[General] STR twin Paradox

Wed Aug 16 07:42:19 PDT 2017

So, what is /your /way to measure the speed of light so that you trust 
the result?

Am 16.08.2017 um 07:56 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> 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-mailwolf 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 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/20170816/bef5dbb5/attachment.htm>