[General] STR twin Paradox

[Wolfgang Baer]

Albrecht:

You said "Your equation   Your equation   m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 
/c^2 )^1/2 )is correct. It describes the increase of mass at motion. But 
your equation c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) does not have any 
meaning for me. And I do not understand how you have deduced it. I have 
asked you the other day what this equation means in your view, but you 
did not answer this.'

I thought I had answered many times. Lets assume we both agree on this 
equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) is correct.

Now how do you interpret it?

If you believe in Einsteins postulate that c is constant then you can 
logically divide c oyt of the equation and get m = m_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 
)^1/2 ) which you believe has been proven in accelerator designs.

I on the other hand recognize that Einstein's postulate is precisely a 
postulate, an initial assumption that may or may not be correct.

We are both and all of us in this discussion group exploring the 
validity of initial assumptions. Therefor Allow me to assume Eistein's 
assumption is one way of developing a theory but not the only way. If we 
assume mass is the invariant instead of the speed of light then the very 
same equation we both agree on could be written as m*c^2 = m*c_0 ^2 
*(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ). Now we can cancel the "m' and get c^2 = c_0 ^2 
*(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )

This may not have any meaning to you, but it that is the case you do not 
understand how a community of scientists could be so brain washed that 
they accept an assumption for gospel truth and do not want to understand 
circular reasoning which will always prove the initial assumption is true.

Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of initial 
assumptions.

An further more if we rewrite the equation we both agree on as m*c^2 = 
m_0 ^3/2 *c^3 *(1/(mc^2 -mv^2 )^1/2 )we would recognize the mc^2 -mv^2 
in the corrective factor as the negative classic Lagrangian when the 
potential energy of the a mass inside a universe mass shell is 1/2 mc^2 
. This means mc^2 is the escape energy to get outside our Universe of 
mass surrounding us. In other words we live in a flat space at the 
center od a ball of mass. Simple and consistent with intuition.

Now I ask you to show me experiments that cannot be explained with the 
assumptions leading to c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )

since I or we have shown you arguments that Einsteins assumption is 
inconsistent with

1) gravity must be infinite or there would be a tangential component to 
increase our orbit

2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation classic i.e. 
infinite speed of gravity calculations

3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation

4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in satellite 
orbits (not sure about this one)


Einstein should have listened to Mach.


Best wishes ,
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 8/11/2017 4:24 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Your equation   m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )is correct. It 
> describes the increase of mass at motion.  But your equation c^2 = c_0 
> ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) does not have any meaning for me. And I 
> do not understand how you have deduced it. I have asked you the other 
> day what this equation means in your view, but you did not answer 
> this. Because why should the speed of light change if something 
> (what??) moves at some speed v?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170814/58ff8b33/attachment.htm>