[General] STR twin Paradox

[Albrecht Giese]

Wolf,

i see the same problem again: you did not really read my last mail as 
you repeat most of your earlier statements with no reference to my 
comments.

Details in the text:


Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> Answers embedded below
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe to be 
>> true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer to standard 
>> physics. And I do of course not expect that you agree to what I say 
>> but I expect that you object if you disagree, but please /with 
>> arguments/. In the case of the formula for kinetic energy for 
>> instance you have just repeated your formula which is in conflict 
>> with basic physics, but there was no argument at all. This will not 
>> help us to proceed.
>>
> I have provided numerical arguments two or three times perhaps you do 
> not get all the E-mails - here is a copy
Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have  written that they 
are wrong because they are based on a wrong formula. I have written this 
two times with no reaction from you. You find my responses further down 
in the history of mails, so you cannot say that you did not receive them.
>
> Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in inter 
> galactic space perform the same activity between two clock ticks in 
> their own coordinate frames . 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.
>
> An observer calculates the amount of action from classical physics as  
> 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 and 
> MGm/R any local gravitational potential energy.
>
> if  Twin A is riding along with clock A then  T=0 for Clock A thus the 
> Lagrangian is    (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving clock B Lagrangian 
> calcuated by A is           (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)
>
> since the action calculated for both clocks  is invariant we have the 
> equation,
>
>    (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 because Einstein's theory has higher order  
> c^4/c^4 terms.
>
> This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your problem?
You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why did you not 
respond to it? So once again (I think it is the 3rd time now):
Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2 is wrong in the general 
case. It is only usable for slow speeds, so  v<<c . But our discussion 
here is about relativistic situations, so v close to c  As a consequence 
the result of your deduction is of course wrong, and so particularly 
your term c^4/c^4 is a result of this confusion. Einstein's equation, 
i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a square-root function of (1-v^2 /c^2 ). And 
if you make a Taylor expansion from it, there are many terms of higher 
order. But the root formula is the correct solution.

The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have written here 
earlier:  T = m_0 c^2 *( sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 ))-1) .
If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the second term 
then you end up with the formula which you have used. But as iit is 
easily visible here, only for speed v << c.
>
> You could claim the principle of action in-variance is  false. But 
> whether it is false or not can be put to experimental tests.
The principle of action is correct but generally used for a different 
purpose. In general I do not find it the best way to use principles but 
better to use fundamental laws. But this is a different topic. However, 
I expect that you would come to a correct result with this principle if 
you would use correct physical equations.
>  You have claimed 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 
> in-variance 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. So if you have 
> experimental evidence please provide a reference. I have seen many 
> papers that claim only time dilation has  been verified  to first 
> order approximation of his formulas and length contraction has never 
> been verified.
As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the calculation 
of energy and momentum by taking into account the corresponding 
conservation laws. In all calculations which we have done here at the 
accelerator DESY the relation v/c was in the order of  0.9999 . So the 
gamma factor is about _10'000_. If there would have been a term v^4 /c^4 
necessary but omitted then this factor would change to something in the 
interval _1 to 10_. This is a discrepancy by a factor of at least 1'000. 
Do you really believe that all the scientists at DESY and at the other 
accelerators worldwide would overlook a discrepancy of this magnitude?
>>
>> If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to a certain 
>> extend we all want to do here, otherwise we would not have these 
>> discussions) then everyone who has a basic objection against it, 
>> should name that explicitly and give detailed arguments.
>>
>>
> If this is *Not *a detailed argument I do not know what is!
Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have told you now 
*/several times/*. You did not react and did not give a justification 
but you merely repeated it again and again.
>> Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply say what 
>>> you believe to be true. I respect that and you may be right but I am 
>>> not talking about what has been discovered at CERN but rather what 
>>> Einstein published, the theory he proposed and I have ordered and 
>>> now have
>>>
>>> Einstein, A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, /The 
>>> Principle of Relativity/:/; a collection of original memoirs on the 
>>> special and general theory of relativity/, Edited by A Sommerfeld, 
>>> Translated by W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65 
>>> ISBN486-60081-5
>>>
>>> This is a collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski 
>>> and Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one of two synchronous 
>>> clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until 
>>> it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock 
>>> which has remained st rest the travelled clock on its arrival will 
>>> be 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2 slow. " ...."this is up to  magnitude of fourth 
>>> and higher order"
>>>
>>> This is an unambiguous statement. It follows directly from his 
>>> derivation of the Lorentz transformations and immediately leads to 
>>> the twin paradox because from the point of view of the moving clock 
>>> the so called "stationary" clock is moving and the stationary clock 
>>> when returning to A would by SRT be the traveled clock which is slow 
>>> by 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2
>>>
>> ^No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one clock is at rest, the 
>> other one is not as it leaves the original frame.
>>
>> Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation between 
>> /inertial frames/. Otherwise not applicable. If this is not really 
>> clear, you will not have any progress in your understanding.
>> In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock can be 
>> split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight motions and then the 
>> pieces of tim ^e can be summed up ^. In that way the Lorentz 
>> transformation could be applied.
>>
>> And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have again and 
>> again. SRT is about relations of /inertial frames/. Not in others 
>> than these. And I must clearly say: as long as this does not enter 
>> your mind and strongly settles there, it makes little sense to 
>> discuss more complex cases in special relativity.
>>
>> The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct, but only 
>> as an approximation for v<<c.  In his original paper of 1905 Einstein 
>> has earlier given the correct equation and then given the 
>> approximation for v<<c. Unfortunately he has not said this explicitly 
>> but it is said by his remark which you have quoted:
>> "this is up to  magnitude of fourth and higher order" . Because if it 
>> would be the correct equation it would be valid up to infinite orders 
>> of magnitude. - We should forgive Einstein for this unclear statement 
>> as this was the first paper which Einstein has ever written. 
> NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some assumptions 
> like the speed of light is constant in all coordinate frames and 
> simultaneity is defined by round trip light measurements. He simply 
> stated that the Lorentz transformations have certain consequences. One 
> of them being that an observer viewing a clock moving around a circle 
> at constant velocity would slow down and he gave the numerical value 
> of the slow down to first order in v^2/c^2.
If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct derivation of 
the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes an approximation for a 
slow speed without saying this clearly. His text (translated to English):

"… so that this indication of the clock (as observed in the system at 
rest) is delayed per second by (1-sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ) seconds or – except 
for magnitudes of forth or higher order is delayed by 1/2(v/c)^2 seconds."

So, Einstein /excludes /here the higher orders. That means clearly that 
it is an approximation.

But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If the moving clock comes 
back it is delayed. Which is of course in agreement with SRT. And also 
with the observation.

>
> Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And what has been 
> experimentally proven is quite simple. A clock slows down if it feels 
> a force.
> That is it. Whether that force is called gravity experienced when one 
> is standing on the earth or called inertia when one is being 
> accelerated in a rocket makes no difference. And the simplest theory 
> that explains experimentally verified fact is not Einstein's SRT or 
> GRT but
> simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of physics 
> that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena happen at a speed 
> determined by
>         c^2 =  Mu*G/Ru
> and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein and has 
> something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe Einstein should get 
> credit.
Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow down of 
clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on force according to 
relativity and according to experiments. Also gravity slows down a 
clock, but very little. Experimental proof was once the Hafele Keating 
experiment for gravity and speed and the muon accelerator for speed and 
the independence of acceleration.

If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a force applied 
this would be a new theory. If you believe this, please present it as a 
complete theoretical system and refer to experiments which are in 
agreement with this theory.

For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of correctness 
is easily visible by the following consideration. If it would be true 
then a gravitational mass of M=0 would mean c=0, which is clearly not 
the case. And also for some gravitational mass but a distance R=infinite 
there would also be c=0, which does not make any sense. And I repeat the 
correct one (perhaps you notice it /this time/).
c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p   where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the 
direction of the light

For the twin case I have given you numbers that the acceleration phase 
is in no way able to explain the time offset, but I am meanwhile sure 
that you ignore that again.
>
>
>>> I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.  I believe SRT as Einstein originally formulated it in 1905 was 
>>> wrong/or incomplete.
>> Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was wrong. Up 
>> to now I did not see any true arguments from you, but you only 
>> presented your results of an incorrect understanding of Einstein's 
>> theory.
>>> You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question. 
>>> Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions 
>>> by going through the arguments  one step at a time. I am not going 
>>> to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we have 
>>> agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.
>> If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please give us 
>> arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a summary without any 
>> arguments is not science. I also have some concerns about Einstein's 
>> SRT myself, but with pure statements without arguments like in your 
>> last mails we do not achieve anything.
>>
>> The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO is: 
>> Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do not like it.
>>
> Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant velocity slows 
> down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is simply did he or 
> did he not say that the moving clock slows down? The question is not 
> whether his theory is formally consistent but whether his theory 
> states moving clocks slow down.
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock slows down. 
Which is of course not new. But notice that in his paper of 1905 he has 
given the conditions at which this slow down happens.
>
> The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a difference 
> between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B move at constant 
> velocity in a circle compared with an observer B on clock B seeing 
> clock A move in a circle at constant velocity. YES or NO
> If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been said is 
> that both observers see the other go in a circle at constant velocity.
> If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins Claim in 
> Question 1 above?
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at constant 
speed and  in a circle.

Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in the middle of 
both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the same amount. Already 
given by symmetry.

But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as SRT is about 
the relation of inertial frames, and here none of the clocks is in an 
inertial frame. - On the other hand this question must be answerable in 
a formal way.

The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the other clock 
moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight path. In this 
infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves on a straight path and 
both do not have any speed in relation to the other one (i.e. no change 
of the distance). Speed in the Lorentz transformation is the temporal 
derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this case. So no effects 
according to SRT and both observers see the speed of the other clock not 
slowed down.
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.
>
> Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames  at this 
> stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the other leave his 
> coordinate frame behind why  does the other not see the same thing. 
> Einstein insisted there are no preferred coordinate frames. That 
> Einsteins theory, as published in 1905, can be patched up by adding 
> interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried to do 
> himself with GRT is not the issue  We can discuss whether or not the 
> "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is part of the original SRT 
> later, after you answer question 2 above. .
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about inertial 
frames (the question which coordinate frame is used is of no physical 
relevance).

Each observer in this example will not only see the other one 
permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself leaving 
permanently his inertial frame. That is easily noticeable as he will 
notice his acceleration.  - How this case can be solved in accordance 
with SRT I have explained in the preceding paragraph. That solution is 
physically correct and in my understanding in accordance with Einstein.

> I am  trying to lead you and anyone listening to the logical 
> conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by his assumptions is 
> wrong. I am not questioning that after making his assumptions he can 
> logically derive the Lorentz transformations, nor that such a 
> derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone through his 
> papers often enough to know his math is correct. I'm  simply trying to 
> lead us all to the realization that the speed of light as a physical 
> phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never will be and warping 
> coordinate frames and all the changes in physics required to make that 
> assumption consistent with experimental fact has been a 100 year 
> abomination. If you believe that assumption,  I've got a guy on a 
> cross who claims to be the son of god to introduce you to.
You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed of light 
is not constant. I would understand this as a step forward. But you have 
to do it with appropriate arguments which I found missing.

Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments which are my 
arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my 
view the Lorentzian relativity is more easy to understand and has 
physical causes. Einstein's principle is not physics but spirituality in 
my view and his considerations about time and space are as well not 
physics. Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility of 
Einstein's  theory with reality by some examples, at last by the twin 
case and argued that this is a violation of Einstein's theory or in 
conflict with reality. But both is not the case, and that was the topic 
of the discussions during the last dozens of mails.

  Best Albrecht
>
> Best, Wolf
>> Best
>> Albrecht
>>> Best, Wolf
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf:
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if you really read my mails as the questions below 
>>>> are answered in my last mails, most of them in the mail of yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my referring 
>>>>> to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some simple yes and no 
>>>>> questions to get to the bottom of it
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and acceleration 
>>>>> and gravity are related?
>>>>>
>>>> I have written now /several times in my last mails /that the 
>>>> equivalence principle is violated at the point that acceleration - 
>>>> in contrast to gravity - does not cause dilation. And, as I have 
>>>> also written earlier, that you find this in any textbook about 
>>>> special relativity and that it was experimentally proven at the 
>>>> muon storage ring at CERN.  - It seems to me that you did not read 
>>>> my last mails but write your answering text independently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you  believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster than one 
>>>>> at sea level?
>>>>>
>>>> /Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail/. In addition I have 
>>>> given you the numerical result for the gravitational dilation on 
>>>> the surface of the sun where the slow down of a clock is the little 
>>>> difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a zero-field situation.
>>>> In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for the twin 
>>>> case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe the speed of light is related to the gravity 
>>>>> potential  by c*c = G*M/R?
>>>>>
>>>> I have also given in a previous mail the equation for this, which 
>>>> is c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the 
>>>> direction of the light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also
>>>>>
>>>>> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation experiments 
>>>>> at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any references?
>>>>>
>>>> This is the general use of the Lorentz factor:    gamma = 
>>>> sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )) which has no additional terms depending on 
>>>> v^4 /c^4 . This gamma is similarly applicable for time dilation and 
>>>> for every kinematic or dynamic calculation where special relativity 
>>>> applies. And in the latter context it is used by thousands of 
>>>> physicists all over the world who work at accelerators. One could 
>>>> find it in their computer programs. To ask them whether they have 
>>>> done it in this way would seem to them like the doubt whether they 
>>>> have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly. This is daily work in practice.
>>>>
>>>> And if you should assume that gamma is different only for the case 
>>>> of time dilation then the answer is that SRT would then be 
>>>> inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of light c could never 
>>>> be constant (or measured as constant).
>>>>>
>>>>> and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite likely the 
>>>>> wave function is a mental projection and therefore its collapse is 
>>>>> a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments have been 
>>>>> incorrectly interpreted
>>>>>
>>>> The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully by others 
>>>> (as also Zeilinger has presented here in his last talk) and the new 
>>>> experiments are said to have covered all loop holes which have been 
>>>> left by Aspect. And also all these experiments are carefully 
>>>> observed by an international community of physicists. But of course 
>>>> this is never a guaranty that anything is correct. So it is good 
>>>> practice to doubt that and I am willing follow this way. However if 
>>>> you do not accept these experiments or the consequences drawn, then 
>>>> please explain in detail where and why you disagree. Otherwise 
>>>> critical statements are not helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>
>>>> We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we should 
>>>> present arguments, which means at best: quantitative calculations 
>>>> as proofs.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...................................
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>>>> 	Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>



---
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/20170623/3dfa399e/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/20170623/3dfa399e/attachment.png>