<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Grahame,</p>
<p>fully agreement that Einstein's relativity is a working theory
but does not have any causal explanation. This has to do with the
general attitude of Einstein with respect to science when he
developed relativity. But before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz had
already started to work on these problems, and his approach does
in fact have causal physical explanations.</p>
<p>Shortly after the Michelson-Morley experiment Oliver Heaviside
presented a calculation (1888), deduced from Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism, that an electrical field necessarily contracts
at motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if fields contract also
objects will contract at motion. If this happens also the
apparatus of the MM experiment would contract at motion. And if it
contracts, so the conclusion of Lorentz, the null-result of the
experiment is fully explained even if an ether should exist. <br>
</p>
<p>Next step is dilation. It was (to my knowledge) already suspected
by Lorentz and it was later found by Schrödinger (1930) that
inside elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c,
the speed of light. If this is assumed it follows geometrically
that any elementary particle acts like a light clock and its
internal motion and so its frequency is reduced in the way
described by the Lorentz transformation. The reduction of the
internal frequency propagates to all cases of motion in physics.<br>
</p>
<p>This is special relativity. But the considerations of Lorentz can
be also extended to general relativity, and the result is a
mathematical model which fully conforms to the one of Einstein but
is also based on physical explanations.</p>
<p>Another point in this discussion: Acceleration <b>does not play
any role </b>in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The
reference to acceleration in case of e.g. the twin paradox comes
from the (indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration of one
party / one twin this one will leave his inertial frame. So the
Lorentz transformation does not apply any longer. But, not to
confuse it here, an acceleration does not give any quantitative
contribution to the processes treated by SRT and GRT. <br>
</p>
<p>Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity:
Following Lorentz makes relativity much better understandable than
the one of Einstein, and it avoids all paradoxes which I know.
This applies particularly to GRT which becomes so simple that it
can be treated at school, whereas the Einsteinian is too
complicated even for most students of physics.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.06.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:237B0F2B64224657A5D147526B6B420B@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Hi Wolf,
Albrecht, John W et al.,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I want to express
complete agreement with John W on the role of accel'n/grav'n
in resolving any apparent paradox in the twins saga.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I must first,
though, draw attention to what appears to be an elementary
error in Wolf's analysis (unless I've totally misunderstood
you, Wolf - I can't see how this would be the case).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf, you propose
(quite reasonably) that each twin is initially moving away
from the other at speed 'v'. You then propose a variation in
each twin's clock as perceived by the other, delta-t'.
However your expression for that delta-t' shows the other
twin's clock progressing FASTER than that of the observer-twin
(13 months instead of 12 months) - whereas of course the whole
point of SRT is that the moving clock progresses SLOWER than
that of the static observer. This is due to a common fallacy,
of applying the time-dilation factor, which gives the extended
duration of each second, say, in the moving frame as observed
from the static frame (hence the phrase 'time-dilation'), to
the apparent time-passed in that moving frame. This makes the
ratio of observed/observer clock-time the inverse of what it
should be according to SRT. The perceived elapsed time in the
moving frame should be observer time multiplied by the INVERSE
of the Lorentz Factor.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This doesn't
totally destroy your argument (though it does render it rather
less plausible), since you are implying that on re-meeting the
apparent accumulated difference will not be shown on either
clock - as of course it couldn't be. However, as John W
points out, any apparent difference will be precisely wiped
out by acceleration considerations: SRT is 100% internally
self-consistent, it cannot be faulted on ANY application of
its assertions with respect to time.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">However, the fact
that it's internally self-consistent doesn't make it RIGHT.
It's not difficult to envisage a set of mathematical rules -
for instance, relating to trajectories - that give totally
self-consistent results but don't accord with practical
observations.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Here's where it
gets interesting. Because of course results of calculations
in SRT DO fit with practical observations, and have done so
for over a century. The question then arises as to why this
should be so - since, unlike pretty well every other branch of
physics, no causal explanation has been found (or even
sought?) for effects in spacetime as given by SRT. It's been
tacitly accepted by the mainstream physics community as
"That's just how it is". This is a statement of belief, not
of science - the prime directive of science is to ask "Why?"</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">When I started on
my own scientific investigations 20 years ago I took SRT
totally at face value, totally uncritically. I didn't
actually start by asking "Why?" in relation to SRT. As I
progressed with my research, essentially into aspects on
electromagnetic waves anf the fundamental nature of time, it
gradually became apparent that there IS a "Why!". That 'why'
rests on the fact that all material objects are formed from
electromagnetic energy (hence E = Mc-squared); in a moving
object that energy is travelling linearly as well as
cyclically within the object - and this combined motion
beautifully explains EVERY aspect of SRT.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This explanation
boils down to two considerations:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">(1) Material
objects are affected by their formative energy-flows moving
linearly as well as cyclically, giving rise to time-dilation
precisely in accordance with the formula given by SRT and
Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as also 'imported' into SRT;</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">(2) Material
objects which happen to be (a) observers or (b) measuring
instruments are likewise affected in both these respects when
in motion, giving all other observed consequences detailed by
SRT - as observer effects.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">[As a point of
detail, it IS possible to show the fallacy in SRT only if you
consider matters from the level of particle formation, rather
than complete particles.]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">In other words,
ALL observed phenomena that appear to confirm SRT (and also,
in fact, GRT) can be fully explained WITHOUT the
'metaphysical' claim that "All inertial reference frames are
equivalent" - that claim by SRT is a myth, one that has NO
support in the evidence claimed for it. It is a totally
superfluous add-on to our picture of physical reality.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This being the
case, the requirement (by mainstream physics) that all
phenomena/fields/whatever MUST conform to that claim is
arguably holding us back from making significant breakthroughs
in our understanding of reality - breakthroughs that might
even (dare I say it?) take us to the stars. We are fencing
ourselves in with an imaginary boundary.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</a> </div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:46 AM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
</p>
<p>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<style>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why this is not thought experiment
that shows Einsteins SRT interpretation gives rize to a paradox
and therefore is wrong. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twin Paradox Experiment:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Z-INDEX: 1; POSITION: absolute;
MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; MARGIN-LEFT:
229px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><img
src="cid:part3.700B8A48.5F10C8FD@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="64"></span><span style="Z-INDEX: 2; POSITION:
absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 58px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 280px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><img
src="cid:part4.92752814.55A55E9A@a-giese.de" height="58"
width="64"></span>1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space far
away from all local masses two identical twins are accelerated
to opposite velocities so that each thinks the other is
traveling away from themselves at velocity “v”.<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>By
the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent of a
temporary gravitational force which slows their clocks the same
amount. They are now drifting apart </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="7" width="148"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="144"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="58"><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part5.57F6ECEC.960FC857@a-giese.de" height="58"
width="64"></td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part6.D4E63B5D.3327C981@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">2) Each of the twins feels he is standing
still and the other twin is moving with a constant velocity “v”
away. According to special relativity the relation between their
own time Δt and the time they believe the other twins elapsed
time <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Δt’ is; Δt’ = Δt/
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="2" width="1"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
<td width="437"><br>
</td>
<td width="66"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part7.E53AF325.D7AC29A1@a-giese.de" height="66"
width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="59"><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part8.FAD9573E.D576CB92@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="66"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="4"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">3) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>clock he believes twin
two’s clock is Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1</sub>/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>clock
he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>/
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>= 12
months Lets assume the velocities are such that Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 13 months.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) After one year on their own clock each
twin fires a retro rocket that reverses their velocities. By the
equivalence principle the both clocks experience a gravity like
force and their clocks speed up. Lets assume the acceleration
lasts 1 day on their own clocks so now <span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
12 months + 1day and knowing the plan Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= 13m + 1d</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="4" width="154"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="143"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part9.54A95D5B.B45AD30F@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="56"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part10.C3268981.65E7DB81@a-giese.de"
height="64" width="64"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="8"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">5) Now the two twins are drifting with the
same relative velocity but toward each other with opposite
signs. Each twin thinks the others clocks are lowing down by the
formula Δt’ = Δt/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.
They drift for exactly one year and now Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
24 months + 1day and they believing in special relativity think
Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 26 months.+ 1.083days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Z-INDEX: 6; POSITION: relative;
mso-ignore: vglayout"><span style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH:
64px; HEIGHT: 59px; TOP: -22px; LEFT: 264px"><img
src="cid:part11.824BA659.13AA5769@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="64"></span></span><span style="Z-INDEX: 5;
POSITION: relative; mso-ignore: vglayout"><span
style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; TOP:
-21px; LEFT: 213px"><img
src="cid:part12.8B912AF7.4574E83A@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="64"></span></span><span style="mso-tab-count: 4">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6) now the stop rocket fires for half a day
on each twins clock and the twins come to rest exactly at the
place they started. Their own clocks tell Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
24 months + 1.5day and they believing in special relativity
think the others clock should be Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= 26 months.+ 1.583days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>They get out of
their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that the two clocks
tell exactly the same time so their belief in special relativity
was wrong. </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 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>before we enter discussions about details I send you a
drawing of my experiment with some explanations. I think that
it is simple enough so that we do not need too much philosophy
about epistemology to understand it.</p>
<p>My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of
the synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the
target T (at 0 m) where they are converted into photons. The
photons fly until the target H<sub>2</sub> where they are
deflected by a small angle (about one degree) (at 30.5 m). The
deflected photons meet the converter (KONV at 35 m) where a
portion of the photons is converted into an electron- position
pair. The pair is detected and analysed in the configuration
of the magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes of spark chambers (FT
between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest of detectors at the right
is for monitoring the basic photon beam.</p>
<p>In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles
(electron and positron) are measured and the momentum and the
energy of both particles is determined.</p>
<p>Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles,
there is no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we
should need here any QM. <br>
</p>
<p>The rest of the mail will be commented later.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
<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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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 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>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>