[General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Jul 11 18:49:55 PDT 2017
Albrecht:
I hope to be able to show you that the quantitative result you are
looking for can also be achieved by realizing a completely different
model of ourselves , one in which we are a space of parallel activity
cycles and create within it's spatial cross section the observations
upon which Maxwells equations and the Lorentz transformations are built.
I was hoping that by showing you pictures of Einsteins body conceiving
of observers in his mind that it would be clear that classic
electrodynamics and Einsteins interpretation of it are always conceived
in a background space of the observers mind , and therefore we are
discovering properties of our own way of displaying things within a
framework we cannot get out of.
As mentioned I am working on a book for Routledge in which I hope to
show the connection not only to the quantitative results your desire,
but to the quantitative results that would be applicable to an expanded
reality that incorporates the consciousness and spirit of living beings
and this integration of mind and body will in my opinion open new vistas
desperately needed in our correctly materialistic constrained world.
So stay tuned
best wishes
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 7/11/2017 4:04 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I have never denied that there is a difference between our perception
> and a (possible) reality. What I always have said is that this
> assumption does not help us in our attempt to understand the world
> around us unless we understand the difference between reality and our
> perception functionally, or at least investigate our detectable errors
> in a /quantitative /way.
>
> This last discussion about the important question in relativity,
> whether there is a frame at absolute rest, can easily be treated if
> using the Lorentz Transformation. This L.T. shows us /quantitatively/,
> in which way the results of measurements are influenced by
> relativistic effects so that this impression of a frame at rest is
> caused in any frame; and our perception reacts similar to the
> measurement tools.
>
> This was content of the discussion between Grahame and me.
>
> And using your example of dilation: this dilation is a physical fact
> in the frame at rest; but it is only perception in a frame not at rest
> by the effect of relativistic synchronization, where the way of
> synchronization is quantitatively given by the Lorentz Transformation.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 11.07.2017 um 08:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Graham;
>>
>> I think you are saying something that I have been trying to make
>> clear to Albrecht which derives from my attempt to move physics away
>> from the Aristotelian belief that we see reality through the windows
>> of our senses and employ the Platonic belief that we see the
>> 'shadows" - in modern therms- we see our interpretation of the
>> measurement reports from our sensors - in this case our body built in
>> coordinate frame. I then translate your statements into more
>> anthropomorphic observer inclusive language using larger font than
>> your comments,
>>
>> observer in a moving frame would be led to believe from observation
>> that their frame is static
>>
>> a consciousness inside a moving body would form his perceptive
>> experience believe he is stationary in that body
>>
>>
>> (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static
>> frame
>> those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static
>> frame
>>
>> When a conscious observer "sees" another reference frame it is NOT an
>> independent external reality but rather a mental image inside his own
>> perceptive experience. Therefore the time dilation and length
>> contraction is NOt an objective reality of the static frame
>>
>>
>> they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their
>> OWN motion).
>>
>> But rather an artifact of producing the perceptive image of the
>> static frame in his own mind
>>
>> .
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 7/9/2017 11:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Grahame,
>>>
>>> so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it
>>> is in the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only
>>> available as a hard copy?
>>>
>>> One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this
>>> is the case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes
>>> something like an ether?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>>>> Albrecht,
>>>> I'd agree with all that you say here. I'd add just one reminder,
>>>> of what we've talked about before.
>>>> For the 'unique absolute rest frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny
>>>> in the light of experimental findings of SR, it's not only
>>>> necessary to show that an observer in a moving frame would be led
>>>> to believe from observation that their frame is static - it's also
>>>> necessary to show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME
>>>> degree of (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the
>>>> absolutely static frame as would be seen from that static frame in
>>>> the observer's frame (those two effects are of course NOT objective
>>>> realities in the static frame, they are perceived by the moving
>>>> observer as a consequence of their OWN motion).
>>>> To show that the moving observer perceives themself as static is
>>>> relatively (!!) easy; to show that they perceive an actually-static
>>>> frame as subject to relativistic effects takes a little more
>>>> thought - but it can be done, and shown to be so. [This is what I
>>>> have referred to previously as 'reciprocity'.]
>>>> In addition, of course, it needs to be - and CAN be - shown how
>>>> EVERY experimental finding that's considered to be evidence for
>>>> frame symmetry can be fully explained without any need for, or
>>>> reference to, frame symmetry.
>>>> No paradoxes - just a little more thought than most physicists
>>>> appear to have wished to put into explaining the 'how' of
>>>> Relativity (which is what I always thought physics was actually
>>>> about - explaining the 'how'?)
>>>> All of this is shown in detail in my latest book, published last year.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Grahame
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>>>>
>>>> Chip,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to
>>>> understand relativity in general and dilation in particular, if
>>>> one assumes that there is an absolute frame of rest, and that
>>>> the motion with respect to this frame causes (among other
>>>> phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific property of
>>>> relativity that every observer in any inertial frame can assume
>>>> that his frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the
>>>> physical world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the
>>>> absolute frame at rest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a
>>>> proper use of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained
>>>> why it is this way. It is a bit of work to make these
>>>> calculations, but it is possible and one may say that this work
>>>> is a necessity to understand special relativity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170711/a2a2f6e4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list