[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Jun 5 23:14:36 PDT 2017
Albrecht:
First there have been so many E-mails I do not know which one you want
me to look at to understand your explanation. So please send me a copy
of it again.
Of course if there is some special to interpret Einstein's intent that
is not in Einstein's book then perhaps you are right ,
if you are telling me that the only valid inertial frame is the frame
of a third person god like observer who is stationary before the twins
fire their rockets and in that frame both of the twins doing exactly the
same thing would have exactly the same clock rates and therefore they
will have the elapsed time when they meet.
And further if you are telling me that both twins must realize that
their own clock is slowing down and the other twin's clock is also
slowing down because both twins must do their calculations in this
special initial god like 3d person frame so both agree
And further you are telling me that all the talk about there not being a
special inertial frame, and everything is relative
and neither twin believes he is in his own inertial frame because
neither feels he is moving is a misinterpretation of SRT
and further that URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"Starting with Paul Langevin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5>
Max von Laue <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue> argued in 1913
that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6> Explanations
put forth by Albert Einstein
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> and Max Born
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born> invoked gravitational time
dilation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation> to
explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.^[7]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7> General
relativity is not necessary to explain the twin paradox; special
relativity alone can explain the phenomenon.^[8]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8> ^[9]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-9> .^[10]"'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10>
Einstein and Born explanationis bull shit because in fact there is a
preferred inertial frame i.e the frame in which both twins were
initially at rest
Then I agree with you.
But be careful what you wish for because this leads to my CAT theorythat
all objects are created in the obserer's space and the observer always
provides the fundamental background in which both Einsteins theory and
Lorenz theory and for that matter maxwell's equations are valid. I would
love to have you agree with my object-subject integrated physics, which
I am developing. Look at my Vigier 10 paper to see I argued that
Einsteins imagination was he special background space in which his
thought experiment occurred.
PS: your explanation is like Max von Laue's only he did not use a
symmetric experiment protocol and therefore requires four reference
frame switches, which leadme to ask how is the frame change implemented
if not through the gravitational time dilation explanation put forward
by Einstein and Born.
we are getting closer soon I'll show you that the speed with which
your particles move is the speed of Now In CAT not the speed of light,
which is always changing and not at all constant.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> to summarize: Einstein's book is not wrong, but if you use it in a
> wrong way then the results are conflicting.
>
> Am 05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> On 6/4/2017 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>> Each twin has two choices
>>> 1.) He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is
>>> back again, he meets twin 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They
>>> will indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.
>> He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT. Both twins do exactly the
>> same thing and physics tells them to expect to get the same result.
>
>>> 2.) He knows physics SRT and particularly special relativity. And,
>>> to be close to your case, he may define after his start his frame of
>>> motion as the reference frame. So in this frame his clock will run
>>> with normal speed.
>> His frame of reference is his spaceship outfitted with real meter
>> sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler
>> shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the
>> other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself
> Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to one frame.
> If one changes his frame, anything is new.
>>> Then, whenhis retro rocket has started, he will notice the
>>> acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion
>>> he is now moving towards twin 2 with a speed which you have called v.
>> His frame of reference is still his spaceship outfitted with real
>> meter sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the
>> doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one
>> knows the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself
>> only now the velocity is toward each other.
> If he still understands his spaceship as his frame after the retro
> rocket has started then he leaves the conditions for the validity of SRT.
>>> And as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fact that now his
>>> own clock will run differently than before.
>> No he reads a book on special relativity written by Einstein that
>> tells him the other twins clock should run slowthan his own.
> If he reads and understands special relativity following Einstein then
> he knows that now /also his own clock /runs slower.
>>> So if he wants to understand what is going on and if he still takes
>>> his original state of motion as his reference frame, he has
>>> torealize that his clock is now running slower.
>> Why would he take his original state of motion as his reference
>> frame? That would be some imaginaty space ship still moving away at
>> velocity "v". His reference frame is his space ship, something may
>> have effected its clocks and rods but his frame is his frame. You are
>> making up a story about his own clocks that are obviously running
>> exactly the way they always as far as his observations are concerned
>> in order to make the theory he read in the SRT book more valid than
>> what he actually sees and can measure.
> The Lorentz transformation which we are talking about defines the
> transformation from one (inertial) frame to another one. If twin 1
> takes his spaceship as his frame /a//fter /the acceleration then any
> facts from thetime before are no longer of relevance.
>>> - On the other hand, if he wants to understand the situation of twin
>>> 2 he has to realize that the speed of twin 2, *takin**g place with v
>>> in relation to his own original frame,****causes a slow down of the
>>> clock **of t**win 2*. But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro
>>> rocket, twin 2 will have speed = 0 with respect to the original
>>> frame of twin1. So the clock of twin 2 will now run in the normal way.
>> Compared with an imaginary frame. We and Einstein claimed to deals
>> with real rods and clocks
> Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to a frame and
> makes no sensewithout such reference. If one changes his frame,
> anything is new. The word "real" has a limited meaning in that case.
>>> - If you now add the different phases of both clocks, i.e. the
>>> phases of normal runand the phases of slow down, you will see that
>>> the result is the same for both twins. And this is what I have
>>> explained quantitatively in my last mail.
>> All one has to do is to add to the protocol that each twin should
>> take a faximily of their own clocks and compare them later by your
>> own analysis (*see bold face above*) each twin would believe his own
>> Fax would run at the normal rate but the other would slow down.
> Here you misunderstand how dilation works. I have tried to show you
> earlier that clock comparison is not so simple. If two observers move
> with respect to each other, then in a naive view the observer holding
> clock 1 would say that clock 2 runs slower and at the same time the
> observer holding clock 2 would say that clock 1 runs slower. This is
> as a fact logically not possible. I have explained in the other mail
> how this comparison works correctly so that the logical conflict does
> not occur. Please look at that mail again and we can continue our
> discussion on that basis.
>>
>> In other words the experiment gives the answer logic would expect,
>> but the story in Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that mooving
>> clocks do not slow down but the theory explaining it is different and
>> must include the physics of the observer, which I'll describe next
>> once we get this point straightened out.
> Einstein is not wrong but you are using the Lorentz transformation in
> an incorrect way. Please read the other mail again and we can discuss
> on that basis.
>>>
>>> I must say that I have problems to understand where you have a
>>> difficulty to see this.
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170605/22563e3a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list