[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Jun 26 06:56:47 PDT 2017
Wolf,
I think we should not change the topics which we have discussed during
the last mails. And *as you again **did **not react to my comments I
summarize the open points now in a list*:
*o* You use for the kinetic energy the erroneous equation T = 1/2
m*v^2 (because we talk about relativistic cases). So you necessarily
have a wrong result. Why do you not make your deduction (using the
Lagrangian) with the correct equation which I have given you? Or what is
your consideration to use just this equation even if it is erroneous?
Please answer this. This is physics, not philosophy.
*o* Your conflict about the term v^4 /c^4 in the Lorentz transformation
is a result of your use of a wrong equation for T (kinetic energy). Why
do you not repeat your deduction using the correct equation?
*o* The equation 1/2*m*v^2 /c^2 is not correct and not part of
Einstein's equations. Einstein has given this for visualization as an
/approximation/. Why do you continue with it without a response to my
information that it is incorrect or why do you not argue why you believe
that is can be used?
*o* The equation for the speed of light which you gave: c^2 = Mu*G/Ru
is senseless which is easily visible. I have explained that. Why do you
not respond to this point?
After we have clarified these discrepancies about SRT we may talk about
the observer or other philosophical aspects, *but not earlier*.
Am 24.06.2017 um 07:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> I thought I had answered the last E-mail pretty thoroughly, I'll try
> again however I think you are not grasping my position
>
> Einstein Lorentz Baer
>
> make assumptions make assumptions make assumptions
>
> and write a theory And write a theory
> And am in the process
>
> That has conclusions That has conclusions That has preliminary
> conclusions
>
> c=constant c is dependent on gravity
>
> change physics Em material stretches
> emphasize invariant of action
>
> lots of non intuitive probably
> Ok Needs to understand the role of the
> observer
>
>
> So far Ive sent you a classic calculation based upon the fact that Em
> penomena go at rates determined by the classic Lagrangian and I
> believe this very simple formulation explains all experimentally
> verified effects up to fourth order in v/c and in addition and in fact
> the whole reason for my effort is to include the observer and
> recognize that the plenum within the theories of these eminent
> physicist was their own imaginations which is always a background space.
>
> I think I am working on a new and better theory. So far what I have is
> a calculation using in-variance of action.Tell me why I am wrong based
> on experimental evidence not that I have a different theory then
> either Einstein or Lorentz. I know our theories are different but i
> think they are wrong because they are Aristotelian realists and I'm
> using Platonic logic.
>
If you have a new theory available which can be quantitatively checked
by experiments please present and explain it here. Before you have done
this, a discussion as it was up to now does not make any sense but uses
up a lot of time. We should not waste time.
Greetings
Albrecht
>
> Now I'll try to answer your coments
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/23/2017 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,ghly
>>
>> i see the same problem again: you did not really read my last mail as
>> you repeat most of your earlier statements with no reference to my
>> comments.
>>
>> Details in the text:
>>
>>
>> Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>> Answers embedded below
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe to be
>>>> true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer to standard
>>>> physics. And I do of course not expect that you agree to what I say
>>>> but I expect that you object if you disagree, but please /with
>>>> arguments/. In the case of the formula for kinetic energy for
>>>> instance you have just repeated your formula which is in conflict
>>>> with basic physics, but there was no argument at all. This will not
>>>> help us to proceed.
>>>>
>>> I have provided numerical arguments two or three times perhaps you
>>> do not get all the E-mails - here is a copy
>> Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have written that they
>> are wrong because they are based on a wrong formula. I have written
>> this two times with no reaction from you. You find my responses
>> further down in the history of mails, so you cannot say that you did
>> not receive them.
>>>
>>> Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in inter
>>> galactic space perform the same activity between two clock ticks in
>>> their own coordinate frames . The amount of activity in an event is
>>> measured by action. So if they are identical and perform the same
>>> activities the amount of action between ticks is the same.
>>>
>>> An observer calculates the amount of action from classical physics
>>> as dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V = -m*c^2 - MGm/R, here
>>> mc^2 is the gravitational potential in the mass shell of the
>>> universe and MGm/R any local gravitational potential energy.
>>>
>>> if Twin A is riding along with clock A then T=0 for Clock A thus
>>> the Lagrangian is (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving clock B Lagrangian
>>> calcuated by A is (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)
>>>
>>> since the action calculated for both clocks is invariant we have
>>> the equation,
>>>
>>> (m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'
>>>
>>> so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the stationary one
>>> which is experimentally verified to accuracies of v*v/c*c and
>>> differs from Einstein's theory because Einstein's theory has higher
>>> order c^4/c^4 terms.
>>>
>>> This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your problem?
>> You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why did you
>> not respond to it? So once again (I think it is the 3rd time now):
>> Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2 is wrong in the general
>> case. It is only usable for slow speeds, so v<<c . But our discussion
>> here is about relativistic situations, so v close to c As a
>> consequence the result of your deduction is of course wrong, and so
>> particularly your term c^4/c^4 is a result of this confusion.
>> Einstein's equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a square-root
>> function of (1-v^2 /c^2 ). And if you make a Taylor expansion from
>> it, there are many terms of higher order. But the root formula is the
>> correct solution.
>>
>> The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have written here
>> earlier: T = m_0 c^2 *( sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 ))-1) .
>> If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the second term
>> then you end up with the formula which you have used. But as iit is
>> easily visible here, only for speed v << c.
> THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is right 1/2 m*v^2 is
> correct in my theory
>>>
>>> You could claim the principle of action in-variance is false. But
>>> whether it is false or not can be put to experimental tests.
>> The principle of action is correct but generally used for a different
>> purpose. In general I do not find it the best way to use principles
>> but better to use fundamental laws. But this is a different topic.
>> However, I expect that you would come to a correct result with this
>> principle if you would use correct physical equations.
> Yes I know but I'm using it because independent and isolated system
> have no external clocks to measure progress and the amount of activity
> is all that is available to measure the completion of identical
> activities. You must understand I assume evnets not objects are
> fundamental.
>>> You have claimed Einsteins theory has been verified to better than
>>> v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it until I see the evidence. Because
>>> the in-variance of action theory is so simple and logical. As well
>>> as the fact that if one drops m out of these equations one get the
>>> gravitational speed of light, which has been verified by Sapiro's
>>> experiment, but if you read his paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group
>>> velocity) so why assume the speed of light is constant. So if you
>>> have experimental evidence please provide a reference. I have seen
>>> many papers that claim only time dilation has been verified to
>>> first order approximation of his formulas and length contraction has
>>> never been verified.
>> As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the
>> calculation of energy and momentum by taking into account the
>> corresponding conservation laws. In all calculations which we have
>> done here at the accelerator DESY the relation v/c was in the order
>> of 0.9999 . So the gamma factor is about _10'000_. If there would
>> have been a term v^4 /c^4 necessary but omitted then this factor
>> would change to something in the interval _1 to 10_. This is a
>> discrepancy by a factor of at least 1'000. Do you really believe that
>> all the scientists at DESY and at the other accelerators worldwide
>> would overlook a discrepancy of this magnitude?
> If this v^4 /c^4 term accuracy has been measured by experiment I am
> not aware of it I've asked you for a reference. Yes I believe all the
> scientists are simply not aware of their own fundamental assumptions
> regarding the role of the conscious being, which is why I and a few of
> us are working on these issues.
>>>>
>>>> If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to a certain
>>>> extend we all want to do here, otherwise we would not have these
>>>> discussions) then everyone who has a basic objection against it,
>>>> should name that explicitly and give detailed arguments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If this is *Not *a detailed argument I do not know what is!
>> Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have told you
>> now */several times/*. You did not react and did not give a
>> justification but you merely repeated it again and again.
> IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions that you disagree with?
>
> I believe the question "what does it feel like to be a piece of
> material" is quite legitimate and if we can entertain the question why
> not ask if feelings are not intrinsically part of material and the
> perhaps space is a feeling, the phase of an never ending event
> Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...." quickly for a few
> minutes and you'll get the experience of a subject object event that
> takes on an existence of its own.
>
> 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.
>
> so Albrecht have I answered your comments for this go around?
No, I do not see any answer as I have listed it above! You always talk
about different things or you repeat your erroneous statement / equation
without an argument.
>
> best wishes ,
> wolf
>
>
>
>>>> Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply say what
>>>>> you believe to be true. I respect that and you may be right but I
>>>>> am not talking about what has been discovered at CERN but rather
>>>>> what Einstein published, the theory he proposed and I have ordered
>>>>> and now have
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein, A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”,
>>>>> /The Principle of Relativity/:/; a collection of original memoirs
>>>>> on the special and general theory of relativity/, Edited by A
>>>>> Sommerfeld, Translated by W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover
>>>>> Publications, p35-65 ISBN486-60081-5
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski
>>>>> and Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one of two synchronous
>>>>> clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
>>>>> until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the
>>>>> clock which has remained st rest the travelled clock on its
>>>>> arrival will be 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2 slow. " ...."this is up to
>>>>> magnitude of fourth and higher order"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an unambiguous statement. It follows directly from his
>>>>> derivation of the Lorentz transformations and immediately leads to
>>>>> the twin paradox because from the point of view of the moving
>>>>> clock the so called "stationary" clock is moving and the
>>>>> stationary clock when returning to A would by SRT be the traveled
>>>>> clock which is slow by 1/2*t*v^2 /c^2
>>>>>
>>>> ^No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one clock is at rest, the
>>>> other one is not as it leaves the original frame.
>>>>
>>>> Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation between
>>>> /inertial frames/. Otherwise not applicable. If this is not really
>>>> clear, you will not have any progress in your understanding.
>>>> In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock can be
>>>> split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight motions and then the
>>>> pieces of tim ^e can be summed up ^. In that way the Lorentz
>>>> transformation could be applied.
>>>>
>>>> And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have again and
>>>> again. SRT is about relations of /inertial frames/. Not in others
>>>> than these. And I must clearly say: as long as this does not enter
>>>> your mind and strongly settles there, it makes little sense to
>>>> discuss more complex cases in special relativity.
>>>>
>>>> The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct, but only
>>>> as an approximation for v<<c. In his original paper of 1905
>>>> Einstein has earlier given the correct equation and then given the
>>>> approximation for v<<c. Unfortunately he has not said this
>>>> explicitly but it is said by his remark which you have quoted:
>>>> "this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher order" . Because if
>>>> it would be the correct equation it would be valid up to infinite
>>>> orders of magnitude. - We should forgive Einstein for this unclear
>>>> statement as this was the first paper which Einstein has ever written.
>>> NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some
>>> assumptions like the speed of light is constant in all coordinate
>>> frames and simultaneity is defined by round trip light measurements.
>>> He simply stated that the Lorentz transformations have certain
>>> consequences. One of them being that an observer viewing a clock
>>> moving around a circle at constant velocity would slow down and he
>>> gave the numerical value of the slow down to first order in v^2/c^2.
>> If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct derivation
>> of the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes an approximation for
>> a slow speed without saying this clearly. His text (translated to
>> English):
>>
>> "… so that this indication of the clock (as observed in the system at
>> rest) is delayed per second by (1-sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ) seconds or –
>> except for magnitudes of forth or higher order is delayed by
>> 1/2(v/c)^2 seconds."
>>
>> So, Einstein /excludes /here the higher orders. That means clearly
>> that it is an approximation.
>>
>> But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If the moving clock comes
>> back it is delayed. Which is of course in agreement with SRT. And
>> also with the observation.
>>
>>>
>>> Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And what has
>>> been experimentally proven is quite simple. A clock slows down if it
>>> feels a force.
>>> That is it. Whether that force is called gravity experienced when
>>> one is standing on the earth or called inertia when one is being
>>> accelerated in a rocket makes no difference. And the simplest theory
>>> that explains experimentally verified fact is not Einstein's SRT or
>>> GRT but
>>> simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of physics
>>> that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena happen at a speed
>>> determined by
>>> c^2 = Mu*G/Ru
>>> and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein and has
>>> something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe Einstein should get
>>> credit.
>> Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow down of
>> clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on force according to
>> relativity and according to experiments. Also gravity slows down a
>> clock, but very little. Experimental proof was once the Hafele
>> Keating experiment for gravity and speed and the muon accelerator for
>> speed and the independence of acceleration.
>>
>> If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a force
>> applied this would be a new theory. If you believe this, please
>> present it as a complete theoretical system and refer to experiments
>> which are in agreement with this theory.
>>
>> For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of
>> correctness is easily visible by the following consideration. If it
>> would be true then a gravitational mass of M=0 would mean c=0, which
>> is clearly not the case. And also for some gravitational mass but a
>> distance R=infinite there would also be c=0, which does not make any
>> sense. And I repeat the correct one (perhaps you notice it /this time/).
>> c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
>> direction of the light
>>
>> For the twin case I have given you numbers that the acceleration
>> phase is in no way able to explain the time offset, but I am
>> meanwhile sure that you ignore that again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this
>>>>> time. I believe SRT as Einstein originally formulated it in 1905 was
>>>>> wrong/or incomplete.
>>>> Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was wrong.
>>>> Up to now I did not see any true arguments from you, but you only
>>>> presented your results of an incorrect understanding of Einstein's
>>>> theory.
>>>>> You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No
>>>>> question. Please answer this question so we can debug our
>>>>> difference opinions by going through the arguments one step at a
>>>>> time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just
>>>>> want to know if we have agreement or disagreement on the starting
>>>>> point of SRT.
>>>> If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please give us
>>>> arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a summary without any
>>>> arguments is not science. I also have some concerns about
>>>> Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure statements without arguments
>>>> like in your last mails we do not achieve anything.
>>>>
>>>> The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO is:
>>>> Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do not like it.
>>>>
>>> Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant velocity slows
>>> down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is simply did he or
>>> did he not say that the moving clock slows down? The question is not
>>> whether his theory is formally consistent but whether his theory
>>> states moving clocks slow down.
>> Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock slows
>> down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in his paper of
>> 1905 he has given the conditions at which this slow down happens.
>>>
>>> The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a difference
>>> between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B move at constant
>>> velocity in a circle compared with an observer B on clock B seeing
>>> clock A move in a circle at constant velocity. YES or NO
>>> If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been said is
>>> that both observers see the other go in a circle at constant velocity.
>>> If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins Claim in
>>> Question 1 above?
>> Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at constant
>> speed and in a circle.
>>
>> Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in the middle
>> of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the same amount.
>> Already given by symmetry.
>>
>> But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as SRT is
>> about the relation of inertial frames, and here none of the clocks is
>> in an inertial frame. - On the other hand this question must be
>> answerable in a formal way.
>>
>> The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the other
>> clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight path. In this
>> infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves on a straight path and
>> both do not have any speed in relation to the other one (i.e. no
>> change of the distance). Speed in the Lorentz transformation is the
>> temporal derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this case. So no
>> effects according to SRT and both observers see the speed of the
>> other clock not slowed down.
>> So there is no dilation relative to the other one.
>>>
>>> Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames at this
>>> stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the other leave his
>>> coordinate frame behind why does the other not see the same thing.
>>> Einstein insisted there are no preferred coordinate frames. That
>>> Einsteins theory, as published in 1905, can be patched up by adding
>>> interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried to do
>>> himself with GRT is not the issue We can discuss whether or not the
>>> "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is part of the original
>>> SRT later, after you answer question 2 above. .
>> SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about inertial
>> frames (the question which coordinate frame is used is of no physical
>> relevance).
>>
>> Each observer in this example will not only see the other one
>> permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself leaving
>> permanently his inertial frame. That is easily noticeable as he will
>> notice his acceleration. - How this case can be solved in accordance
>> with SRT I have explained in the preceding paragraph. That solution
>> is physically correct and in my understanding in accordance with
>> Einstein.
>>
>>> I am trying to lead you and anyone listening to the logical
>>> conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by his assumptions is
>>> wrong. I am not questioning that after making his assumptions he can
>>> logically derive the Lorentz transformations, nor that such a
>>> derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone through
>>> his papers often enough to know his math is correct. I'm simply
>>> trying to lead us all to the realization that the speed of light as
>>> a physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never will be and
>>> warping coordinate frames and all the changes in physics required
>>> to make that assumption consistent with experimental fact has been a
>>> 100 year abomination. If you believe that assumption, I've got a
>>> guy on a cross who claims to be the son of god to introduce you to.
>> You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed of
>> light is not constant. I would understand this as a step forward. But
>> you have to do it with appropriate arguments which I found missing.
>>
>> Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments which are
>> my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In
>> my view the Lorentzian relativity is more easy to understand and has
>> physical causes. Einstein's principle is not physics but spirituality
>> in my view and his considerations about time and space are as well
>> not physics. Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility
>> of Einstein's theory with reality by some examples, at last by the
>> twin case and argued that this is a violation of Einstein's theory or
>> in conflict with reality. But both is not the case, and that was the
>> topic of the discussions during the last dozens of mails.
>>
>> Best Albrecht
>>>
>>> Best, Wolf
>>>> Best
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>> Best, Wolf
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am wondering if you really read my mails as the questions below
>>>>>> are answered in my last mails, most of them in the mail of yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my
>>>>>>> referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some simple
>>>>>>> yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and acceleration
>>>>>>> and gravity are related?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have written now /several times in my last mails /that the
>>>>>> equivalence principle is violated at the point that acceleration
>>>>>> - in contrast to gravity - does not cause dilation. And, as I
>>>>>> have also written earlier, that you find this in any textbook
>>>>>> about special relativity and that it was experimentally proven at
>>>>>> the muon storage ring at CERN. - It seems to me that you did not
>>>>>> read my last mails but write your answering text independently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster than
>>>>>>> one at sea level?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail/. In addition I
>>>>>> have given you the numerical result for the gravitational
>>>>>> dilation on the surface of the sun where the slow down of a clock
>>>>>> is the little difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a
>>>>>> zero-field situation.
>>>>>> In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for the twin
>>>>>> case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you believe the speed of light is related to the gravity
>>>>>>> potential by c*c = G*M/R?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have also given in a previous mail the equation for this, which
>>>>>> is c =c_0 *(1-2*G*M/(c^2 *R))^p where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on
>>>>>> the direction of the light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
>>>>>>> experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any
>>>>>>> references?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the general use of the Lorentz factor: gamma =
>>>>>> sqrt(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )) which has no additional terms depending on
>>>>>> v^4 /c^4 . This gamma is similarly applicable for time dilation
>>>>>> and for every kinematic or dynamic calculation where special
>>>>>> relativity applies. And in the latter context it is used by
>>>>>> thousands of physicists all over the world who work at
>>>>>> accelerators. One could find it in their computer programs. To
>>>>>> ask them whether they have done it in this way would seem to them
>>>>>> like the doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly.
>>>>>> This is daily work in practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you should assume that gamma is different only for the
>>>>>> case of time dilation then the answer is that SRT would then be
>>>>>> inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of light c could
>>>>>> never be constant (or measured as constant).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite likely the
>>>>>>> wave function is a mental projection and therefore its collapse
>>>>>>> is a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments have been
>>>>>>> incorrectly interpreted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully by
>>>>>> others (as also Zeilinger has presented here in his last talk)
>>>>>> and the new experiments are said to have covered all loop holes
>>>>>> which have been left by Aspect. And also all these experiments
>>>>>> are carefully observed by an international community of
>>>>>> physicists. But of course this is never a guaranty that anything
>>>>>> is correct. So it is good practice to doubt that and I am willing
>>>>>> follow this way. However if you do not accept these experiments
>>>>>> or the consequences drawn, then please explain in detail where
>>>>>> and why you disagree. Otherwise critical statements are not helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we should
>>>>>> present arguments, which means at best: quantitative calculations
>>>>>> as proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on the
>>>>>>>> quantitative results if something is referred to the
>>>>>>>> gravitational force. As much as I know any use of gravitational
>>>>>>>> force yields a result which is about 30 to 40 orders of
>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller that we have them in fact in physics. - If
>>>>>>>> you disagree to this statement please give us your quantitative
>>>>>>>> calculation (for instance for the twin case). Otherwise your
>>>>>>>> repeated arguments using gravity do not help us in any way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are looking for physics which may be affected by human
>>>>>>>> understanding in a bad way, I think that the case of
>>>>>>>> entanglement could be a good example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Comments in Blue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we should make detailed arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I had been arguing that Einstein’s special relativity
>>>>>>>>>>> claims that the clocks of an observer moving at constant
>>>>>>>>>>> velocity with respect to a second observer will slow down.
>>>>>>>>>>> This lead to the twin paradox that is often resolved by
>>>>>>>>>>> citing the need for acceleration andgravity in general
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was intended to
>>>>>>>>>>> show that Einstein as I understood him could not explain
>>>>>>>>>>> the paradox. I did so in order to set the stage for
>>>>>>>>>>> introducing a new theory. You argued my understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not worth arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>> because it is not second guessing Einstein that is
>>>>>>>>>>> important but that but I am trying to present a new way of
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at reality which is based on Platonic thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than Aristotle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle believed the world was essentially the way you
>>>>>>>>>>> see it. This is called naive realism. And science from
>>>>>>>>>>> Newton up to quantum theory is based upon it. If you keep
>>>>>>>>>>> repeating that my ideas are not what physicists believe I
>>>>>>>>>>> fully agree. It is not an argument to say the mainstream
>>>>>>>>>>> of science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something
>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So let me try again
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am suggesting that there is no independent physically
>>>>>>>>>>> objective space time continuum in which the material
>>>>>>>>>>> universe including you, I, and the rest of the particles
>>>>>>>>>>> and fields exist. Instead I believe a better world view is
>>>>>>>>>>> that (following Everett) that all systems are observers
>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore create their own space in which the objects
>>>>>>>>>>> you see in front of your face appear. The situation is
>>>>>>>>>>> shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here we have three parts You, I, and the rest of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin thought experiment in
>>>>>>>>>>> which both twins do exactly the same thing. They
>>>>>>>>>>> accelerate in opposite directions turn around and come
>>>>>>>>>>> back at rest to compare clocks. You does a though
>>>>>>>>>>> experiment that is not symmetric one twin is at rest the
>>>>>>>>>>> other accelerates and comes back to rest and compares clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that each thought experiment is done in the
>>>>>>>>>>> space associated with You,I and U. The speed of light is
>>>>>>>>>>> constant in each of these spaces and so the special
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity , Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s equations
>>>>>>>>>>> apply. I have said many times these are self consistent
>>>>>>>>>>> equations and I have no problem with them under the
>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotilian assumption that each of the three parts
>>>>>>>>>>> believes what they see is the independent space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> . Instead what they see is in each parts space. This space
>>>>>>>>>>> provides the background aether, in it the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic interactions is constant BECAUSE this
>>>>>>>>>>> speed is determined by the Lagrangian energy level largely
>>>>>>>>>>> if not totally imposed by the gravity interactions the
>>>>>>>>>>> physical material from which each part is made
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences. Each part you and your space runs at a
>>>>>>>>>>> different rate because the constant Einstein was looking
>>>>>>>>>>> for should be called the speed of NOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may agree or disagree with this view point. But if you
>>>>>>>>>>> disagree please do not tell me that the mainstream
>>>>>>>>>>> physicists do not take this point of view. I know that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Main stream physicists are not attempting to solve the
>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness problem , and have basically eliminated the
>>>>>>>>>>> mind and all subjective experience from physics. I’m
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fix this rather gross oversight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that,
>>>>>>>>>> what we see, is not the true reality. So far so good.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is not
>>>>>>>>>> a better example than to cite Newton's law of motion in order
>>>>>>>>>> to proof that most probably our human view is questionable.
>>>>>>>>>> For you it seems to be tempting to use relativity because you
>>>>>>>>>> see logical conflicts related to different views of the
>>>>>>>>>> relativistic processes, to show at this example that the
>>>>>>>>>> world cannot be as simple as assumed by the naive realism.
>>>>>>>>>> But relativity and particularly the twin experiment is
>>>>>>>>>> completely in agreement with this naive realism. The
>>>>>>>>>> frequently discussed problems in the twin case are in fact
>>>>>>>>>> problems of persons who did not truly understand relativity.
>>>>>>>>>> And this is the fact for all working versions of relativity,
>>>>>>>>>> where the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are the ones
>>>>>>>>>> which I know.
>>>>>>>>> Yes Newtons law is a good example specifically force is a
>>>>>>>>> theoretical construct and not see able , what we see is
>>>>>>>>> acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so f=ma equates a
>>>>>>>>> theoretical conjecture with an experience but Newton assumes
>>>>>>>>> both are objectively real.
>>>>>>>>> You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can be
>>>>>>>>> explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize
>>>>>>>>> material generates its own space i.e. there is something it
>>>>>>>>> feels like to be material. I believe integrating this feeling
>>>>>>>>> into physics is the next major advance we can make.
>>>>>>>>> Further more one we accept this new premise I think
>>>>>>>>> REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by
>>>>>>>>> assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each piece of
>>>>>>>>> material but dependent on its energy (gravitatinal) state.
>>>>>>>>> I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these
>>>>>>>>> ideas, so thank you.
>>>>>>>> One little comment to this: Every piece of material has its own
>>>>>>>> energy. Also objects which are connected by a gravitational
>>>>>>>> field build a system which hasof courseenergy. But it seems to
>>>>>>>> me that you relate every energy state to gravity. Here I do not
>>>>>>>> follow. If pieces of material are bound to each other and are
>>>>>>>> so building a state of energy, the energy in it is dominated by
>>>>>>>> the strong force and by the electric force. In comparison the
>>>>>>>> gravitational energy is so many orders of magnitude smaller
>>>>>>>> (Where the order of magnitude is > 35) that this is an
>>>>>>>> extremely small side effect, too small to play any role in most
>>>>>>>> applications. Or please present your quantitative calculation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now to respond to your comments in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *WE all agree clocks slow down, but If I include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer then I get an equation for the slow down that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrees with eperimetn but disagrees with Einstein in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher order, so it should be testable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>> below. *
>>>>>>>>>>> *Ok i'm happy to have your comments*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lets look at this thing Historically*:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality consisted of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> external objective universe independent of subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> living beings. Electricity and Magnetism had largely been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explored through empirical experiments which lead to basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawssummarized by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε_0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and permeability μ_0 of free space. URL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These equationsare valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are identical in form when expressed in a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen a substitution of the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations that will then give the same form only using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing has been done which is much more exciting. W.G.V.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosser has shown that the complete theory of Maxwell can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> deduced from two things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation. It is interesting because it shows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that electromagnetism is a consequence of special
>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
>>>>>>>>>>>> Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum Press).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Particularly magnetism is not a separate force but only a
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain perspective of the electrical force.
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
>>>>>>>>>>> magnetics, but all within the self consistent Aristotelian
>>>>>>>>>>> point of view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the wave
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equation and Maxwell’s field concept required an aether as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a medium for them to propagate. It was postulated that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space was filled with such a medium and that the earth was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving through it. Therefore it should be detectable with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Michelson –Morely experiment. But The Null result showed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the view of present physics aether is nothing more than
>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody believes these days
>>>>>>>>>>>> that aether is some kind of material. And also Maxwell's
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory does not need it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> just an example physics does not need mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>> An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment which does however not mean that no aether
>>>>>>>>>>>> existed. The only result is that it cannot be detected.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This latter conclusion was also accepted by Einstein.*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer
>>>>>>>>>>> doing the experiment , see my drawing above.
>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be detected because we know from other observations
>>>>>>>>>> and facts that objects contract at motion - in the original
>>>>>>>>>> version of Heaviside, this happens when electric fields move
>>>>>>>>>> in relation to an aether. So the interferometer in the MM
>>>>>>>>>> experiment is unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the
>>>>>>>>>> interferometer have changed their lengths.
>>>>>>>>> Yes I understand and I believe like you this is a better
>>>>>>>>> explanation than Einsteins but it still leaves the aether as a
>>>>>>>>> property of an independent space that exist whether we live or
>>>>>>>>> die and and assume we are objects in that space it also
>>>>>>>>> identifies that space with what is in front of our nose
>>>>>>>>> . I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we see
>>>>>>>>> ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not equal to
>>>>>>>>> the universal space.
>>>>>>>> When can we expect to get this from you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Einstein’s Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformations assuming the speed of light is constant,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization protocol of clocks, and rods, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all inertial frames,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the null result of Michelson-Morely experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein went on to eliminate any absolute space and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead proposed that all frames and observers riding in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them are equivalent and each such observer would measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another observers clocks slowing down when moving with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant relative velocity. This interpretation lead to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Twin Paradox. Since each observer according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein, being in his own frame would according to his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory claim the other observer’s clocks would slow down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However both cannot be right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No! This can be right as I have explained several times now.
>>>>>>>>>>> yes well the why are there so many publications that use
>>>>>>>>>>> general relativity, gravity and the equivalence principle as
>>>>>>>>>>> the the way to explain the twin paradox.Ref: The clock
>>>>>>>>>>> paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational field URL
>>>>>>>>>>> *https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025*
>>>>>>>>>>> As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about
>>>>>>>>>>> what Einstein really meant.
>>>>>>>>>> I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want to
>>>>>>>>>> show that the twin case can also be handled as a process
>>>>>>>>>> related to gravity. So they define the travel of the
>>>>>>>>>> travelling twin so that he is permanently accelerated until
>>>>>>>>>> he reaches the turn around point and then accelerated back to
>>>>>>>>>> the starting point, where the twin at rest resides. Then
>>>>>>>>>> they calculate the slow down of time as a consequence of the
>>>>>>>>>> accelerations which they relate to an fictive gravitational
>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by several
>>>>>>>>>> reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors to replace
>>>>>>>>>> completely the slow down of time by the slow down by gravity
>>>>>>>>>> / acceleration. They do not set up an experiment where one
>>>>>>>>>> clock is slowed down by the motion and the other twin slowed
>>>>>>>>>> down by acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention
>>>>>>>>>> according to my understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow
>>>>>>>>>> down. But that does not happen. Any text book about SRT says
>>>>>>>>>> that acceleration does not cause a slow down of time /
>>>>>>>>>> clocks. And there are clear experiments proofing exactly
>>>>>>>>>> this. For instance the muon storage ring at CERN showed that
>>>>>>>>>> the lifetime of muons was extended by their high speed but in
>>>>>>>>>> no way by the extreme acceleration in the ring.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know of
>>>>>>>>>> any serious physicist who tries to explain the twin case by
>>>>>>>>>> gravity. I have given you by the way some strong arguments
>>>>>>>>>> that such an explanation is not possible. - And
>>>>>>>>>> independently, do you have other sources?
>>>>>>>>> You may not like the details of this paper but it is relevant
>>>>>>>>> because it is only one of a long list of papers that use
>>>>>>>>> gravity and acceleration to to explain the twin paradox. I am
>>>>>>>>> not claiming they are correct only that a large community
>>>>>>>>> believes this is the way to explain the twin paradox. If you
>>>>>>>>> look at the Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say
>>>>>>>>> explanations fall into two categories
>>>>>>>>> Just because you disagree with one of these categories does
>>>>>>>>> not mean a community supporting the gravity explanation view
>>>>>>>>> point does not exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book that has
>>>>>>>>> Einstein and other notables explanation and will see what they
>>>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>> Where is, please, that long list? Please present it here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many orders
>>>>>>>> of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to play any role
>>>>>>>> here. And this can be proven by quite simple calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein found an answer to this paradox in his invention
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of general relativity where clocks speed up when in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher gravity field i.e one that feels less strong like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up on top of a mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary twin sees the moving twin at velocity “v” and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks the moving twin’s clock slows down. The moving twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not move relative to his clock but must accelerateto
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a round trip (using the equivalence principle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculated the being equivalent to a gravitational force).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feeling the acceleration as gravity and knowing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity slows her clocks she would also calculate her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks would slow down. The paradox is resolved because in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one case the explanation is velocity the other it is gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity has
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the twin situation, and so gravity or
>>>>>>>>>>>> any equivalent to gravity has nothing to do with it. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> twin situation is not a paradox but is clearly free of
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation, is properly applied.
>>>>>>>>>>> You may be right but again most papers explain it using gravity
>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never
>>>>>>>>>> heard about this and I am caring about this twin experiment
>>>>>>>>>> since long time.
>>>>>>>>> see last comment. It is certainly how I was taught but I have
>>>>>>>>> notr looked up papers on the subject for many years, will try
>>>>>>>>> to find some
>>>>>>>>> but since I'm trying to propose a completely different
>>>>>>>>> approach I do not think which of two explanations is more
>>>>>>>>> right is a fruitful argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lorentz Approach:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being electromagnetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structures slow down and lengths in the direction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion contract in the absolute aether of space according
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to his transformation and therefore the aether could not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected. In other words Lorentz maintained the belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an absolute aether filled space, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic objects relative to that space slow down
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and contract. Gravity and acceleration had nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer subject to acceleration would know that he is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer in the same inertial frame as before and therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate that his clocks must be slowing down, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he has no way of measuring such a slow down because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the clocks in his reference frame. Therefore does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider gravity but only the knowledge that due to his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration he must be moving as well and knowing his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are slowed by motion he is not surprised that his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock has slowed down when he gets back to the stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer and therefore no paradox exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two different reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Lorentz’s case the absolute fixed frame remains which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the completely symmetric twin paradox experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> described above implies that both observers have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate their own clock rates from the same initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start frame and therefore both calculate the same slow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. This introduces a disembodied 3d person observer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is reminiscent of a god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also any third person who moves with some constant speed
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere can make this calculation and has the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> result. No specific frame like the god-like one is needed.
>>>>>>>>>>> The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's
>>>>>>>>>>> space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.
>>>>>>>>>> Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in the
>>>>>>>>>> same way as much or as little depending on the Mind as
>>>>>>>>>> Newton's law of motion. So to make things better
>>>>>>>>>> understandable please explain your position by the use of
>>>>>>>>>> either Newton's law or something comparable. Relativity is
>>>>>>>>>> not appropriate as it allows for too much speculation which
>>>>>>>>>> does not really help.
>>>>>>>>> you are right, but eventually I hope to show the whole
>>>>>>>>> business is a confusion introduced by our habit of displaying
>>>>>>>>> time in a space axis which introduces artifacts. I hpe you
>>>>>>>>> will critique my writeup when it is finished./
>>>>>>>> Which confusion do you mean? The confusion about this "twin
>>>>>>>> paradox" is solely caused by persons who do not understand the
>>>>>>>> underlying physics. So, this does not require any action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And formally the simple statement is not correct that
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving clocks slow down. If we follow Einstein, also the
>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization of the clocks in different frames and
>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions is essential. If this synchronization
>>>>>>>>>>>> is omitted (as in most arguments of this discussion up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> now) we will have conflicting results.
>>>>>>>>>>> That may be true, but your initial argument was that the
>>>>>>>>>>> calculations by the moving twin was to be done in the
>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame before any acceleration
>>>>>>>>>>> All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in which
>>>>>>>>>>> the theory was defined and it is the mind of the observer.
>>>>>>>>>> I have referred the calculation to the original frame of the
>>>>>>>>>> one moving twin in order to be close to your experiment and
>>>>>>>>>> your description. Any other frame can be used as well.
>>>>>>>>> Have you thought that the consequence of having an observer
>>>>>>>>> who feels a force like gravity which according to the
>>>>>>>>> equivalence principle and any ones experience in a centrifuge
>>>>>>>>> is indistinguishable from gravity, is such a person needs to
>>>>>>>>> transfer to the initial start frame that would mean we would
>>>>>>>>> all be moving at the speed of light and need to transfer back
>>>>>>>>> to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame
>>>>>>>>> perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I still
>>>>>>>>> get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the whole
>>>>>>>>> basis does not make common experience sense, which is what I
>>>>>>>>> want to base our physics on. We have gotten our heads into too
>>>>>>>>> much math.
>>>>>>>> I do not really understand what you mean here. - Your are
>>>>>>>> right that we should never forget that mathematics is a tool
>>>>>>>> and not an understanding of the world. But regarding your
>>>>>>>> heavily discussed example of relativity, it is fundamentally
>>>>>>>> understandable without a lot of mathematics. At least the
>>>>>>>> version of Hendrik Lorentz. That one is accessible to
>>>>>>>> imagination without much mathematics and without logical
>>>>>>>> conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Einstein’s case both observers would see the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at a relative velocity and calculate their clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run slower than their own when they calculate their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience they would also calculate their own clocks to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> run slow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein one has to take into account the synchronization
>>>>>>>>>>>> state of the clocks. Clocks at different positions cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> be compared in a simple view. If someone wants to compare
>>>>>>>>>>>> them he has e.g. to carry a "transport" clock from one
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock to the other one. And the "transport" clock will also
>>>>>>>>>>>> run differently when carried. This - again - is the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> of synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue, its
>>>>>>>>>>> whether the world view is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a
>>>>>>>>>> correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you tell
>>>>>>>>>> us that results are logically conflicting. No, they are not.
>>>>>>>>>> The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly
>>>>>>>>>> covered by the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>> That may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy
>>>>>>>>> conference has a nice explanation of how Maxwells Equations
>>>>>>>>> are invariant under Galilean transforms "if you do it the
>>>>>>>>> right way" check out
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under
>>>>>>>>> You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the right way
>>>>>>>> Perhaps later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But because they know the other twin is also accelerating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these effects cancel and all that is left is the velocity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slow down. In other words the Einstein explanation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one twin explains the slow down as a velocity effect and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other as a gravity effect so both come to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both the gravity effect and the velocity effect from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disembodied 3d person observer which is reminiscent of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> god like .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No twin would explain any slow down in this process as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is none,
>>>>>>>>>>>> neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I know. Even if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the equivalence between gravity and acceleration would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid (which it is not) there are two problems. Even if the
>>>>>>>>>>>> time would stand still during the whole process of backward
>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this would not at
>>>>>>>>>>>> all explain the time difference experienced by the twins.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And on the other hand the gravitational field would have,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to have the desired effect here, to be greater by
>>>>>>>>>>>> a factor of at least 20 orders of magnitude (so >> 10^20 )
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gravity field around the sun etc to achieve the time
>>>>>>>>>>>> shift needed. So this approach has no argument at all.
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity, the
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence principle is , and the slow down of clocks and
>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of light in a lower ( closer to a mass) field is
>>>>>>>>>>> the heart of general relativity. why do you keep insisting
>>>>>>>>>>> it is not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty potential and
>>>>>>>>>>> orbit speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you
>>>>>>>>>>> yoursel made a calculation that the bendng of light around
>>>>>>>>>>> the sun is due to a gravity acing like a refractive media.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why tis constant denial.
>>>>>>>>>> The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as gravity
>>>>>>>>>> causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is given by
>>>>>>>>>> theory and by experiment.
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying clocks do not run faster at higher altitude? I
>>>>>>>>> was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude
>>>>>>>>> it would not be as accurate if it did not.
>>>>>>>> Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity, not acceleration.
>>>>>>>> And even gravity has a small influence. The gravitational field
>>>>>>>> on the surface of the sun slows down clocks by the small
>>>>>>>> portion of 10^-5 . Please compare this with the factors of slow
>>>>>>>> down which are normally assumed in the examples for the twin
>>>>>>>> travel. --> Absolutely not usable, even if equivalence would
>>>>>>>> be working.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there
>>>>>>>>>> is no gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of
>>>>>>>>>> it into the vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But
>>>>>>>>>> then the question whether it is a paradox or not is not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by this change. And particularly gravity is not a
>>>>>>>>>> solution as it treats all participants in the same way And
>>>>>>>>>> anyhow there is no solution needed as it is in fact not a
>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because both require a disembodied 3d person observer who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is observing that independent Aristotilian objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe that must exist whether we look at it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *No, this 3rd person is definitely****not required*. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole situation can be completely evaluated from the view
>>>>>>>>>>>> of one of the twins or of the other twin or from the view
>>>>>>>>>>>> of /any other observer /in the world who is in a defined
>>>>>>>>>>>> frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written this in my last mail, and if you object here
>>>>>>>>>>>> you should give clear arguments, not mere repetitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>> special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d
>>>>>>>>>>> person, he clear argument is that he clock slow down is also
>>>>>>>>>>> derivable form the invariance of action required to execute
>>>>>>>>>>> a clock tick of identical clocks in any observers material
>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity was derived as the relation of two frames
>>>>>>>>>> of linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz transformation
>>>>>>>>>> it always presents the relation between two frames, normally
>>>>>>>>>> called S and S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these
>>>>>>>>>> formulas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now Baer comes along and says the entire Aristotelian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach is wrong and the Platonic view must be taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein is right in claiming there is no independent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves space however his derivation of Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformations was conducted under the assumption that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his own imagination provided the 3d person observer god
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like observer but he failed to recognize the significance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this fact. And therefore had to invent additional and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect assumptions that lead to false equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the observer is properly taken into account each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer generates his own observational display in which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he creates the appearance of clocks. Those appearance are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary relative to the observer’s supplied background
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space or they might be moving. But in either case some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> external stimulation has caused the two appearances. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two copies of the same external clock mechanism are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved and in both cases the clock ticks require a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain amount of action to complete a cycle of activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is called a second i.e. the moving of the hand from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> line 1 to line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to complete the event between clock ticks is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two clocks do not slow down because they appear to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving relative to each other their rates are determined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their complete Lagrangian Energy L = T-V calculated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the fixed mass underlying each observer’s universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The potential gravitational energy of a mass inside the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass shell is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 1)V= -mc^2 = -m∙M_u ∙G/R_u .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here M_u and R_u are the mass and radius of the mass shell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us is in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian energy is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> L= m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L=
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v^2 only in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity here. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct equation has to be used which is T = m_0 c^2 *(
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )-1)
>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> You /make /it wrong in the way that you use equations (here
>>>>>>>>>> for kinetic energy) which are strictly restricted to
>>>>>>>>>> non-relativistic situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing the two clock rates and *assuming the Action is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 2)(m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt = A = _(½∙m∙v^2 +m∙c^2 ) ∙ Δt’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dividing through by m∙c^2 gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 3)Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v^2 /c^2 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which to first order approximation is equal to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eq. 4)Δt = Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First order approximation is not usable as we are
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing relativity here.
>>>>>>>>>>> we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable
>>>>>>>>>>> from action invariance and sped of light dependence on
>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential
>>>>>>>>>> This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has
>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with a gravitational potential. In special
>>>>>>>>>> relativity the slow down of clocks is formally necessary to
>>>>>>>>>> "explain" the constancy of c in any frame. In general
>>>>>>>>>> relativity it was necessary to explain that the speed of
>>>>>>>>>> light is also constant in a gravitational field. So, Einstein
>>>>>>>>>> meant the /independence /of c from a gravitational field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If one looks at it from a position outside the field or with
>>>>>>>>>> the understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in any case
>>>>>>>>>> a measurement result, not true physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the second order terms are on the order of v^4 /c^4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Einstein’s theory has not been tested to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> second term accuracy. In both theories the moving clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interval is smaller when the clock moves with constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity in the space of an observer at rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, you are using an approximation here which is a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>> different from Einstein's solution. And then you say that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's solution is an approximation. Then you ask that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the approximation in Einstein's solution should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally checked. No, the approximation is in your
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution as you write it yourself earlier. -
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. einstein's equation is different from the simple
>>>>>>>>>>> lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order which is all
>>>>>>>>>>> that to my knowledge has been verified.
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of
>>>>>>>>>> this equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His goal
>>>>>>>>>> was to keep c constant in any frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock has
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer time periods and so indicates a smaller time for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> given process. And if you follow Einstein the equation Δt =
>>>>>>>>>>>> Δt’/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 is incomplete. It ignores the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question of synchronization which is essential for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations about dilation. I repeat the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 *(t-vx/c^2 ) .
>>>>>>>>>>>> Without this dependency on the position the case ends up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with logical conflicts. Just those conflicts which you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly mentioned here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> has been tested with v very close to c. Here in Hamburg at
>>>>>>>>>>>> DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v^4 /c^4 is 0.9996 as a term
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be added to 0.9999 . That is clearly measurable and
>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that this order of v^4 /c^4 does not exist. You have
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced it here without any argument and any need.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only important point. Please provide the
>>>>>>>>>>> Reference for this experiment
>>>>>>>>>> Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also
>>>>>>>>>> those which have been performed here including my own
>>>>>>>>>> experiment, have used the true Einstein relation with
>>>>>>>>>> consistent results for energy and momentum. An assumed term
>>>>>>>>>> of v^4 /c^4 would have caused results which violate
>>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and of momentum. So, any experiment
>>>>>>>>>> performed here during many decades is a proof that the
>>>>>>>>>> equation of Einstein is correct at this point.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very
>>>>>>>>>>> simple almost classical expression based upon action
>>>>>>>>>>> invariance is adequate.
>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>> NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they are in a deeper
>>>>>>>>> gravity well and my calculations and theory predicts this fact
>>>>>>>>> to the same accuracy that has been tested. You say Einsteins
>>>>>>>>> formula has been tested to the fourth order. This would make
>>>>>>>>> my theory wrong. Please give me a reference so I can look at
>>>>>>>>> the assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither length
>>>>>>>>> contraction or time dilation beyond the approximate solutions
>>>>>>>>> to Einsteins equations have been tested.
>>>>>>>> To show you what you want I would have to present here the
>>>>>>>> computer programs which we have used to calculate e.g. the
>>>>>>>> kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have them any more 40
>>>>>>>> years after the experiment.) And as I wrote, there was no
>>>>>>>> experiment evaluated here at DESY over 40 years and as well no
>>>>>>>> experiment at CERN and as well no experiment at the Standford
>>>>>>>> accelerator without using Einstein's Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>> None of all these experiments would have had results if
>>>>>>>> Einstein would be wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any
>>>>>>>> evaluation would have shown a violation of the conservation of
>>>>>>>> energy and the conservation of momentum. That means one would
>>>>>>>> have received chaotic results for every measurement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz is right that there is an aether and Einstein is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right that there is no absolute frame and everything is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative. But Baer resolve both these “rights” by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying the aether as the personal background memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space of each observer who feels he is living in his own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. We see and experience our own individual world
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of objects and incorrectly feel what we are looking at is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an independent external universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen from
>>>>>>>>>>>> an epistemological position. Only the measurement results
>>>>>>>>>>>> are equal. Beyond that I do not see any need to resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are the observers here? The observers in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> different frames are in fact the measurement tools like
>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks and rulers. The only human-related problem is that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> human may read the indication of a clock in a wrong way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The clock itself is in this view independent of observer
>>>>>>>>>>>> related facts.
>>>>>>>>>>> You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried to
>>>>>>>>>>> find a solution within the Aristotelian framework
>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the size
>>>>>>>>>>> of electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the same as
>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic waves
>>>>>>>>>>> so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not show
>>>>>>>>>>> an effect. What Lorentz did not understand is that both the
>>>>>>>>>>> yard stick and the EM wave are appearances in an observers
>>>>>>>>>>> space and runs at an observers speed of NOW. The observer
>>>>>>>>>>> must be included in physics if we are to make progress.
>>>>>>>>>> It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But
>>>>>>>>>> let's start then with something like Newton's law of motion
>>>>>>>>>> which is in that case also affected. Relativity is bad for
>>>>>>>>>> this as it is mathematically more complicated without
>>>>>>>>>> providing additional philosophical insights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...................................
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170626/4c5c43f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mhgekmhoajhkmlah.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170626/4c5c43f7/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list