[General] STR
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jun 1 12:05:59 PDT 2017
Albrecht will send responses to your experiment and
SRT twin separately I need to start over with the SRT
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> before we enter discussions about details I send you a drawing of my
> experiment with some explanations. I think that it is simple enough so
> that we do not need too much philosophy about epistemology to
> understand it.
>
> My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of the
> synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the target T (at 0
> m) where they are converted into photons. The photons fly until the
> target H_2 where they are deflected by a small angle (about one
> degree) (at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the converter (KONV
> at 35 m) where a portion of the photons is converted into an electron-
> position pair. The pair is detected and analysed in the configuration
> of the magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes of spark chambers (FT between
> 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest of detectors at the right is for monitoring
> the basic photon beam.
>
> In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles
> (electron and positron) are measured and the momentum and the energy
> of both particles is determined.
>
> Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles, there is
> no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we should need here any QM.
>
> The rest of the mail will be commented later.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Andrew , Albrecht:
>>
>> "physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not required
>> for the universe to go on doing what it does. " Disagree
>>
>> This is the old classic the world is the way we see it concept
>> promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and dominated thinking
>> for 1000years
>>
>> until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle
>> un-observable interior of matter was always a mental projection
>> requiring an observer.
>>
>>
>> " governed and filtered by the laws which create the things" Baer's
>> first law of physics is that the physicist created the law.
>>
>>
>> "space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an empty
>> medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation
>>
>> The medium can be completely torn apart only
>> such processes involve life and death of self and are taboo in
>> science. This is in fact the the path of development for quantum theory
>>
>>
>> Albrecht;
>>
>> Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your descriptions
>> are all on the theoretical "unknowable" side, which of course you
>> believe describes physical reality, and no one would argue that
>> our (your) theory is not self consistent, but to discuss the wave
>> particle problem one needs to identify the vonNeuman cut between
>> subjective personal observation and the un-observable domain
>> described by the theory. Where are the detectors that tell you how
>> the "unknowable" was stimulated and the detectors that tell you the
>> "unknowable's" response and the detectors that tell you how some of
>> the theoretical elements along the theoretical path inside the
>> "unknowable" were controlled?
>>
>> Once we have such transition points between theory and observations
>> identified I think I can show you that the QM probability wave
>> picture is self consistent but also does science a great disservice
>> by hiding and ridiculing speculation, research and experiment in
>> deeper causes for the probabilistic phenomena
>>
>> A single atomic transition billions of light years away must be a
>> particle to reach a similar atom and cause a transition in an atom in
>> a detector on earth. And the fact that this particle transmission
>> angle is random and exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating the uncertainty
>> principle) and therefor just happens to hit our detector as purely
>> random QM event leaving us with a Bohm guiding wave that controls the
>> probabilities. It all makes sense only, *IF*you stop your analysis at
>> the external objective aspect of reality and fail to realize that
>> /beyond/ the emission at the distant galaxy and the absorption of the
>> "photon" in your retina is the other half of the causal path which
>> describes your subjective existence, *then* you will be blissfully
>> happy with the self consistent QM explanation.
>>
>> So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that our quantum
>> priests have built for us and just come up with more and more complex
>> explanations within the BOX. Are we such cowards?
>>
>> Is that what you are proposing?
>>
>> Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we know to be
>> true by direct experience into our theories. Then you will begin to
>> see events not particles, cycles not points, actions not states, are
>> the a better way to understand reality.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> where do you miss reciprocity at STR?
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
>>>> I have some problems with STR
>>>>
>>>> That physical laws should be the same for all observers is OK.
>>>>
>>>> But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peoples' thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ========================================
>>>> Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM
>>>> From: "Chip Akins"
>>>> To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wolf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to add a comment to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is my opinion that physics happens by itself, whether we think
>>>> about it or not. And that an observer is not required for the
>>>> universe to go on doing what it does.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also feel that our perception of what is going on is governed and
>>>> filtered by the laws which create the things we call fields,
>>>> particles, forces, and all the other,
>>>> relatively abstract things we have named in our studies of nature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also think there is a version of what we call relativity which is
>>>> without paradox, but that relativity is not SR or GR, but rather a
>>>> relativity which is based on matter
>>>> being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed frame of
>>>> space, with space as a tensor medium and not empty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above comment is just my view or course, but I think it makes
>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chip Akins
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM
>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>
>>>> I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then
>>>> please check if it gets to you on both
>>>>
>>>> 1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see exactly where
>>>> the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the experiment from my
>>>> observer inclusive
>>>> perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are simply
>>>> consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always two
>>>> operations separating reality from
>>>> our observational experience and since science is operating under
>>>> the assumption that quantum reality (i.e. anything that cannot be
>>>> seen directly such as atomic
>>>> structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that the
>>>> two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality
>>>> assumptions self consistent.
>>>>
>>>> 2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current theory
>>>> because if force and charge are treated as separate degrees of
>>>> freedom and are in fact pulled
>>>> apart by external gravito-electric forces then in order to keep
>>>> them at the same point the current theory would implicitly require
>>>> an infinite force. relaxing this
>>>> requirement then allows current theory to be an approximation to
>>>> one that does not require such an infinite force. Much like
>>>> classical physics is an approximation
>>>> of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum theory is an
>>>> approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when the force between
>>>> mass and charge does NOT
>>>> approach infinity.
>>>>
>>>> 3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin Paradox
>>>> gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is wikipedia
>>>>
>>>> " Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various
>>>> explanations of this paradox. These explanations
>>>> "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different
>>>> standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that
>>>> designate the acceleration
>>>> [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5]
>>>> Max von Laue
>>>> argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two
>>>> separate inertial frames
>>>> , one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch
>>>> is the reason for the aging difference, not the
>>>> acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein
>>>> and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation
>>>> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7]
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly select an
>>>> experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due to
>>>> velocity with the clock speed up due to
>>>> acceleration. The equivalence principle equates acceleration and
>>>> gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has two
>>>> twins in inter stellar space
>>>> accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions coming back to
>>>> rest at the meeting point at the origin. If everything is symmetric
>>>> one explanation is that
>>>> velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at all. But by
>>>> allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the relative velocity low
>>>> down will always dominate and the twin
>>>> paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's clocks must
>>>> slow down according to SRT and GRT, so when theories reach a
>>>> logical inconsistency they must
>>>> be improved.
>>>>
>>>> What I believe is happening is that the general relativity
>>>> expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now
>>>> since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru =
>>>> the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside the mass shell
>>>> of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are living inside the a black
>>>> hole of radius Ru according to
>>>> the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes;
>>>>
>>>> m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) - 1/2*m*v*v ] =>
>>>> 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V)
>>>>
>>>> In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates half the
>>>> change of energy transfer from electric to gravitational energy.
>>>> But it observes the change in
>>>> electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate. As I have
>>>> often said on this issue the equations are correct it is the world
>>>> view that is wrong. The error
>>>> started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused a
>>>> Theoretical force with an Observational experience. It happened
>>>> because the observer was taken
>>>> out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the world in
>>>> front of your nose) were taken to be reality instead of the mental
>>>> experiences they are. Quantum
>>>> theory is the beginning of correcting this error but it will take a
>>>> while to find the right interpretation. We must add the mind back
>>>> into physics.
>>>>
>>>> best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Wolf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during
>>>> interaction with matter and then we project the quantized material
>>>> state changes back into the
>>>> waves as a mathematical convenience
>>>>
>>>> We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to my
>>>> PhD experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of a well
>>>> defined energy to
>>>> convert them into photons. The photons were after a flight of
>>>> several meters in the air detected by pair building in a thin layer
>>>> of copper. The energy of the pair
>>>> was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of the original
>>>> electron. So, how can we understand this result if it is not the
>>>> photon which carries
>>>> exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?
>>>>
>>>> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment; I'm
>>>> introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in physical
>>>> theory. Treated
>>>> individually one can reject them because anything new can be
>>>> rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.
>>>>
>>>> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means what
>>>> it says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of particles.
>>>> Particles have been
>>>> assumed to be points and so mass and charge are located at points.
>>>> I believe this is wrong. Mass and charge should be given separate
>>>> degrees of freedom and
>>>> the force between them is not infinite.
>>>>
>>>> The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot be
>>>> a force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is obvious
>>>> (in the mind of physicists) that a
>>>> charge can only interact with a charge of the same type. So the
>>>> electrical charge and the charge of the strong force will by common
>>>> understanding not react in
>>>> any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of a charge
>>>> (which is, however, not the understanding of present physics) then
>>>> there should not be any
>>>> force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
>>>>
>>>> If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding, then
>>>> charges may influence the dynamical process which we call
>>>> "inertia". But that is in that case a
>>>> complicated logical connection.
>>>>
>>>> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
>>>> force?" The rest of your comments are simply addressing an
>>>> incomplete presentation of my
>>>> theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change to be
>>>> fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action is the material of
>>>> change. Form is the state in which it
>>>> is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate of action
>>>> happening, force is the experience of all finite particles in a non
>>>> homogeneous action flow who all
>>>> want to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this
>>>> discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete
>>>> presentation ready.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow
>>>> this argument that action is something which the human brain needs
>>>> to structure the world so that it
>>>> fits into our brains. Particles which react to each other do not
>>>> have this need. They react to a force, and the force and also the
>>>> reaction to it can be infinitesimal.
>>>> An action is (by my understanding) something which happens or does
>>>> not happen. I do not see infinitesimal single steps which each can
>>>> be understood as an
>>>> action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of
>>>> "human understanding".
>>>>
>>>> SRT:
>>>>
>>>> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>> gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen the
>>>> twin paradox explained by
>>>> including gravity in text books. clocks slow down because of
>>>> velocity but speed up because of acceleration the two cancel when
>>>> two twins are accelerated with
>>>> constant acceleration for the first quarter of the trip, the ship
>>>> turned around decelerated for the second quarter and continued to
>>>> be accelerated toward the start
>>>> point, during the third quarter and then rocket reverses for the
>>>> third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where the second
>>>> twin has been waiting at rest.
>>>> Now both twins will agree on the amount of time passing. The
>>>> paradox is said to be resolved because Einstein's Srt is expanded
>>>> to GRT and gravity is introduced.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects
>>>> the twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea; and
>>>> the discussion about
>>>> ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can perform this
>>>> twin paradox in an environment where no gravitational sources are
>>>> around, and it would work as
>>>> usually described.
>>>>
>>>> According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The degree
>>>> of slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to nothing
>>>> else. Acceleration or
>>>> deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of clock. This
>>>> statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.
>>>>
>>>> Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third quarter
>>>> and come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been
>>>> waiting at rest." Now I am
>>>> confused. I have understood that both twins move and change their
>>>> motion at exactly the same times. How can it then happen that on
>>>> twin is at rest and expects
>>>> the other one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>>> there according ageing.
>>>> Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is that both
>>>> twins see the other moving at a constant velocity for an
>>>> arbitrarily long period of time
>>>>
>>>> why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time
>>>> until the other twin changes his speed.
>>>>
>>>> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin has
>>>> aged relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making the
>>>> acceleration period small and
>>>> symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the gravity
>>>> explanation but retain an arbitrarily long constant velocity. SO
>>>> SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE
>>>> RESOLVED IN GRT.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the
>>>> following case which is sometimes discussed. There are two
>>>> observers, A and B, and both
>>>> have clocks with them. We assume that both observers move with
>>>> respect to each other. Then observer A will find that the clock of
>>>> observer B runs more slowly.
>>>> But as both observers are physically equivalent also observer B
>>>> will find that the clock of observer A runs more slowly.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But it
>>>> is not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how clock
>>>> speeds (or the time in different
>>>> frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks like.
>>>>
>>>> If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of
>>>> observer B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will
>>>> call clock 1 and clock 2 (and which he
>>>> has of course synchronized) along the path of observer B. Then he
>>>> will compare the clock of observer B with his clock 1 and then with
>>>> clock 2 in the moment
>>>> when the observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that
>>>> the clock of observer B have run more slowly.
>>>>
>>>> But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course
>>>> compare his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes
>>>> these clocks. But now a
>>>> difference: Both clocks of observer A have been synchronized in the
>>>> frame of A. But in the frame of B they will not be synchronized (a
>>>> fundamental fact in SRT).
>>>> From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A will be
>>>> retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the observer B can
>>>> reproduce the observation of observer
>>>> A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed down. But
>>>> observer B will use a different method to determine the speed of
>>>> the clocks of observer A.
>>>> Observe B will also position two clocks along the path which
>>>> observer A follows in frame B and he will synchronize these clocks
>>>> in his frame B. And with his clocks
>>>> he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own ones.
>>>>
>>>> This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related
>>>> part of the Lorentz transformation:
>>>>
>>>> t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)). Regarding
>>>> the example above v is the speed between the frames of A and of B.
>>>>
>>>> Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when I
>>>> talked about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not clear,
>>>> please ask further questions I
>>>> and shall go into more details.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do my Emails show up
>>>>
>>>> I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you get them
>>>>
>>>> I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and
>>>> Adrew have answered. So the general distribution seems to work
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>
>>>> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew W.:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
>>>> physics. It is smart mathematics only.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
>>>> quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on
>>>> quantum mechanically bound
>>>> electrons!
>>>>
>>>> Chandra.
>>>>
>>>> ==================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ;
>>>> Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then
>>>> implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ========================================
>>>>
>>>> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>>>>
>>>> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>> Discussion"
>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> again comments in the text.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>>> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
>>>>> together
>>>> That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding
>>>> mass and charge are completely different categories as a wrote last
>>>> time. Charge is a
>>>> permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a dynamical
>>>> process which also changes when the object changes its motion state
>>>> (which at the end is :
>>>> relativity).
>>>>
>>>>> In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
>>>>> includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
>>>>> component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
>>>>> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the
>>>>> forces
>>>>> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences
>>>>> between
>>>>> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>>>> Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical ideas"
>>>> do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at least mass is
>>>> a different category. And also
>>>> time and space are most probably different categories from the
>>>> others, at least for some of the physical community.
>>>>
>>>>> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*
>>>>> The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action
>>>>> theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be
>>>>> compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has
>>>>> added is summarized as follows:
>>>>> -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
>>>>> happening.
>>>>> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
>>>>> material media.
>>>>> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
>>>>> separating mass and charge.
>>>>> -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
>>>>> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of
>>>>> matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
>>>>> chapter 6)
>>>>> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
>>>>> introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
>>>>> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on
>>>>> Mach’s Principle)
>>>>> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
>>>>> clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a
>>>>> state separated by a constant state distance.
>>>>> Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an
>>>>> event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes
>>>>> both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.
>>>> The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?
>>>>
>>>> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are very
>>>> simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a good
>>>> strategy of our brains to build
>>>> categories. For instance, there are billions of trees on our earth.
>>>> No brain of a human being is able to register and to remember all
>>>> these trees. So, our brain build
>>>> the category "tree".
>>>>
>>>> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical
>>>> connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else not!).
>>>> If objects move which have charges the forces will cause that the
>>>> motion of the objects is
>>>> influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is fundamental. A
>>>> human brain can now build the category of an "action" to describe,
>>>> or better: to categories this
>>>> process. This brain-related process is in my view a less
>>>> fundamental view to the world, even though a helpful one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true
>>>> that there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in the
>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and a
>>>> dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a higher
>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans to
>>>> categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat the
>>>> effect of charges.
>>>>
>>>>> *Twin Paradox:*
>>>>> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
>>>>> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time
>>>>> dilation
>>>>> How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
>>>>> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite
>>>>> directions.
>>>>> At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse
>>>>> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
>>>>> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the
>>>>> same
>>>>> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
>>>>> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
>>>>> long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
>>>>> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
>>>>> velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
>>>>> difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
>>>>> cannot explain it.
>>>> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>> gravity. Why
>>>>
>>>> do you connect it to gravity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>>
>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>>>
>>>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
>>>>
>>>> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
>>>>
>>>>> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
>>>>> replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
>>>>> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>>>> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the
>>>> list;
>>>>
>>>> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> wolf
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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/20170601/db78e77d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list