[General] STR twin Paradox

[Albrecht Giese]

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>