[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Jun 23 22:13:54 PDT 2017
Al
Her is a repeat of my comment about your paper while answering Albrecht
Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think "that time dilations and
FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts
of the observation, and not induced characteristics of the objects being
observed themselves."
Well its hard to disagree with this statement because the reason the
transformations were invented is to show that the Maxwell equations
which describe a physical fact will transform to describe the same
physical fact no mater what body you are attached to.
And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe there is a reality and
the appearances in any observers coordinate frame i.e. body , represent
something real that is effected by gravity. And simply recognizing that
the rate of electromagnetic activity is dependent on the gravitational
influence the system in which the activity happens is under , is a
simple provable assumption that connects electricity with gravity. Once
this is established as an observer independent fact. THen that fact also
applies to the body making the measurement and in that sense and only
that sense time dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply
artifacts of the observing body.
I did like "It is, that each particle is effectively an “observer”
of all the others, necessitating the incorporation of the
attendant mathematical machinery into the coupled equations
of motion of the particles.'
and am looking forward to Al' promised further work in this coupling.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/23/2017 12:05 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Wolf:
> Seems to me the attached paper should be relvant and interesting in
> light of the discussion you are having with Albrecht.
> For what it is worth, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Juni 2017 um 08:09 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> 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
>
> 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. 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. 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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/20170623/1ce77fbb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lineifjagmbkidka.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170623/1ce77fbb/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list