<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hello Eric,</p>
<p>about my experiment: It was Proton Compton scattering to check
the Optical Theorem for very small angles of deflection. <br>
</p>
<p>As original source we used an electron beam with electrons of
constant energy 6 GeV. The electrons were converted into photons
by bremsstrahlung. The result was an energy spectrum from zero to
6 GeV. The maximum of intensity was at 6 GeV, above that was a
sharp cut-off. <br>
</p>
<p>The photons were deflected by protons (i.e. liquid hydrogen) by
very small angles, i.e. the detector was placed so that only
photons under small angles caused a measurement trigger. As a
detector
a piece of aluminium was used in which the photons were converted
into electron-positron pairs. The electrons and positrons were
deflected in a magnet and the direction by which these particles
left the magnetic field was measured by a telescope of spark
chambers. From the direction of the particles the energy and the
momentum of each particle was calculated and so the energy of the
photon which caused the pair production. The result was the same
spectrum with the sharp cut-off at 6 GeV.</p>
<p>For the determination of the photon energy which is the point of
our discussion here the sharp edge of the spectrum at 6 GeV is
essential. This edge is known as a property of the bremsstrahlung
spectrum and it is found in the sum energy of the electron and
positron pair.</p>
<p>Do you want more details about this experiment? Please ask.</p>
<p>And which were your experiments about light?</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.05.2017 um 05:31 schrieb Eric
Reiter:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1204671015.889194.1495683087843@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times,
serif;font-size:medium;">
<div>
<div>
<!--StartFragment--><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42);
font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Hello Albrecht:</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family:
"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px;">I would like to see the details of your
experiment:</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family:
"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><font
size="1">"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."</font></span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family:
"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><font
size="1">I did original experiments explaining light and
charge also.</font></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: x-small; color: rgb(38, 40, 42);
font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;">Thank you</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family:
"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><font
size="1">Eric Reiter</font></span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family:
"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><font
size="1">____________________________________________________________________</font></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="ydp599d92d6yahoo_quoted_6484411612"
class="ydp599d92d6yahoo_quoted">
<div>On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 12:02:03 PM PDT, Albrecht
Giese <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a>
wrote:</div>
<div>
<div id="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655">
<div>
<p>Hi Wolf,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-cite-prefix">Am
22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 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 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 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 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 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 type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;"><b>do my Emails
show up</b></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;"><b>I CC'd you and
you should get this directly and in <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">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 type="cite">
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-cite-prefix">On
5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655WordSection1">
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"><span>Hi
Andrew W.: </span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"><span>Yes,
I basically agree with you that STR is not a
theory of physics. It is smart mathematics
only.</span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"><span>Whereas,
photoelectric equation is physics, even
though, quantization is postulated wrongly on
EM waves, rather than on quantum mechanically
bound electrons!</span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"><span>Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"><span>==================================</span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">-----Original
Message-----<br>
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Wolfgang Baer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Hi
all</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">STR
is a complex subject - all observers are equal -
but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit
that's flawed actually</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">========================================</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Message
Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">From:
"Albrecht Giese" </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">To:
"Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion" </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Cc:
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Subject:
Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Hi
Wolf,</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">again
comments in the text.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Am
15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
No Kc is the spring constant of the force
holding charge and mass </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
together</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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).</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
In order to build a framework of a physical
theory that properly </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
includes the observer as a measurement model
building and acting </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
component I use a very simplified concept built
on the classic </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time
along with the forces </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
between them are fundamental. Here are some of
the differences between </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
my cognitive action theory CAT and classic
physics</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
* Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic
Physical Concepts*</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
The examples provided in this section are
intended to show how action </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
theory is applied to well known and observable
situations that can be </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
compared with analysis using classical physics
concepts. What CAT has </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
added is summarized as follows:</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-Change involving transitions between states is
where physics is </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
happening.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-Change, visualized as stable action patterns,
propagates through </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
material media.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-The degrees of freedom of classical systems has
been doubled by </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
separating mass and charge.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-Internal material forces between mass and
charge are introduced as </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
heuristic visualizations to augment
understanding of the interior of </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
matter which is conventionally the domain of
quantum theory (see </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
chapter 6)</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-Mach’s principle and the connection between the
inertial field is </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
introduced in place of the observational pseudo
forces such as the </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s
formulation. (See Appendix on </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
Mach’s Principle)</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
-Time is defined as the name of the state of the
system adopted as a </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
clock, and time intervals are measured as action
required to change a </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
state separated by a constant state distance.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
Action theory is being developed as the physical
underpinnings of an </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
event oriented world view and a description of
reality which includes </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
both the subjective and objective aspect of
reality described by CAT.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">The
question here is again: what is more
fundamental, action or force? </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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". </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">That
is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no
logical connection to the category-building,
they follow fundamental rules.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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. </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">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.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
*Twin Paradox:*</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by
the Lorenz </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which
describes time dilation</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
How do you avoid the paradox in the following
experiment</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
Two twins are accelerated with a small short
pulse in opposite directions.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
At some very long time they are both reversed
with a double pulse</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
when they meet they are stopped by a short
pulse.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
The experiment is completely symmetric. both
twins experience the same </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are
equal and can be </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated
is the arbitrarily </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
long period where they are traveling with a
velocity relative to each </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
other. Since the time dilation formula only
contains</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
velocity squared the direction of relative
travel does not make a </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
difference. If the theory is correct there is a
paradox and gravity </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
cannot explain it.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">First:
this whole process has absolutely nothing to do
with gravity. Why </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">do
you connect it to gravity?</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">And
second: the whole process as you describe it is
completely </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">symmetrical.
Both twins make the same experience with time
and with </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">there
according ageing. Where the hell do you see a
paradox? I cannot </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">see
a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it
can be.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
*do my Emails show up in the general discussion
I keep only getting </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
replies from people who send them directly and
my E-mails do not show </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">To
test it, you may sent this mail again without my
address in the list; </p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">then
I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
Best,</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
wolf</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">>
</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Best</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText">Albrecht</p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655MsoPlainText"> </p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div
id="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-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"
rel="nofollow" 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; min-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"
style="color:#4453ea;" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> </a></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br>
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>