[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Jun 26 23:12:36 PDT 2017
I think i have clearly responded to all your points previously but there
is something you do not grasp about my approach
however the list you provide is good since perhaps I was answering
parts you did not read
so see below.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/26/2017 6:56 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I am not using T = 1/2 m*v^2 incorrectly in classic theory. I'm
suggesting Einsteins theory is wrong. I do not mean it is inconsistent
with its postulates but the postulates do not correctly represent
reality. I suggest instead the the classic Lagrangian energy L= T-V is
adequate to calculate the action if the potential energy V in inter
galactic space is mc_u ^2 For an amount of time dS = L*dt , and then if
an event such as a running clock is viewed from two different coordinate
frames and the action calculated in those frames is invariant then
L*dt = L'*dt'
so that the appearant rate of clocks differ for the two observers. And
when calculating this out my theory, which is not only my theory, is
consistent with experimental evidence.
I do not understand why you keep saying my use of T = 1/2 m*v^2 is
incorrect? I'm using it correctly in my theory. If you insist Einstein's
SRT is correct a-priory then of course any alternative is wrong. But
should not experimental evidence, simplicity, and applicability to
larger problems be the judge of that?
> *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?
>
Again I am not using the wrong equation in my theory.
>
> *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?
>
Yes yes yes I'm not using Einsteins equation for kinetic energy. How
many times do I have to agree with you before you stop disagreeing with
my agreement?
A long time ago you said that cyclotron experiments proved time dilation
as Einstein described in SRT was proven to better than v^4 /c^4 and I've
asked you for references v^4 /c^4 because I have not seen evidence for
this claim nor have I seen evidence for the space contraction claim, but
i have seen good paper's that dispute both these claims.
>
> *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?
>
How can you say it is senseless? multiply both sides by -m you get the
well known solution of the Schwarzschild energy of a particle inside the
ring of distant masses when the masses reach the size that makes a black
hole boundary.
>
> After we have clarified these discrepancies about SRT we may talk
> about the observer or other philosophical aspects, *but not earlier*.
>
>
Fine
but are we not living inside a black hole? Is the energy required to
reach escape velocity from our black hole not equal to mc_u ^2 twice
the classic kinetic energy?
I know you agree the speed of light depends upon the gravitational
potential, which from a local mass is MG/R. For a local mass like the
sun the speed of light is
c^2 = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R = c_u ^2 (1+ M*G/(R*c_u ^2 )
If light speed depends upon the gravitational potential if the sun
to bend light, why would it not depend upon the gravitational potential
of the surrounding star mass we are living in?
maxwell's equations are correct, the Lorentz transformations are
correct, but the interpretation Einstein gave these equations is what I
disagree with. And the resulting almost total revision of classic
mechanics is what I disagree with.
can we get on with trying to find a simpler connection between
electricity and gravitation one that has gravitation change the
permiability and susceptibility of the aether perhaps?
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170626/d05572ad/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/d05572ad/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list