[General] STR twin Paradox

Albrecht Giese phys at a-giese.de
Wed Aug 23 12:17:45 PDT 2017 

Wolf:

Please stay at the topic we are just discussing here. We should first 
come to a result with those before extending our topics.


Am 21.08.2017 um 08:47 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I mentioned the Michelson Morley experiment because the URL I sent is 
> an interesting alternative that gives a completely different answer 
> which is probably wrong Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc
>
Yes, I have seen both videos. But I suspect, for the first one, that it 
is a property of his set up. If in the upright position the elements of 
the apparatus move only by a micrometer by gravity, then this effect is 
already understandable. Generally speaking, the author did not present 
an error investigation; and that is essential for every experiment.
>
> However in general this experiment is extremely pertinent because the 
> inability to detect ether drift is one of the main pillars of 
> Einstein's approach and one of the main pillars of my consciousness 
> theory of why why we should not detect the background space which is 
> attached and generated by us. I am working on my book fro ROutledge 
> Press and would be happy to start sending you parts of it for comments 
> on this observer oriented event theory.
>
But my question was about the measurement of the speed of light c. We 
should not jump but bring one question to an end before switching to 
philosophy or similar.
>
> You are very right I should learn more about synchrotrons but we re 
> not discussing the standard text book approach and its assumptions so 
> I am hoping you will meet me half way and tell my specifically why you 
> think I'm wrong instead of generally asking me to go look at a text 
> book and hoping I would guess your objection.
>
In the following you see the accelerating pieces of a /linear 
/accelerator. This is showing how the speed of a particle - like an 
electron - determines the switching frequency

Bildergebnis für linearbeschleuniger
In a synchrotron this is built in a circular way.
>
> Now you've started to be mores specific and I greatly appreciate that. 
> The definition of momentum is p=mpv1−v2c2−−−−−√
>
> However the derivation of this equation is not at all straight forward 
> since we are talking about three dimensions and the formula is 
> different in the direction of motion vs the cross direction terms. In 
> the circular orbit we are talking about a momentum in te radial 
> direction vs one in the angular direction and furthermore the particle 
> is in an accelerated frame.
>
The point is here that the momentum of the electron increases 
permanently, but the speed is limited to c. And as there is p = m*v , 
and at the end v = c, how can you explain the increase of p if assuming 
m to be constant?
>
> You are saying particles are accelerated to near the speed of light 
> and easily measured, yes but this is a one way near speed of light 
> measurement and one needs to examine  this carefully.I've read in 
> numerous places that the Large Hadron Collider is capable of 
> accelerating protons at 0.999999991 c,- At those speeds the 
> circumference of "C" is the stationary distance and the time is the 
> time statinary period tp measured at one point whenever the particle 
> comes around. so its velocity is C/tp, However the particle is   
> stationary in its own reference frame and only feels a radial 
> gravitational pull outward for which the factor under the integral 
> depends upon the log of the radius
When we say that an object has a certain speed we mean the speed 
measured in our laboratory frame. For other frames (also the one of the 
particle itself) it has to be determined by the Lorentz transformation. 
But that is a different story than what we are discussing here.
>
> Furthermore we must talk about the momentum of a charged particle 
> since presumably the momentum is measured by the curvature on a charge 
> induced by a magnetic field.
That is one way. The other - which relates to the energy of a particle - 
is its conversion into other particles. So, an electron and a positron 
accelerated in a storage ring can collide and in this moment be 
converted into particles of a much higher mass (a mass of more than 1000 
times the mass of the electron). How is this possible if the electron 
does not change its mass (and the positron as well)?
>
> This it gets very complex and your recommendation to understand more 
> is appropriate. However is the situation not similar to the central 
> force problem of a particle moving in an atom where the gravitational 
> and electric forces are balanced
The gravitational force is completely irrelevant for the processes in an 
atom. I have many times given you numbers that for such influence the 
gravitational force is too low by more than 30 orders of magnitude. - 
Why do I write this again and again, and you never react on it but 
repeat completely wrong numbers or assumption again and again?? So we 
cannot go on.
>
> i will try to get you a calculation which shows that for an atom the 
> assumption that charge and mass are at a point is no longer valid and 
> in fact the two are separated. Thus the momentum of a particle is 
> dependent upon the separation distance. this allows me to calculate 
> the momentum and energy of a particle from contant mass and force 
> since the correction factors are used to explain an internal geometry 
> to matter rather than a change in the value of mass.
So a particle without a charge does not have any momentum?
>
> please stand by
>
> Wolf

Please treat the questions we are discussing right now here. The rest 
please later.

Albrecht
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 8/18/2017 8:18 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 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/20170823/0385477f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jafkggglpgchcgjc.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170823/0385477f/attachment.png>

More information about the General mailing list