[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Thu Jul 6 06:56:14 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
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/ee3baf3d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list