[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jun 15 23:16:58 PDT 2017
Chip;
In my opinion your experiment is just another example of why SRT only
works is "properly used" as Albrecht insists. Which means work like a
dog and bend over backwards to make Einstein look good.
The signals you are talking about are not proper use and fall more or
less along the lines of transmitting the images in a Fax machine or
perhaps the group velocity or wave front. SRT only works if both space
ships build coordinate frames out beyond their shells and synchronize
their clocks and adjust the rods in these coordinate frames to make the
speed of light constant. What this means is define time and length by
the phase of light. In this way the signal that was sent 1 light year
away by both space ships is immediately picked up by the cocks and at a
location one light year away in each extended coordinate frame. If each
spaceship sends pulses out at constant dT intervals which are picked up
by the other coordinate frame then each one will conclude the other
clock's constant dT pulses are only dt*sqrt(1-v^2.c^2).
The entire SRT is based upon the assumption that there is no preferred
space such as the CBR space, and that the speed of light is constant and
to make it so the clocks of this extended out to 1 light year must be
carefully adjusted to make the light travel at constant "c" in that
coordinate frame. The whole theory would be passed off as a parlor game
if it were not for the fact that some phenomena predicted by it are
actually verified by experiments.
However the same experiments are also calculated by the in-variance of
action. Which is much simpler and more powerful. Two identical systems
perform the same activity between two clock ticks. The amount of
activity in an event is measured by action. so if they are identical and
perform the same activities the amount of action between ticks is the same.
The amount of action is calculate by dS = (T-V)*dT , where T= 1/2 m v^2
and V = -m*c^2 - MGm/R
here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in the mass shell of the universe.
if one twin is standing still T=0 so the Lagrangian is (m*c^ +
MGm/R), the moving lagrangian is (1/2 m v^2 m*c^ + MGm/R)
calculating the action for both clocks gives
(m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 *m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'
so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the stationary one
which is experimentally verified to accuracies of v*v/c*c and differs
from einstein's theory in c^4/c^4 terms. Albrecht claims Einsteins
theory has been verified to better than v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it
until I see the evidence. Because the invariance of action theory is so
simple and logical. As well as the fact that if one drops m out of these
equations one get the gravitational speed of light, which has been
verified by Sapiro's experiment, but if you read his paper, it uses chip
rate (i.e. group velocity) so why assume the speed of light is constant.
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/15/2017 10:39 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Chip, this argument appears false. Why is it different from this
> version?: Suppose we are standing 200 yeards apart, each next to a
> tree. I see that your tree is much smaller than mine. You see that
> my tree is much smaller than yours. This cannot be! Thus, there is no
> perspective. (Perhaps the difference between ontological and
> epistological should be taken into account. No?)
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 um 16:52 Uhr
> *Von:* "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *An:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Hi John
>
> You are absolutely right regarding rotations, and the need for a more
> complete theory as in General relativity to describe them.
>
> However, the point of my thought experiment was to take a look at a
> specific aspect of Special Relativity.
>
> The concept in Special Relativity that all motion is relative is
> logically flawed.
>
> Let me pose a modified thought experiment to illustrate.
>
> Our experiment begins with all the following conditions in place…
>
> Spaceship A thinks it is stationary (not moving) in space, Spaceship A
> views Spaceship B approaching at a highly relativistic speed.
> Spaceship B thinks it is stationary and thinks that Spaceship A is
> approaching at the same highly relativistic speed. When the Spaceships
> are 1 light year apart they both transmit their reference time (and
> date). When Spaceship B passes very close to Spaceship A they again
> both transmit their time and date.
>
> During the experiment there is no acceleration applied to either
> spaceship.
>
> Receivers are set up to record the time and date information (and are
> tuned to accommodate any blue shift from either spaceship).
>
> The receivers are adjacent to Spaceship A just for an example.
>
> If in fact Spaceship B is the moving ship, the signal transmitted 1
> light year before the ships pass each other, will arrive at the
> receiver Adjacent to A moments before Spaceship B passes Spaceship A.
>
> In this situation Spaceship A expects Spaceship B time to be running
> slower. And Spaceship B expects Spaceship A time to be running slower.
> If all motion is relative this is what they MUST expect.
>
> But those two outcomes are mutually exclusive, so logically, all
> motion is NOT relative.
>
> If we feel all motion is relative then there is a logical error in our
> theoretical basis.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:22 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Phil Butler <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Innes Morrison
> <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Dear all,
>
> It is just (light) perspective. If one has particles in a ring (e.g
> muon storage ring) they decay (much) more slowly. For the muons, the
> ring appears much smaller. The muons, with their clock, decay at a
> normal rate, for them, and decay in a normal average time, for them,
> around what looks like, to them, a mini ring. Why? because every
> element of the ring is permanently blue-shifted to them. Also,
> remember they feel an acceleration.
>
> Remember also that SR is a LIMITED form of relativity. It is not, and
> never was, the starting point for relativity.The full group also
> contains generalised rotations: that is rotations and boosts.
> Accelerations then. Chip and Wolf you are confusing yourselves by
> thinking only inside a special limited box, the framework of SPECIAL
> relativity. Rotations imply a radial acceleration. You want to
> describe these you need to get into a bigger, broader theory than just
> special relativity which only relates clocks and rulers and velocities.
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>[af.kracklauer at web.de]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 12, 2017 6:12 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Clocks do not slow down; they don't even know that they are moving.
> This is obvious: a Lorentz x-form to a frame moving with respect to
> the clock-watcher with relative velocity "0" will yield no time
> dilation nor LF-contraction. TD & LF appear only to those moving with
> repspect to the clock with nonzero velocity. Could be that the clock
> is stationary and the observer is moving. Thus, these effects are not
> ontological, but epistomological. They are a sort of SR-perspective.
> They change the appearance of the object moving with respcet to the
> observer. Has to do with the fact that light (better: E&M
> interaction) takes time to get from source to sink depending on the
> separation distance, etc.. Thus, 3-D objects, with parts at different
> distances from the observer will appear distorted. That is, the
> projection with light on the retina of the observer is distoreted, not
> the entity itself. (BTW, this is not me talking, See J. Terrell, Am.
> J. Phys. 1959, p. 1041.)
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 12. Juni 2017 um 18:42 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> 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 and gravity 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.
>
> cid:part1.D14364AF.F5B9AFBC at a-giese.de
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> laws summarized 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
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations>
> These equations are 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.
>
> *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?
>
> 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 accelerate
> to 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.
>
> *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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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 inertialframe, 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 alre ^ady wrote in the other mail.
>
>
> ^Einstein and Born explanation ^i ^s 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 Einstein once 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 refer
> here 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 theory that 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 o ^verload or
> over-interpret Einstein's theory if using it for ^any
> observer dependent theories. Einstein himself believed
> that there is an objective ^reali ^ty but that every i
> ^nertia ^l frame ^is an own world in some sense.
> Relativity exists according to Einstein completely
> independent of the exist ^ence 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 lead me 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 ob ^ject changes
> its speed it leaves its original frame. Th ^at is
> simpl ^y ^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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
> <mailto: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, when his 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 to realize
> 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 /after /the
> acceleration then any facts from the time
> 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, *taking place with v in relation to
> his own original frame, causes a slow
> down of the clock of twin 2*. But
> then, after twin 2 has fired his retro
> rocket, twin 2 will have speed = 0
> with respect to the original frame of
> twin 1. 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 sense without
> 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 run and 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 straightenedout.
>
> 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
> https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif
> <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>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 at
> phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170615/c56e4848/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: baifjekokflnlfkf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19806 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170615/c56e4848/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list