[General] STR twin Paradox -- New Article
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Sun Jun 25 15:26:38 PDT 2017
Hello John W, Martin, Alex, Chandra and all,
I’ve just uploaded a new article “Modified Minkowski Metric Spacetime and Momenergy Diagrams Simplify Relativity, Part 1” to academia.edu and researchgate.net. The article provides a new geometrical approach to the twin “paradox” among other things. The approach is distinct from any particular electron model or other particle models, and can provide a new approach to teaching special relativity and perhaps understanding spacetime better.
You can download the article from https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research . I have attached a PDF copy below for your convenience.
I would appreciate hearing any comments or suggestions.
You are welcome the share the link and/or article with interested colleagues.
Thanks!
Richard
> On Jun 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>
> While I am not completely confident that I fully understand the objections, perhaps they have to do with the following point. Ontological chages occure at (or to) the source of E&M interaction. Perspective changes happen to (or at) the sink of E&M interaction---not just sentient, passive observers. The actual, real efffect from the source on a sink is physcially altered by the relative (deleayed) position and motion of the source. For one thing, it is Gaussian diminished (i.e., reduced by 1/r**2). In this sense, time-dilation, space-contraction are real effects (but only as far as the sink is concerned!). Sentient observers, such as those emphasized by Wolf, are no more that a collection of E&M sinks. So, the "obesrver" is taken into account in this formulation.
>
> I'm nervious about bringing gravity in. Really what it is, is still too mysterious. Even for AE, it is just a pregiven phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it. But, perhaps it"s an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and - charge carriers. Who knows??? For what it's worth! ---Al
>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Juni 2017 um 07:13 Uhr
> Von: "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> Betreff: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
> 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 <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
> On 6/23/2017 12:05 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
> An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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*v2/c2 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*v2/c2
>
>
> 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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 =c0 *(1-2*G*M/(c2*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-v2/c2)) which has no additional terms depending on v4/c4. 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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 and gravity in general relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was intended to show that Einstein as I understood him could not explain the paradox. I did so in order to set the stage for introducing a new theory. You argued my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not worth arguing about because it is not second guessing Einstein that is important but that but I am trying to present a new way of looking at reality which is based on Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle.
>
> Aristotle believed the world was essentially the way you see it. This is called naive realism. And science from Newton up to quantum theory is based upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are not what physicists believe I fully agree. It is not an argument to say the mainstream of science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something different.
>
> So let me try again
>
> I am suggesting that there is no independent physically objective space time continuum in which the material universe including you, I, and the rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I believe a better world view is that (following Everett) that all systems are observers and therefore create their own space in which the objects you see in front of your face appear. The situation is shown below.
>
> <Mail Attachment.png>
>
>
>
> 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 has of course energy. 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
> On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Wolf,
>
> I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions of statements.
>
>
> Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>
> WE all agree clocks slow down, but If I include the observer then I get an equation for the slow down that agrees with eperimetn but disagrees with Einstein in the higher order, so it should be testable
>
> I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations below.
> Ok i'm happy to have your comments
>
> Lets look at this thing Historically:
>
> In the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality consisted of an external objective universe independent of subjective living beings. Electricity and Magnetism had largely been explored through empirical experiments which lead to basic laws summarized by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are valid in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε0 and permeability μ0 of free space. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations>
> These equations are valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are identical in form when expressed in a different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution of the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s equations that will then give the same form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must exist.
>
> One thing has been done which is much more exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from two things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation. It is interesting because it shows that electromagnetism is a consequence of special relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum Press). Particularly magnetism is not a separate force but only a certain perspective of the electrical force.
> Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of magnetics, but all within the self consistent Aristotelian point of view
> In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept required an aether as a medium for them to propagate. It was postulated that space was filled with such a medium and that the earth was moving through it. Therefore it should be detectable with a Michelson –Morely experiment. But The Null result showed this to be wrong.
>
> In the view of present physics aether is nothing more than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody believes these days that aether is some kind of material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need it.
>
> just an example physics does not need mind.
> An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which does however not mean that no aether existed. The only result is that it cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was also accepted by Einstein.
> It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.
> It cannot be detected because we know from other observations and facts that objects contract at motion - in the original version of Heaviside, this happens when electric fields move in relation to an aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have changed their lengths.
> 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 <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 accelerate to make a round trip (using the equivalence principle calculated the being equivalent to a gravitational force). Feeling the acceleration as gravity and knowing that gravity slows her clocks she would also calculate her clocks would slow down. The paradox is resolved because in one case the explanation is velocity the other it is gravity.
>
> This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity has nothing to do with the twin situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to gravity has nothing to do with it. The twin situation is not a paradox but is clearly free of conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz transformation, is properly applied.
> You may be right but again most papers explain it using gravity
> Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never heard about this and I am caring about this twin experiment since long time.
> 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 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_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 >> 1020) 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= -mc2 = -m∙Mu∙G/Ru.
>
> Here Mu and Ru 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∙c2
>
> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v2 +m∙c2
>
> The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v2 only in the non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity here. So the correct equation has to be used which is T = m0c2 *( 1/(1-v2/c2)-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∙c2) ∙ Δt = A = (½∙m∙v2 +m∙c2) ∙ Δt’
>
> Dividing through by m∙c2 gives
>
> Eq. 3) Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v2/c2)
>
> Which to first order approximation is equal to
>
> Eq. 4) Δt = Δt’/(1 - v2/c2)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 v4/c4 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 - v2/c2)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 - v2/c2)1/2*(t-vx/c2) . 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, v4/c4 is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is clearly measurable and shows that this order of v4/c4 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 v4/c4 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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 at Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click here to unsubscribe <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20170625/75a3d67a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Modified Minkowski Metric article Part 1 25 June 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2874615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170625/75a3d67a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170625/75a3d67a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list