[General] STR twin Paradox

Tue Aug 15 12:44:07 PDT 2017

Wolf:

it may be good to have new ideas or new insights, but please do not 
offer equations which are in clear conflict to safe experiments.

Am 15.08.2017 um 07:45 schrieb 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 )
>
The operation of accelerators show every day and every second that the 
speed of particles has a limit at the speed of light c. And as on the 
other hand the energy (or momentum) of a particle in an accelerator is 
increased to above any limit, the mass of that particles must increase. 
There is no other explanation, or do you have one?
>
> 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.
>
Why do you not explain a physical process which is described by your 
equation above: "c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )" ?
>
> Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of initial 
> assumptions.
>
Which initial assumptions do you mean?
>
> 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.
>
This again assumes that the mass of an object is constant if put to 
motion. This is clearly falsified by safe experiments.
>
> 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 )
>
My question again - not answered by you - is: which physical process is 
described by this equation in your view? For me it is just a collection 
of symbols without any message.
>
> 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
>
Which gravity, i.e. the gravity of which object is infinite in your view?
>
> 2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation classic 
> i.e. infinite speed of gravity calculations
>
To my understanding the perihelion shift is caused by the fact that the 
planet changes its mass during the orbit because the speed changes.
>
> 3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation
>
Shapiro's result for the speed of light is in full agreement with 
Einstein and also in full agreement with my approach to gravity.
>
> 4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in satellite 
> orbits (not sure about this one)
>
Where was gravitational shielding observed? And which anomalies in 
satellite orbits do you mean?
>
>
> Einstein should have listened to Mach.
If Einstein would have listened to Mach he would have accepted the 
existence of a fixed frame of reference (this kind of an ether). I 
assume the same as Mach.
>
>
> Best wishes ,
> Wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
Best wishes back
Albrecht

> 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?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

---
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/20170815/b2f7614a/attachment.htm>