[General] STR twin Paradox

Tue Aug 15 22:56:56 PDT 2017

You still do not grasp the idea that theory and therefore the assumption 
of theory determine the interpretation and therfore what we thing we are 
seeing.

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

On 8/15/2017 12:44 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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?
The operation of acceloators show m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 
)which can be interpreted in two ways. I challenge you again to show me 
why your interpretation of c remaining contant and m needs to increase 
is the right 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 )"  ?
I've explained this many times the speed of EM process in a particle or 
coordinate frame built of particle is dependent upon the total energy 
potential the particle experiences gravitational potentialis one of the 
components the particle is in. The speed of light and all processes 
including clock rates slow down when the clock is in a lower gravity 
potential
mc^2 =~  m c_0 ^2 + 1/2 mv^2
>>
>> Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of initial 
>> assumptions.
>>
> Which initial assumptions do you mean?
That the speed of light is constant. instead of being dependent on the 
energy potential it is in.
>>
>> 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.
You keep saying clearly falsified but you do not show me the safe 
experiments I believe the experiments you refer to are based on this 
equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) and I keep saying it 
can be interpreted in two ways
>>
>> 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.
Ive again told you the physical process is to include the gravity 
potential of the distant stars Machs principle
>>
>> 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?
I meant the speed of gravity, this is also a problem with your rotating 
charges unless the interaction speed is infinite a tangential component 
will arise which makes the orbit unstable
>>
>> 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.
That again is an interpretation but the prehelion shift is calculated by 
assuming Newtons infinite gravity it again is false reasoning. You can 
explain the shift by making new assumptions, but if you apply those 
assumptions consistently you get a different answer to the shift and one 
that is inconsistent wih Einsteins calculations. We sent out the paper 
on this i can dig it up and send itr again.

>> 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.
it proves the speed of light is dependent u[pon the gravito-inertial  
field the light is in and is not constant. So why are you so critical of 
my c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )
>>
>> 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?
I cannot remember right now but maybe Candra sent some paper that 
mentioned the anomalies and gravity effects measured during an eclipse
perhaps someone will remember the reference.
>>
>>
>> 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.
The why are you so critical? My on;y contribution is to realize that the 
fixed frame of reference is the perceptive space attached to each observer
you must understand yourself in the picture or you have only half the truth.

>>
>>
>> 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>
>
>
> <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 at Wolf 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170815/853d3eac/attachment.htm>