is correct to fourth order and only wrong if you assume c
>> is constant because when the formula m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2
>> )^1/2 ) is divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship for
>> increasing m, but if you let
>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) you get the same answers but
>> charge and mass and most of classical physics remain valid as well -
> I have asked you in the other mail what this last equation for c^2
> physically means, i.e. which physical situation you have in mind. You
> did not answer this question. - Irrespective of what you mean by it,
> it says that the speed of light increases to infinity if v>0 (whatever
> this may mean physically). This is in conflict with all measurements
> because a speed > c_0 was never seen.
>
> On the other hand, m increases at motion up to infinity. This is a
> clear measurement result and the measurements are very precise. So
> your equation T = (1/2)* m* v^2 is proven to be wrong.
>>>
>>> You generally do not answer my arguments but repeat your statements
>>> like a gramophone disk. That does not mean a discussion. So, please
>>> answer my last mail of Sunday point by point, else we should stop this.
>>>
>> I did answered your E-mail on Sunday point by point just take a look.
>> Your previous E-mail I tried to answer by showing that your 10,000
>> forld increase in elecron mass is actually an increase in energy
>> involving the speed of light, which you assume is attributed to mass
>> because high energy people assume C is constant. Perhaps you are not
>> one of them, but I believe your criticism of me is based on this
>> perhaps unconscious assumption.
> It is a simple exercise to measure the mass of a moving electron. Also
> the speed of an electron in a synchrotron. In the synchrotron the
> voltage at the cavities which accelerate the electron have to be
> switched in time so that they always change their polarity in the
> moment when an electron passes. They are switched in the assumption
> that the electron moves at an increasing speed up to the speed of
> light c_0 . If this assumption would not be extremely correct then
> there would never be an acceleration. On the other hand the bending
> magnets have to take into account the actual mass of the electron (not
> the rest mass m_0 ). Otherwise the electrons would not follow the
> bended path inside the vacuum tube which has to be precise by millimetres.
>
> No synchrotron, no cyclotron and no storage ring would ever have
> worked even for a few meters of beam length if your equations would be
> valid.
>>>
>>> Just one point here with respect to your mail below: You cannot
>>> refer to classical mechanics if you want to discuss particle
>>> physics. The investigation of particles was the reason to deviate
>>> from classical physics because for the reactions of particles the
>>> classical physics yielded nonsense. This was the stringent reason to
>>> develop relativity and quantum mechanics.
>>>
>> relativity and quantum Theory were developed before particle physics.
>> I believe high energy physics makes false assumptions because their
>> analysis assumes SRT is correct and therefore interpret everything in
>> this light. That is why I am asking again give me references to
>> experiments that prove Einstein's equations are correct beyond fourth
>> order terms.
> Besides looking at experiments (see further down) it is simpler and
> clearer to look at the design of accelerators. They are built using
> Einstein's equation and would never have guided one single particle if
> this formalism would not be correct.
>
> And among those thousands of experiments performed in accelerators you
> cannot find one single experiment which does not prove that Einstein's
> equations are correct in that context. I have given you examples that
> by use of your equations the results of the kinematic calculations
> would be different by factors of 1000 or more.
>
> To find the papers describing these experiments you can use every
> paper published by any accelerator. But you will not find this
> statement (about the Lorentz transformation used) in the papers
> because it is such a matter of course that everyone doing such
> evaluations of experiments uses Einstein's equations. In the same way
> as they all know how to multiply e.g. 124.6 by 657.33 without
> mentioning it. It is all in the computer programs used for the evaluation.
>
> But you may find examples of such calculations in the textbooks about
> particle physics. No physicist in this field would ever use different
> equations.
>>>
>>> And, by the way, what you assume by use of your truncated equations
>>> is not at all compatible with quantum mechanics. If particles could
>>> be treated by classical physics then the development of relativity
>>> and QM during the last 100 years would have been superfluous
>>> activity, and those 10'000s of physicists who have worked in
>>> particle physics would have done a tremendous wast of time and
>>> resources. Do you think that they all were that stupid?
>>>
>> It is compatible because quantum mechanics was initially and still
>> is based on Newtonian interpretation of space and time even though
>> some correction like fine structure was discovered by Sommerfeld and
>> made compatible with SRT those correction generally are compatible
>> with corrections using linear approximations to Einsteins equations
>> which my theory duplicates
>>
>> At the danger of sounding like a record: Assume there is a clock
>> sitting still interacting with nothing its activity between clock
>> ticks remains undisturbed and takes a constant amount of action A ,
>> However if those activities are calculated by two observers they
>> would calculate this constant action in their own point of view and
>> coordinate frames to get the invariant A as,
>> dt1* L1 = A = dt2*L2
>> were L1 and L2 are each observers Lagrangian of the undisturbed clock
>> in their own coordinate frame. The relationship between the two
>> observers observation is
>> dt1* L1 = (L2/L1) *dt2
>> or plugging in the Einsteinian like Lagrangians assuming including
>> the potential energy of the fixed stars gives
>> dt1 = (m_0 *c^2 )^1/2 */(m_0 *c^2 -m_0 *v^2 )^1/2 )} *dt2
>> Dividing through by m_0 *c^2
>> dt1 = dt2*(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )
>> The moving dt2 observer runs slower, however the clock which is the
>> subject of both runs the same , all I'm saying is that the Einstein
>> effects have nothing to do with the actual clock but are artifacts of
>> the observers .
> I have explained several times that this kind of comparison is wrong
> as it overlooks the problem of synchronization. I have explained
> earlier how it has to be done to be correct. I could repeat it here
> but I am not willing to do this work until I can be sure that you read
> it.
>>
>> If we just used classical Lagrangians including the potential energy
>> of the fixed stars ( Mach's Principle) we would get all the same
>> effects to orders less than fourth power in v/c which I believe is
>> all that has been verified. outside high energy field,
>>
>> If we follow this reasoning we get to a much simpler physics and
>> those 10'000s of physicists will realize they have been suffering
>> under the wrong world view that has made their jobs and explanations
>> more and more complicated, not wrong just more complicated and not
>> relevant to our human situation.
>>
> Before we talk about a world view we should perform simple
> calculations in a correct way. And before talking about the Lagrangian
> and about stars we should show the facts for elementary particles
> using the conservation of energy and of momentum. - The so called
> "Mach's principle" is not usable in so far as it does not make any
> quantitative statements, but Mach has only presented very rough and
> basic ideas about how it can be explained that a rotating object
> "knows" that it is in rotation and not at rest. Such idea is not able
> to allow for calculations, and that also was not the intention of Mach
> at that time.
>
> And regarding relativity, we have a physical institute here in Bremen
> (next to Hamburg) where since decades the laws of relativity are
> investigated with increasing precision. To my knowledge they have
> reached relative precisions of 10^-10 or even better and confirmed the
> formalism to this degree. So, far better than your v/c to the 4th power.
>
> Albrecht
>> wolf
>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>
>>>> I do not know how to keep answering when you insist that somewhere
>>>> in your past there is something I should answer while I think I am
>>>> answering all your objections. I can duplicate what I believe are
>>>> all experimentally verified facts by simply
>>>>
>>>> considering a classic Lagrangian L=T-V if I add to the potential
>>>> energy the energy of a mass inside a the surrounding mass shell.
>>>> This simple recognition avoids all the strange relativistic effects
>>>> introduced by Einstein or his followers and is completely
>>>> compatible with quantum mechanics. I've given you all the standard
>>>> time dilation equations and show that the speed of light the also
>>>> varies. My formulation is completely compatible with classic
>>>> thinking to terms v^2 /c^2 because I believe that is the level I
>>>> believe Einsteins theory has be verified
>>>>
>>>> Please stop telling me this is a low speed approximation and
>>>> therefore wrong because then all you are saying my theory is not
>>>> equal to Einsteins, which of corse is the whole point.
>>>>
>>>> you have no legitimate criticism until you give me the reference to
>>>> experiments that prove the opposite. I ask this because I believe
>>>> the accelerator experiments you refer to are analyzed with the
>>>> assumption that the speed of light is constant and therefore are
>>>> very likely not proving anything more than their own assumption.
>>>>
>>>> If I make Einsteins gamma =(mc^2 /(V-T)^1/2 ) i get complete
>>>> agreement with Einstein's equations but still do not have to buy
>>>> into his world view. Given the criticism that has been brought up
>>>> in this group about all the reasons Einstein so called experimental
>>>> verification is flawed including the perihelion rotation, and
>>>> lately the solar plasma correction, I see no reason to deviate from
>>>> the classic and understandable world view.
>>>>
>>>> Please give me experiment reference
>>>>
>>>> Now to answer your comments to my coments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>> On 7/2/2017 4:19 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>
>>>>> we have now progress in so far as you have read about 30% of what
>>>>> I have written to you. 90% would be really better, but this is
>>>>> maybe too much at this stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.06.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fully agree with your statement: " Should you have a new theory
>>>>>> which is complete and which is in agreement with the experiments
>>>>>> then you should present it. But for now I did not see anything
>>>>>> like that." I am working on such a theory and so are many of us
>>>>>> in this group, I will send you sections of the book to get your
>>>>>> highly valued opinion when they are ready.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also agree with: " first of all we have to agree on valid physics."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what is valid physics?
>>>>>>
>>>>> We should agree on what it is. It should at least be in accordance
>>>>> with the experiments. And if it deviates from the fundamental
>>>>> physics which we have learned at the university, then these parts
>>>>> should be thoroughly justified.
>>>> I believe I have an interpretation compatible with all experiments
>>>> that does not assume the speed of light is constant, why is this
>>>> not legitimate physics?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to insist that one cannot question Einstein specifically
>>>>>> on his assumption that the speed of light is constant and his
>>>>>> subsequent turning most of well established classic physics
>>>>>> principles on its head.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I have mentioned frequently in the preceding mails, I for
>>>>> myself do NOT believe that c is always constant. How often do I
>>>>> have to say this again until it reaches you? But if we use a
>>>>> variation of c (which was always also the conviction of Hendrik
>>>>> Lorentz) then we should use the correct functions for its variation.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, if you use Einstein's equations then you should
>>>>> use them correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I for myself refer to experiments when I deviate from classical
>>>>> physics to understand relativistic phenomena.
>>>> Yes I have seen you criticizs Einstein and his speed of light
>>>> assumption so why do you insist it must be constant now, since this
>>>> assumption is what allows you to call my equations incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that you object to my use of the classic
>>>>>> definition of Kinetic energy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) =~ m_0 *c^2 ( 1 + (1/2)*
>>>>>> v^2 /c^2 + higher order terms )
>>>>>>
>>>>> The "higher order terms" may be a considerable portion if we talk
>>>>> about speeds v > 0.1 c , i.e. relativistic situations.
>>>> Show me the references
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now if you insist, with Einstein that c is always constant then
>>>>>> dividing the above equation by c^2 gives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> m = m_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do NOT insist in this, to say it once again and again and ... !
>>>>> But what does this have to do with your equation above? The
>>>>> equation is correct and well known.
>>>>>
>>>> The equation is only correct IF YOU ASSUME THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS
>>>> CONSTANT otherwise m0=m0 as assumed in classical physics.
>>>>> And of course you can divide such equation by c any time
>>>>> irrespective of any constancy of c. Basic mathematics!
>>>>>
>>>>> For the variation of c I have given you the correct dependency for
>>>>> the case of gravity. I did it several times! Always overlooked??
>>>> I do not remember any conflict here I believe you agree that c2 =
>>>> Mu G / Ru
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course then mass must increase. This is simply an example of
>>>>>> one of the many classic physics principles on its head.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The mass increases at motion is not only clear experimental
>>>>> evidence but is determined with high precision in accordance with
>>>>> the equation above.
>>>> The equation above is only true because everyone assumes the speed
>>>> of light is constant and therefore divides it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there is a great deal of evidence that the speed of light
>>>>>> is NOT constant and if we simply realize that the effective speed
>>>>>> of light is effected by gravity, which in the case of an
>>>>>> electromagnetic propagation in a sphere of distant masses gives
>>>>>> by Mach's Principle and the Scharzshild black hole limit the
>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) =~c_0 ^2 ( 1 + (1/2)* v^2
>>>>>> /c_0 ^2 + higher order terms )
>>>>>>
>>>>> What shall this equation tell us? Which physical situation shall
>>>>> be described by this relation?
>>>> what it tells us is that the speed of light is proportional the the
>>>> gravitational energy the material in which electro-magnetic waves
>>>> propagate since the first term is simply c_0 ^2 which is the
>>>> gravitational potential in the mass shell and the second term is
>>>> the velocity energy which also raises the gravitational potential
>>>> of the particle in qurstion relative to the observer.
>>>>
>>>> You see Albrecht what neither Einstein nor Lorentz has understood
>>>> is that each of us to first order generates a space of awareness
>>>> within which all things happen that we can observe
>>>>>
>>>>> If you follow the approach of relativity of Lorentz (or of myself)
>>>>> then the relation is very simply: c = c_0 +/- v . But if an
>>>>> observers moving with v measures c then his result will always be:
>>>>> c = c_0 . You get this by applying the Lorentz transformation to
>>>>> the functioning of the measurement tools in motion. And that again
>>>>> is in precise compliance with the experiment.
>>>> If v=0 in the equation above c = c_0 as well what. I'm not sure c =
>>>> c_0 +/- v is compaible with all experiments unless one introduces
>>>> othr assumptions to classic physics I am reluctant o accept.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is correct that c changes in a gravitational field and I have
>>>>> given you /several times /the formula for this. It is easily
>>>>> visible that the variation in a gravitational field is very small
>>>>> and in no way able to explain the variations which we observe in
>>>>> the usual experiments of relativity.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore if we realize that -mc^2 = V_U ; the potential energy
>>>>>> inside the mass shell of stars then the total classic Lagrangian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L = T- V = (1/2)* m_0 * v^2 - m_0 c^2 - m_0 * G* M_L /R_L
>>>>>>
>>>>> _You have again used here the wrong equation for the kinetic
>>>>> energy T, again ignoring the increase of mass at motion. So we
>>>>> cannot discuss physics.
>>>> _You again have again dismissed my equation because you think m =
>>>> m_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) which as I have said implies you
>>>> believe c=constant. This is the correct equation for the classic
>>>> Lagrangian if the gravitational potential of the star shell we
>>>> appear to be surrounded with is included in the gravitational
>>>> potential.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we substitute the Lagrangian into the equation for the speed
>>>>>> of light I believe we would get all of the special and general
>>>>>> relativistic effects at least up to the higher order terms ,
>>>>>> including the clock slow down from SRT., which I believe is all
>>>>>> that has been verified. Your claim that higher order accuracy has
>>>>>> been experimentally proven is something I doubt and have asked
>>>>>> you for explicit experimental references many times. WHy because
>>>>>> most people who do these experiments are so brow beat into
>>>>>> believing Einsteins assumptions as God given truth that they
>>>>>> simply put the correction factor on the wrong parameter and get
>>>>>> papers published.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have explained the muon experiment at CERN. Overlooked again??
>>>> please explain why the muon experiment makes any statement about
>>>> the mass. All I believe it does is makes a statement about the
>>>> energy of the mass which contains the c^2 term so your assumption
>>>> again rests on Einstein is right come hell or high water.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the equation which you believe to be correct is used, then the
>>>>> result would be wrong by a great factor. I have given you numbers.
>>>>> No one can ignore such great discrepancies only because he/she is
>>>>> biased by his/her faith in Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do you assume that there is a conspiracy of physicists all over
>>>>> the world, in all nations and all political systems, in order to
>>>>> save Einstein's theory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your presentation here is not legitimate, if you mean this by your
>>>>> question. Again you use physical equations and formulae in a
>>>>> completely wrong way. This is not able to convince anyone.
>>>> I understand you do not like the idea that mass and charge remain
>>>> constant and classic physics is essentially correct, because your
>>>> theory depends on correcting an error in current thinking. You
>>>> want to make two errors make a right, I want it eliminate the first
>>>> error and simplify the whole mess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you now ready to discuss the metaphysical assumptions
>>>>>> underlying physics that I am questioning and trying to help me
>>>>>> and others work on possible alternative physics formulations that
>>>>>> might get us out of the mess we are in?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am working myself on alternative physics since > 20 years. But
>>>>> not with equations which are nothing else than non-physical
>>>>> fantasies ignoring experiments.
>>>> we have had these discussions. You want to solve all problems in he
>>>> current framework and then address the observer problem. I see the
>>>> lack of observer inclusion as the root to the problems you want to
>>>> correct and therefore the goal is to include the observer in the
>>>> foundations of physics as a first principle. Baer's first law of
>>>> physics is that the physicist made the law.
>>>> Put yourself in the center of your own universe, observations from
>>>> this point of view it is all you have and ever will have to build
>>>> your theory..
>>>>
>>>> best wishes
>>>> wolf
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>> On 6/27/2017 1:58 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is not the question here whether I grasp your approach.
>>>>>>> Because first of all we have to agree on valid physics. Your
>>>>>>> past statements and calculations are in conflict with all
>>>>>>> physics we know. On this basis nothing can be discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should you have a new theory which is complete and which is in
>>>>>>> agreement with the experiments then you should present it. But
>>>>>>> for now I did not see anything like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 27.06.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think i have clearly responded to all your points previously
>>>>>>>> but there is something you do not grasp about my approach
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> however the list you provide is good since perhaps I was
>>>>>>>> answering parts you did not read
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so see below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2017 6:56 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should not change the topics which we have
>>>>>>>>> discussed during the last mails. And *as you again **did **not
>>>>>>>>> react to my comments I summarize the open points now in a list*:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *o* You use for the kinetic energy the erroneous equation T
>>>>>>>>> = 1/2 m*v^2 (because we talk about relativistic cases). So
>>>>>>>>> you necessarily have a wrong result. Why do you not make your
>>>>>>>>> deduction (using the Lagrangian) with the correct equation
>>>>>>>>> which I have given you? Or what is your consideration to use
>>>>>>>>> just this equation even if it is erroneous? Please answer
>>>>>>>>> this. This is physics, not philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not using T = 1/2 m*v^2 incorrectly in classic theory. I'm
>>>>>>>> suggesting Einsteins theory is wrong. I do not mean it is
>>>>>>>> inconsistent with its postulates but the postulates do not
>>>>>>>> correctly represent reality. I suggest instead the the classic
>>>>>>>> Lagrangian energy L= T-V is adequate to calculate the action if
>>>>>>>> the potential energy V in inter galactic space is mc_u ^2 For
>>>>>>>> an amount of time dS = L*dt , and then if an event such as a
>>>>>>>> running clock is viewed from two different coordinate frames
>>>>>>>> and the action calculated in those frames is invariant then
>>>>>>>> L*dt = L'*dt'
>>>>>>>> so that the appearant rate of clocks differ for the two
>>>>>>>> observers. And when calculating this out my theory, which is
>>>>>>>> not only my theory, is consistent with experimental evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not understand why you keep saying my use of T = 1/2 m*v^2
>>>>>>>> is incorrect? I'm using it correctly in my theory. If you
>>>>>>>> insist Einstein's SRT is correct a-priory then of course any
>>>>>>>> alternative is wrong. But should not experimental evidence,
>>>>>>>> simplicity, and applicability to larger problems be the judge
>>>>>>>> of that?
>>>>>>> It is experimental evidence that the mass of an object increases
>>>>>>> at motion. In my experiment the mass of the electrons was
>>>>>>> increased by a factor of 10'000. Your equation ignores this
>>>>>>> increase. - It is by the way a consequence of the limitation of
>>>>>>> the speed at c. If an object like an electron has a speed close
>>>>>>> to c and there is then a force applied to it which of course
>>>>>>> means that energy is transferred to it, then the mass increases.
>>>>>>> Anything else would mean a violation of the conservation of energy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, this increase of mass is not only a result of Einstein's
>>>>>>> theory but it is unavoidable logic and also confirmed by the
>>>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, if you use for the kinetic energy T = 1/2 m*v^2 ,
>>>>>>> then you assume a constancy of m which is clearly not the case.
>>>>>>> This relation can only be used for speeds v<<c where the mass
>>>>>>> increase is negligible. In our discussion we talk about
>>>>>>> relativistic situations and for these your equation is wrong. In
>>>>>>> the example of my experiment it is wrong by a factor of 10'000.
>>>>>>> You ignore this and that cannot give you correct results. You
>>>>>>> find the correct equation for energy in my last mail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *o* Your conflict about the term v^4 /c^4 in the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>> transformation is a result of your use of a wrong equation for
>>>>>>>>> T (kinetic energy). Why do you not repeat your deduction using
>>>>>>>>> the correct equation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again I am not using the wrong equation in my theory.
>>>>>>> I think that I have made it obvious enough that you have used a
>>>>>>> wrong equation. So your result will be wrong by a factor which
>>>>>>> at the end is not limited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *o* The equation 1/2*m*v^2 /c^2 is not correct and not part of
>>>>>>>>> Einstein's equations. Einstein has given this for
>>>>>>>>> visualization as an /approximation/. Why do you continue with
>>>>>>>>> it without a response to my information that it is incorrect
>>>>>>>>> or why do you not argue why you believe that is can be used?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes yes yes I'm not using Einsteins equation for kinetic
>>>>>>>> energy. How many times do I have to agree with you before you
>>>>>>>> stop disagreeing with my agreement?
>>>>>>>> A long time ago you said that cyclotron experiments proved time
>>>>>>>> dilation as Einstein described in SRT was proven to better than
>>>>>>>> v^4 /c^4 and I've asked you for references v^4 /c^4 because I
>>>>>>>> have not seen evidence for this claim nor have I seen evidence
>>>>>>>> for the space contraction claim, but i have seen good paper's
>>>>>>>> that dispute both these claims.
>>>>>>> A good proof was the muon storage ring at CERN in 1975. The
>>>>>>> muons have been accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c. Their
>>>>>>> lifetime was extended by a factor of 30 which is in agreement
>>>>>>> with Einstein. In Einstein's equation the difference of this
>>>>>>> value to 1 has to be built resulting in 0.0006. If you think
>>>>>>> that the term v^4 /c^4 has to be added then you have to add
>>>>>>> 0.9994^4 to this value of 0.0006 , so you change 0.0006 to
>>>>>>> (0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do you really expect that the
>>>>>>> physicists at CERN overlook it if they get 0.9982 for 0.0006 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that this is a very clear evidence that the term v^4
>>>>>>> /c^4 is not missing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this huge difference is the result of your use of the
>>>>>>> equation T = 1/2m*v^2 in the wrong context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what is your argument?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *o* The equation for the speed of light which you gave: c^2 =
>>>>>>>>> Mu*G/Ru is senseless which is easily visible. I have explained
>>>>>>>>> that. Why do you not respond to this point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can you say it is senseless? multiply both sides by -m you
>>>>>>>> get the well known solution of the Schwarzschild energy of a
>>>>>>>> particle inside the ring of distant masses when the masses
>>>>>>>> reach the size that makes a black hole boundary.
>>>>>>> You have derived your equation by equalizing kinetic and
>>>>>>> potential energy. What is your argument that both energies are
>>>>>>> equal? If an object is in free fall then both types of energy
>>>>>>> change in a different direction so that the sum is constant. The
>>>>>>> /sum /is the value conserved, but both energies are not at all
>>>>>>> equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Einstein's world there is c=0 at the event horizon. But you
>>>>>>> are saying that your equation above is just valid at the event
>>>>>>> horizon, and that is at least in disagreement with Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After we have clarified these discrepancies about SRT we may
>>>>>>>>> talk about the observer or other philosophical aspects, *but
>>>>>>>>> not earlier*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fine
>>>>>>>> but are we not living inside a black hole? Is the energy
>>>>>>>> required to reach escape velocity from our black hole not
>>>>>>>> equal to mc_u ^2 twice the classic kinetic energy?
>>>>>>>> I know you agree the speed of light depends upon the
>>>>>>>> gravitational potential, which from a local mass is MG/R. For a
>>>>>>>> local mass like the sun the speed of light is
>>>>>>>> c^2 = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R = c_u ^2 (1+ M*G/(R*c_u ^2 )
>>>>>>>> If light speed depends upon the gravitational potential if
>>>>>>>> the sun to bend light, why would it not depend upon the
>>>>>>>> gravitational potential of the surrounding star mass we are
>>>>>>>> living in?
>>>>>>> The speed of light depends indeed on the gravitational potential
>>>>>>> and I have given you the equation for that: c =c_0
>>>>>>> *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
>>>>>>> direction of the light
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your equations above are not usable as I have just explained in
>>>>>>> my paragraph above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we should live in a black hole then we need a completely
>>>>>>> different physics. I do not have understood that this is the
>>>>>>> situation we are discussing here. In our real world there is
>>>>>>> nowhere c=0, but your equation suggests this. If you are in free
>>>>>>> space where no masses are present or masses are very far away
>>>>>>> then according to your equation c has to be close to 0. That has
>>>>>>> never been observed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> maxwell's equations are correct, the Lorentz
>>>>>>>> transformations are correct, but the interpretation Einstein
>>>>>>>> gave these equations is what I disagree with. And the resulting
>>>>>>>> almost total revision of classic mechanics is what I disagree with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can we get on with trying to find a simpler connection between
>>>>>>>> electricity and gravitation one that has gravitation change the
>>>>>>>> permiability and susceptibility of the aether perhaps?
>>>>>>> Why are you looking for a connection between electricity and
>>>>>>> gravitation? I do not seen any connection. And if there should
>>>>>>> be something like that we should include the strong force which
>>>>>>> is much more essential for our physical world than electricity
>>>>>>> or gravitation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary: You may try a lot but please present here equations
>>>>>>> which are either known or contain a minimum of logic. You are
>>>>>>> permanently presenting equations here which are your free
>>>>>>> inventions and are not given by any existing theory and are not
>>>>>>> in agreement with any existing experiments. This will not
>>>>>>> converge towards a result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 24.06.2017 um 07:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought I had answered the last E-mail pretty thoroughly,
>>>>>>>>>> I'll try again however I think you are not grasping my position
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein Lorentz Baer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> make assumptions make assumptions
>>>>>>>>>> make assumptions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and write a theory And write a
>>>>>>>>>> theory And am in the process
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That has conclusions That has
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions That has preliminary conclusions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> c=constant c is dependent on gravity
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> change physics Em material stretches
>>>>>>>>>> emphasize invariant of action
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lots of non intuitive probably Ok Needs to understand the
>>>>>>>>>> role of the observer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far Ive sent you a classic calculation based upon the fact
>>>>>>>>>> that Em penomena go at rates determined by the classic
>>>>>>>>>> Lagrangian and I believe this very simple formulation
>>>>>>>>>> explains all experimentally verified effects up to fourth
>>>>>>>>>> order in v/c and in addition and in fact the whole reason for
>>>>>>>>>> my effort is to include the observer and recognize that the
>>>>>>>>>> plenum within the theories of these eminent physicist was
>>>>>>>>>> their own imaginations which is always a background space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think I am working on a new and better theory. So far what
>>>>>>>>>> I have is a calculation using in-variance of action.Tell me
>>>>>>>>>> why I am wrong based on experimental evidence not that I have
>>>>>>>>>> a different theory then either Einstein or Lorentz. I know
>>>>>>>>>> our theories are different but i think they are wrong because
>>>>>>>>>> they are Aristotelian realists and I'm using Platonic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have a new theory available which can be quantitatively
>>>>>>>>> checked by experiments please present and explain it here.
>>>>>>>>> Before you have done this, a discussion as it was up to now
>>>>>>>>> does not make any sense but uses up a lot of time. We should
>>>>>>>>> not waste time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I'll try to answer your coments
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2017 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,ghly
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i see the same problem again: you did not really read my
>>>>>>>>>>> last mail as you repeat most of your earlier statements with
>>>>>>>>>>> no reference to my comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Details in the text:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Answers embedded below
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to standard physics. And I do of course not expect that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you agree to what I say but I expect that you object if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you disagree, but please /with arguments/. In the case of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the formula for kinetic energy for instance you have just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeated your formula which is in conflict with basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics, but there was no argument at all. This will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> help us to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have provided numerical arguments two or three times
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps you do not get all the E-mails - here is a copy
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have written
>>>>>>>>>>> that they are wrong because they are based on a wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> formula. I have written this two times with no reaction from
>>>>>>>>>>> you. You find my responses further down in the history of
>>>>>>>>>>> mails, so you cannot say that you did not receive them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in
>>>>>>>>>>>> inter galactic space perform the same activity between two
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks in their own coordinate frames . The amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity in an event is measured by action. So if they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> identical and perform the same activities the amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>> action between ticks is the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An observer calculates the amount of action from classical
>>>>>>>>>>>> physics as dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V =
>>>>>>>>>>>> -m*c^2 - MGm/R, here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mass shell of the universe and MGm/R any local
>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if Twin A is riding along with clock A then T=0 for Clock
>>>>>>>>>>>> A thus the Lagrangian is (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock B Lagrangian calcuated by A is (1/2 m v^2 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> m*c^2 + MGm/R)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> since the action calculated for both clocks is invariant
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have the equation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2*
>>>>>>>>>>>> m *v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary one which is experimentally verified to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accuracies of v*v/c*c and differs from Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> because Einstein's theory has higher order c^4/c^4 terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem?
>>>>>>>>>>> You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why
>>>>>>>>>>> did you not respond to it? So once again (I think it is the
>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd time now):
>>>>>>>>>>> Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2 is wrong in
>>>>>>>>>>> the general case. It is only usable for slow speeds, so
>>>>>>>>>>> v<<c . But our discussion here is about relativistic
>>>>>>>>>>> situations, so v close to c As a consequence the result of
>>>>>>>>>>> your deduction is of course wrong, and so particularly your
>>>>>>>>>>> term c^4/c^4 is a result of this confusion. Einstein's
>>>>>>>>>>> equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a square-root function
>>>>>>>>>>> of (1-v^2 /c^2 ). And if you make a Taylor expansion from
>>>>>>>>>>> it, there are many terms of higher order. But the root
>>>>>>>>>>> formula is the correct solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have
>>>>>>>>>>> written here earlier: T = m_0 c^2 *( sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 ))-1) .
>>>>>>>>>>> If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the
>>>>>>>>>>> second term then you end up with the formula which you have
>>>>>>>>>>> used. But as iit is easily visible here, only for speed v << c.
>>>>>>>>>> THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is right 1/2
>>>>>>>>>> m*v^2 is correct in my theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You could claim the principle of action in-variance is
>>>>>>>>>>>> false. But whether it is false or not can be put to
>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental tests.
>>>>>>>>>>> The principle of action is correct but generally used for a
>>>>>>>>>>> different purpose. In general I do not find it the best way
>>>>>>>>>>> to use principles but better to use fundamental laws. But
>>>>>>>>>>> this is a different topic. However, I expect that you would
>>>>>>>>>>> come to a correct result with this principle if you would
>>>>>>>>>>> use correct physical equations.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes I know but I'm using it because independent and isolated
>>>>>>>>>> system have no external clocks to measure progress and the
>>>>>>>>>> amount of activity is all that is available to measure the
>>>>>>>>>> completion of identical activities. You must understand I
>>>>>>>>>> assume evnets not objects are fundamental.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed Einsteins theory has been verified to
>>>>>>>>>>>> better than v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it until I see the
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. Because the in-variance of action theory is so
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple and logical. As well as the fact that if one drops m
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of these equations one get the gravitational speed of
>>>>>>>>>>>> light, which has been verified by Sapiro's experiment, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you read his paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group
>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity) so why assume the speed of light is constant. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you have experimental evidence please provide a
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference. I have seen many papers that claim only time
>>>>>>>>>>>> dilation has been verified to first order approximation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of his formulas and length contraction has never been
>>>>>>>>>>>> verified.
>>>>>>>>>>> As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the
>>>>>>>>>>> calculation of energy and momentum by taking into account
>>>>>>>>>>> the corresponding conservation laws. In all calculations
>>>>>>>>>>> which we have done here at the accelerator DESY the relation
>>>>>>>>>>> v/c was in the order of 0.9999 . So the gamma factor is
>>>>>>>>>>> about _10'000_. If there would have been a term v^4 /c^4
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary but omitted then this factor would change to
>>>>>>>>>>> something in the interval _1 to 10_. This is a discrepancy
>>>>>>>>>>> by a factor of at least 1'000. Do you really believe that
>>>>>>>>>>> all the scientists at DESY and at the other accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>> worldwide would overlook a discrepancy of this magnitude?
>>>>>>>>>> If this v^4 /c^4 term accuracy has been measured by
>>>>>>>>>> experiment I am not aware of it I've asked you for a
>>>>>>>>>> reference. Yes I believe all the scientists are simply not
>>>>>>>>>> aware of their own fundamental assumptions regarding the role
>>>>>>>>>> of the conscious being, which is why I and a few of us are
>>>>>>>>>> working on these issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a certain extend we all want to do here, otherwise we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not have these discussions) then everyone who has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic objection against it, should name that explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and give detailed arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is *Not *a detailed argument I do not know what is!
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have
>>>>>>>>>>> told you now */several times/*. You did not react and did
>>>>>>>>>>> not give a justification but you merely repeated it again
>>>>>>>>>>> and again.
>>>>>>>>>> IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions that you
>>>>>>>>>> disagree with?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe the question "what does it feel like to be a piece
>>>>>>>>>> of material" is quite legitimate and if we can entertain the
>>>>>>>>>> question why not ask if feelings are not intrinsically part
>>>>>>>>>> of material and the perhaps space is a feeling, the phase of
>>>>>>>>>> an never ending event
>>>>>>>>>> Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...." quickly for a
>>>>>>>>>> few minutes and you'll get the experience of a subject object
>>>>>>>>>> event that takes on an existence of its own.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think "that time
>>>>>>>>>> dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts
>>>>>>>>>> of the observation, and not induced characteristics of the
>>>>>>>>>> objects being observed themselves."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well its hard to disagree with this statement because the
>>>>>>>>>> reason the transformations were invented is to show that the
>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell equations which describe a physical fact will
>>>>>>>>>> transform to describe the same physical fact no mater what
>>>>>>>>>> body you are attached to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe there is a
>>>>>>>>>> reality and the appearances in any observers coordinate frame
>>>>>>>>>> i.e. body , represent something real that is effected by
>>>>>>>>>> gravity. And simply recognizing that the rate of
>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic activity is dependent on the gravitational
>>>>>>>>>> influence the system in which the activity happens is under ,
>>>>>>>>>> is a simple provable assumption that connects electricity
>>>>>>>>>> with gravity. Once this is established as an observer
>>>>>>>>>> independent fact. THen that fact also applies to the body
>>>>>>>>>> making the measurement and in that sense and only that sense
>>>>>>>>>> time dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply
>>>>>>>>>> artifacts of the observing body.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did like "It is, that each particle is effectively an
>>>>>>>>>> “observer”
>>>>>>>>>> of all the others, necessitating the incorporation of the
>>>>>>>>>> attendant mathematical machinery into the coupled equations
>>>>>>>>>> of motion of the particles.'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and am looking forward to Al' promised further work in this
>>>>>>>>>> coupling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so Albrecht have I answered your comments for this go around?
>>>>>>>>> No, I do not see any answer as I have listed it above! You
>>>>>>>>> always talk about different things or you repeat your
>>>>>>>>> erroneous statement / equation without an argument.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> best wishes ,
>>>>>>>>>> wolf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say what you believe to be true. I respect that and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be right but I am not talking about what has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered at CERN but rather what Einstein published,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory he proposed and I have ordered and now have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein, A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodies”, /The Principle of Relativity/:/; a collection of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original memoirs on the special and general theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity/, Edited by A Sommerfeld, Translated by W.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISBN486-60081-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minkowski and Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> st rest the travelled clock on its arrival will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2 slow. " ...."this is up to magnitude of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fourth and higher order"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an unambiguous statement. It follows directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from his derivation of the Lorentz transformations and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately leads to the twin paradox because from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of view of the moving clock the so called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary" clock is moving and the stationary clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when returning to A would by SRT be the traveled clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is slow by 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one clock is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest, the other one is not as it leaves the original frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between /inertial frames/. Otherwise not applicable. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not really clear, you will not have any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motions and then the pieces of tim ^e can be summed up ^.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that way the Lorentz transformation could be applied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again. SRT is about relations of /inertial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames/. Not in others than these. And I must clearly say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as this does not enter your mind and strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> settles there, it makes little sense to discuss more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex cases in special relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only as an approximation for v<<c. In his original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper of 1905 Einstein has earlier given the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equation and then given the approximation for v<<c.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately he has not said this explicitly but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said by his remark which you have quoted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher order" .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it would be the correct equation it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid up to infinite orders of magnitude. - We should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgive Einstein for this unclear statement as this was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first paper which Einstein has ever written.
>>>>>>>>>>>> NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions like the speed of light is constant in all
>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate frames and simultaneity is defined by round trip
>>>>>>>>>>>> light measurements. He simply stated that the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations have certain consequences. One of them
>>>>>>>>>>>> being that an observer viewing a clock moving around a
>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant velocity would slow down and he gave the
>>>>>>>>>>>> numerical value of the slow down to first order in v^2/c^2.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> derivation of the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes
>>>>>>>>>>> an approximation for a slow speed without saying this
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly. His text (translated to English):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "… so that this indication of the clock (as observed in the
>>>>>>>>>>> system at rest) is delayed per second by (1-sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 )
>>>>>>>>>>> seconds or – except for magnitudes of forth or higher order
>>>>>>>>>>> is delayed by 1/2(v/c)^2 seconds."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, Einstein /excludes /here the higher orders. That means
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly that it is an approximation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If the moving
>>>>>>>>>>> clock comes back it is delayed. Which is of course in
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with SRT. And also with the observation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> what has been experimentally proven is quite simple. A
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock slows down if it feels a force.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is it. Whether that force is called gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced when one is standing on the earth or called
>>>>>>>>>>>> inertia when one is being accelerated in a rocket makes no
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. And the simplest theory that explains
>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally verified fact is not Einstein's SRT or GRT but
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of
>>>>>>>>>>>> physics that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen at a speed determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>> c^2 = Mu*G/Ru
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>> and has something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein should get credit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow
>>>>>>>>>>> down of clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on
>>>>>>>>>>> force according to relativity and according to experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also gravity slows down a clock, but very little.
>>>>>>>>>>> Experimental proof was once the Hafele Keating experiment
>>>>>>>>>>> for gravity and speed and the muon accelerator for speed and
>>>>>>>>>>> the independence of acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a
>>>>>>>>>>> force applied this would be a new theory. If you believe
>>>>>>>>>>> this, please present it as a complete theoretical system and
>>>>>>>>>>> refer to experiments which are in agreement with this theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> correctness is easily visible by the following
>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. If it would be true then a gravitational mass
>>>>>>>>>>> of M=0 would mean c=0, which is clearly not the case. And
>>>>>>>>>>> also for some gravitational mass but a distance R=infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> there would also be c=0, which does not make any sense. And
>>>>>>>>>>> I repeat the correct one (perhaps you notice it /this time/).
>>>>>>>>>>> c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on
>>>>>>>>>>> the direction of the light
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the twin case I have given you numbers that the
>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration phase is in no way able to explain the time
>>>>>>>>>>> offset, but I am meanwhile sure that you ignore that again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement at this time. I believe SRT as Einstein originally formulated it in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 was wrong/or incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Up to now I did not see any true arguments from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, but you only presented your results of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Einstein's theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No question. Please answer this question so we can debug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our difference opinions by going through the arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not write more. I just want to know if we have agreement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give us arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary without any arguments is not science. I also have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some concerns about Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements without arguments like in your last mails we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not achieve anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is: Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant
>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO
>>>>>>>>>>>> questions is simply did he or did he not say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving clock slows down? The question is not whether his
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is formally consistent but whether his theory states
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving clocks slow down.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock
>>>>>>>>>>> slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in
>>>>>>>>>>> his paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at which this
>>>>>>>>>>> slow down happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B
>>>>>>>>>>>> move at constant velocity in a circle compared with an
>>>>>>>>>>>> observer B on clock B seeing clock A move in a circle at
>>>>>>>>>>>> constant velocity. YES or NO
>>>>>>>>>>>> If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has
>>>>>>>>>>>> been said is that both observers see the other go in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins
>>>>>>>>>>>> Claim in Question 1 above?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at
>>>>>>>>>>> constant speed and in a circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in
>>>>>>>>>>> the middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the
>>>>>>>>>>> same amount. Already given by symmetry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as
>>>>>>>>>>> SRT is about the relation of inertial frames, and here none
>>>>>>>>>>> of the clocks is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand
>>>>>>>>>>> this question must be answerable in a formal way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the
>>>>>>>>>>> other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a
>>>>>>>>>>> straight path. In this infinitesimal moment the own clock
>>>>>>>>>>> also moves on a straight path and both do not have any speed
>>>>>>>>>>> in relation to the other one (i.e. no change of the
>>>>>>>>>>> distance). Speed in the Lorentz transformation is the
>>>>>>>>>>> temporal derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>> So no effects according to SRT and both observers see the
>>>>>>>>>>> speed of the other clock not slowed down.
>>>>>>>>>>> So there is no dilation relative to the other one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate
>>>>>>>>>>>> frames at this stage of our discussion. If one observer
>>>>>>>>>>>> sees the other leave his coordinate frame behind why does
>>>>>>>>>>>> the other not see the same thing. Einstein insisted there
>>>>>>>>>>>> are no preferred coordinate frames. That Einsteins theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as published in 1905, can be patched up by adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do himself with GRT is not the issue We can discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> and is part of the original SRT later, after you answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> question 2 above. .
>>>>>>>>>>> SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about
>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frames (the question which coordinate frame is used
>>>>>>>>>>> is of no physical relevance).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Each observer in this example will not only see the other
>>>>>>>>>>> one permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself
>>>>>>>>>>> leaving permanently his inertial frame. That is easily
>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable as he will notice his acceleration. - How this
>>>>>>>>>>> case can be solved in accordance with SRT I have explained
>>>>>>>>>>> in the preceding paragraph. That solution is physically
>>>>>>>>>>> correct and in my understanding in accordance with Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to lead you and anyone listening to the logical
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by his
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions is wrong. I am not questioning that after
>>>>>>>>>>>> making his assumptions he can logically derive the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations, nor that such a derivation is inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>> with his assumptions. Ive gone through his papers often
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to know his math is correct. I'm simply trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> lead us all to the realization that the speed of light as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be and warping coordinate frames and all the changes in
>>>>>>>>>>>> physics required to make that assumption consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental fact has been a 100 year abomination. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that assumption, I've got a guy on a cross who
>>>>>>>>>>>> claims to be the son of god to introduce you to.
>>>>>>>>>>> You would have a good point if you could prove that the
>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light is not constant. I would understand this as a
>>>>>>>>>>> step forward. But you have to do it with appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>> arguments which I found missing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments
>>>>>>>>>>> which are my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>> rather Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian relativity is
>>>>>>>>>>> more easy to understand and has physical causes. Einstein's
>>>>>>>>>>> principle is not physics but spirituality in my view and his
>>>>>>>>>>> considerations about time and space are as well not physics.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility of
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's theory with reality by some examples, at last by
>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case and argued that this is a violation of
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality. But both is
>>>>>>>>>>> not the case, and that was the topic of the discussions
>>>>>>>>>>> during the last dozens of mails.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering if you really read my mails as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions below are answered in my last mails, most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the mail of yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I simply do not understand your continued gripe about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some simple yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration and gravity are related?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written now /several times in my last mails /that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the equivalence principle is violated at the point that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does not cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dilation. And, as I have also written earlier, that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find this in any textbook about special relativity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was experimentally proven at the muon storage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ring at CERN. - It seems to me that you did not read my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last mails but write your answering text independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than one at sea level?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail/. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addition I have given you the numerical result for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational dilation on the surface of the sun where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow down of a clock is the little difference of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 1 / 100'000 compared to a zero-field situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe the speed of light is related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity potential by c*c = G*M/R?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also given in a previous mail the equation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, which is c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the light.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any references?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the general use of the Lorentz factor: gamma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )) which has no additional terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on v^4 /c^4 . This gamma is similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable for time dilation and for every kinematic or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic calculation where special relativity applies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in the latter context it is used by thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists all over the world who work at accelerators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could find it in their computer programs. To ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them whether they have done it in this way would seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them like the doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25 correctly. This is daily work in practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if you should assume that gamma is different only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the case of time dilation then the answer is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SRT would then be inconsistent in the way that e.g. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light c could never be constant (or measured as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely the wave function is a mental projection and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore its collapse is a collapse of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Aspect experiments have been incorrectly interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by others (as also Zeilinger has presented here in his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last talk) and the new experiments are said to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered all loop holes which have been left by Aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And also all these experiments are carefully observed by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an international community of physicists. But of course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is never a guaranty that anything is correct. So it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is good practice to doubt that and I am willing follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way. However if you do not accept these experiments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the consequences drawn, then please explain in detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where and why you disagree. Otherwise critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements are not helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should present arguments, which means at best:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantitative calculations as proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the quantitative results if something is referred to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the gravitational force. As much as I know any use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational force yields a result which is about 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 40 orders of magnitude smaller that we have them in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact in physics. - If you disagree to this statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please give us your quantitative calculation (for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance for the twin case). Otherwise your repeated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments using gravity do not help us in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are looking for physics which may be affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by human understanding in a bad way, I think that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case of entanglement could be a good example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments in Blue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we should make detailed arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had been arguing that Einstein’s special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity claims that the clocks of an observer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at constant velocity with respect to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second observer will slow down. This lead to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin paradox that is often resolved by citing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need for acceleration andgravity in general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to show that Einstein as I understood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him could not explain the paradox. I did so in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to set the stage for introducing a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. You argued my understanding of Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong. Ok This is not worth arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is not second guessing Einstein that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is important but that but I am trying to present
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new way of looking at reality which is based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle believed the world was essentially the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way you see it. This is called naive realism. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science from Newton up to quantum theory is based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what physicists believe I fully agree. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an argument to say the mainstream of science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So let me try again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am suggesting that there is no independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically objective space time continuum in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the material universe including you, I, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the particles and fields exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I believe a better world view is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (following Everett) that all systems are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observers and therefore create their own space in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the objects you see in front of your face
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear. The situation is shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here we have three parts You, I, and the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment in which both twins do exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing. They accelerate in opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions turn around and come back at rest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare clocks. You does a though experiment that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not symmetric one twin is at rest the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerates and comes back to rest and compares
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that each thought experiment is done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the space associated with You,I and U. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light is constant in each of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spaces and so the special relativity , Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said many times these are self consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations and I have no problem with them under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Aristotilian assumption that each of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three parts believes what they see is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Instead what they see is in each parts space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This space provides the background aether, in it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of electromagnetic interactions is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagrangian energy level largely if not totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imposed by the gravity interactions the physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material from which each part is made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences. Each part you and your space runs at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a different rate because the constant Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was looking for should be called the speed of NOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may agree or disagree with this view point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you disagree please do not tell me that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mainstream physicists do not take this point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of view. I know that. Main stream physicists are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not attempting to solve the consciousness problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , and have basically eliminated the mind and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective experience from physics. I’m trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix this rather gross oversight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, what we see, is not the true reality. So far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But relativity is not a good example to show this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a better example than to cite Newton's law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion in order to proof that most probably our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human view is questionable. For you it seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tempting to use relativity because you see logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts related to different views of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativistic processes, to show at this example that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the world cannot be as simple as assumed by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive realism. But relativity and particularly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin experiment is completely in agreement with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive realism. The frequently discussed problems in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case are in fact problems of persons who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not truly understand relativity. And this is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact for all working versions of relativity, where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones which I know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes Newtons law is a good example specifically force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a theoretical construct and not see able , what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see is acceleration and the feeling of push or pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience but Newton assumes both are objectively real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are right I'm using relativity because I believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can be explained much sipler and more accurately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we realize material generates its own space i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is something it feels like to be material. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe integrating this feeling into physics is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next major advance we can make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further more one we accept this new premise I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each piece of material but dependent on its energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (gravitatinal) state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think our discussion is most helpful in refining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these ideas, so thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One little comment to this: Every piece of material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has its own energy. Also objects which are connected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a gravitational field build a system which hasof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courseenergy. But it seems to me that you relate every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy state to gravity. Here I do not follow. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces of material are bound to each other and are so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building a state of energy, the energy in it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated by the strong force and by the electric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force. In comparison the gravitational energy is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many orders of magnitude smaller (Where the order of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude is > 35) that this is an extremely small
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side effect, too small to play any role in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. Or please present your quantitative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now to respond to your comments in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would feel better if our discussion would use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of pure repetitions of statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *WE all agree clocks slow down, but If I include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observer then I get an equation for the slow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down that agrees with eperimetn but disagrees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Einstein in the higher order, so it should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be testable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I disagree and I show the deviation in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations below. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ok i'm happy to have your comments*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lets look at this thing Historically*:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisted of an external objective universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent of subjective living beings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Electricity and Magnetism had largely been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explored through empirical experiments which lead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic lawssummarized by Maxwell’s equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These equations are valid in a medium
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterized by the permittivity ε_0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permeability μ_0 of free space. URL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These equationsare valid in a coordinate frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x,y,z,t and are identical in form when expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that will then give the same form only using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing has been done which is much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation. It is interesting because it shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that electromagnetism is a consequence of special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Press). Particularly magnetism is not a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force but only a certain perspective of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical force.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetics, but all within the self consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotelian point of view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required an aether as a medium for them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propagate. It was postulated that space was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filled with such a medium and that the earth was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving through it. Therefore it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detectable with a Michelson –Morely experiment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But The Null result showed this to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the view of present physics aether is nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes these days that aether is some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just an example physics does not need mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment which does however not mean that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether existed. The only result is that it cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected. This latter conclusion was also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by Einstein.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because it is attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because we know from other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations and facts that objects contract at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion - in the original version of Heaviside, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when electric fields move in relation to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interferometer have changed their lengths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I understand and I believe like you this is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better explanation than Einsteins but it still leaves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aether as a property of an independent space that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist whether we live or die and and assume we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects in that space it also identifies that space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with what is in front of our nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we see ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not equal to the universal space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When can we expect to get this from you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Einstein’s Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformations assuming the speed of light is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant, synchronization protocol of clocks, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all inertial frames, and the null result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein went on to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate any absolute space and instead proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all frames and observers riding in them are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent and each such observer would measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another observers clocks slowing down when moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with constant relative velocity. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation lead to the Twin Paradox. Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each observer according to Einstein, being in his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own frame would according to his theory claim the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other observer’s clocks would slow down. However
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cannot be right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No! This can be right as I have explained several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes well the why are there so many publications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that use general relativity, gravity and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence principle as the the way to explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin paradox.Ref: The clock paradox in a static
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homogeneous gravitational field URL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what Einstein really meant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to show that the twin case can also be handled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a process related to gravity. So they define the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel of the travelling twin so that he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around point and then accelerated back to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point, where the twin at rest resides. Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they calculate the slow down of time as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence of the accelerations which they relate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an fictive gravitational field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several reasons. One reason is the intent of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors to replace completely the slow down of time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the slow down by gravity / acceleration. They do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not set up an experiment where one clock is slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down by the motion and the other twin slowed down by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to my understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further on they assume that acceleration means clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down. But that does not happen. Any text book
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about SRT says that acceleration does not cause a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down of time / clocks. And there are clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments proofing exactly this. For instance the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muon storage ring at CERN showed that the lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of muons was extended by their high speed but in no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way by the extreme acceleration in the ring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know of any serious physicist who tries to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case by gravity. I have given you by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way some strong arguments that such an explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not possible. - And independently, do you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other sources?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not like the details of this paper but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant because it is only one of a long list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers that use gravity and acceleration to to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct only that a large community believes this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way to explain the twin paradox. If you look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations fall into two categories
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because you disagree with one of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categories does not mean a community supporting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity explanation view point does not exist. I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notables explanation and will see what they say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is, please, that long list? Please present it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have shown several times now, gravity is many,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small to play any role here. And this can be proven by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite simple calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein found an answer to this paradox in his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invention of general relativity where clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up when in a higher gravity field i.e one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that feels less strong like up on top of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary twin sees the moving twin at velocity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “v” and thinks the moving twin’s clock slows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. The moving twin does not move relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his clock but must accelerateto make a round trip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using the equivalence principle calculated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being equivalent to a gravitational force).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feeling the acceleration as gravity and knowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that gravity slows her clocks she would also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate her clocks would slow down. The paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is resolved because in one case the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is velocity the other it is gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is wrong, completely wrong! General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity has nothing to do with the twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity has nothing to do with it. The twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation is not a paradox but is clearly free of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation, is properly applied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be right but again most papers explain it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard about this and I am caring about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin experiment since long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see last comment. It is certainly how I was taught
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have notr looked up papers on the subject for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many years, will try to find some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but since I'm trying to propose a completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different approach I do not think which of two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations is more right is a fruitful argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lorentz Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic structures slow down and lengths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the direction of motion contract in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute aether of space according to his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation and therefore the aether could not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected. In other words Lorentz maintained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the belief in an absolute aether filled space,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that electromagnetic objects relative to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space slow down and contract. Gravity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration had nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observer subject to acceleration would know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he is no longer in the same inertial frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as before and therefore calculate that his clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be slowing down, even though he has no way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of measuring such a slow down because all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks in his reference frame. Therefore does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider gravity but only the knowledge that due
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to his acceleration he must be moving as well and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing his clocks are slowed by motion he is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprised that his clock has slowed down when he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets back to the stationary observer and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore no paradox exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have two different reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Lorentz’s case the absolute fixed frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains which in the completely symmetric twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox experiment described above implies that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both observers have to calculate their own clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates from the same initial start frame and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore both calculate the same slow down. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces a disembodied 3d person observer which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is reminiscent of a god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also any third person who moves with some constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed somewhere can make this calculation and has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same result. No specific frame like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> god-like one is needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The third person then becomes an object in a 4th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in the same way as much or as little depending on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mind as Newton's law of motion. So to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things better understandable please explain your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position by the use of either Newton's law or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something comparable. Relativity is not appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it allows for too much speculation which does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are right, but eventually I hope to show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole business is a confusion introduced by our habit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of displaying time in a space axis which introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is finished./
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which confusion do you mean? The confusion about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "twin paradox" is solely caused by persons who do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the underlying physics. So, this does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require any action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And formally the simple statement is not correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that moving clocks slow down. If we follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein, also the synchronization of the clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in different frames and different positions is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential. If this synchronization is omitted (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most arguments of this discussion up to now) we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have conflicting results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be true, but your initial argument was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the calculations by the moving twin was to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done in the inertial frame before any acceleration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which the theory was defined and it is the mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the observer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have referred the calculation to the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of the one moving twin in order to be close to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your experiment and your description. Any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame can be used as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you thought that the consequence of having an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer who feels a force like gravity which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the equivalence principle and any ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial start frame that would mean we would all be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at the speed of light and need to transfer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the whole basis does not make common experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, which is what I want to base our physics on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have gotten our heads into too much math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not really understand what you mean here. - Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are right that we should never forget that mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a tool and not an understanding of the world. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding your heavily discussed example of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity, it is fundamentally understandable without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz. That one is accessible to imagination without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much mathematics and without logical conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Einstein’s case both observers would see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other moving at a relative velocity and calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their clocks to run slower than their own when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they calculate their own experience they would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also calculate their own clocks to run slow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Einstein one has to take into account the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization state of the clocks. Clocks at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions cannot be compared in a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to carry a "transport" clock from one clock to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other one. And the "transport" clock will also run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differently when carried. This - again - is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, its whether the world view is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is, if you use relativity you have to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in a correct way. You do it in an incorrect way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then you tell us that results are logically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting. No, they are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complexities which you mention are fully and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly covered by the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference has a nice explanation of how Maxwells
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms "if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do it the right way" check out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But because they know the other twin is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerating these effects cancel and all that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left is the velocity slow down. In other words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Einstein explanation that one twin explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow down as a velocity effect and the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a gravity effect so both come to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to fall back on Lorentz’s and both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twins calculate both the gravity effect and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity effect from a disembodied 3d person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer which is reminiscent of a god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No twin would explain any slow down in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process as a gravity effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none, neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know. Even if the equivalence between gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and acceleration would be valid (which it is not)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are two problems. Even if the time would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stand still during the whole process of backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not at all explain the time difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced by the twins. And on the other hand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the gravitational field would have, in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the desired effect here, to be greater by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of at least 20 orders of magnitude (so >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10^20 ) of the gravity field around the sun etc to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve the time shift needed. So this approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no argument at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand where you are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity, the equivalence principle is , and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down of clocks and the speed of light in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower ( closer to a mass) field is the heart of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general relativity. why do you keep insisting it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and orbit speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you yoursel made a calculation that the bendng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of light around the sun is due to a gravity acing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a refractive media. Why tis constant denial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The equivalence principle is not correct in so far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as gravity causes dilation but acceleration does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. This is given by theory and by experiment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying clocks do not run faster at higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altitude? I was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for its altitude it would not be as accurate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration. And even gravity has a small influence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gravitational field on the surface of the sun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slows down clocks by the small portion of 10^-5 .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please compare this with the factors of slow down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which are normally assumed in the examples for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin travel. --> Absolutely not usable, even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence would be working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The twin experiment is designed to run in free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space, there is no gravity involved. Of course one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may put the concept of it into the vicinity of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun or of a neutron star. But then the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change. And particularly gravity is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution as it treats all participants in the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way And anyhow there is no solution needed as it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in fact not a paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed* because both require a disembodied 3d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person observer who is observing that independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotilian objective universe that must exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether we look at it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No, this 3rd person is definitely****not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required*. The whole situation can be completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluated from the view of one of the twins or of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other twin or from the view of /any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer /in the world who is in a defined frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written this in my last mail, and if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object here you should give clear arguments, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere repetitions of your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special relativity was derived in the context of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3d person, he clear argument is that he clock slow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down is also derivable form the invariance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action required to execute a clock tick of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical clocks in any observers material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity was derived as the relation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two frames of linear motion. If you look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation it always presents the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation between two frames, normally called S and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these formulas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now Baer comes along and says the entire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotelian approach is wrong and the Platonic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view must be taken. Einstein is right in claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no independent of ourselves space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however his derivation of Lorentz Transformations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was conducted under the assumption that his own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination provided the 3d person observer god
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like observer but he failed to recognize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significance of this fact. And therefore had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent additional and incorrect assumptions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to false equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the observer is properly taken into account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each observer generates his own observational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display in which he creates the appearance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. Those appearance are stationary relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the observer’s supplied background space or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they might be moving. But in either case some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> external stimulation has caused the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearances. If two copies of the same external
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock mechanism are involved and in both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clock ticks require a certain amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action to complete a cycle of activity that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called a second i.e. the moving of the hand from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line 1 to line 2 on the dial. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action required to complete the event between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks is the invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two clocks do not slow down because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be moving relative to each other their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates are determined by their complete Lagrangian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Energy L = T-V calculated inside the fixed mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying each observer’s universe. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential gravitational energy of a mass inside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mass shell is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 1)V= -mc^2 = -m∙M_u ∙G/R_u .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here M_u and R_u are the mass and radius of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass shell and also the Schwarzchild radius of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the black hole each of us is in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy is L= m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy is L= ½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v^2 only in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. So the correct equation has to be used which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is T = m_0 c^2 *( 1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )-1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You /make /it wrong in the way that you use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations (here for kinetic energy) which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly restricted to non-relativistic situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing the two clock rates and *assuming the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Action is an invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 2)(m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt = A = _(½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dividing through by m∙c^2 gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 3)Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v^2 /c^2 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which to first order approximation is equal to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 4)Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First order approximation is not usable as we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing relativity here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why clock slow down is simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivable from action invariance and sped of light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence on gravitational potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This equation is an equation of special relativity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has nothing to do with a gravitational potential.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In special relativity the slow down of clocks is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formally necessary to "explain" the constancy of c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any frame. In general relativity it was necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain that the speed of light is also constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /independence /of c from a gravitational field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one looks at it from a position outside the field
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or with the understanding of Lorentz, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariance is in any case a measurement result, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the second order terms are on the order of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v^4 /c^4 I believe Einstein’s theory has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested to the second term accuracy. In both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories the moving clock interval is smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the clock moves with constant velocity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the space of an observer at rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you are using an approximation here which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit different from Einstein's solution. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you say that Einstein's solution is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximation. Then you ask that the approximation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Einstein's solution should be experimentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked. No, the approximation is in your solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you write it yourself earlier. -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. einstein's equation is different from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order which is all that to my knowledge has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivation of this equation. Please look into his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c constant in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has longer time periods and so indicates a smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time for a given process. And if you follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein the equation Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete. It ignores the question of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization which is essential for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations about dilation. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(t-vx/c^2 ) . Without this dependency on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position the case ends up with logical conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just those conflicts which you have repeatedly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And by the way: In particle accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's theory has been tested with v very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to v =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.9999 c. So, v^4 /c^4 is 0.9996 as a term to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added to 0.9999 . That is clearly measurable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that this order of v^4 /c^4 does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have introduced it here without any argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only important point. Please provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Reference for this experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also those which have been performed here including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my own experiment, have used the true Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation with consistent results for energy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> momentum. An assumed term of v^4 /c^4 would have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused results which violate conservation of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and of momentum. So, any experiment performed here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during many decades is a proof that the equation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein is correct at this point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very simple almost classical expression based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upon action invariance is adequate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they are in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper gravity well and my calculations and theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested. You say Einsteins formula has been tested to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fourth order. This would make my theory wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please give me a reference so I can look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length contraction or time dilation beyond the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximate solutions to Einsteins equations have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been tested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To show you what you want I would have to present here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer programs which we have used to calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at DESY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over 40 years and as well no experiment at CERN and as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well no experiment at the Standford accelerator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without using Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all these experiments would have had results if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein would be wrong at this point. Because as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote, any evaluation would have shown a violation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conservation of energy and the conservation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> momentum. That means one would have received chaotic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results for every measurement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz is right that there is an aether and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein is right that there is no absolute frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and everything is relative. But Baer resolve both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these “rights” by identifying the aether as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal background memory space of each observer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who feels he is living in his own universe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see and experience our own individual world of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects and incorrectly feel what we are looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at is an independent external universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen from an epistemological position. Only the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement results are equal. Beyond that I do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not see any need to resolve something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are the observers here? The observers in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different frames are in fact the measurement tools
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like clocks and rulers. The only human-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that a human may read the indication of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this view independent of observer related facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to find a solution within the Aristotelian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size of electromagentic structures shrink or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stretch the same as electromagnetic waves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not show an effect. What Lorentz did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand is that both the yard stick and the EM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wave are appearances in an observers space and runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at an observers speed of NOW. The observer must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included in physics if we are to make progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It maybe correct that the observer must be included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's start then with something like Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law of motion which is in that case also affected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relativity is bad for this as it is mathematically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more complicated without providing additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical insights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170809/e4faaf01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mhgekmhoajhkmlah.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170809/e4faaf01/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list