[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Jun 11 23:30:09 PDT 2017
Albrecht:
I agree we should make detailed arguments.
I had been arguing that Einstein’s special relativity claims that the
clocks of an observer moving at constant velocity with respect to a
second observer will slow down. This lead to the twin paradox that is
often resolved by citing the need for acceleration andgravity in
general relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was intended to show
that Einstein as I understood him could not explain the paradox. I did
so in order to set the stage for introducing a new theory. You argued
my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not worth arguing
about because it is not second guessing Einstein that is important but
that but I am trying to present a new way of looking at reality which
is based on Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle.
Aristotle believed the world was essentially the way you see it. This
is called naive realism. And science from Newton up to quantum theory
is based upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are not what
physicists believe I fully agree. It is not an argument to say the
mainstream of science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something
different.
So let me try again
I am suggesting that there is no independent physically objective
space time continuum in which the material universe including you, I,
and the rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I believe a
better world view is that (following Everett) that all systems are
observers and therefore create their own space in which the objects
you see in front of your face appear. The situation is shown below.
Here we have three parts You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I
do a symmetric twin thought experiment in which both twins do exactly
the same thing. They accelerate in opposite directions turn around and
come back at rest to compare clocks. You does a though experiment that
is not symmetric one twin is at rest the other accelerates and comes
back to rest and compares clocks.
The point is that each thought experiment is done in the space
associated with You,I and U. The speed of light is constant in each of
these spaces and so the special relativity , Lorentz transforms, and
Maxwell’s equations apply. I have said many times these are self
consistent equations and I have no problem with them under the
Aristotilian assumption that each of the three parts believes what
they see is the independent space.
. Instead what they see is in each parts space. This space provides
the background aether, in it the speed of electromagnetic interactions
is constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by the Lagrangian energy
level largely if not totally imposed by the gravity interactions the
physical material from which each part is made experiences. Each part
you and your space runs at a different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for should be called the speed of NOW.
You may agree or disagree with this view point. But if you disagree
please do not tell me that the mainstream physicists do not take this
point of view. I know that. Main stream physicists are not attempting
to solve the consciousness problem , and have basically eliminated the
mind and all subjective experience from physics. I’m trying to fix
this rather gross oversight.
Now to respond to your comments in detail.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed arguments and
> counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions of statements.
>
>
> Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> *WE all agree clocks slow down, but If I include the observer then I
>> get an equation for the slow down that agrees with eperimetn but
>> disagrees with Einstein in the higher order, so it should be testable
>> *
>>
> *I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations below. *
*Ok i'm happy to have your comments*
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Lets look at this thing Historically*:
>>
>> In the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian Philosophy everyone
>> was convinced Reality consisted of an external objective universe
>> independent of subjective living beings. Electricity and Magnetism
>> had largely been explored through empirical experiments which lead to
>> basic lawssummarized by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are
>> valid in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε_0 and
>> permeability μ_0 of free space. URL:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations
>> These equationsare valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are
>> identical in form when expressed in a different coordinate frame
>> x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution of the
>> Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s equations that will then give the
>> same form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must
>> exist.
>>
> One thing has been done which is much more exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has
> shown that the complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from two
> things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation. It is
> interesting because it shows that electromagnetism is a consequence of
> special relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism
> via Relativity, New York Plenum Press). Particularly magnetism is not
> a separate force but only a certain perspective of the electrical force.
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of magnetics, but all
within the self consistent Aristotelian point of view
>>
>> In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the wave equation and
>> Maxwell’s field concept required an aether as a medium for them to
>> propagate. It was postulated that space was filled with such a medium
>> and that the earth was moving through it. Therefore it should be
>> detectable with a Michelson –Morely experiment. But The Null result
>> showed this to be wrong.
>>
> In the view of present physics aether is nothing more than the fact of
> an absolute frame. Nobody believes these days that aether is some kind
> of material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need it.
>
just an example physics does not need mind.
> An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which
> does however not mean that no aether existed. The only result is that
> it cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was also accepted by
> Einstein.*
> *
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer doing the
experiment , see my drawing above.
> **
>>
>> *Einstein’s Approach:*
>>
>> Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz Transformations assuming
>> the speed of light is constant, synchronization protocol of clocks,
>> and rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all inertial
>> frames, and the null result of Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein
>> went on to eliminate any absolute space and instead proposed that all
>> frames and observers riding in them are equivalent and each such
>> observer would measure another observers clocks slowing down when
>> moving with constant relative velocity. This interpretation lead to
>> the Twin Paradox. Since each observer according to Einstein, being in
>> his own frame would according to his theory claim the other
>> observer’s clocks would slow down. However both cannot be right.
>>
> No! This can be right as I have explained several times now.
yes well the why are there so many publications that use general
relativity, gravity and the equivalence principle as the the way to
explain the twin paradox.Ref: The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL *https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025*
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about what Einstein
really meant.
>>
>> Einstein found an answer to this paradox in his invention of general
>> relativity where clocks speed up when in a higher gravity field i.e
>> one that feels less strong like up on top of a mountain. Applied to
>> the twin paradox: a stationary twin sees the moving twin at velocity
>> “v” and thinks the moving twin’s clock slows down. The moving twin
>> does not move relative to his clock but must accelerateto make a
>> round trip (using the equivalence principle calculated the being
>> equivalent to a gravitational force). Feeling the acceleration as
>> gravity and knowing that gravity slows her clocks she would also
>> calculate her clocks would slow down. The paradox is resolved because
>> in one case the explanation is velocity the other it is gravity.
>>
> This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity has nothing to do
> with the twin situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to gravity
> has nothing to do with it. The twin situation is not a paradox but is
> clearly free of conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
> transformation, is properly applied.
You may be right but again most papers explain it using gravity
>>
>> *Lorentz Approach:*
>>
>> Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being electromagnetic structures
>> slow down and lengths in the direction of motion contract in the
>> absolute aether of space according to his transformation and
>> therefore the aether could not be detected. In other words Lorentz
>> maintained the belief in an absolute aether filled space, but that
>> electromagnetic objects relative to that space slow down and
>> contract. Gravity and acceleration had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> This approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that the observer
>> subject to acceleration would know that he is no longer in the same
>> inertial frame as before and therefore calculate that his clocks must
>> be slowing down, even though he has no way of measuring such a slow
>> down because all the clocks in his reference frame. Therefore does
>> not consider gravity but only the knowledge that due to his
>> acceleration he must be moving as well and knowing his clocks are
>> slowed by motion he is not surprised that his clock has slowed down
>> when he gets back to the stationary observer and therefore no paradox
>> exists.
>>
>> Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down but we have two different
>> reasons.
>>
>> In Lorentz’s case the absolute fixed frame remains which in the
>> completely symmetric twin paradox experiment described above implies
>> that both observers have to calculate their own clock rates from the
>> same initial start frame and therefore both calculate the same slow
>> down. This introduces a disembodied 3d person observer which is
>> reminiscent of a god like .
>>
> Also any third person who moves with some constant speed somewhere can
> make this calculation and has the same result. No specific frame like
> the god-like one is needed.
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's space, you
cannot get rid of the Mind.
>
> And formally the simple statement is not correct that moving clocks
> slow down. If we follow Einstein, also the synchronization of the
> clocks in different frames and different positions is essential. If
> this synchronization is omitted (as in most arguments of this
> discussion up to now) we will have conflicting results.
That may be true, but your initial argument was that the calculations by
the moving twin was to be done in the inertial frame before any acceleration
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in which the theory
was defined and it is the mind of the observer.
>> In Einstein’s case both observers would see the other moving at a
>> relative velocity and calculate their clocks to run slower than their
>> own when they calculate their own experience they would also
>> calculate their own clocks to run slow.
>>
> This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant with Einstein one
> has to take into account the synchronization state of the clocks.
> Clocks at different positions cannot be compared in a simple view. If
> someone wants to compare them he has e.g. to carry a "transport" clock
> from one clock to the other one. And the "transport" clock will also
> run differently when carried. This - again - is the problem of
> synchronization.
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue, its whether the
world view is correct.
>>
>> But because they know the other twin is also accelerating these
>> effects cancel and all that is left is the velocity slow down. In
>> other words the Einstein explanation that one twin explains the slow
>> down as a velocity effect and the other as a gravity effect so both
>> come to the same conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s explanation
>> would have to fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate both
>> the gravity effect and the velocity effect from a disembodied 3d
>> person observer which is reminiscent of a god like .
>>
> No twin would explain any slow down in this process as a gravity effect.
>
> Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is none, neither by
> Einstein nor by anyone else whom I know. Even if the equivalence
> between gravity and acceleration would be valid (which it is not)
> there are two problems. Even if the time would stand still during the
> whole process of backward acceleration so that delta t' would be 0,
> this would not at all explain the time difference experienced by the
> twins. And on the other hand the gravitational field would have, in
> order to have the desired effect here, to be greater by a factor of at
> least 20 orders of magnitude (so >> 10^20 ) of the gravity field
> around the sun etc to achieve the time shift needed. So this approach
> has no argument at all.
I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity, the equivalence
principle is , and the slow down of clocks and the speed of light in a
lower ( closer to a mass) field is the heart of general relativity. why
do you keep insisting it is not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you
yoursel made a calculation that the bendng of light around the sun is
due to a gravity acing like a refractive media. Why tis constant denial.
>>
>> *So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed* because both
>> require a disembodied 3d person observer who is observing that
>> independent Aristotilian objective universe that must exist whether
>> we look at it or not.
>>
> *No, this 3rd person is definitely****not required*. The whole
> situation can be completely evaluated from the view of one of the
> twins or of the other twin or from the view of /any other observer /in
> the world who is in a defined frame.
>
> I have written this in my last mail, and if you object here you should
> give clear arguments, not mere repetitions of your statement.
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d person, he clear
argument is that he clock slow down is also derivable form the
invariance of action required to execute a clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers material
>>
>> Now Baer comes along and says the entire Aristotelian approach is
>> wrong and the Platonic view must be taken. Einstein is right in
>> claiming there is no independent of ourselves space however his
>> derivation of Lorentz Transformations was conducted under the
>> assumption that his own imagination provided the 3d person observer
>> god like observer but he failed to recognize the significance of this
>> fact. And therefore had to invent additional and incorrect
>> assumptions that lead to false equations.
>>
>> When the observer is properly taken into account each observer
>> generates his own observational display in which he creates the
>> appearance of clocks. Those appearance are stationary relative to the
>> observer’s supplied background space or they might be moving. But in
>> either case some external stimulation has caused the two appearances.
>> If two copies of the same external clock mechanism are involved and
>> in both cases the clock ticks require a certain amount of action to
>> complete a cycle of activity that is called a second i.e. the moving
>> of the hand from line 1 to line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action
>> required to complete the event between clock ticks is the invariant.
>>
>> The two clocks do not slow down because they appear to be moving
>> relative to each other their rates are determined by their complete
>> Lagrangian Energy L = T-V calculated inside the fixed mass underlying
>> each observer’s universe. The potential gravitational energy of a
>> mass inside the mass shell is
>>
>> Eq. 1)V= -mc^2 = -m∙M_u ∙G/R_u .
>>
>> Here M_u and R_u are the mass and radius of the mass shell and also
>> the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of us is in.
>>
>> A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c^2
>>
>> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v^2
>> +m∙c^2
>>
> The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v^2 only in the non-relativistic case.
> But we discuss relativity here. So the correct equation has to be used
> which is T = m_0 c^2 *( 1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )-1)
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.
>>
>> Comparing the two clock rates and *assuming the Action is an invariant*
>>
>> Eq. 2)(m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt = A = _(½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt’
>>
>> Dividing through by m∙c^2 gives
>>
>> Eq. 3)Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v^2 /c^2 )
>>
>> Which to first order approximation is equal to
>>
>> Eq. 4)Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>
> First order approximation is not usable as we are discussing
> relativity here.
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable from action
invariance and sped of light dependence on gravitational potential
>>
>> Since the second order terms are on the order of v^4 /c^4 I believe
>> Einstein’s theory has not been tested to the second term accuracy. In
>> both theories the moving clock interval is smaller when the clock
>> moves with constant velocity in the space of an observer at rest.
>>
> Funny, you are using an approximation here which is a bit different
> from Einstein's solution. And then you say that Einstein's solution is
> an approximation. Then you ask that the approximation in Einstein's
> solution should be experimentally checked. No, the approximation is in
> your solution as you write it yourself earlier. -
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the simple lagrangian
but both are equal to v8v/c*c order which is all that to my knowledge
has been verified.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock has longer time
> periods and so indicates a smaller time for a given process. And if
> you follow Einstein the equation Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 is
> incomplete. It ignores the question of synchronization which is
> essential for all considerations about dilation. I repeat the correct
> equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 *(t-vx/c^2 ) . Without this
> dependency on the position the case ends up with logical conflicts.
> Just those conflicts which you have repeatedly mentioned here.
>
> And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's theory has been
> tested with v very close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to v =
> 0.9999 c. So, v^4 /c^4 is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 .
> That is clearly measurable and shows that this order of v^4 /c^4 does
> not exist. You have introduced it here without any argument and any need.
This is the only important point. Please provide the Reference for this
experiment
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very simple
almost classical expression based upon action invariance is adequate.
>>
>> Lorentz is right that there is an aether and Einstein is right that
>> there is no absolute frame and everything is relative. But Baer
>> resolve both these “rights” by identifying the aether as the personal
>> background memory space of each observer who feels he is living in
>> his own universe. We see and experience our own individual world of
>> objects and incorrectly feel what we are looking at is an independent
>> external universe.
>>
> Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen from an
> epistemological position. Only the measurement results are equal.
> Beyond that I do not see any need to resolve something.
> Which are the observers here? The observers in the different frames
> are in fact the measurement tools like clocks and rulers. The only
> human-related problem is that a human may read the indication of a
> clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in this view independent of
> observer related facts.
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried to find a
solution within the Aristotelian framework
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the same as electromagnetic
waves
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not show an effect.
What Lorentz did not understand is that both the yard stick and the EM
wave are appearances in an observers space and runs at an observers
speed of NOW. The observer must be included in physics if we are to make
progress.
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 6/7/2017 5:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf:
>>>
>>> Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Sorry but I am not at home now and do not have this mail at hand.
>>> But you will find it by its contents:
>>>
>>> My mail was about this apparent conflict if two moving observes say
>>> that the clock of the other one is slowed down compared to his own
>>> one. Which is not a contradiction if you look at the time related
>>> Lorentz transformation:
>>> t' = gamma*(t-vx/c2)
>>> where you have to insert correct values for v and x. You will find
>>> it in a mail of last week.
>>> This understanding is essential for any discussion of dilation.
>>>>
>>>> Of course if there is some special to interpret Einstein's intent
>>>> that is not in Einstein's book then perhaps you are right ,
>>>>
>>> Which book of Einstein do you mean? As above, this is not a special
>>> interpretation of Einstein's intent but the correct use of the
>>> Lorentz transformation.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> No, you can take any frame you want. But for the whole process where
>>> you use the Lorentz transformation you have to refer to the same frame.
>>>> 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
>>> No, it is not the condition that there is a god like person, but one
>>> has to stay with one frame whichever it is.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> whether someone feels that he is moving or not depends also on his
>>> choice of the reference frame.
>>>> 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>
>>> ^Paul Langevin and Max von Laue are both correct with their
>>> explanation as I already wrote in the other mail.
>>>> ^
>>>> 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
>>> Albert Einstein and Max Born are according to Wikipedia cited by
>>> other books, but no contents are given. So, what shall I say?I know
>>> about Einstein that he has, when he was asked about the twin
>>> paradox, referred to acceleration in so far that in any case of
>>> acceleration the original frames are left and so the Lorentz
>>> transformation is no longer applicable. I have the facsimile of a
>>> letter which Einsteinonce wrote to a former member of our pre-Vigier
>>> group(i.e. PIRT) saying just this.
>>>
>>> I do not know and have never heard that Einstein referred the twin
>>> paradox to gravity. And to referhere to gravitational time dilation
>>> is so far from any logic that I cannot imagine that Einstein has
>>> mentioned something like that at any time.
>>>> ^
>>>> 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.
>>> ^I am afraid that you will overload or over-interpret Einstein's
>>> theory if using it for any observer dependent theories. Einstein
>>> himself believed that there is an objective reality but that every
>>> inertial frame is an own world in some sense. Relativity exists
>>> according to Einstein completely independent of the existence of
>>> thinking humans.
>>>> ^
>>>> 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.
>>> ^Why so complicated? As soon as some objectchanges its speed it
>>> leaves its original frame. That is simply the definition of a linear
>>> motion, nothing philosophical beyond that.
>>> And the symmetric version of the twin paradox is your proposal, so
>>> neither Max von Laue nor somebody else will have used it. So only
>>> one change of the frame, not two or more changes.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> For Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I personally
>>> do not agree to this because I follow the Lorentzian relativity,
>>> which Ido because the Lorentzian SRT is based on physics whereas
>>> Einstein's relativity is based on abstract principles. In general I
>>> do not like principles as final solutions of open questions.
>>>
>>> In a general view it is a big surprise for me that such a simple
>>> physical phenomenon like SRT can be made or seen so complicated as
>>> it appears in this discussion.
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mailwolf 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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List 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/20170611/de6e1a4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mhgekmhoajhkmlah.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170611/de6e1a4e/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list