[General] STR
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon May 29 19:40:31 PDT 2017
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 5/28/2017 2:05 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> following my attempts to answer.
>
>
> Am 25.05.2017 um 19:12 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then please
>> check if it gets to you on both
>>
>> 1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see exactly where
>> the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the experiment from my
>> observer inclusive perspective. The problem is that so many "truths"
>> are simply consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always
>> two operations separating reality from our observational experience
>> and since science is operating under the assumption that quantum
>> reality (i.e. anything that cannot be seen directly such as atomic
>> structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that the
>> two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality
>> assumptions self consistent.
>>
> Here it was about the question whether the photon is in deed a
> particle. In the experiment we have converted electrons into photons
> as a spectrum with a cut-off at its high end, and then reconverted
> these photons into an electron-positron pair which can be easily
> measured. And the measurement reproduced the spectrum with its
> specific cut-off at its high end. Where do you see questions of
> quantum reality in this process?
As I mentioned in my last E-mail your description above is of a quantum
reality, i.e. what you believe is real. At the vonNeuman cut this
reality touches your observables. It is these observables you explain
with a theory which in specific application cases, such as your thesis
becomes a model, which you project into the workings of your equipment.
This is and always has been a mental projection. That photons are
particles is a mental projection that satisfies an explanation of
certain observable facts. Like my distant bilin miles away star light.
However I believe thisa projection has outlived its usefulness and we
should look for alternatives - the one I suggested at the San diego
conference is that EM waves produce an energy threshold field but
physical disturbances due to gravito-inertial fluctuations produce
fluctuations in detector material that then meet or not the threshold at
what appear to be random absorption events.
>>
>> 2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current theory
>> because if force and charge are treated as separate degrees of
>> freedom and are in fact pulled apart by external gravito-electric
>> forces then in order to keep them at the same point the current
>> theory would implicitly require an infinite force. relaxing this
>> requirement then allows current theory to be an approximation to one
>> that does not require such an infinite force. Much like classical
>> physics is an approximation of quantum physics in the limit h->0.
>> Quantum theory is an approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory
>> when the force between mass and charge does NOT approach infinity.
>>
> Is current theory a specific theory?
> We have particles without electric charge like a neutron or a
> neutrino. We do not have particles without mass, however with little
> mass like the electron and (again) the neutrino. Between a neutron and
> an electron there is no infinite force, between an electron and a
> neutrino almost zero force. So where do you see in practice an
> infinite force or at least an approximation to an infinite force? I
> cannot see any connection between the phenomenon mass and the
> phenomenon electric charge.
Yes it is the copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.
what holds charge and mass together?
When an electric force pulls an electron in one direction and a
gravitational force pulls it in the other does the electron not distort
in shape so that charge and mass centers are pulled apart? and if we
assume both charge and mass ar always located at the same point does
this not require an infinite force?
I'm not syaing there is an infinite force I'm saying the physical
assumptions of point particles implies an infinite force and therefore
there cannot be point particles - I know you agree with this.
>>
>> 3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin Paradox
>> gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is wikipedia
>>
>> " Starting with Paul Langevin
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin> in 1911, there have
>> been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be
>> grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of
>> simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the
>> acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main
>> reason...".^[5]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5>
>> Max von Laue <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue> argued in
>> 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial
>> frames <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames>, one on the
>> way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason
>> for the aging difference, not the acceleration /per se/.^[6]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6> Explanations
>> put forth by Albert Einstein
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> and Max Born
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born> invoked gravitational time
>> dilation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation>
>> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.^[7]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7>"
>>
> ^There have been a lot of discussions in the beginning of SRT and
> there were a lot of errors about it. Should we reopen the whole
> history of errors and discussions here?
> What you mention about Paul Langevin is quite exactly what our present
> understanding is. And similarly the explanation of Max von Laue. On
> the other hand acceleration cannot be an explanation for the twin
> situation (which is indeed not a paradox). Assume the two twins and
> one twin moves off at speed 0,87c . That means that if he travels off
> and comes back after 20 years he will be aged - compared to his twin
> at home, only by 10 years. Now assume that he has travelled - in the
> view of his twin at home - 10 years and then he accelerated to return
> to home, and assume that he had a soft acceleration which took a week,
> and then assume that during the acceleration the time in his frame
> stood still (which is extreme and physically senseless) then there
> after his return his ageing will have been 1 week less. But thhe
> reduction of ageing is in fact, in this example, 10 years. So it is
> very clear that acceleration, even if it would have an influence in
> SRT, would in no way be able to explain the ageing of the travelling
> twin.
>
> So we should really forget acceleration in this case. And even more we
> should forget gravitation. (And btw. I did not find any statement of
> Einstein in this sense).
>>
>> ^i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly select an
>> experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due to velocity
>> with the clock speed up due to acceleration. The equivalence
>> principle equates acceleration and gravity in Einsteins theory. My
>> thought experiment simply has two twins in inter stellar space
>> accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions coming back to
>> rest at the meeting point at the origin. If everything is symmetric
>> one explanation is that velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect
>> exists at all. But by allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the
>> relative velocity low down will always dominate and the twin paradox
>> is present. Each twin calculates the other's clocks must slow down
>> according to SRT and GRT, so when theories reach a logical
>> inconsistency they must be improved.
>>
> So. let's look at this case where both twins travel to different
> directions in a symmetric way. Twin 1 moves to the left and twin 2
> moves to the right. Seen from an observer in the middle they move with
> speed v_1 . After a well defined time they turn and move back to their
> starting point. - This is symmetric and simple.
Yes the observer in the middle would say both twins will have aged
because both in the outgoing and incoming drft period they are moving
with a same velocity squared
>
> Now we take the view of twin 1. And we understand his initial frame as
> the frame at rest. For him the other twin moves with respect to this
> frame. Then twin 2 moves to the right with
> speed v_2 which is the relativistic sum: v_2 = (v_1 plus v_1 ).
> Now when the time has come to return, both change their motion so that
> they move back towards their starting point as seen by the observer in
> the middle at rest. That means for the twin 1 that he has now to move
> with speed v_2 to the right, for twin 2 it means that he stays at
> speed 0, both related to the original frame of twin 1. ^
^No twin one remaind in his own frame and believes he is not moving all
he has felt is a bit of gravity during the turn around period. so during
the second period both twins still believe the other is moving relative
to them at the relativistic sum: v_2 = (v_1 plus v_1 ).
^each carries his own frame according to SRT
> ^
> Now, what about the time progress of both twins? Twin 1 moves in the
> first period with speed 0, in the second with speed v_2 .
> Twin 2 moves in the first period with speed v_2 and in the second
> period with speed 0.
> If summed up, both will have at the end experienced the same delay of
> time. And when they meet, they will have aged less compared to a state
> without motion, but they will have aged in exactly the same way.
>
> So now: where is a paradox? There is none. It is at the end the same
> symmetry as if viewed from the observer in the middle.
^The paradox is that both twins believe they are stationary and the
other twin as well as the third observer is always moving except for the
acceleration periods, which can be made small relative to the drift periods
> ^
>>
>> ^What I believe is happening is that the general relativity
>> expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now
>> since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru = the gravitational potential energy of a
>> mass inside the mass shell of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are
>> living inside the a black hole of radius Ru according to the
>> Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes;
>>
>> m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) - 1/2*m*v*v ] =>
>> 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V
>>
> Why gravity here? There is no reason for it.
yes this is the schwarzschild solution for a moving particle in a single
central force field. and the GR correction to SR. ( Xg is the
gravitational potential )
>>
>> In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates half the
>> change of energy transfer from electric to gravitational energy. But
>> it observes the change in electromagentic energy as a slow down in
>> clock rate. As I have often said on this issue the equations are
>> correct it is the world view that is wrong. The error started with
>> Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused a Theoretical force with
>> an Observational experience. It happened because the observer was
>> taken out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the world in
>> front of your nose) were taken to be reality instead of the mental
>> experiences they are. Quantum theory is the beginning of correcting
>> this error but it will take a while to find the right interpretation.
>> We must add the mind back into physics.
>>
> I don't understand: Is this still about the twins? The so called twin
> paradox has nothing to do with energy or with fields and even less
> with quantum mechanics. Or do you mean something different here? Then
> please explain. I else do not understand what your arguments are about.
It is about SRT being wrong because each observer predicts any other
observer moving with v^2 (independent of sign) will have slowing clocks
and the GR being overly complex and incomplete. Both theories start with
the assumption that the speed of light is constant and pile complexity
upon complexity on top of this initially bad assumption.
The speed of light is NOT constant as Shapiro's experiment measured and
as you yourself have shown me when you do your refraction calculation on
light bending around the sun.
My calculation shows that the speed f light depends upon the Lagrangian
energy field and therefore clocks slow down in a valley and speed up on
a mountain top. It is a simple gravity effect on electromagnetic
material. space warp is a complicated and misleading way of explaining
something simple.
>> best wishes
>>
>> Wolf
>>
> Best wishes back
> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during
>>>> interaction with matter and then we project the quantized material
>>>> state changes back into the waves as a mathematical convenience
>>>>
>>> We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to my
>>> PhD experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of a well
>>> defined energy to convert them into photons. The photons were after
>>> a flight of several meters in the air detected by pair building in a
>>> thin layer of copper. The energy of the pair was measured, and the
>>> measurement showed the energy of the original electron. So, how can
>>> we understand this result if it is not the photon which carries
>>> exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?
>>>>
>>>> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment; I'm
>>>> introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in physical
>>>> theory. Treated individually one can reject them because anything
>>>> new can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have
>>>> patience.
>>>>
>>>> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means what
>>>> it says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of
>>>> particles. Particles have been assumed to be points and so mass and
>>>> charge are located at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and
>>>> charge should be given separate degrees of freedom and the force
>>>> between them is not infinite.
>>>>
>>> The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot be a
>>> force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is obvious (in
>>> the mind of physicists) that a charge can only interact with a
>>> charge of the same type. So the electrical charge and the charge of
>>> the strong force will by common understanding not react in any way.
>>> And if now mass is understood as some type of a charge (which is,
>>> however, not the understanding of present physics) then there should
>>> not be any force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
>>>
>>> If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding, then
>>> charges may influence the dynamical process which we call "inertia".
>>> But that is in that case a complicated logical connection.
>>>>
>>>> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
>>>> force?" The rest of your comments are simply addressing an
>>>> incomplete presentation of my theory. However I consider dynamics
>>>> or simply change to be fundamental. Reality is action in a form.
>>>> Action is the material of change. Form is the state in which it is
>>>> manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate of action
>>>> happening, force is the experience of all finite particles in a non
>>>> homogeneous action flow who all want to experience more action. I
>>>> think it is best to defer this discussion to either metaphysics or
>>>> when I have complete presentation ready.
>>>>
>>> Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow
>>> this argument that action is something which the human brain needs
>>> to structure the world so that it fits into our brains. Particles
>>> which react to each other do not have this need. They react to a
>>> force, and the force and also the reaction to it can be
>>> infinitesimal. An action is (by my understanding) something which
>>> happens or does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal single steps
>>> which each can be understood as an action. So, this is my argument
>>> that action is a typical case of "human understanding".
>>>>
>>>> SRT:
>>>>
>>>> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>> gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen the
>>>> twin paradox explained by including gravity in text books. clocks
>>>> slow down because of velocity but speed up because of acceleration
>>>> the two cancel when two twins are accelerated with constant
>>>> acceleration for the first quarter of the trip, the ship turned
>>>> around decelerated for the second quarter and continued to be
>>>> accelerated toward the start point, during the third quarter and
>>>> then rocket reverses for the third quarter and come to rest rest at
>>>> the origin where the second twin has been waiting at rest. Now both
>>>> twins will agree on the amount of time passing. The paradox is said
>>>> to be resolved because Einstein's Srt is expanded to GRT and
>>>> gravity is introduced.
>>>>
>>> Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects the
>>> twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea; and the
>>> discussion about ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
>>> perform this twin paradox in an environment where no gravitational
>>> sources are around, and it would work as usually described.
>>>
>>> According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The degree of
>>> slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to nothing else.
>>> Acceleration or deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
>>> clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.
>>>
>>> Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third quarter
>>> and come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been
>>> waiting at rest." Now I am confused. I have understood that both
>>> twins move and change their motion at exactly the same times. How
>>> can it then happen that on twin is at rest and expects the other one?
>>>>
>>>> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The
>>>> paradox is that both twins see the other moving at a constant
>>>> velocity for an arbitrarily long period of time
>>>>
>>> why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time
>>> until the other twin changes his speed.
>>>>
>>>> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin has
>>>> aged relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making the
>>>> acceleration period small and symmetric the coast period large i
>>>> eliminate the gravity explanation but retain an arbitrarily long
>>>> constant velocity. SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED
>>>> IN GRT.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the
>>> following case which is sometimes discussed. There are two
>>> observers, A and B, and both have clocks with them. We assume that
>>> both observers move with respect to each other. Then observer A will
>>> find that the clock of observer B runs more slowly. But as both
>>> observers are physically equivalent also observer B will find that
>>> the clock of observer A runs more slowly.
>>>
>>> This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But it
>>> is not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how clock
>>> speeds (or the time in different frames) are compared. It is not as
>>> simple as it looks like.
>>>
>>> If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of
>>> observer B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will call
>>> clock 1 and clock 2 (and which he has of course synchronized) along
>>> the path of observer B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B
>>> with his clock 1 and then with clock 2 in the moment when the
>>> observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that the clock of
>>> observer B have run more slowly.
>>>
>>> But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course
>>> compare his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes
>>> these clocks. But now a difference: Both clocks of observer A have
>>> been synchronized in the frame of A. But in the frame of B they will
>>> not be synchronized (a fundamental fact in SRT). From the view of
>>> observer B the clock 1 of observer A will be retarded with respect
>>> to the clock 2. So, the observer B can reproduce the observation of
>>> observer A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed
>>> down. But observer B will use a different method to determine the
>>> speed of the clocks of observer A. Observe B will also position two
>>> clocks along the path which observer A follows in frame B and he
>>> will synchronize these clocks in /*his*/ frame B. And with his
>>> clocks he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his
>>> own ones.
>>>
>>> This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related
>>> part of the Lorentz transformation:
>>>
>>> t = gamma*(t'-vx/c^2 ) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )).
>>> Regarding the example above v is the speed between the frames of A
>>> and of B.
>>>
>>> Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when I
>>> talked about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not clear,
>>> please ask further questions I and shall go into more details.
>>>>
>>>> *do my Emails show up*
>>>>
>>>> *I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org*
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you get them
>>>>
>>> I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew
>>> have answered. So the general distribution seems to work
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Wolf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrew W.:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
>>>>> physics. It is smart mathematics only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
>>>>> quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on
>>>>> quantum mechanically bound electrons!
>>>>>
>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==================================
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: General
>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then
>>>>> implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
>>>>>
>>>>> ========================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>>>>>
>>>>> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>> Discussion"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>>>
>>>>> again comments in the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
>>>>>
>>>>> > together
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding
>>>>> mass and charge are completely different categories as a wrote
>>>>> last time. Charge is a permanent property of some object, whereas
>>>>> mass is a dynamical process which also changes when the object
>>>>> changes its motion state (which at the end is : relativity).
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
>>>>>
>>>>> > includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
>>>>>
>>>>> > component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
>>>>>
>>>>> > metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the
>>>>> forces
>>>>>
>>>>> > between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences
>>>>> between
>>>>>
>>>>> > my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical
>>>>> ideas" do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at least
>>>>> mass is a different category. And also time and space are most
>>>>> probably different categories from the others, at least for some
>>>>> of the physical community.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > The examples provided in this section are intended to show how
>>>>> action
>>>>>
>>>>> > theory is applied to well known and observable situations that
>>>>> can be
>>>>>
>>>>> > compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What
>>>>> CAT has
>>>>>
>>>>> > added is summarized as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
>>>>>
>>>>> > happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
>>>>>
>>>>> > material media.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
>>>>>
>>>>> > separating mass and charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
>>>>>
>>>>> > heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the
>>>>> interior of
>>>>>
>>>>> > matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
>>>>>
>>>>> > chapter 6)
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
>>>>>
>>>>> > introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
>>>>>
>>>>> > centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See
>>>>> Appendix on
>>>>>
>>>>> > Mach’s Principle)
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted
>>>>> as a
>>>>>
>>>>> > clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to
>>>>> change a
>>>>>
>>>>> > state separated by a constant state distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings
>>>>> of an
>>>>>
>>>>> > event oriented world view and a description of reality which
>>>>> includes
>>>>>
>>>>> > both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by
>>>>> CAT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
>>>>> force?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are very
>>>>> simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a good
>>>>> strategy of our brains to build categories. For instance, there
>>>>> are billions of trees on our earth. No brain of a human being is
>>>>> able to register and to remember all these trees. So, our brain
>>>>> build the category "tree".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical
>>>>> connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else not!).
>>>>> If objects move which have charges the forces will cause that the
>>>>> motion of the objects is influenced, the path changes accordingly.
>>>>> That is fundamental. A human brain can now build the category of
>>>>> an "action" to describe, or better: to categories this process.
>>>>> This brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental view
>>>>> to the world, even though a helpful one.
>>>>>
>>>>> But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true
>>>>> that there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in
>>>>> the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and a
>>>>> dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a
>>>>> higher level.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans to
>>>>> categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat the
>>>>> effect of charges.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > *Twin Paradox:*
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
>>>>>
>>>>> > transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time
>>>>> dilation
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite
>>>>> directions.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience
>>>>> the same
>>>>>
>>>>> > acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
>>>>>
>>>>> > eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
>>>>>
>>>>> > long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to
>>>>> each
>>>>>
>>>>> > other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
>>>>>
>>>>> > difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
>>>>>
>>>>> > cannot explain it.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>> gravity. Why
>>>>>
>>>>> do you connect it to gravity?
>>>>>
>>>>> And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>>>
>>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>>>>
>>>>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
>>>>>
>>>>> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
>>>>>
>>>>> > replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not
>>>>> show
>>>>>
>>>>> > up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the
>>>>> list;
>>>>>
>>>>> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > wolf
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <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 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/20170529/ff0b737f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list