<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Wolf and Albrecht,<div class=""> Wouldn’t both travelers in opposite directions come home (back to Earth) having aged equally and both having aged less that a third person who stayed behind on Earth? I don’t see the problem.</div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 4, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="">phys@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="position: relative;" class=""><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Hi Wolf</p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">another round, the same arguments as it seems.<br class=""></p><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><div class="moz-cite-prefix" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Am 04.06.2017 um 06:17 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br class=""></div><blockquote cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><p class="">Albrecht:</p><p class="">Thanks for correcting the time dilation formula's yes I mixed up the apostrophes. And have corrected them below so we have a correct basis to discuss the numbers..<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class="">To keep the description of the experiment simple I've corrected it so it is pure and we can discuss your objections directly below.</p><p class="">You state "<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">No, this has several errors as I have already explained in the preceding mail. Each twin, when he fires the retro rocket, knows that he leaves his original frame. So, as he knows relativity, he realizes that his clock is now running more slowly than before. He knows that now his clock will, compared the the run of his clock in the preceding phase, measure the time according to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">1*</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>. So the drift of his time will be, when back to his starting point, T =<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">1</sub></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>+<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>. And the other twin will have<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">T =<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">2</sub></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>+<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’</font></font> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and so the same result. "</font></p><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">I do not understand what you mean by "leaving his original frame"? each twin is in a rocket with a clock and a protocol. The protocol says fire a rocket for half a day to make them separate, after exactly one year fire a reverse rocket for one day on each twins clock to reverse the velocities, drift for one year fire a stopping rocket for half a day to come to a stop. Now both twins are stopped where they started at zero velocity. Everything is symmetric both twins do exactly the same thing and use their own clocks to carry out the function. But relativity says since the other twin was moving with velocity "v" for one year going out and one year coming in and though the sign has changed the formula<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class="">Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">1*</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2 </sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">only contains the square of the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">velocity</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>both twins would according to<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>SRT</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>claim the other twins clocks would have slowed down. Its simple<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">. The theory gives the wrong answer.</font><br class=""></font></font></font></font></p><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">what do you mean leave the frame? both twins are in a capsule looking at a clock. They are not leaving anything.</font><br class=""></font></font></p></blockquote><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Take twin 1 as an example. He h<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">as two choi<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">ces:<br class=""><br class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">1.)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is back ag<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">ain, he meets t<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">win 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They will indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.<br class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">2.) He knows physics and partic<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class="">ularly<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif" class="">special relativity. And, to be clo<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">se to your case, he may define after his start his frame of motion<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">as<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font>the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">reference frame. So in this fram<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif" class="">e his clock will run with normal speed.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font>Then, when<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>his retro rocket has started, he will notic<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">e the acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion he is now movin<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">g towards t<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class="">win 2 wi<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">th a speed which you have c<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">alled v.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font></font></font>And as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fa<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ct<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif" class="">that now h<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">is own clock will run differently than before. S<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">o if he w<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ants to understand what is going on and if he still takes his original state of motio<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">n a<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">s<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">his reference frame, he has to<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif" class="">realize that his clock i<font face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" class="">s</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>now running<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" class="">slower</font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" class="">. - On the other hand, if he wants to under<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">stand the situation of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">twin 2 he has to realize that the speed of t<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">w<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">in 2, takin<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">g p<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">lace with v in relation to his own original frame,</font></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">causes a slow down of the clock<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">of t<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">win 2.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">But</font>then, after t<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">win 2 has<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">fired<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">his retro rocket, tw<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">2 will have speed = 0 with respect to the original frame of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">twin<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>1. So the clock of twin 2 will now<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">run in the normal way. </font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>- If you n<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ow add the different phases of both clocks, i<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">.e. the phases of normal run<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and the ph<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ases of slow down, you will see that the result is the same<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">for both<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">twins. And this is w<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">hat I have expl<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ain<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">ed quantitatively i<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">n my last mail.<br class=""><br class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">I mus<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">t say that I have problems to understand where you<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">have<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font>difficult<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">y to see this.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Then You state:"Twin 1 will have measured as given above, using your example, T = 12<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">months</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>+13<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class="">months</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>= 25 months. Twin 2 will have the same result, and both results<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">fully<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">conform to special relativity. "</font></p><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">If I put in 13 it was a typo it should have been 12. I'm saying both twins according to the protocol use only their own clocks and travel out and back for 12 months on their own clocks so T= 24 months. However according to SRT each believes the other's clock has slowed by 1 month and would show 11 months. Sorry about my error and falsely reversing the effect and introducing 13 instead of 11, It was late. My mistake.</font><br class=""></font></p></blockquote><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">No problem with that. But now: The twin may look at his clock in an uncritical way. But that means that he does not understand physics. See my case 1.) above.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">T</font></font></font><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">here n</font>o conflic<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">t for him.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></span><blockquote cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""></font><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class=""><br class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" class="">Then You state:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font>And, by the way, this gedanken experiment is in fact not a paradox. There are paradoxes like the Ehrenfest paradox which is differently interpreted by specialists. But the case with the twins is an example from the early time of SR and it is raised from time to time again by those who start to understand SR.</font></p><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">How can this not be a paradox?it has been called a paradox for 80+ years. In my experiment Two twins do exactly the same thing , their theory predicts the other's clocks would slow down, when in fact they do not. Is this not a paradox in the theory? is such a paradox not a demonstration that the theo</font></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">r</font></font>y is incorrect? If you look up "Twin Paradox" you will find several explanations all of them agree SRT is incomplete. Most state that adding GRT fixes the problem. I'm showing these fixes are insufficient and GRT does not fix the problem.<br class=""></font></font></p></blockquote><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">It is called a paradox because there are always again beginners regarding SRT, and at a first glance it looks for them as a paradox.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">From the view of the twins their theory does<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">in fact<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><b class="">not<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>predict that the other's clock slows down. I hope that I have clearly explained that.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></font></font><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Your write "... all of them agree SRT is incomplete". Where do you find such statements? I do not know anyone in my physical vicinity here who states that.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></font></font><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" class=""><br class=""></font></font><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></span><blockquote cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">In addition you say gravity has nothing to do with it? Does not the "equivalence principle' equate acceleration and gravity? Have I been living in a tree for 50years? how do you interpret the equivalence principle if not "ma =mg' therefore "s=g" ? Just depend on whether you believe Einstein meant in the strong or weak equivalence principle.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></font></font></p></blockquote><font size="+1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">Acceleration has nothing to do with SRT. And so also gravity would have nothing to do with it even if the strong equivalence principle would be correct. However, it is not correct as I have explained in my last mail to Grahame.<br class=""><br class="">The weak equivalence principle works in fact, but up to now no physicist knows why. Except me, my model of gravity explains it (what I have presented several times in our meetings).<br class=""><br class="">Albrecht<br class=""></font></font><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></span><blockquote cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class=""></font></font><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><font size="+1" class="">wolf</font><br class=""></font></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 6/3/2017 11:32 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:c663fd38-631e-d876-012a-700081209ed9@a-giese.de" class=""><p class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1" class="">Wolf,</font></p><p class=""><font size="-1" class=""><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">here your numerical example of the twin case:</font><br class=""></font></p><font size="-1" class=""><br class=""></font><div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1" class="">Am 03.06.2017 um 08:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font><br class=""></div><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">Albrecht:</div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">Tell me why this is not thought experiment that shows Einsteins SRT interpretation gives rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">Twin Paradox Experiment:</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""><span style="position: absolute; z-index: 1; margin-left: 229px; margin-top: 46px; width: 64px; height: 59px;" class=""><span id="cid:part2.5DB96805.AF939868@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></span><span style="position: absolute; z-index: 2; margin-left: 280px; margin-top: 46px; width: 64px; height: 58px;" class=""><span id="cid:part3.B91BBEF6.45A0D737@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""><span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span class=""></span></p><table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td height="7" width="148" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="64" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="144" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="65" class=""><br class=""></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="58" class=""><br class=""></td><td align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part4.6EB0BB36.1320D637@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td><td class=""><br class=""></td><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part5.09599F42.49EF3335@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="1" class=""><br class=""></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p></blockquote><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><br class=""></blockquote><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">This has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. It is true that both twin's clocks run slower in motion, but it is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">independent of the acceleration<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>and purely caused by the linear motion. So, I propose that we start here with a steady motion and omit the acceleration phase.<br class=""><br clear="ALL" class=""></font><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>Δt’ is; Δt’ = Δt· (1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup>.</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span class=""></span></p><table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td height="2" width="1" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="65" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="437" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="66" class=""><br class=""></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="3" class=""><br class=""></td><td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part6.DA42412D.4FCF7B18@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="59" class=""><br class=""></td><td class=""><br class=""></td><td align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part7.2A3980C3.04165D1B@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="4" class=""><br class=""></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><br clear="ALL" class=""></blockquote><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class="">That is true except that the relation is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">Δt’ = Δt </font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" class="">· (1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and I have explained in a preceding mail that this does not mean a logical conflict. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">3) After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>clock he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">1</sub>· (1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup></div>After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>clock he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">2</sub>/ (1-v<sup class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:c663fd38-631e-d876-012a-700081209ed9@a-giese.de" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">Thus Δt<sub class="">1</sub>= Δt<sub class="">2</sub>= 12 months Lets assume the velocities are such that Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’ = 11 months.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">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 slow down in a lower gravity field. Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1 day on their own clocks so now<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>Δt<sub class="">1</sub>= Δt<sub class="">2</sub>= 12 months + 1day and knowing the plan Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’ = 11m + 1d. It does not mater if acceleration slows down the clocks since both twins experience the same effect both clocks would advance the same amount.<br class=""></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span class=""></span></p><table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td height="4" width="154" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="64" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="143" class=""><br class=""></td><td width="65" class=""><br class=""></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="3" class=""><br class=""></td><td colspan="2" class=""><br class=""></td><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part8.E37F5749.FD3B07D2@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="56" class=""><br class=""></td><td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top" class=""><span id="cid:part9.96E730E3.9F7E7508@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></td></tr><tr class=""><td height="8" class=""><br class=""></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><br clear="ALL" class=""></blockquote>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 class="">2</sup>/c<sup class="">2</sup>)<sup class="">1/2</sup>. They drift for exactly one year and now Δt<sub class="">1</sub>= Δt<sub class="">2</sub>= 24 months + 1day and they believing in special relativity think Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’ = 22 months.+ 1day.<blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""><span style="position: relative; z-index: 6;" class=""><span style="position: absolute; left: 264px; top: -22px; width: 64px; height: 59px;" class=""><span id="cid:part10.1A390639.20D16719@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></span></span><span style="position: relative; z-index: 5;" class=""><span style="position: absolute; left: 213px; top: -21px; width: 64px; height: 59px;" class=""><span id="cid:part11.9AB9430E.B3CF18EA@a-giese.de"><Mail Attachment.png></span></span></span><span class=""> </span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </p></blockquote><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" class=""><br class=""></font><blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class="">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 class="">1</sub>= Δt<sub class="">2</sub>= 24 months + 1.5day and they believing in special relativity think the others clock should be Δt<sub class="">1</sub>’ = Δt<sub class="">2</sub>’ = 22 months.+ 1.5days.</div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""><span class=""> </span><span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></blockquote>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<blockquote cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class=""><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">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 class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de" class=""><p class="">Wolf,</p><p class="">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 class="">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 class="">2</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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 class="">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 class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class="">The rest of the mail will be commented later.</p><p class="">Albrecht<br class=""></p><br class=""><div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:e3bc1c99-7194-ae49-d8d0-231776cc9d1a@nascentinc.com" class=""><p class="">Andrew , Albrecht:</p><p class="">"physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not required for the universe to go on doing what it does. " Disagree</p><p class="">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 class="">until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle un-observable interior of matter was always a mental projection requiring an observer.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class=""><br class=""></p><p class="">" governed and filtered by the laws which create the things" Baer's first law of physics is that the physicist created the law. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class=""><br class=""></p><p class="">"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an empty medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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 class=""></p><p class=""><br class=""></p><p class="">Albrecht;</p><p class="">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 class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></p><p class="">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,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><font size="+2" class="">IF</font></b><font size="+2" class=""><font size="-2" class=""> </font></font>you stop your analysis at the external objective aspect of reality and fail to realize that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">beyond</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><font size="+2" class="">then</font></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>you will be blissfully happy with the self consistent QM explanation.</p><p class="">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 class=""></p><p class="">Is that what you are proposing?</p><p class="">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 class=""></p><p class="">best wishes</p><p class="">wolf<br class=""></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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote cite="mid:73a5853b-6bd9-4f87-8aec-32949fe851f5@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">Hi Andrew,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">where do you miss reciprocity at STR?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I have some problems with STR<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">That physical laws should be the same for all observers is OK.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Peoples' thoughts?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">========================================<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">From: "Chip Akins"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Subject: Re: [General] STR<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Hi Wolf<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I would like to add a comment to this discussion.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">relatively abstract things we have named in our studies of nature.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed frame of space, with space as a tensor medium and not empty.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The above comment is just my view or course, but I think it makes sense.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Chip Akins<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Subject: Re: [General] STR<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Albrecht:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then please check if it gets to you on both<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are simply consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always two operations separating reality from<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that the two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality assumptions self consistent.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">approach infinity.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is wikipedia<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">" Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">"can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">[experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5] Max von Laue<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">acceleration. The equivalence principle equates acceleration and gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has two twins in inter stellar space<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">be improved.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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 =<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">best wishes<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Wolf<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Research Director<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Nascent Systems Inc.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">E-mail<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Hi Wolf,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">waves as a mathematical convenience<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">individually one can reject them because anything new can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">the force between them is not infinite.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">complicated logical connection.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">want to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete presentation ready.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of "human understanding".<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">SRT:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">"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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">usually described.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">the other one?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">"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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time until the other twin changes his speed.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">RESOLVED IN GRT.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">But as both observers are physically equivalent also observer B will find that the clock of observer A runs more slowly.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks like.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">when the observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that the clock of observer B have run more slowly.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""> 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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own ones.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related part of the Lorentz transformation:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">and shall go into more details.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">do my Emails show up<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Let me know if you get them<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew have answered. So the general distribution seems to work<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Wolf<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Research Director<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Nascent Systems Inc.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">E-mail<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Hi Andrew W.:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of physics. It is smart mathematics only.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though, quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum mechanically bound<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">electrons!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Chandra.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">==================================<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-----Original Message-----<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Wolfgang Baer<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Hi all<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">========================================<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">From: "Albrecht Giese"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Hi Wolf,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">again comments in the text.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">together<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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 :<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">relativity).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the forces<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences between<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">time and space are most probably different categories from the others, at least for some of the physical community.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">* Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">added is summarized as follows:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-Change involving transitions between states is where physics is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">happening.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">material media.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">separating mass and charge.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">chapter 6)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Mach’s Principle)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">-Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">state separated by a constant state distance.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote>The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">the category "tree".<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">process. This brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental view to the world, even though a helpful one.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">*Twin Paradox:*<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite directions.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the same<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">other. Since the time dilation formula only contains<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">cannot explain it.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote>First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">do you connect it to gravity?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">*do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote>To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the list;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Best,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">wolf<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote>Best<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Virenfrei. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><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" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">---<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><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" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br class=""><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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 class=""><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" class=""><br class=""><table style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(211, 212, 222);" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;" class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class=""><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" class=""></a></td><td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: rgb(65, 66, 78); font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Virenfrei.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" style="color: rgb(68, 83, 234);" class="">www.avast.com</a></td></tr></tbody></table><a href="x-msg://31/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true" class=""></a></div><br class=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br class=""><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br class=""><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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 class=""><br class=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br class=""><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><br class=""><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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 style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>