<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>following my attempts to answer.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.05.2017 um 19:12 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
</blockquote>
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?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
Is current theory a specific theory?<br>
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. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5">[5]</a></sup>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup>
Explanations put forth by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
title="Albert Einstein">Albert Einstein</a> and <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" title="Max Born">Max
Born</a> invoked <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7">[7]</a>"</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>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?<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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).<br>
</sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
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<sub>1</sub>. After a well defined time they turn and
move back to their starting point. - This is symmetric and simple.<br>
<br>
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 <br>
speed v<sub>2</sub> which is the relativistic sum: v<sub>2 </sub>=
(v<sub>1</sub> plus v<sub>1</sub>)<font size="+1">. <br>
</font>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<sub>2</sub> to the right, for
twin 2 it means that he stays at speed 0, both related to the
original frame of twin 1. <font size="+1"><sup><br>
<br>
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<sub>2</sub>.<br>
Twin 2 moves in the first period with speed v<sub>2 </sub>and
in the second period with speed 0. <br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
Why gravity here? There is no reason for it.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 5/24/2017 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>
<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>