<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht: <br>
</p>
<p>I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then
please check if it gets to you on both</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin
Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is
wikipedia <br>
</p>
<p>" Starting with <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin" title="Paul
Langevin">Paul Langevin</a> 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...".<sup id="cite_ref-Debs_Redhead_5-0" class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5">[5]</a></sup>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" title="Max
von Laue">Max von Laue</a> argued in 1913 that since the
traveling twin must be in two separate <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames"
class="mw-redirect" title="Inertial frames">inertial frames</a>,
one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch
is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration <i>per
se</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup>
Explanations put forth by <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
title="Albert Einstein">Albert Einstein</a> and <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" title="Max Born">Max
Born</a> invoked <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
title="Gravitational time dilation">gravitational time dilation</a>
to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.<sup
id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7">[7]</a>"</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference">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.</sup></p>
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"> 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;
<br>
</sup></p>
<p>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)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:784808e1-6179-df38-1ef7-07f5b8e936a9@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>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</p>
</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<br>
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.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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.</p>
</blockquote>
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".
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>SRT:</p>
<p>"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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>"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</p>
</blockquote>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the
time until the other twin changes his speed.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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 <i><b>his</b></i>
frame B. And with his clocks he will find that the clocks of A run
slower compared to his own ones.<br>
<br>
This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related
part of the Lorentz transformation:<br>
<br>
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c<sup>2</sup>) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)).
Regarding the example above v is the speed between the frames of A
and of B.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>do my Emails show up</b></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>I CC'd you and you should get
this directly and in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></b></span><br>
</p>
<p>Let me know if you get them</p>
</blockquote>
I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and
Adrew have answered. So the general distribution seems to work<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32340A2A0F83E4D195FB878A93FA0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Andrew W.: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Yes,
I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
physics. It is smart mathematics only.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Whereas,
photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather
than on quantum mechanically bound electrons!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">==================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM<br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Wolfgang Baer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">STR is a complex subject - all
observers are equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's
the bit that's flawed actually<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34
PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Albrecht Giese" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">again comments in the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> No Kc is the spring constant of
the force holding charge and mass <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> together<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> In order to build a framework
of a physical theory that properly <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> includes the observer as a
measurement model building and acting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> component I use a very
simplified concept built on the classic <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> metaphysical ideas that
mass,charge, space, time along with the forces <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> between them are fundamental.
Here are some of the differences between <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> my cognitive action theory CAT
and classic physics<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The examples provided in this
section are intended to show how action <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> theory is applied to well known
and observable situations that can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> compared with analysis using
classical physics concepts. What CAT has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> added is summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change involving transitions
between states is where physics is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> happening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change, visualized as stable
action patterns, propagates through <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> material media.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -The degrees of freedom of
classical systems has been doubled by <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> separating mass and charge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Internal material forces
between mass and charge are introduced as <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> heuristic visualizations to
augment understanding of the interior of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> matter which is conventionally
the domain of quantum theory (see <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> chapter 6)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Mach’s principle and the
connection between the inertial field is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> introduced in place of the
observational pseudo forces such as the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in
Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Mach’s Principle)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Time is defined as the name of
the state of the system adopted as a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> clock, and time intervals are
measured as action required to change a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> state separated by a constant
state distance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Action theory is being
developed as the physical underpinnings of an <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> event oriented world view and a
description of reality which includes <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> both the subjective and
objective aspect of reality described by CAT.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The question here is again: what is
more fundamental, action or force? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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". <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">That is helpful. But the cells in
the trees have no logical connection to the
category-building, they follow fundamental rules.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *Twin Paradox:*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> You mentioned the twin paradox
is explained by the Lorenz <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> transformation since
t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> How do you avoid the paradox in
the following experiment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Two twins are accelerated with
a small short pulse in opposite directions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> At some very long time they are
both reversed with a double pulse<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> when they meet they are stopped
by a short pulse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The experiment is completely
symmetric. both twins experience the same <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> acceleration pulse so gravity
clock effects are equal and can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> eliminated from a comparison
but not eliminated is the arbitrarily <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> long period where they are
traveling with a velocity relative to each <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> other. Since the time dilation
formula only contains<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> velocity squared the direction
of relative travel does not make a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> difference. If the theory is
correct there is a paradox and gravity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> cannot explain it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">First: this whole process has
absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">do you connect it to gravity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And second: the whole process as you
describe it is completely <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">symmetrical. Both twins make the
same experience with time and with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there according ageing. Where the
hell do you see a paradox? I cannot <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">see a paradox and the whole thing is
as simple as it can be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> replies from people who send
them directly and my E-mails do not show <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> up in the discussion forum, so
I'm wondering?*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To test it, you may sent this mail
again without my address in the list; <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">then I can tell you (if informed) if
I got it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"> </a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>