[General] STR twin Paradox

[Albrecht Giese]

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.


Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Comments in Blue
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that, what we 
>> see, is not the true reality. So far so good.
>>
>> But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is not a better 
>> example than to cite Newton's law of motion in order to proof that 
>> most probably our human view is questionable. For you it seems to be 
>> tempting to use relativity because you see logical conflicts related 
>> to different views of the relativistic processes, to show at this 
>> example that the world cannot be as simple as assumed by the naive 
>> realism. But relativity and particularly the twin experiment is 
>> completely in agreement with this naive realism. The frequently 
>> discussed problems in the twin case are in fact problems of persons 
>> who did not truly understand relativity. And this is the fact for all 
>> working versions of relativity, where the Einsteinian and the 
>> Lorentzian version are the ones which I know.
> Yes Newtons law is a good example specifically force is a theoretical 
> construct and not see able , what  we see is acceleration and the 
> feeling of push or pull so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with 
> an experience but Newton assumes both are objectively real.
> You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can be 
> explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize material 
> generates its own space i.e. there is something it feels like to be 
> material. I believe integrating this feeling into physics is the next 
> major advance we can make.
> Further more one we accept this new premise I think REletevistic 
> phenomena can be more easily explained by assuming the speed of light 
> is NOT constant in each piece of material but dependent on its energy 
> (gravitatinal) state.
> I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these ideas, so 
> thank you.
One little comment to this: Every piece of material has its own energy. 
Also objects which are connected by a gravitational field build a system 
which hasof courseenergy. But it seems to me that you relate every 
energy state to gravity. Here I do not follow. If pieces of material are 
bound to each other and are so building a state of energy, the energy in 
it is dominated by the strong force and by the electric force. In 
comparison the gravitational energy is so many orders of magnitude 
smaller (Where  the order of magnitude is > 35) that this is an 
extremely small side effect, too small to play any role in most 
applications. Or please present your quantitative calculation.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Now to respond to your comments in detail.
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf 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.
>> It cannot be detected because we know from other observations and 
>> facts that objects contract at motion - in the original version of 
>> Heaviside, this happens when electric fields move in relation to an 
>> aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to show 
>> a phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have changed their 
>> lengths.
> Yes I understand and I believe like you this is a better explanation 
> than Einsteins but it still leaves the aether as a property of an 
> independent space that exist whether we live or die and and assume we 
> are objects in that space it also identifies that space with what is 
> in front of our nose
> . I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we see 
> ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not equal to the 
> universal space.
When can we expect to get this from you?
>
>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> *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.
>> I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want to show that 
>> the twin case can also be handled as a process related to gravity. So 
>> they define the travel of the travelling twin so that he is 
>> permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn around point and 
>> then accelerated back to the starting  point, where the twin at rest 
>> resides. Then they calculate the slow down of time as a consequence 
>> of the accelerations which they relate to an fictive gravitational 
>> field.
>>
>> This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by several reasons. 
>> One reason is the intent of the authors to replace completely the 
>> slow down of time by the slow down by gravity / acceleration. They do 
>> not set up an experiment where one clock is slowed down by the motion 
>> and the other twin slowed down by acceleration and/or gravity as it 
>> was your intention according to my understanding.
>>
>> Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow down. But 
>> that does not happen. Any text book about SRT says that acceleration 
>> does not cause a slow down of time / clocks. And there are clear 
>> experiments proofing exactly this. For instance the muon storage ring 
>> at CERN showed that the lifetime of muons was extended by their high 
>> speed but in no way by the extreme acceleration in the ring.
>>
>> So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know of any 
>> serious physicist who tries to explain the twin case by gravity. I 
>> have given you by the way some strong arguments that such an 
>> explanation is not possible. -  And independently,  do you have other 
>> sources?
> You may not like the details of this paper but it is relevant because 
> it is only one of a long list of papers that use gravity and 
> acceleration to to explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming they 
> are correct only that a large community believes this is the way to 
> explain the twin paradox. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Twin 
> Paradox they will say explanations fall into two categories
> Just because you disagree with one of these categories does not mean a 
> community supporting the  gravity explanation view point does not 
> exist. I've ordered  Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and other 
> notables explanation and will see what they say.
Where is, please, that long list? Please present it here.

As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many orders of 
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to play any role here. And 
this can be proven by quite simple calculations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>> Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never heard 
>> about this and I am caring about this twin experiment since long time.
> see last comment. It is certainly how I was taught but I have notr 
> looked up papers on the subject for many years, will try to find some
> but since I'm trying to propose a completely different approach I do 
> not think which of two explanations is more right is a fruitful argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> *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.
>> Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in the same way 
>> as much or as little depending on the Mind as Newton's law of motion. 
>> So to make things better understandable please explain your position 
>> by the use of either Newton's law or something comparable. Relativity 
>> is not appropriate as it allows for too much speculation which does 
>> not really help.
> you are right, but eventually I hope to show the whole business is a 
> confusion introduced by our habit of displaying time in a space axis 
> which introduces artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup when it 
> is finished./
Which confusion do you mean? The confusion about this "twin paradox" is 
solely caused by persons who do not understand the underlying physics. 
So, this does not require any action.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>> I have referred the calculation to the original frame of the one 
>> moving twin in order to be close to your experiment and your 
>> description. Any other frame can be used as well.
> Have you thought that the consequence of having an observer who feels 
> a force like gravity which according to the equivalence principle and 
> any ones experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from gravity, 
> is such a person needs to transfer to the initial start frame that 
> would mean we would all be moving at the speed of light and need to 
> transfer back to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame
> perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I still get older 
> - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the whole basis does not make 
> common experience sense, which is what I want to base our physics on. 
> We have gotten our heads into too much math.
I do not really understand what you mean here. -  Your are right that we 
should never forget that mathematics is a tool and not an understanding 
of the world.  But regarding your heavily discussed example of 
relativity, it is fundamentally understandable without a lot of 
mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik Lorentz. That one is 
accessible to imagination without much mathematics and without logical 
conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a correct 
>> way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you tell us that results 
>> are logically conflicting. No, they are not.
>> The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly covered by 
>> the Lorentz transformation.
> That may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy conference has a 
> nice explanation of how Maxwells Equations are invariant under 
> Galilean transforms "if you do it the right way"  check out 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under
> You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the right way
Perhaps later.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as gravity causes 
>> dilation but acceleration does not. This is given by theory and by 
>> experiment.
> Are you saying clocks do not run faster at higher altitude? I was a 
> consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude it would not 
> be as accurate if it did not.
Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity, not acceleration. And even 
gravity has a small influence. The gravitational field on the surface of 
the sun slows down clocks by the small portion of 10^-5 .  Please 
compare this with the factors of slow down which are normally assumed in 
the examples for the twin travel.   --> Absolutely not usable, even if 
equivalence would be working.
>>
>> The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there is no 
>> gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of it into the 
>> vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But then the question 
>> whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by this change. And 
>> particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats all participants 
>> in the same way And anyhow there is no solution needed as it is in 
>> fact not a paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> *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
>> Special relativity was derived as the relation of two frames of 
>> linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz transformation it always 
>> presents the relation between two frames, normally called S and S'. 
>> Nothing else shows up anywhere in these formulas.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> You /make /it wrong in the way that you use equations (here for 
>> kinetic energy) which are strictly restricted to non-relativistic 
>> situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>> This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has nothing to 
>> do with a gravitational potential. In special relativity the slow 
>> down of clocks is formally necessary to "explain" the constancy of c 
>> in any frame. In general relativity it was necessary to explain that 
>> the speed of light is also constant in a gravitational field. So, 
>> Einstein meant the /independence /of c from a gravitational field.
>>
>> If one looks at it from a position outside the field or with the 
>> understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in any case a 
>> measurement result, not true physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of this 
>> equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c 
>> constant in any frame.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also those which 
>> have been performed here including my own experiment, have used the 
>> true Einstein relation with consistent results for energy and 
>> momentum. An assumed term of v^4 /c^4 would have caused results which 
>> violate conservation of energy and of momentum. So, any experiment 
>> performed here during many decades is a proof that the equation of 
>> Einstein is correct at this point.
>>> I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very simple 
>>> almost classical expression based upon action invariance is adequate.
>> Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the Lorentz 
>> transformation.
> NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they are in a deeper gravity 
> well and my calculations and theory predicts this fact to the same 
> accuracy that has been tested. You say Einsteins formula has been 
> tested to the fourth order. This would make my theory wrong. Please 
> give me a reference so I can look at the assumptions to the best of my 
> knowledge neither length contraction or time dilation beyond the 
> approximate solutions to Einsteins equations have been tested.
To show you what you want I would have to present here the computer 
programs which we have used to calculate e.g. the kinematics of my 
experiment. (I do not have them any more 40 years after the experiment.) 
And as I wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at DESY  over 40 
years and as well no experiment at CERN and as well no experiment at the 
Standford accelerator without using Einstein's Lorentz transformation. 
None of all these experiments would have had results if Einstein would 
be wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any evaluation would have 
shown  a violation of the conservation of energy and the conservation of 
momentum. That means one would have received chaotic results for every 
measurement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But let's start 
>> then with something like Newton's law of motion which is in that case 
>> also affected. Relativity is bad for this as it is mathematically 
>> more complicated without providing additional philosophical insights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>
...................................


---
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/20170614/786283a2/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/20170614/786283a2/attachment.png>