<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Andrew , Albrecht:</p>
<p>"physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not
required for the universe to go on doing what it does.
" Disagree</p>
<p>This is the old classic the world is the way we see it concept
promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and dominated
thinking for 1000years</p>
<p>until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle
un-observable interior of matter was always a mental projection
requiring an observer. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>" governed and filtered by the laws which create the things"
Baer's first law of physics is that the physicist created the
law. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an
empty medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation
<br>
</p>
<p> The medium can be completely torn apart
only such processes involve life and death of self and are taboo
in science. This is in fact the the path of development for
quantum theory<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your
descriptions are all on the theoretical "unknowable" side, which
of course you believe describes physical reality, and no one
would argue that our (your) theory is not self consistent, but to
discuss the wave particle problem one needs to identify the
vonNeuman cut between subjective personal observation and the
un-observable domain described by the theory. Where are the
detectors that tell you how the "unknowable" was stimulated and
the detectors that tell you the "unknowable's" response and the
detectors that tell you how some of the theoretical elements along
the theoretical path inside the "unknowable" were controlled?</p>
<p>Once we have such transition points between theory and
observations identified I think I can show you that the QM
probability wave picture is self consistent but also does science
a great disservice by hiding and ridiculing speculation, research
and experiment in deeper causes for the probabilistic phenomena <br>
</p>
<p>A single atomic transition billions of light years away must be a
particle to reach a similar atom and cause a transition in an atom
in a detector on earth. And the fact that this particle
transmission angle is random and exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating
the uncertainty principle) and therefor just happens to hit our
detector as purely random QM event leaving us with a Bohm guiding
wave that controls the probabilities. It all makes sense only, <b><font
size="+2">IF</font></b><font size="+2"><font size="-2"> </font></font>you
stop your analysis at the external objective aspect of reality and
fail to realize that <i>beyond</i> the emission at the distant
galaxy and the absorption of the "photon" in your retina is the
other half of the causal path which describes your subjective
existence, <b><font size="+2">then</font></b> you will be
blissfully happy with the self consistent QM explanation.</p>
<p>So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that our
quantum priests have built for us and just come up with more and
more complex explanations within the BOX. Are we such cowards?<br>
</p>
<p>Is that what you are proposing?</p>
<p>Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we know to
be true by direct experience into our theories. Then you will
begin to see events not particles, cycles not points, actions not
states, are the a better way to understand reality.<br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:73a5853b-6bd9-4f87-8aec-32949fe851f5@a-giese.de"
type="cite">Hi Andrew,
<br>
<br>
where do you miss reciprocity at STR?
<br>
<br>
Albrecht
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have some problems with STR
<br>
<br>
That physical laws should be the same for all observers is OK.
<br>
<br>
But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Peoples' thoughts?
<br>
<br>
<br>
========================================
<br>
Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM
<br>
From: "Chip Akins"
<br>
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
<br>
Cc:
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to add a comment to this discussion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is my opinion that physics happens by itself, whether we
think about it or not. And that an observer is not required for
the universe to go on doing what it does.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also feel that our perception of what is going on is governed
and filtered by the laws which create the things we call fields,
particles, forces, and all the other,
<br>
relatively abstract things we have named in our studies of
nature.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also think there is a version of what we call relativity which
is without paradox, but that relativity is not SR or GR, but
rather a relativity which is based on matter
<br>
being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed frame of
space, with space as a tensor medium and not empty.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The above comment is just my view or course, but I think it
makes sense.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chip Akins
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Albrecht:
<br>
<br>
I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then
please check if it gets to you on both
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are simply
consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always two
operations separating reality from
<br>
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
<br>
structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that
the two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality
assumptions self consistent.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
approach infinity.
<br>
<br>
3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin
Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is
wikipedia
<br>
<br>
" Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various
explanations of this paradox. These explanations
<br>
"can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different
standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that
designate the acceleration
<br>
[experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5]
Max von Laue
<br>
argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two
separate inertial frames
<br>
, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame
switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the
<br>
acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert
Einstein
<br>
and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation
<br>
to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7]
<br>
"
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
acceleration. The equivalence principle equates acceleration and
gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has
two twins in inter stellar space
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
be improved.
<br>
<br>
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 =
<br>
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
<br>
the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets
becomes;
<br>
<br>
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)
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
best wishes
<br>
<br>
Wolf
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
<br>
Research Director
<br>
Nascent Systems Inc.
<br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
<br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a>
<br>
<br>
On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
waves as a mathematical convenience
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
individually one can reject them because anything new can be
rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
the force between them is not infinite.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
complicated logical connection.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
want to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this
discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete
presentation ready.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
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
<br>
action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of
"human understanding".
<br>
<br>
SRT:
<br>
<br>
"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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
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>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
the other one?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"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.
<br>
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
<br>
<br>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the
time until the other twin changes his speed.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
RESOLVED IN GRT.
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
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).
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
Observe B will also position two clocks along the path which
observer A follows in frame B and he will synchronize these
clocks in his frame B. And with his clocks
<br>
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/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)). 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
<br>
and shall go into more details.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
do my Emails show up
<br>
<br>
I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
<br>
Let me know if you get them
<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Wolf
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
<br>
Research Director
<br>
Nascent Systems Inc.
<br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
<br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a>
<br>
<br>
On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Andrew W.:
<br>
<br>
Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
physics. It is smart mathematics only.
<br>
<br>
Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on
quantum mechanically bound
<br>
electrons!
<br>
<br>
Chandra.
<br>
<br>
==================================
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: General
[<a 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 ;
<br>
Wolfgang Baer
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi all
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then
implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
========================================
<br>
<br>
Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
<br>
<br>
From: "Albrecht Giese"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<br>
<br>
Cc:
<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
again comments in the text.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">No Kc is the spring constant of the
force holding charge and mass
<br>
together
<br>
</blockquote>
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
<br>
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 :
<br>
relativity).
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In order to build a framework of a
physical theory that properly
<br>
includes the observer as a measurement model building and
acting
<br>
component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
<br>
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with
the forces
<br>
between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences
between
<br>
my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
<br>
</blockquote>
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
<br>
time and space are most probably different categories from the
others, at least for some of the physical community.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">* Summary of Action Theory additions to
Classic Physical Concepts*
<br>
The examples provided in this section are intended to show how
action
<br>
theory is applied to well known and observable situations that
can be
<br>
compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What
CAT has
<br>
added is summarized as follows:
<br>
-Change involving transitions between states is where physics
is
<br>
happening.
<br>
-Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates
through
<br>
material media.
<br>
-The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled
by
<br>
separating mass and charge.
<br>
-Internal material forces between mass and charge are
introduced as
<br>
heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the
interior of
<br>
matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory
(see
<br>
chapter 6)
<br>
-Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial
field is
<br>
introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as
the
<br>
centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See
Appendix on
<br>
Mach’s Principle)
<br>
-Time is defined as the name of the state of the system
adopted as a
<br>
clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to
change a
<br>
state separated by a constant state distance.
<br>
Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings
of an
<br>
event oriented world view and a description of reality which
includes
<br>
both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described
by CAT.
<br>
</blockquote>
The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
force?
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
the category "tree".
<br>
<br>
That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical
connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental
rules.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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
<br>
process. This brain-related process is in my view a less
fundamental view to the world, even though a helpful one.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*Twin Paradox:*
<br>
You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
<br>
transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time
dilation
<br>
How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
<br>
Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite
directions.
<br>
At some very long time they are both reversed with a double
pulse
<br>
when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
<br>
The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience
the same
<br>
acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can
be
<br>
eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the
arbitrarily
<br>
long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative
to each
<br>
other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
<br>
velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not
make a
<br>
difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and
gravity
<br>
cannot explain it.
<br>
</blockquote>
First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
gravity. Why
<br>
<br>
do you connect it to gravity?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
<br>
<br>
symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and
with
<br>
<br>
there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I
cannot
<br>
<br>
see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*do my Emails show up in the general
discussion I keep only getting
<br>
replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do
not show
<br>
up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
<br>
</blockquote>
To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in
the list;
<br>
<br>
then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Best,
<br>
wolf
<br>
</blockquote>
Best
<br>
<br>
Albrecht
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Virenfrei. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
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>
<br>
<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>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe
<br>
</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
---
<br>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe
<br>
</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>