[General] STR twin Paradox

Wed Aug 16 23:16:01 PDT 2017

wel the first thin I would like to see is nano second pulses reproducing 
a michelson Morely type experiment

But the simplest thing is to look at the theory of the synchroton design 
you keep talking about  are you talking about the energy formula

m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )that we both agree on. If so 
then we are only in disagreement about the interpretation and the 
assmptions inside that interpretation, observations like this E-mail in 
front of your nose are facts I do not dispute facts, I'm interested in

by the way have you seen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

The truth is hard to come by.

Wolf

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

On 8/16/2017 7:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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 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 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/20170816/acf091cb/attachment.htm>