[General] STR twin Paradox

Albrecht Giese phys at a-giese.de
Fri Aug 18 08:18:54 PDT 2017 

Wolf,

why do you mention the Michelson Morley experiment? It was not the 
purpose of  it to determine the speed of light. And it is in no way 
suitable to do this determination. It was designed to measure the ether 
drift.

A particle accelerator is, on the other hand, a very good way to 
determine the behaviour of c. Because when the particle flies along the 
chain of acceleration sections, the fields of these sections have to be 
switched in a properly synchronized way so that an acceleration can 
happen. Therefore the speed of the particle is very simple logic. At 
which point do you doubt this process?

If it is now visible that this speed has an upper bound (more is not 
necessary), but the momentum of the particle increases permanently, then 
the increase of mass is the only explanation. Or do you have another 
one? - The increase of momentum is easily measured in a magnetic field.

 From these facts together the increase of mass has to be concluded. I 
do not know any other explanation. Do you have one?

Your doubt of this is in my view a consequence of the fact that you have 
never looked into the design of a synchrotron. You should do that 
urgently before presenting unchained statements about relativistic facts.

Albrecht


Am 17.08.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> 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-mailwolf 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 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/20170818/b17abdc0/attachment.htm>

More information about the General mailing list