[General] STR twin Paradox

Albrecht Giese phys at a-giese.de
Thu Jul 6 06:52:46 PDT 2017


Wolf:

the point is that I have given some explanations hoping that you answer 
to the arguments, not only state a different opinion.


Am Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:42:33 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I answered to every one of your comments on your previous E-mails ,
>
> it is you who continues to not provide references for experiments that 
> "prove" fourth order compliance with Einsteins formulatrion . I 
> believe I have duplicated mathematically all of Einsteins 
> experimentally proven results but using a different world view and 
> interpretation. Arguments that I am not using equations correctly only 
> imply I am not using them according to your world view. It is the 
> interpretation of Lorentz transformations not the consistency of the 
> math I am arguing.
>
> I have said many times it is the SRT and GRT interpretation I object 
> to, an interpretation based upon his ability to derive Lorentz 
> transform equations form the assumption of constant light speed plus a 
> whole bunch of other modifications to classic physics.
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 7/3/2017 1:54 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> sorry, you are missing the point regarding our discussion. I have 
>> said in almost every mail that I do NOT believe that c is a universal 
>> constant, and you write to me in turn that you have a problem with me 
>> because I insist in the constancy of c. Then I have to ask myself why 
>> we continue this dialogue.
>>
> when you insist that (1/2)* m_0 * v^2   is wrong - I'm trying to tell 
> you that it is correct to fourth order and only wrong if you assume c 
> is constant because when the formula m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 
> )^1/2 )   is divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship for 
> increasing m, but if you let
>  c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) you get the same answers but 
> charge and mass and most of classical physics remain valid as well -
I have asked you in the other mail what this last equation for c^2 
physically means, i.e. which physical situation you have in mind. You 
did not answer this question. - Irrespective of what you mean by it, it 
says that the speed of light increases to infinity if v>0 (whatever this 
may mean physically). This is in conflict with all measurements because 
a speed > c_0 was never seen.

On the other hand, m increases at motion up to infinity. This is a clear 
measurement result and the measurements are very precise. So your 
equation T = (1/2)* m* v^2 is proven to be wrong.
>>
>> You generally do not answer my arguments but repeat your statements 
>> like a gramophone disk. That does not mean a discussion. So, please 
>> answer my last mail of Sunday point by point, else we should stop this.
>>
> I did answered your E-mail on Sunday point by point just take a look. 
> Your previous E-mail I tried to answer by showing that your 10,000 
> forld increase in elecron mass is actually an increase in energy 
> involving the speed of light, which you assume is attributed to mass 
> because high energy people assume C is constant.  Perhaps you are not 
> one of them, but I believe your criticism of me is based on this 
> perhaps unconscious assumption.
It is a simple exercise to measure the mass of a moving electron. Also 
the speed of an electron in a synchrotron. In the synchrotron the 
voltage at the cavities which accelerate the electron have to be 
switched in time so that they always change their polarity in the moment 
when an electron passes. They are switched in the assumption that the 
electron moves at an increasing speed up to the speed of light c_0 . If 
this assumption would not be extremely correct then there would never be 
an acceleration. On the other hand the bending magnets have to take into 
account the actual mass of the electron (not the rest mass m_0 ). 
Otherwise the electrons would not follow the bended path inside the 
vacuum tube which has to be precise by millimetres.

No synchrotron, no cyclotron and no storage ring would ever have worked 
even for a few meters of beam length if your equations would be valid.
>>
>> Just one point here with respect to your mail below: You cannot refer 
>> to classical mechanics if you want to discuss particle physics. The 
>> investigation of particles was the reason to deviate from classical 
>> physics because for the reactions of particles the classical physics 
>> yielded nonsense. This was the stringent reason to develop relativity 
>> and quantum mechanics.
>>
> relativity and quantum Theory were developed before particle physics. 
> I believe high energy physics makes false assumptions because their 
> analysis assumes SRT is correct and therefore interpret everything in 
> this light. That is why I am asking again give me references to 
> experiments that prove Einstein's equations are correct beyond fourth 
> order terms.
Besides looking at experiments (see further down) it is simpler and 
clearer to look at the design of accelerators. They are built using 
Einstein's equation and would never have guided one single particle if 
this formalism would not be correct.

And among those thousands of experiments performed in accelerators you 
cannot find one single experiment which does not prove that Einstein's 
equations are correct in that context. I have given you examples that by 
use of your equations the results of the kinematic calculations would be 
different by factors of 1000 or more.

To find the papers describing these experiments you can use every paper 
published by any accelerator. But you will not find this statement 
(about the Lorentz transformation used) in the papers because it is such 
a matter of course that everyone doing such evaluations of experiments 
uses Einstein's equations. In the same way as they all know how to 
multiply e.g. 124.6 by 657.33 without mentioning it. It is all in the 
computer programs used for the evaluation.

But you may find examples of such calculations in the textbooks about 
particle physics. No physicist in this field would ever use different 
equations.
>>
>> And, by the way, what you assume by use of your truncated equations 
>> is not at all compatible with quantum mechanics. If particles could 
>> be treated by classical physics then the development of relativity 
>> and QM during the last 100 years would have been superfluous 
>> activity, and those 10'000s of physicists who have worked in particle 
>> physics would have done a tremendous wast of time and resources. Do 
>> you think that they all were that stupid?
>>
> It is compatible because quantum  mechanics was initially and still is 
> based on Newtonian interpretation of space and time even though some 
> correction like fine structure  was discovered by Sommerfeld and made 
> compatible with SRT those correction generally are compatible with 
> corrections using linear approximations to Einsteins equations which 
> my theory duplicates
>
> At the danger of sounding like a record: Assume  there is a clock 
> sitting still interacting with nothing its activity between clock 
> ticks remains undisturbed and takes a constant amount of action A , 
> However if those activities are calculated by two observers they would 
> calculate this constant action in their own point of view and 
> coordinate frames to get the invariant A as,
>                             dt1* L1  = A = dt2*L2
> were L1 and L2 are each observers Lagrangian of the undisturbed clock 
> in their own coordinate frame. The relationship between the two 
> observers observation is
>         dt1* L1  = (L2/L1) *dt2
> or plugging in the Einsteinian like  Lagrangians assuming including 
> the potential energy of the fixed stars gives
>             dt1    = (m_0 *c^2 )^1/2 */(m_0 *c^2 -m_0 *v^2 )^1/2 )} *dt2
> Dividing through by m_0 *c^2
>         dt1 = dt2*(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )
> The moving dt2 observer  runs slower, however the clock which is the 
> subject of both runs the same , all I'm saying is that the Einstein 
> effects have nothing to do with the actual clock but are artifacts of 
> the observers .
I have explained several times that this kind of comparison is wrong as 
it overlooks the problem of synchronization. I have explained earlier 
how it has to be done to be correct. I could repeat it here but I am not 
willing to do this work until I can be sure that you read it.
>
> If we just used classical Lagrangians including the potential energy 
> of the fixed stars ( Mach's Principle) we would get all the same 
> effects to orders less than fourth power in v/c which I believe is all 
> that has been verified. outside high energy field,
>
> If we follow this reasoning we get to a much simpler physics and  
> those 10'000s of physicists will realize they have been suffering 
> under the wrong world view that has made their jobs and explanations 
> more and more complicated, not wrong just more complicated and not 
> relevant to our human situation.
>
Before we talk about a world view we should perform simple calculations 
in a correct way. And before talking about the Lagrangian and about 
stars we should show the facts for elementary particles using the 
conservation of energy and of momentum. -  The so called "Mach's 
principle" is not usable in so far as it does not make any quantitative 
statements, but Mach has only presented very rough and basic ideas about 
how it can be explained that a rotating object "knows" that it is in 
rotation and not at rest. Such idea is not able to allow for 
calculations, and that also was not the intention of Mach at that time.

And regarding relativity, we have a physical institute here in Bremen 
(next to Hamburg) where since decades the laws of relativity are 
investigated with increasing precision.  To my knowledge they have 
reached relative precisions of 10^-10 or even better and confirmed the 
formalism to this degree. So, far better than your v/c to the 4th power.

Albrecht
> wolf
>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I do not know how to keep answering when you insist that somewhere 
>>> in your past there is something I should answer while I think I am 
>>> answering all your objections. I can duplicate what I believe are 
>>> all experimentally verified facts by simply
>>>
>>> considering a classic Lagrangian  L=T-V if I add to the potential 
>>> energy the energy of a mass inside a the surrounding mass shell. 
>>> This simple recognition avoids all the strange relativistic effects 
>>> introduced by Einstein or his followers  and is completely 
>>> compatible with quantum mechanics. I've given you all the standard 
>>> time dilation equations and show that the speed of light the also 
>>> varies. My formulation is completely compatible with classic 
>>> thinking to terms v^2 /c^2 because I believe that is the level I 
>>> believe Einsteins theory has be verified
>>>
>>> Please stop telling me this is a low speed approximation and 
>>> therefore wrong because then all you are saying my theory is not 
>>> equal to Einsteins, which of corse is the whole point.
>>>
>>> you have no legitimate criticism until you give me the reference to 
>>> experiments that prove the opposite. I ask this because I believe 
>>> the accelerator experiments you refer to are analyzed with the 
>>> assumption that the speed of light is constant and therefore are 
>>> very likely not proving anything more than their own assumption.
>>>
>>> If I make Einsteins gamma =(mc^2 /(V-T)^1/2 ) i get complete 
>>> agreement with Einstein's equations but still do not have to buy 
>>> into his world view. Given the criticism that has been brought up in 
>>> this group about all the reasons Einstein so called experimental 
>>> verification is flawed including the perihelion rotation, and lately 
>>> the solar plasma correction, I see no reason to deviate from the 
>>> classic and understandable world view.
>>>
>>> Please give me experiment reference
>>>
>>> Now to answer your comments to my coments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 7/2/2017 4:19 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> we have now progress in so far as you have read about 30% of what I 
>>>> have written to you.  90% would be really better, but this is maybe 
>>>> too much at this stage.
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.06.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully agree with your statement: " Should you have a new theory 
>>>>> which is complete and which is in agreement with the experiments 
>>>>> then you should present it. But for now I did not see anything 
>>>>> like that." I am working on such a theory and so are many of us in 
>>>>> this group, I will send you sections of the book to get your 
>>>>> highly valued opinion when they are ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also agree with: " first of all we have to agree on valid physics."
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is valid physics?
>>>>>
>>>> We should agree on what it is. It should at least be in accordance 
>>>> with the experiments. And if it deviates from the fundamental 
>>>> physics which we have learned at the university, then these parts 
>>>> should be thoroughly justified.
>>> I believe I have an interpretation compatible with all experiments 
>>> that does not assume the speed of light is constant, why is this not 
>>> legitimate physics?
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to insist that one cannot question Einstein specifically 
>>>>> on his assumption that the speed of light is constant and his 
>>>>> subsequent turning most of well established classic physics 
>>>>> principles on its head.
>>>>>
>>>> As I have mentioned frequently in the preceding mails, I for myself 
>>>> do NOT believe that c is always constant. How often do I have to 
>>>> say this again until it reaches you? But if we use a variation of c 
>>>> (which was always also the conviction of Hendrik Lorentz) then we 
>>>> should use the correct functions for its variation.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if you use Einstein's equations then you should 
>>>> use them correctly.
>>>>
>>>> I for myself refer to experiments when I deviate from classical 
>>>> physics to understand relativistic phenomena.
>>> Yes I have seen you criticizs Einstein and his speed of light 
>>> assumption so why do you insist it must be constant now, since this 
>>> assumption is what allows you to call my equations incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that you object to my use of the classic 
>>>>> definition of Kinetic energy
>>>>>
>>>>> m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )  =~ m_0 *c^2 ( 1 + (1/2)* 
>>>>> v^2 /c^2 + higher order terms )
>>>>>
>>>> The "higher order terms" may be a considerable portion if we talk 
>>>> about speeds  v > 0.1 c , i.e. relativistic situations.
>>> Show me the references
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if you insist, with Einstein that c is always constant then 
>>>>> dividing the above equation by c^2 gives
>>>>>
>>>>> m = m_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )
>>>>>
>>>> I do NOT insist in this,  to say it once again and again and ... ! 
>>>> But what does this have to do with your equation above? The 
>>>> equation is correct and well known.
>>>>
>>> The equation is only correct IF YOU ASSUME THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS 
>>> CONSTANT otherwise m0=m0 as assumed in classical physics.
>>>> And of course you can divide such equation by c any time 
>>>> irrespective of any constancy of c. Basic mathematics!
>>>>
>>>> For the variation of c I have given you the correct dependency for 
>>>> the case of gravity. I did it several times! Always overlooked??
>>> I do not remember any conflict here I believe you agree that c2 = Mu 
>>> G / Ru
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course then mass must increase. This is simply an example of 
>>>>> one of the many classic physics principles on its head.
>>>>>
>>>> The mass increases at motion is not only clear experimental 
>>>> evidence but is determined with high precision in accordance with 
>>>> the equation above.
>>> The equation above is only true because everyone assumes the speed 
>>> of light is constant and therefore divides it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is a great deal of evidence that the speed of light 
>>>>> is NOT constant and if we simply realize that the effective speed 
>>>>> of light is effected by gravity, which in the case of an 
>>>>> electromagnetic propagation in a sphere of distant masses gives by 
>>>>> Mach's Principle and the Scharzshild black hole limit the relationship
>>>>>
>>>>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) =~c_0 ^2 ( 1 + (1/2)* v^2 
>>>>> /c_0 ^2 + higher order terms )
>>>>>
>>>> What shall this equation tell us? Which physical situation shall be 
>>>> described by this relation?
>>> what it tells us is that the speed of light is proportional the the 
>>> gravitational energy the material in which electro-magnetic waves 
>>> propagate  since the first term is simply c_0 ^2 which is the 
>>> gravitational potential in the mass shell and the second term is the 
>>> velocity energy which also raises the gravitational potential of the 
>>> particle in qurstion relative to the observer.
>>>
>>> You see Albrecht what neither Einstein nor Lorentz has understood is 
>>> that each of us to first order generates a space of awareness within 
>>> which all things happen that we can observe
>>>>
>>>> If you follow the approach of relativity of Lorentz (or of myself) 
>>>> then the relation is very simply:  c = c_0 +/- v . But if an 
>>>> observers moving with v measures c then his result will always be: 
>>>> c = c_0 . You get this by applying the Lorentz transformation to 
>>>> the functioning of the measurement tools in motion. And that again 
>>>> is in precise compliance with the experiment.
>>> If v=0 in the equation above c = c_0 as well what. I'm not sure c = 
>>> c_0 +/- v is compaible with all experiments unless one introduces 
>>> othr assumptions to classic physics I am reluctant o accept.
>>>>
>>>> It is correct that c changes in a gravitational field and I have 
>>>> given you /several times /the formula for this. It is easily 
>>>> visible that the variation in a gravitational field is very small 
>>>> and in no way able to explain the variations which we observe in 
>>>> the usual experiments of relativity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore if we realize that -mc^2 = V_U ; the potential energy 
>>>>> inside the mass shell of stars then the total classic Lagrangian
>>>>>
>>>>> L = T- V = (1/2)* m_0 * v^2 - m_0 c^2 - m_0 * G* M_L /R_L
>>>>>
>>>> _You have again used here the wrong equation for the kinetic energy 
>>>> T, again ignoring the increase of mass at motion. So we cannot 
>>>> discuss physics.
>>> _You again have again dismissed my equation because you think m = 
>>> m_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) which as I have said implies you believe 
>>> c=constant. This is the correct equation for the classic Lagrangian 
>>> if the gravitational potential of the star shell we appear to be 
>>> surrounded with is included in the gravitational potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we substitute the Lagrangian into the equation for the speed of 
>>>>> light I believe we would get all of the special and general 
>>>>> relativistic effects at least up to the higher order terms , 
>>>>> including the clock slow down from SRT., which I believe is all 
>>>>> that has been verified. Your claim that higher order accuracy has 
>>>>> been experimentally proven is something I doubt and have asked you 
>>>>> for explicit experimental references many times. WHy because most 
>>>>> people who do these experiments are so brow beat into believing 
>>>>> Einsteins assumptions as God given truth that they simply put the 
>>>>> correction factor on the wrong parameter and get papers published.
>>>>>
>>>> I have explained the muon experiment at CERN. Overlooked again??
>>> please explain why the muon experiment makes any statement about the 
>>> mass. All I believe it does is makes a statement about the energy of 
>>> the mass which contains the c^2 term so your assumption again rests 
>>> on Einstein is right come hell or high water.
>>>>
>>>> If the equation which you believe to be correct is used, then the 
>>>> result would be wrong by a great factor. I have given you numbers. 
>>>> No one can ignore such great discrepancies only because he/she is 
>>>> biased by his/her faith in Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> Or do you assume that there is a conspiracy of physicists all over 
>>>> the world, in all nations and all political systems, in order to 
>>>> save Einstein's theory?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?
>>>>>
>>>> Your presentation here is not legitimate, if you mean this by your 
>>>> question. Again you use physical equations and formulae in a 
>>>> completely wrong way. This is not able to convince anyone.
>>> I understand you do not like the idea that mass and charge remain 
>>> constant and classic physics is essentially correct, because your 
>>> theory depends on correcting  an error in current thinking. You want 
>>> to make two errors make a right, I want it eliminate the first error 
>>> and simplify the whole mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you now ready to discuss the metaphysical assumptions 
>>>>> underlying physics that I am questioning and trying to help me and 
>>>>> others work on possible alternative physics formulations that 
>>>>> might get us out of the mess we are in?
>>>>>
>>>> I am working myself on alternative physics since > 20 years. But 
>>>> not with equations which are nothing else than non-physical 
>>>> fantasies ignoring experiments. 
>>> we have had these discussions. You want to solve all problems in he 
>>> current framework and then address the observer problem. I see the 
>>> lack of observer inclusion as the root to the problems you want to 
>>> correct and therefore the goal is to include the observer in the 
>>> foundations of physics as a first principle. Baer's first law of 
>>> physics is that the physicist made the law.
>>> Put yourself in the center of your own universe, observations from 
>>> this point of view  it is all you have and ever will have to build 
>>> your theory..
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>> wolf
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 6/27/2017 1:58 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is not the question here whether I grasp your approach. 
>>>>>> Because first of all we have to agree on valid physics. Your past 
>>>>>> statements and calculations are in conflict with all physics we 
>>>>>> know. On this basis nothing can be discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should you have a new theory which is complete and which is in 
>>>>>> agreement with the experiments then you should present it. But 
>>>>>> for now I did not see anything like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 27.06.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think i have clearly responded to all your points previously 
>>>>>>> but there is something you do not grasp about my approach
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> however the list you provide is  good since perhaps I was 
>>>>>>> answering parts you did not read
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so see below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2017 6:56 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should not change the topics which we have discussed 
>>>>>>>> during the last mails. And *as you again **did **not react to 
>>>>>>>> my comments I summarize the open points now in a list*:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *o*   You use for the kinetic energy the erroneous equation T = 
>>>>>>>> 1/2 m*v^2 (because we talk about relativistic cases).  So you 
>>>>>>>> necessarily have a wrong result. Why do you not make your 
>>>>>>>> deduction (using the Lagrangian) with the correct equation 
>>>>>>>> which I have given you? Or what is your consideration to use 
>>>>>>>> just this equation even if it is erroneous? Please answer this. 
>>>>>>>> This is physics, not philosophy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not using T = 1/2 m*v^2 incorrectly in classic theory. I'm 
>>>>>>> suggesting Einsteins theory is wrong. I do not mean it is 
>>>>>>> inconsistent with its postulates but the postulates do not 
>>>>>>> correctly represent reality. I suggest instead the the classic 
>>>>>>> Lagrangian energy L= T-V is adequate to calculate the action if 
>>>>>>> the potential energy V in inter galactic space is mc_u ^2 For an 
>>>>>>> amount of time dS = L*dt , and then if an event such as a 
>>>>>>> running clock is viewed from two different coordinate frames and 
>>>>>>> the action calculated in those frames is invariant then
>>>>>>>                                 L*dt = L'*dt'
>>>>>>> so that the appearant rate of clocks differ for the two 
>>>>>>> observers. And when calculating this out my theory, which is not 
>>>>>>> only my theory, is consistent with experimental evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not understand why you keep saying my use of T = 1/2 m*v^2 
>>>>>>> is incorrect? I'm using it correctly in my theory. If you insist 
>>>>>>> Einstein's SRT is correct a-priory  then of course any 
>>>>>>> alternative is wrong. But should not experimental evidence, 
>>>>>>> simplicity, and applicability to larger problems be the judge of 
>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>> It is experimental evidence that the mass of an object increases 
>>>>>> at motion. In my experiment the mass of the electrons was 
>>>>>> increased by a factor of 10'000. Your equation ignores this 
>>>>>> increase. - It is by the way a consequence of the limitation of 
>>>>>> the speed at c. If an object like an electron has a speed close 
>>>>>> to c and there is then a force applied to it which of course 
>>>>>> means that energy is transferred to it, then the mass increases. 
>>>>>> Anything else would mean a violation of the conservation of energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, this increase of mass is not only a result of Einstein's 
>>>>>> theory but it is unavoidable logic and also confirmed by the 
>>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, if you use for the kinetic energy   T = 1/2 m*v^2 , 
>>>>>> then you assume a constancy of m which is clearly not the case. 
>>>>>> This relation can only be used for speeds v<<c  where the mass 
>>>>>> increase is negligible. In our discussion we talk about 
>>>>>> relativistic situations and for these your equation is wrong. In 
>>>>>> the example of my experiment it is wrong by a factor of 10'000. 
>>>>>> You ignore this and that cannot give you correct results. You 
>>>>>> find the correct equation for energy in my last mail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *o* Your conflict about the term v^4 /c^4 in the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>> transformation is a result of your use of a wrong equation for 
>>>>>>>> T (kinetic energy). Why do you not repeat your deduction using 
>>>>>>>> the correct equation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again I am not using the wrong equation in my theory.
>>>>>> I think that I have made it obvious enough that you have used a 
>>>>>> wrong equation. So your result will be wrong by a factor which at 
>>>>>> the end is not limited.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *o* The equation 1/2*m*v^2 /c^2 is not correct and not part of 
>>>>>>>> Einstein's equations. Einstein has given this for visualization 
>>>>>>>> as an /approximation/. Why do you continue with it without a 
>>>>>>>> response to my information that it is incorrect or why do you 
>>>>>>>> not argue why you believe that is can be used?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes yes yes I'm not using Einsteins equation for kinetic energy. 
>>>>>>> How many times do I have to agree with you before you stop 
>>>>>>> disagreeing with my agreement?
>>>>>>> A long time ago you said that cyclotron experiments proved time 
>>>>>>> dilation as Einstein described in SRT was proven to better than 
>>>>>>> v^4 /c^4 and I've asked you for references v^4 /c^4 because I 
>>>>>>> have not seen evidence for this claim nor have I seen evidence 
>>>>>>> for the space contraction claim, but i have seen good paper's 
>>>>>>> that dispute both these claims.
>>>>>> A good proof was the muon storage ring at CERN in 1975. The muons 
>>>>>> have been accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c. Their lifetime was 
>>>>>> extended by a factor of 30 which is in agreement with Einstein. 
>>>>>> In Einstein's equation the difference of this value to 1 has to 
>>>>>> be built resulting in 0.0006.   If you think that the term v^4 
>>>>>> /c^4 has to be added then you have to add 0.9994^4 to this value 
>>>>>> of 0.0006 , so you change 0.0006 to (0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do 
>>>>>> you really expect that the physicists at CERN overlook it if they 
>>>>>> get 0.9982 for 0.0006 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that this is a very clear evidence that the term v^4 /c^4 
>>>>>> is not missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this huge difference is the result of your use of the 
>>>>>> equation T = 1/2m*v^2 in the wrong context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what is your argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *o* The equation for the speed of light which you gave: c^2 =  
>>>>>>>> Mu*G/Ru is senseless which is easily visible. I have explained 
>>>>>>>> that. Why do you not respond to this point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can you say it is senseless? multiply both sides by -m you 
>>>>>>> get the well known solution of the Schwarzschild energy of a 
>>>>>>> particle inside the ring of distant masses when the masses reach 
>>>>>>> the size that makes a black hole boundary.
>>>>>> You  have derived your equation by equalizing kinetic and 
>>>>>> potential energy. What is your argument that both energies are 
>>>>>> equal? If an object is in free fall then both types of energy 
>>>>>> change in a different direction so that the sum is constant. The 
>>>>>> /sum /is the value conserved, but both energies are not at all 
>>>>>> equal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Einstein's world there is c=0 at the event horizon. But you 
>>>>>> are saying that your equation above is just valid at the event 
>>>>>> horizon, and that is at least in disagreement with Einstein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After we have clarified these discrepancies about SRT we may 
>>>>>>>> talk about the observer or other philosophical aspects, *but 
>>>>>>>> not earlier*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine
>>>>>>> but are we not living inside a black hole? Is the energy 
>>>>>>> required to reach escape velocity from our black hole  not equal 
>>>>>>> to mc_u ^2 twice the classic kinetic energy?
>>>>>>>     I know you agree the speed of light  depends upon the 
>>>>>>> gravitational potential, which from a local mass is MG/R. For a 
>>>>>>> local mass like the sun the speed of light is
>>>>>>>              c^2 = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R =    c_u ^2 (1+ M*G/(R*c_u ^2 )
>>>>>>>     If light speed depends upon the gravitational potential if 
>>>>>>> the sun to bend light, why would it not depend upon the 
>>>>>>> gravitational potential of the surrounding star mass we are 
>>>>>>> living in?
>>>>>> The speed of light depends indeed on the gravitational potential 
>>>>>> and I have given you the equation for that:   c =c_0 
>>>>>> *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the 
>>>>>> direction of the light
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your equations above are not usable as I have just explained in 
>>>>>> my paragraph above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we should live in a black hole then we need a completely 
>>>>>> different physics. I do not have understood that this is the 
>>>>>> situation we are discussing here. In our real world there is 
>>>>>> nowhere  c=0, but your equation suggests this. If you are in free 
>>>>>> space where no masses are present or masses are very far away 
>>>>>> then according to your equation c has to be close to 0. That has 
>>>>>> never been observed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     maxwell's equations are correct, the Lorentz transformations 
>>>>>>> are correct,  but the interpretation Einstein gave these 
>>>>>>> equations is what I disagree with. And the resulting almost 
>>>>>>> total revision of classic mechanics is what I disagree with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can we get on with trying to find a simpler connection between 
>>>>>>> electricity and gravitation one that has gravitation change the 
>>>>>>> permiability and susceptibility of the aether perhaps?
>>>>>> Why are you looking for a connection between electricity and 
>>>>>> gravitation? I do not seen any connection. And if there should be 
>>>>>> something like that we should include the strong force which is 
>>>>>> much more essential for our physical world than electricity or 
>>>>>> gravitation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: You may try a lot but please present here equations 
>>>>>> which are either known or contain a minimum of logic. You are 
>>>>>> permanently presenting equations here which are your free 
>>>>>> inventions  and are not given by any existing theory and are not 
>>>>>> in agreement with any existing experiments. This will not 
>>>>>> converge towards a result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 24.06.2017 um 07:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I had answered the last E-mail pretty thoroughly, 
>>>>>>>>> I'll try again however I think you are not grasping my position
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein Lorentz Baer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> make assumptions         make assumptions                    
>>>>>>>>> make assumptions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and write a theory            And write a 
>>>>>>>>> theory                     And am in the process
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That has conclusions      That has conclusions                 
>>>>>>>>> That has preliminary conclusions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> c=constant c is dependent on gravity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change physics                 Em material stretches 
>>>>>>>>>               emphasize invariant of action
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lots of non intuitive               probably 
>>>>>>>>> Ok                              Needs to understand the role 
>>>>>>>>> of the observer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far Ive sent you a classic calculation based upon the fact 
>>>>>>>>> that Em penomena go at rates determined by the classic 
>>>>>>>>> Lagrangian and I believe this very simple formulation explains 
>>>>>>>>> all experimentally verified effects up to fourth order in v/c 
>>>>>>>>> and in addition and in fact the whole reason for my effort is 
>>>>>>>>> to include the observer and recognize that the plenum within 
>>>>>>>>> the theories of these eminent physicist was their own 
>>>>>>>>> imaginations which is always a background space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think I am working on a new and better theory. So far what I 
>>>>>>>>> have is a calculation using in-variance of action.Tell me why 
>>>>>>>>> I am wrong based on experimental evidence not that I have a 
>>>>>>>>> different theory then either Einstein or Lorentz. I know our 
>>>>>>>>> theories are different but i think they are wrong because they 
>>>>>>>>> are Aristotelian realists and I'm using Platonic logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have a new theory available which can be quantitatively 
>>>>>>>> checked by experiments please present and explain it here. 
>>>>>>>> Before you have done this,  a discussion as it was up to now 
>>>>>>>> does not make any sense but uses up a lot of time. We should 
>>>>>>>> not waste time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I'll try to answer your coments
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2017 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,ghly
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i see the same problem again: you did not really read my last 
>>>>>>>>>> mail as you repeat most of your earlier statements with no 
>>>>>>>>>> reference to my comments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Details in the text:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>> Answers embedded below
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to standard physics. And I do of course not expect that you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to what I say but I expect that you object if you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree, but please /with arguments/. In the case of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> formula for kinetic energy for instance you have just 
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeated your formula which is in conflict with basic 
>>>>>>>>>>>> physics, but there was no argument at all. This will not 
>>>>>>>>>>>> help us to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have provided numerical arguments two or three times 
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps you do not get all the E-mails - here is a copy
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have  written 
>>>>>>>>>> that they are wrong because they are based on a wrong 
>>>>>>>>>> formula. I have written this two times with no reaction from 
>>>>>>>>>> you. You find my responses further down in the history of 
>>>>>>>>>> mails, so you cannot say that you did not receive them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in 
>>>>>>>>>>> inter galactic space perform the same activity between two 
>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks in their own coordinate frames . The amount of 
>>>>>>>>>>> activity in an event is measured by action. So if they are 
>>>>>>>>>>> identical and perform the same activities the amount of 
>>>>>>>>>>> action between ticks is the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An observer calculates the amount of action from classical 
>>>>>>>>>>> physics as  dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V = 
>>>>>>>>>>> -m*c^2 - MGm/R, here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in 
>>>>>>>>>>> the mass shell of the universe and MGm/R any local 
>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if  Twin A is riding along with clock A then  T=0 for Clock 
>>>>>>>>>>> A thus the Lagrangian is    (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving clock 
>>>>>>>>>>> B Lagrangian calcuated by A is           (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 
>>>>>>>>>>> + MGm/R)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> since the action calculated for both clocks  is invariant we 
>>>>>>>>>>> have the equation,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                        (m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S =  (1/2* m 
>>>>>>>>>>> *v^2  + m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so the moving clock dt'  slows down compared with the 
>>>>>>>>>>> stationary one which is experimentally verified to 
>>>>>>>>>>> accuracies of v*v/c*c  and differs from Einstein's theory 
>>>>>>>>>>> because Einstein's theory has higher order  c^4/c^4 terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your problem?
>>>>>>>>>> You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why 
>>>>>>>>>> did you not respond to it? So once again (I think it is the 
>>>>>>>>>> 3rd time now):
>>>>>>>>>> Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2 is wrong in the 
>>>>>>>>>> general case. It is only usable for slow speeds, so  v<<c . 
>>>>>>>>>> But our discussion here is about relativistic situations, so 
>>>>>>>>>> v close to c  As a consequence the result of your deduction 
>>>>>>>>>> is of course wrong, and so particularly your term c^4/c^4 is 
>>>>>>>>>> a result of this confusion. Einstein's equation, i.e. the 
>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz factor, is a square-root function of (1-v^2 /c^2 ). 
>>>>>>>>>> And if you make a Taylor expansion from it, there are many 
>>>>>>>>>> terms of higher order. But the root formula is the correct 
>>>>>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have 
>>>>>>>>>> written here earlier:  T = m_0 c^2 *( sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 ))-1) .
>>>>>>>>>> If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the 
>>>>>>>>>> second term then you end up with the formula which you have 
>>>>>>>>>> used. But as iit is easily visible here, only for speed v << c. 
>>>>>>>>> THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is right 1/2 m*v^2 
>>>>>>>>> is correct in my theory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You could claim the principle of action in-variance is  
>>>>>>>>>>> false. But whether it is false or not can be put to 
>>>>>>>>>>> experimental tests.
>>>>>>>>>> The principle of action is correct but generally used for a 
>>>>>>>>>> different purpose. In general I do not find it the best way 
>>>>>>>>>> to use principles but better to use fundamental laws. But 
>>>>>>>>>> this is a different topic. However, I expect that you would 
>>>>>>>>>> come to a correct result with this principle if you would use 
>>>>>>>>>> correct physical equations.
>>>>>>>>> Yes I know but I'm using it because independent and isolated 
>>>>>>>>> system have no external clocks to measure progress and the 
>>>>>>>>> amount of activity is all that is available to measure the 
>>>>>>>>> completion of identical activities. You must understand I 
>>>>>>>>> assume evnets not objects are fundamental.
>>>>>>>>>>>  You have claimed Einsteins theory has been verified to 
>>>>>>>>>>> better than v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it until I see the 
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. Because the in-variance of action theory is so 
>>>>>>>>>>> simple and logical. As well as the fact that if one drops m 
>>>>>>>>>>> out of these equations one get the gravitational speed of 
>>>>>>>>>>> light, which has been verified by Sapiro's experiment, but 
>>>>>>>>>>> if you read his paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group 
>>>>>>>>>>> velocity) so why assume the speed of light is constant. So 
>>>>>>>>>>> if you have experimental evidence please provide a 
>>>>>>>>>>> reference. I have seen many papers that claim only time 
>>>>>>>>>>> dilation has  been verified  to first order approximation of 
>>>>>>>>>>> his formulas and length contraction has never been verified.
>>>>>>>>>> As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the 
>>>>>>>>>> calculation of energy and momentum by taking into account the 
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding conservation laws. In all calculations which we 
>>>>>>>>>> have done here at the accelerator DESY the relation v/c was 
>>>>>>>>>> in the order of  0.9999 . So the gamma factor is about 
>>>>>>>>>> _10'000_. If there would have been a term v^4 /c^4 necessary 
>>>>>>>>>> but omitted then this factor would change to something in the 
>>>>>>>>>> interval _1 to 10_. This is a discrepancy by a factor of at 
>>>>>>>>>> least 1'000. Do you really believe that all the scientists at 
>>>>>>>>>> DESY and at the other accelerators worldwide would overlook a 
>>>>>>>>>> discrepancy of this magnitude?
>>>>>>>>> If this v^4 /c^4   term accuracy has been measured by 
>>>>>>>>> experiment I am not aware of it  I've asked you for a 
>>>>>>>>> reference. Yes I believe all the scientists are simply not 
>>>>>>>>> aware of their own fundamental assumptions regarding the role 
>>>>>>>>> of the conscious being, which is why I and a few of us are 
>>>>>>>>> working on these issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain extend we all want to do here, otherwise we would 
>>>>>>>>>>>> not have these discussions) then everyone who has a basic 
>>>>>>>>>>>> objection against it, should name that explicitly and give 
>>>>>>>>>>>> detailed arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If this is *Not *a detailed argument I do not know what is!
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have 
>>>>>>>>>> told you now */several times/*. You did not react and did not 
>>>>>>>>>> give a justification but you merely repeated it again and again.
>>>>>>>>> IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions that you 
>>>>>>>>> disagree with?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe the question "what does it feel like to be a piece 
>>>>>>>>> of material" is quite legitimate and if we can entertain the 
>>>>>>>>> question why not ask if feelings are not intrinsically part of 
>>>>>>>>> material and the perhaps space is a feeling, the  phase of an 
>>>>>>>>> never ending event
>>>>>>>>> Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...." quickly for a 
>>>>>>>>> few minutes and you'll get the experience of a subject object 
>>>>>>>>> event  that takes on an existence of its own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think "that time 
>>>>>>>>> dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts
>>>>>>>>> of the observation, and not induced characteristics of the 
>>>>>>>>> objects being observed themselves."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well its hard to disagree with this statement because the 
>>>>>>>>> reason the transformations were invented is to show that the 
>>>>>>>>> Maxwell equations which describe a physical fact will 
>>>>>>>>> transform to describe the same physical fact no mater what 
>>>>>>>>> body you are attached to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe there is a 
>>>>>>>>> reality and the appearances in any observers coordinate frame 
>>>>>>>>> i.e. body , represent something real that is effected by 
>>>>>>>>> gravity. And simply recognizing that the rate of 
>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic activity is dependent on the gravitational 
>>>>>>>>> influence the system in which the activity happens is under , 
>>>>>>>>> is a simple provable assumption that connects electricity with 
>>>>>>>>> gravity. Once this is established as an observer independent 
>>>>>>>>> fact. THen that fact also applies to the body making the 
>>>>>>>>> measurement and in that sense and only that sense time 
>>>>>>>>> dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts of 
>>>>>>>>> the observing body.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did like "It is, that each particle is effectively an “observer”
>>>>>>>>> of all the others, necessitating the incorporation of the
>>>>>>>>> attendant mathematical machinery into the coupled equations
>>>>>>>>> of motion of the particles.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and am looking forward to Al' promised further work in this 
>>>>>>>>> coupling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so Albrecht have I answered your comments for this go around?
>>>>>>>> No, I do not see any answer as I have listed it above!  You 
>>>>>>>> always talk about different things or you repeat your erroneous 
>>>>>>>> statement / equation without an argument.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> best wishes ,
>>>>>>>>> wolf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say what you believe to be true. I respect that and you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be right but I am not talking about what has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered at CERN but rather what Einstein published, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory he proposed and I have ordered and now have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein, A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodies”, /The Principle of Relativity/:/; a collection of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original memoirs on the special and general theory of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity/, Edited by A Sommerfeld, Translated by W. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISBN486-60081-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz , 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minkowski and Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained st 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest the travelled clock on its arrival will be 1/2*t*v^2 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /c^2 slow. " ...."this is up to magnitude of fourth and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher order"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an unambiguous statement. It follows directly from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his derivation of the Lorentz transformations and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately leads to the twin paradox because from the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of view of the moving clock the so called 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary" clock is moving and the stationary clock when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning to A would by SRT be the traveled clock which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow by 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ^No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one clock is at 
>>>>>>>>>>>> rest, the other one is not as it leaves the original frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation 
>>>>>>>>>>>> between /inertial frames/. Otherwise not applicable. If 
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not really clear, you will not have any progress in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> your understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock 
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight 
>>>>>>>>>>>> motions and then the pieces of tim ^e can be summed up ^. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In that way the Lorentz transformation could be applied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have 
>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again. SRT is about relations of /inertial 
>>>>>>>>>>>> frames/. Not in others than these. And I must clearly say: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as this does not enter your mind and strongly 
>>>>>>>>>>>> settles there, it makes little sense to discuss more 
>>>>>>>>>>>> complex cases in special relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> but only as an approximation for v<<c.  In his original 
>>>>>>>>>>>> paper of 1905 Einstein has earlier given the correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>> equation and then given the approximation for v<<c. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately he has not said this explicitly but it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> said by his remark which you have quoted:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "this is up to  magnitude of fourth and higher order" . 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it would be the correct equation it would be 
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid up to infinite orders of magnitude. - We should 
>>>>>>>>>>>> forgive Einstein for this unclear statement as this was the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> first paper which Einstein has ever written. 
>>>>>>>>>>> NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some 
>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions like the speed of light is constant in all 
>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate frames and simultaneity is defined by round trip 
>>>>>>>>>>> light measurements. He simply stated that the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>>> transformations have certain consequences. One of them being 
>>>>>>>>>>> that an observer viewing a clock moving around a circle at 
>>>>>>>>>>> constant velocity would slow down and he gave the numerical 
>>>>>>>>>>> value of the slow down to first order in v^2/c^2.
>>>>>>>>>> If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct 
>>>>>>>>>> derivation of the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes 
>>>>>>>>>> an approximation for a slow speed without saying this 
>>>>>>>>>> clearly. His text (translated to English):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "… so that this indication of the clock (as observed in the 
>>>>>>>>>> system at rest) is delayed per second by (1-sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ) 
>>>>>>>>>> seconds or – except for magnitudes of forth or higher order 
>>>>>>>>>> is delayed by 1/2(v/c)^2 seconds."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, Einstein /excludes /here the higher orders. That means 
>>>>>>>>>> clearly that it is an approximation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If the moving 
>>>>>>>>>> clock comes back it is delayed. Which is of course in 
>>>>>>>>>> agreement with SRT. And also with the observation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And 
>>>>>>>>>>> what has been experimentally proven is quite simple. A clock 
>>>>>>>>>>> slows down if it feels a force.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is it. Whether that force is called gravity experienced 
>>>>>>>>>>> when one is standing on the earth or called inertia when one 
>>>>>>>>>>> is being accelerated in a rocket makes no difference. And 
>>>>>>>>>>> the simplest theory that explains experimentally verified 
>>>>>>>>>>> fact is not Einstein's SRT or GRT but
>>>>>>>>>>> simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of 
>>>>>>>>>>> physics that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena 
>>>>>>>>>>> happen at a speed determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>                                 c^2 = Mu*G/Ru
>>>>>>>>>>> and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein 
>>>>>>>>>>> and has something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe 
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein should get credit.
>>>>>>>>>> Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow 
>>>>>>>>>> down of clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on 
>>>>>>>>>> force according to relativity and according to experiments. 
>>>>>>>>>> Also gravity slows down a clock, but very little. 
>>>>>>>>>> Experimental proof was once the Hafele Keating experiment for 
>>>>>>>>>> gravity and speed and the muon accelerator for speed and the 
>>>>>>>>>> independence of acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a 
>>>>>>>>>> force applied this would be a new theory. If you believe 
>>>>>>>>>> this, please present it as a complete theoretical system and 
>>>>>>>>>> refer to experiments which are in agreement with this theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of 
>>>>>>>>>> correctness is easily visible by the following consideration. 
>>>>>>>>>> If it would be true then a gravitational mass of M=0 would 
>>>>>>>>>> mean c=0, which is clearly not the case. And also for some 
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational mass but a distance R=infinite there would also 
>>>>>>>>>> be c=0, which does not make any sense. And I repeat the 
>>>>>>>>>> correct one (perhaps you notice it /this time/).
>>>>>>>>>> c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on 
>>>>>>>>>> the direction of the light
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the twin case I have given you numbers that the 
>>>>>>>>>> acceleration phase is in no way able to explain the time 
>>>>>>>>>> offset, but I am meanwhile sure that you ignore that again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this time.  I believe SRT as Einstein originally formulated it in 1905 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong/or incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Up to now I did not see any true arguments from you, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> but you only presented your results of an incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Einstein's theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. Please answer this question so we can debug our 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference opinions by going through the arguments  one 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write more. I just want to know if we have agreement or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement on the starting point of SRT.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please 
>>>>>>>>>>>> give us arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> summary without any arguments is not science. I also have 
>>>>>>>>>>>> some concerns about Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure 
>>>>>>>>>>>> statements without arguments like in your last mails we do 
>>>>>>>>>>>> not achieve anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is: Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>> like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant 
>>>>>>>>>>> velocity slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO 
>>>>>>>>>>> questions is simply did he or did he not say that the moving 
>>>>>>>>>>> clock slows down? The question is not whether his theory is 
>>>>>>>>>>> formally consistent but whether his theory states moving 
>>>>>>>>>>> clocks slow down.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock 
>>>>>>>>>> slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in 
>>>>>>>>>> his paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at which this 
>>>>>>>>>> slow down happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a 
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B 
>>>>>>>>>>> move at constant velocity in a circle compared with an 
>>>>>>>>>>> observer B on clock B seeing clock A move in a circle at 
>>>>>>>>>>> constant velocity. YES or NO
>>>>>>>>>>> If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been 
>>>>>>>>>>> said is that both observers see the other go in a circle at 
>>>>>>>>>>> constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>> If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins 
>>>>>>>>>>> Claim in Question 1 above?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at 
>>>>>>>>>> constant speed and  in a circle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in 
>>>>>>>>>> the middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the 
>>>>>>>>>> same amount. Already given by symmetry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as 
>>>>>>>>>> SRT is about the relation of inertial frames, and here none 
>>>>>>>>>> of the clocks is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand 
>>>>>>>>>> this question must be answerable in a formal way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the 
>>>>>>>>>> other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight 
>>>>>>>>>> path. In this infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves 
>>>>>>>>>> on a straight path and both do not have any speed in relation 
>>>>>>>>>> to the other one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in 
>>>>>>>>>> the Lorentz transformation is the temporal derivative of the 
>>>>>>>>>> distance. This is 0 in this case. So no effects according to 
>>>>>>>>>> SRT and both observers see the speed of the other clock not 
>>>>>>>>>> slowed down.
>>>>>>>>>> So there is no dilation relative to the other one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames  
>>>>>>>>>>> at this stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the 
>>>>>>>>>>> other leave his coordinate frame behind why does the other 
>>>>>>>>>>> not see the same thing. Einstein insisted there are no 
>>>>>>>>>>> preferred coordinate frames. That Einsteins theory, as 
>>>>>>>>>>> published in 1905, can be patched up by adding 
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried 
>>>>>>>>>>> to do himself with GRT is not the issue  We can discuss 
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense 
>>>>>>>>>>> and is part of the original SRT later, after you answer 
>>>>>>>>>>> question 2 above. .
>>>>>>>>>> SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about 
>>>>>>>>>> inertial frames (the question which coordinate frame is used 
>>>>>>>>>> is of no physical relevance).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Each observer in this example will not only see the other one 
>>>>>>>>>> permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself 
>>>>>>>>>> leaving permanently his inertial frame. That is easily 
>>>>>>>>>> noticeable as he will notice his acceleration.  - How this 
>>>>>>>>>> case can be solved in accordance with SRT I have explained in 
>>>>>>>>>> the preceding paragraph. That solution is physically correct 
>>>>>>>>>> and in my understanding in accordance with Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to lead you and anyone listening to the logical 
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by his 
>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions is wrong. I am not questioning that after making 
>>>>>>>>>>> his assumptions he can logically derive the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>>> transformations, nor that such a derivation is inconsistent 
>>>>>>>>>>> with his assumptions. Ive gone through his papers often 
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to know his math is correct. I'm  simply trying to 
>>>>>>>>>>> lead us all to the realization that the speed of light as a 
>>>>>>>>>>> physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never will be 
>>>>>>>>>>> and warping coordinate frames and all the changes in 
>>>>>>>>>>> physics  required to make that assumption consistent with 
>>>>>>>>>>> experimental fact has been a 100 year abomination. If you 
>>>>>>>>>>> believe that assumption,  I've got a guy on a cross who 
>>>>>>>>>>> claims to be the son of god to introduce you to.
>>>>>>>>>> You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed 
>>>>>>>>>> of light is not constant. I would understand this as a step 
>>>>>>>>>> forward. But you have to do it with appropriate arguments 
>>>>>>>>>> which I found missing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments 
>>>>>>>>>> which are my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>> rather Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian relativity is more 
>>>>>>>>>> easy to understand and has physical causes. Einstein's 
>>>>>>>>>> principle is not physics but spirituality in my view and his 
>>>>>>>>>> considerations about time and space are as well not physics. 
>>>>>>>>>> Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility of 
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's  theory with reality by some examples, at last by 
>>>>>>>>>> the twin case and argued that this is a violation of 
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality. But both is 
>>>>>>>>>> not the case, and that was the topic of the discussions 
>>>>>>>>>> during the last dozens of mails.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Best Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering if you really read my mails as the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions below are answered in my last mails, most of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the mail of yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration and gravity are related?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written now /several times in my last mails /that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the equivalence principle is violated at the point that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does not cause 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dilation. And, as I have also written earlier, that you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find this in any textbook about special relativity and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was experimentally proven at the muon storage 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ring at CERN.  - It seems to me that you did not read my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last mails but write your answering text independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you  believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than one at sea level?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail/. In 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addition I have given you the numerical result for the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational dilation on the surface of the sun where 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the slow down of a clock is the little difference of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 1 / 100'000 compared to a zero-field situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe the speed of light is related to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity potential  by c*c = G*M/R?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also given in a previous mail the equation for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, which is c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or 1 depending on the direction of the light.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any references?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the general use of the Lorentz factor:    gamma = 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )) which has no additional terms 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on v^4 /c^4 . This gamma is similarly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable for time dilation and for every kinematic or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic calculation where special relativity applies. And 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the latter context it is used by thousands of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists all over the world who work at accelerators. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could find it in their computer programs. To ask them 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether they have done it in this way would seem to them 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. This is daily work in practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if you should assume that gamma is different only for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of time dilation then the answer is that SRT 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would then be inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of light c could never be constant (or measured as constant).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely the wave function is a mental projection and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore its collapse is a collapse of knowledge and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Aspect experiments have been incorrectly interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by others (as also Zeilinger has presented here in his 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last talk) and the new experiments are said to have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered all loop holes which have been left by Aspect. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And also all these experiments are carefully observed by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an international community of physicists. But of course 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is never a guaranty that anything is correct. So it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is good practice to doubt that and I am willing follow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way. However if you do not accept these experiments 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the consequences drawn, then please explain in detail 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where and why you disagree. Otherwise critical statements 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should present arguments, which means at best: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantitative calculations as proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the quantitative results if something is referred to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the gravitational force. As much as I know any use of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational force yields a result which is about 30 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 40 orders of magnitude smaller that we have them in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact in physics. - If you disagree to this statement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please give us your quantitative calculation (for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance for the twin case). Otherwise your repeated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments using gravity do not help us in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are looking for physics which may be affected by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human understanding in a bad way, I think that the case 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of entanglement could be a good example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments in Blue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   I agree we should make detailed arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   I had been arguing that Einstein’s special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   relativity claims that the clocks of an observer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   moving at constant velocity with respect to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   second observer will slow down. This lead to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   twin paradox that is often resolved by citing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   need for acceleration andgravity in general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   intended to show that Einstein as I understood him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   could not explain the paradox. I did so in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   to set the stage for introducing a new theory. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   argued my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   This is not worth arguing about because it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   second guessing Einstein that is important but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   that but I am trying to present a new way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   looking at reality which is based on Platonic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   thinking rather than Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Aristotle believed the world was essentially the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   way you see it. This is called naive realism. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   science from Newton up to quantum theory is based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   not what physicists believe I fully agree. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   not an argument to say the mainstream of science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   So let me try again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   I am suggesting that there is no independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   physically objective space time continuum in which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   the material universe including you, I, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   believe a better world view is that (following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Everett) that all systems are observers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   therefore create their own space in which the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   objects you see in front of your face appear. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   situation is shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Here we have three parts You, I, and the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   the Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   experiment in which both twins do exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   thing. They accelerate in opposite directions turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   around and come back at rest to compare clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   You does a though experiment that is not symmetric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   one twin is at rest the other accelerates and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   comes back to rest and compares clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   The point is that each thought experiment is done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   in the space associated with You,I and U. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   speed of light is constant in each of these spaces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   and so the special relativity , Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   said many times these are self consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   equations and I have no problem with them under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   the Aristotilian assumption that each of the three
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   parts believes what they see is the independent space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   . Instead what they see is in each parts space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   This space provides the background aether, in it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   the speed of electromagnetic interactions is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Lagrangian energy level largely if not totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   imposed by the gravity interactions the physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   material from which each part is made experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Each part you and your space runs at a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   rate because the constant Einstein was looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   should be called the speed of NOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   You may agree or disagree with this view point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   But if you disagree please do not tell me that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   mainstream physicists do not take this point of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   view. I know that. Main stream physicists are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   attempting to solve the consciousness problem ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   and have basically eliminated the mind and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   subjective experience from physics. I’m trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   fix this rather gross oversight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, what we see, is not the true reality. So far so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But relativity is not a good example to show this. It 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a better example than to cite Newton's law of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion in order to proof that most probably our human 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view is questionable. For you it seems to be tempting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use relativity because you see logical conflicts 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to different views of the relativistic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes, to show at this example that the world 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be as simple as assumed by the naive realism. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But relativity and particularly the twin experiment 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is completely in agreement with this naive realism. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The frequently discussed problems in the twin case 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are in fact problems of persons who did not truly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand relativity. And this is the fact for all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working versions of relativity, where the Einsteinian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Lorentzian version are the ones which I know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes Newtons law is a good example specifically force 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a theoretical construct and not see able , what  we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see is acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience but Newton assumes both are objectively real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are right I'm using relativity because I believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can be explained much sipler and more accurately if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we realize material generates its own space i.e. there 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something it feels like to be material. I believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating this feeling into physics is the next 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major advance we can make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further more one we accept this new premise I think 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece of material but dependent on its energy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (gravitatinal) state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think our discussion is most helpful in refining 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these ideas, so thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One little comment to this: Every piece of material has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own energy. Also objects which are connected by a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational field build a system which hasof 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courseenergy. But it seems to me that you relate every 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy state to gravity. Here I do not follow. If 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces of material are bound to each other and are so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building a state of energy, the energy in it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated by the strong force and by the electric 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force. In comparison the gravitational energy is so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many orders of magnitude smaller (Where  the order of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude is > 35) that this is an extremely small side 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, too small to play any role in most 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. Or please present your quantitative 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Now to respond to your comments in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would feel better if our discussion would use 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure repetitions of statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *WE all agree clocks slow down, but If I include 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observer then I get an equation for the slow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down that agrees with eperimetn but disagrees with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein in the higher order, so it should be testable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I disagree and I show the deviation in your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations below. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ok i'm happy to have your comments*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lets look at this thing Historically*:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisted of an external objective universe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent of subjective living beings. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Electricity and Magnetism had largely been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explored through empirical experiments which lead 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic lawssummarized by Maxwell’s equations. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These equations are valid in a medium 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterized by the permittivity ε_0 and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permeability μ_0 of free space. URL: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These equationsare valid in a coordinate frame 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x,y,z,t and are identical in form when expressed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s equations that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will then give the same form only using ∂/∂x’, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing has been done which is much more 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the complete 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of Maxwell can be deduced from two things: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation. It is interesting because it shows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that electromagnetism is a consequence of special 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Press). Particularly magnetism is not a separate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force but only a certain perspective of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical force.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetics, but all within the self consistent 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotelian point of view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept required 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an aether as a medium for them to propagate. It 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was postulated that space was filled with such a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium and that the earth was moving through it. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it should be detectable with a Michelson 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> –Morely experiment. But The Null result showed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the view of present physics aether is nothing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes these days that aether is some kind of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just an example physics does not need mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment which does however not mean that no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether existed. The only result is that it cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected. This latter conclusion was also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by Einstein.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because it is attached to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because we know from other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations and facts that objects contract at 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion - in the original version of Heaviside, this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when electric fields move in relation to an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interferometer have changed their lengths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I understand and I believe like you this is a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better explanation than Einsteins but it still leaves 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aether as a property of an independent space that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist whether we live or die and and assume we are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects in that space it also identifies that space 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with what is in front of our nose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we see ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not equal to the universal space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When can we expect to get this from you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Einstein’s Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformations assuming the speed of light is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant, synchronization protocol of clocks, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frames, and the null result of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein went on to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate any absolute space and instead proposed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all frames and observers riding in them are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent and each such observer would measure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another observers clocks slowing down when moving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with constant relative velocity. This 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation lead to the Twin Paradox. Since 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each observer according to Einstein, being in his 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own frame would according to his theory claim the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other observer’s clocks would slow down. However 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cannot be right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No! This can be right as I have explained several 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes well the why are there so many publications that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use general relativity, gravity and the equivalence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle as the the way to explain the twin 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox.Ref: The clock paradox in a static 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homogeneous gravitational field URL 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what Einstein really meant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to show that the twin case can also be handled 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a process related to gravity. So they define the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel of the travelling twin so that he is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around point and then accelerated back to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting  point, where the twin at rest resides. Then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they calculate the slow down of time as a consequence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the accelerations which they relate to an fictive 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several reasons. One reason is the intent of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors to replace completely the slow down of time 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the slow down by gravity / acceleration. They do 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not set up an experiment where one clock is slowed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down by the motion and the other twin slowed down by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to my understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further on they assume that acceleration means clock 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down. But that does not happen. Any text book 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about SRT says that acceleration does not cause a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down of time / clocks. And there are clear 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments proofing exactly this. For instance the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muon storage ring at CERN showed that the lifetime of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muons was extended by their high speed but in no way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the extreme acceleration in the ring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know of any serious physicist who tries to explain 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin case by gravity. I have given you by the way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some strong arguments that such an explanation is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. -  And independently,  do you have other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not like the details of this paper but it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant because it is only one of a long list of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers that use gravity and acceleration to to explain 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the twin paradox. I am not claiming they are correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only that a large community believes this is the way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations fall into two categories
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because you disagree with one of these categories 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean a community supporting the  gravity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation view point does not exist. I've ordered 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and other notables 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation and will see what they say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is, please, that long list? Please present it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small to play any role here. And this can be proven by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite simple calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein found an answer to this paradox in his 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invention of general relativity where clocks speed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up when in a higher gravity field i.e one that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feels less strong like up on top of a mountain. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applied to the twin paradox: a stationary twin 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees the moving twin at velocity “v” and thinks 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moving twin’s clock slows down. The moving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin does not move relative to his clock but must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerateto make a round trip (using the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence principle calculated the being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to a gravitational force). Feeling the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration as gravity and knowing that gravity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slows her clocks she would also calculate her 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks would slow down. The paradox is resolved 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because in one case the explanation is velocity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other it is gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with the twin situation, and so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity or any equivalent to gravity has nothing to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with it. The twin situation is not a paradox but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is clearly free of conflicts if special relativity, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the Lorentz transformation, is properly applied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be right but again most papers explain it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard about this and I am caring about this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twin experiment since long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see last comment. It is certainly how I was taught but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have notr looked up papers on the subject for many 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, will try to find some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but since I'm trying to propose a completely different 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach I do not think which of two explanations is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more right is a fruitful argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lorentz Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic structures slow down and lengths 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the direction of motion contract in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute aether of space according to his 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation and therefore the aether could not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected. In other words Lorentz maintained the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief in an absolute aether filled space, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that electromagnetic objects relative to that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space slow down and contract. Gravity and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration had nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observer subject to acceleration would know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he is no longer in the same inertial frame as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before and therefore calculate that his clocks 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be slowing down, even though he has no way of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring such a slow down because all the clocks 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in his reference frame. Therefore does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider gravity but only the knowledge that due 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to his acceleration he must be moving as well and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing his clocks are slowed by motion he is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprised that his clock has slowed down when he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets back to the stationary observer and therefore 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no paradox exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down but we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have two different reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Lorentz’s case the absolute fixed frame remains 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which in the completely symmetric twin paradox 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment described above implies that both 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observers have to calculate their own clock rates 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the same initial start frame and therefore 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both calculate the same slow down. This introduces 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a disembodied 3d person observer which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminiscent of a god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also any third person who moves with some constant 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed somewhere can make this calculation and has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same result. No specific frame like the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> god-like one is needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The third person then becomes an object in a 4th 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way as much or as little depending on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind as Newton's law of motion. So to make things 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better understandable please explain your position by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of either Newton's law or something 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable. Relativity is not appropriate as it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows for too much speculation which does not really 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are right, but eventually I hope to show the whole 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business is a confusion introduced by our habit of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying time in a space axis which introduces 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup when it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is finished./
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which confusion do you mean? The confusion about this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "twin paradox" is solely caused by persons who do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the underlying physics. So, this does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require any action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And formally the simple statement is not correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that moving clocks slow down. If we follow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein, also the synchronization of the clocks in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different frames and different positions is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential. If this synchronization is omitted (as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most arguments of this discussion up to now) we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have conflicting results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be true, but your initial argument was that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the calculations by the moving twin was to be done 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the inertial frame before any acceleration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which the theory was defined and it is the mind 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the observer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have referred the calculation to the original frame 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the one moving twin in order to be close to your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and your description. Any other frame can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you thought that the consequence of having an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer who feels a force like gravity which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the equivalence principle and any ones 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial start frame that would mean we would all be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at the speed of light and need to transfer back 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole basis does not make common experience sense, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what I want to base our physics on. We have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gotten our heads into too much math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not really understand what you mean here. -  Your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are right that we should never forget that mathematics 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a tool and not an understanding of the world.  But 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding your heavily discussed example of relativity, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is fundamentally understandable without a lot of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik Lorentz. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That one is accessible to imagination without much 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics and without logical conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Einstein’s case both observers would see the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other moving at a relative velocity and calculate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their clocks to run slower than their own when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they calculate their own experience they would 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also calculate their own clocks to run slow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Einstein one has to take into account the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization state of the clocks. Clocks at 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions cannot be compared in a simple 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to carry a "transport" clock from one clock to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other one. And the "transport" clock will also run 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differently when carried. This - again - is the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, its whether the world view is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you tell us that results are logically 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting. No, they are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complexities which you mention are fully and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly covered by the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference has a nice explanation of how Maxwells 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms "if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do it the right way"  check out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But because they know the other twin is also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerating these effects cancel and all that is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left is the velocity slow down. In other words the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein explanation that one twin explains the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down as a velocity effect and the other as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity effect so both come to the same conclusion 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both the gravity effect and the velocity effect 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a disembodied 3d person observer which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminiscent of a god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No twin would explain any slow down in this process 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a gravity effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none, neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. Even if the equivalence between gravity and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration would be valid (which it is not) there 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are two problems. Even if the time would stand 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still during the whole process of backward 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not at all explain the time difference 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced by the twins. And on the other hand the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational field would have, in order to have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desired effect here, to be greater by a factor 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of at least 20 orders of magnitude (so >> 10^20 ) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gravity field around the sun etc to achieve 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time shift needed. So this approach has no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand where you are coming from. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity, the equivalence principle is , and the slow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down of clocks and the speed of light in a lower ( 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to a mass) field is the heart of general 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. why do you keep insisting it is not. GPs 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are corrected for gravty potential and orbit 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoursel made a calculation that the bendng of light 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the sun is due to a gravity acing like a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refractive media. Why tis constant denial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity causes dilation but acceleration does not. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is given by theory and by experiment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying clocks do not run faster at higher 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altitude? I was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for its altitude it would not be as accurate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity, not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration. And even gravity has a small influence. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gravitational field on the surface of the sun slows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down clocks by the small portion of 10^-5 . Please 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare this with the factors of slow down which are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally assumed in the examples for the twin travel.   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> Absolutely not usable, even if equivalence would be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no gravity involved. Of course one may put 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concept of it into the vicinity of the sun or of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a neutron star. But then the question whether it is a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox or not is not affected by this change. And 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all participants in the same way And anyhow there is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no solution needed as it is in fact not a paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed* because both require a disembodied 3d 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person observer who is observing that independent 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotilian objective universe that must exist 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether we look at it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No, this 3rd person is definitely****not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required*. The whole situation can be completely 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluated from the view of one of the twins or of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other twin or from the view of /any other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer /in the world who is in a defined frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written this in my last mail, and if you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object here you should give clear arguments, not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere repetitions of  your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special relativity was derived in the context of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3d person, he clear argument is that he clock slow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down is also derivable form the invariance of action 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to execute a clock tick of identical clocks 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any observers material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity was derived as the relation of two 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames of linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation it always presents the relation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two frames, normally called S and S'. Nothing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else shows up anywhere in these formulas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now Baer comes along and says the entire 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotelian approach is wrong and the Platonic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view must be taken. Einstein is right in claiming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no independent of ourselves space however 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his derivation of Lorentz Transformations was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted under the assumption that his own 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination provided the 3d person observer god 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like observer but he failed to recognize the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significance of this fact. And therefore had to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent additional and incorrect assumptions that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to false equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the observer is properly taken into account 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each observer generates his own observational 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display in which he creates the appearance of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. Those appearance are stationary relative 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the observer’s supplied background space or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they might be moving. But in either case some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> external stimulation has caused the two 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearances. If two copies of the same external 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock mechanism are involved and in both cases the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock ticks require a certain amount of action to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete a cycle of activity that is called a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second i.e. the moving of the hand from line 1 to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action required 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to complete the event between clock ticks is the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two clocks do not slow down because they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be moving relative to each other their 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates are determined by their complete Lagrangian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Energy L = T-V calculated inside the fixed mass 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying each observer’s universe. The potential 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational energy of a mass inside the mass 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 1)V= -mc^2 = -m∙M_u ∙G/R_u .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here M_u and R_u are the mass and radius of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass shell and also the Schwarzchild radius of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole each of us is in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy is L= m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy is L= ½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v^2 only in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. So the correct equation has to be used which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is T = m_0 c^2 *( 1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )-1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You /make /it wrong in the way that you use equations 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (here for kinetic energy) which are strictly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to non-relativistic situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing the two clock rates and *assuming the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Action is an invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 2)(m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt = A = _(½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dividing through by m∙c^2 gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 3)Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v^2 /c^2 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which to first order approximation is equal to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 4)Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First order approximation is not usable as we are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing relativity here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why clock slow down is simply 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivable from action invariance and sped of light 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence on gravitational potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This equation is an equation of special relativity, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has nothing to do with a gravitational potential. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In special relativity the slow down of clocks is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formally necessary to "explain" the constancy of c in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any frame. In general relativity it was necessary to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain that the speed of light is also constant in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /independence /of c from a gravitational field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one looks at it from a position outside the field 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or with the understanding of Lorentz, this invariance 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in any case a measurement result, not true physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the second order terms are on the order of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v^4 /c^4 I believe Einstein’s theory has not been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested to the second term accuracy. In both 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories the moving clock interval is smaller when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clock moves with constant velocity in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space of an observer at rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you are using an approximation here which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit different from Einstein's solution. And then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you say that Einstein's solution is an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximation. Then you ask that the approximation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Einstein's solution should be experimentally 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked. No, the approximation is in your solution 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you write it yourself earlier. -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. einstein's equation is different from the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order which is all that to my knowledge has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivation of this equation. Please look into his 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c constant in any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has longer time periods and so indicates a smaller 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time for a given process. And if you follow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein the equation Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete. It ignores the question of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization which is essential for all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations about dilation. I repeat the correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equation here:  t' = 1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(t-vx/c^2 ) . Without this dependency on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position the case ends up with logical conflicts. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just those conflicts which you have repeatedly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory has been tested with v very close to c. Here 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Hamburg at DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v^4 /c^4 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly measurable and shows that this order of v^4 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /c^4 does not exist. You have introduced it here 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any argument and any need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only important point. Please provide the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reference for this experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also those which have been performed here including 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my own experiment, have used the true Einstein 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation with consistent results for energy and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> momentum. An assumed term of v^4 /c^4 would have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused results which violate conservation of energy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and of momentum. So, any experiment performed here 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during many decades is a proof that the equation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein is correct at this point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very simple almost classical expression based 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upon action invariance is adequate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they are in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper gravity well and my calculations and theory 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested. You say Einsteins formula has been tested to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fourth order. This would make my theory wrong. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please give me a reference so I can look at the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither length 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contraction or time dilation beyond the approximate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions to Einsteins equations have been tested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To show you what you want I would have to present here 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer programs which we have used to calculate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at DESY  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over 40 years and as well no experiment at CERN and as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well no experiment at the Standford accelerator without 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None of all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these experiments would have had results if Einstein 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation would have shown  a violation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and the conservation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> momentum. That means one would have received chaotic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results for every measurement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz is right that there is an aether and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein is right that there is no absolute frame 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and everything is relative. But Baer resolve both 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these “rights” by identifying the aether as the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal background memory space of each observer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who feels he is living in his own universe. We see 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and experience our own individual world of objects 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and incorrectly feel what we are looking at is an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent external universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen from an epistemological position. Only the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement results are equal. Beyond that I do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any need to resolve something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are the observers here? The observers in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different frames are in fact the measurement tools 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like clocks and rulers. The only human-related 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that a human may read the indication of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view independent of observer related facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to find a solution within the Aristotelian 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the size of electromagentic structures shrink or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stretch the same as electromagnetic waves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so measuring  a wavelength with a yard stick will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not show an effect.  What Lorentz did not understand 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that both the yard stick and the EM wave are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearances in an observers space and runs at an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observers speed of NOW. The observer must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included in physics if we are to make progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It maybe correct that the observer must be included. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's start then with something like Newton's law 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion which is in that case also affected. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relativity is bad for this as it is mathematically 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more complicated without providing additional 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical insights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>



---
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/20170706/508a82d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mhgekmhoajhkmlah.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170706/508a82d0/attachment.png>


More information about the General mailing list