<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et
al.,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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 color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This explanation boils down to two
considerations:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(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 color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A 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 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:A9E1E41FACD740F3AD131C5ACAA0AE0A@vincent" width=64
height=59></SPAN><SPAN
style="Z-INDEX: 2; POSITION: absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 58px; MARGIN-LEFT: 280px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><IMG
src="cid:A05D583A48714E2A82F4C3ECC330211B@vincent" width=64 height=58></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 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<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 vAlign=top align=left><IMG
src="cid:866AE5E8AEC74C80BEA0F3274BAFCDDD@vincent" width=64 height=58></TD>
<TD><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:B6D29EF9D0A04DF2A552513D92EC3FC7@vincent" width=65
height=59></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 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<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 vAlign=top rowSpan=3 align=left><IMG
src="cid:72E8568AD42F42C1BF99D6C49318E56A@vincent" width=65
height=66></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=59><BR></TD>
<TD><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top align=left><IMG
src="cid:39620DE6A7814236A81E2810ED88FB45@vincent" width=66
height=59></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 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<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 vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:4A4FD0AA33AC46E68F18F2764307EE60@vincent" width=65
height=59></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=56><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:944589A3040540128BB885FCE61033FA@vincent" width=64
height=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:DD3B589A4EEF43839004307EDB5FE9ED@vincent" width=64
height=59></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:E5BFBFE8D4F64B86B8212E30BA26BD32@vincent" width=64
height=59></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>
<P></P><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</A></PRE>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 5/30/2017 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></BODY></HTML>