<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf</p>
<p>another round, the same arguments as it seems.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.06.2017 um 06:17 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>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.. <br>
</p>
<p>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>You state "<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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 </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1*</sub> (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
. So the drift of his time will be, when back to his starting
point, T = </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Δt<sub>1</sub></font> +
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Δt<sub>1</sub>’</font>
. And the other twin will have </font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">T = </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Δt<sub>2</sub></font>
+ </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Δt<sub>2</sub>’</font></font>
and so the same result. "</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">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 </font></font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1*</sub>
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">only contains the
square of the <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">velocity</font> both twins would according to<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> SRT</font> claim
the other twins clocks would have slowed down. Its
simple<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. The
theory gives the wrong answer.</font><br>
</font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">what do you mean leave the frame? both twins
are in a capsule looking at a clock. They are not
leaving anything.</font><br>
</font></font></font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Take twin
1 as an example. He h<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">as
two choi<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ces:<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">1.) <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">He ignores physics.
He travels forth and back and when he is back ag<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ain, he meets t<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">win 2 and can
compare the clocks of both. They will indicate the
same time. So he will not see any problem.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">2.) He
knows physics and partic<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">ularly <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">special relativity.
And, to be clo<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">se to your case, he may define
after his start his frame of motion <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">as </font>the
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">reference
frame. So in this fram<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">e his clock
will run with normal speed. </font>Then,
when<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"> his retro rocket has started, he
will notic<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">e the acceleration. He
knows that compared to his previous
state of motion he is now movin<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">g
towards t<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">win 2 wi<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">th a speed which you have
c<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">alled v. </font></font></font></font>And
as he knows physics, he will be aware
of the fa<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ct <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">that now
h<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">is own clock will
run differently than before. S<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">o if he w<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ants to
understand what is going on
and if he still takes his
original state of motio<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">n a<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">s <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">his
reference frame, he
has to<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">
<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">realize
that his clock i<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">s</font>
now running <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">slower</font><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">. - On
the other hand,
if he wants to
under<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">stand
the situation
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin
2 he has to
realize that
the speed of t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
2, takin<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">g
p<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">lace
with v in
relation to
his own
original
frame,</font></font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">causes
a slow down of
the clock <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">of
t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
2. <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">But
</font>then,
after t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
2 has <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">fired
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">his
retro rocket,
tw<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">2
will have
speed = 0 with
respect to the
original frame
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
1. So the
clock of twin
2 will now <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">run
in the normal
way. </font> -
If you n<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ow
add the
different
phases of both
clocks, i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.e.
the phases of
normal run<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
and the ph<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ases
of slow down,
you will see
that the
result is the
same <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">for
both <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twins.
And this is w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">hat
I have expl<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ain<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed
quantitatively
i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n
my last mail.<br>
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">I
mus<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t
say that I
have problems
to understand
where you <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">have
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">a
</font>difficult<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">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><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Then You state:"Twin
1 will have measured as given above, using your example, T =
12 </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">months</font> +13 </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">months</font> = 25 months. Twin 2 will
have the same result, and both results </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">fully </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">conform to special
relativity. "</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">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>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">T</font></font></font><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">here
n</font>o
conflic<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font></p>
<p><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Then You state: </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><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">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"><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">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>
</font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. <br>
From the view of the twins their theory does </font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in fact </font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <b>not </b>predict
that the other's clock slows down. I hope that I have clearly
explained that. <br>
</font></font><br>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. <br>
</font></font><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><br>
</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">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.
<br>
</font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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>
<br>
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>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5e425595-8567-9604-a682-ac58ee47721a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1"> </font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="+1">wolf</font><br>
</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>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c663fd38-631e-d876-012a-700081209ed9@a-giese.de">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">here
your numerical example of the twin case:</font><br>
</font></p>
<font size="-1"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am 03.06.2017 um
08:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
</p>
<p>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why this is not thought
experiment that shows Einsteins SRT interpretation gives
rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twin Paradox Experiment:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore:
vglayout;position:absolute;z-index:1;margin-left:229px;margin-top:46px;
width:64px;height:59px"><img
src="cid:part2.5DB96805.AF939868@a-giese.de" class=""
height="59" width="64"></span><span
style="mso-ignore:vglayout;
position:absolute;z-index:2;margin-left:280px;margin-top:46px;width:64px;
height:58px"><img
src="cid:part3.B91BBEF6.45A0D737@a-giese.de" class=""
height="58" width="64"></span>1) Somewhere in an
intergalactic space far away from all local masses two
identical twins are accelerated to opposite velocities so
that each thinks the other is traveling away from themselves
at velocity “v”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent
of a temporary gravitational force which slows their clocks
the same amount. They are now drifting apart </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"> </span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="7" width="148"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="144"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="58"><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part4.6EB0BB36.1320D637@a-giese.de"
class="" height="58" width="64"></td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part5.09599F42.49EF3335@a-giese.de"
class="" height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This has nothing to
do with the equivalence principle. It is true that both twin's
clocks run slower in motion, but it is <b>independent of the
acceleration </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>
<br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL">
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">2) Each of the twins feels he is standing
still and the other twin is moving with a constant velocity
“v” away. According to special relativity the relation
between their own time Δt and the time they believe the
other twins elapsed time <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Δt’
is; Δt’ = Δt· (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"> </span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="2" width="1"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
<td width="437"><br>
</td>
<td width="66"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part6.DA42412D.4FCF7B18@a-giese.de"
class="" height="66" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="59"><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part7.2A3980C3.04165D1B@a-giese.de"
class="" height="59" width="66"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="4"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL">
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">That is true except
that the relation is </font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Δt’ = Δt </font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->· (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> and I have
explained in a preceding mail that this does not mean a
logical conflict. </font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">3) After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>clock he believes twin
two’s clock is Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1</sub>· (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></p>
After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>clock
he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>/
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c663fd38-631e-d876-012a-700081209ed9@a-giese.de">
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>= 12
months Lets assume the velocities are such that Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 11 months. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">4) After one year on their own clock each
twin fires a retro rocket that reverses their velocities. By
the equivalence principle the both clocks experience a
gravity like force and their clocks slow down in a lower
gravity field. Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1 day on
their own clocks so now <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Δt<sub>1</sub>=
Δt<sub>2</sub>= 12 months + 1day and knowing the plan Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 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>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"> </span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="4" width="154"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="143"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part8.E37F5749.FD3B07D2@a-giese.de"
class="" height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="56"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part9.96E730E3.9F7E7508@a-giese.de"
class="" height="64" width="64"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="8"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL">
</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>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. They drift
for exactly one year and now Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>= 24
months + 1day and they believing in special relativity think Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 22 months.+ 1day.
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore:vglayout;
position:relative;z-index:6"><span
style="position:absolute;left:264px;
top:-22px;width:64px;height:59px"><img
src="cid:part10.1A390639.20D16719@a-giese.de" class=""
height="59" width="64"></span></span><span
style="mso-ignore: vglayout;position:relative;z-index:5"><span
style="position:absolute;
left:213px;top:-21px;width:64px;height:59px"><img
src="cid:part11.9AB9430E.B3CF18EA@a-giese.de" class=""
height="59" width="64"></span></span><span
style="mso-tab-count:4">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">6) now the stop rocket fires for half a
day on each twins clock and the twins come to rest exactly
at the place they started. Their own clocks tell Δt<sub>1</sub>=
Δt<sub>2</sub>= 24 months + 1.5day and they believing in
special relativity think the others clock should be Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 22 months.+ 1.5days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>They get out of
their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that the two
clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief in special
relativity was wrong. </p>
</blockquote>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
<blockquote
cite="mid:53120376-e0d6-cff1-9496-f812b403b40c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>before we enter discussions about details I send you a
drawing of my experiment with some explanations. I think
that it is simple enough so that we do not need too much
philosophy about epistemology to understand it.</p>
<p>My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring
of the synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit
the target T (at 0 m) where they are converted into
photons. The photons fly until the target H<sub>2</sub>
where they are deflected by a small angle (about one
degree) (at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the
converter (KONV at 35 m) where a portion of the photons
is converted into an electron- position pair. The pair is
detected and analysed in the configuration of the magnet 2
MC 30 and telescopes of spark chambers (FT between 37.5
and 39.5 m). The rest of detectors at the right is for
monitoring the basic photon beam.</p>
<p>In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both
particles (electron and positron) are measured and the
momentum and the energy of both particles is determined.</p>
<p>Here all flying objects are interpreted as being
particles, there is no wave model needed. So, I do not see
where we should need here any QM. <br>
</p>
<p>The rest of the mail will be commented later.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e3bc1c99-7194-ae49-d8d0-231776cc9d1a@nascentinc.com">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Andrew , Albrecht:</p>
<p>"physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is
not required for the universe to go on doing what it
does. " Disagree</p>
<p>This is the old classic the world is the way we see it
concept promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and
dominated thinking for 1000years</p>
<p>until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in
principle un-observable interior of matter was always a
mental projection requiring an observer. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>" governed and filtered by the laws which create the
things" Baer's first law of physics is that the
physicist created the law. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is
not an empty medium, but a tensor description is a
linear approximation <br>
</p>
<p> The medium can be completely
torn apart only such processes involve life and death of
self and are taboo in science. This is in fact the the
path of development for quantum theory<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your
descriptions are all on the theoretical "unknowable"
side, which of course you believe describes physical
reality, and no one would argue that our (your)
theory is not self consistent, but to discuss the wave
particle problem one needs to identify the vonNeuman cut
between subjective personal observation and the
un-observable domain described by the theory. Where are
the detectors that tell you how the "unknowable" was
stimulated and the detectors that tell you the
"unknowable's" response and the detectors that tell you
how some of the theoretical elements along the
theoretical path inside the "unknowable" were
controlled?</p>
<p>Once we have such transition points between theory and
observations identified I think I can show you that the
QM probability wave picture is self consistent but also
does science a great disservice by hiding and ridiculing
speculation, research and experiment in deeper causes
for the probabilistic phenomena <br>
</p>
<p>A single atomic transition billions of light years away
must be a particle to reach a similar atom and cause a
transition in an atom in a detector on earth. And the
fact that this particle transmission angle is random and
exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating the uncertainty
principle) and therefor just happens to hit our
detector as purely random QM event leaving us with a
Bohm guiding wave that controls the probabilities. It
all makes sense only, <b><font size="+2">IF</font></b><font
size="+2"><font size="-2"> </font></font>you stop
your analysis at the external objective aspect of
reality and fail to realize that <i>beyond</i> the
emission at the distant galaxy and the absorption of the
"photon" in your retina is the other half of the causal
path which describes your subjective existence, <b><font
size="+2">then</font></b> you will be blissfully
happy with the self consistent QM explanation.</p>
<p>So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that
our quantum priests have built for us and just come up
with more and more complex explanations within the BOX.
Are we such cowards?<br>
</p>
<p>Is that what you are proposing?</p>
<p>Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what
we know to be true by direct experience into our
theories. Then you will begin to see events not
particles, cycles not points, actions not states, are
the a better way to understand reality.<br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" 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>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:73a5853b-6bd9-4f87-8aec-32949fe851f5@a-giese.de"
type="cite">Hi Andrew, <br>
<br>
where do you miss reciprocity at STR? <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have some problems with STR <br>
<br>
That physical laws should be the same for all
observers is OK. <br>
<br>
But that implies reciprocity which is not OK. <br>
<br>
<br>
Peoples' thoughts? <br>
<br>
<br>
======================================== <br>
Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM <br>
From: "Chip Akins" <br>
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'" <br>
Cc: <br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR <br>
<br>
Hi Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to add a comment to this discussion. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is my opinion that physics happens by itself,
whether we think about it or not. And that an observer
is not required for the universe to go on doing what
it does. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also feel that our perception of what is going on is
governed and filtered by the laws which create the
things we call fields, particles, forces, and all the
other, <br>
relatively abstract things we have named in our
studies of nature. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also think there is a version of what we call
relativity which is without paradox, but that
relativity is not SR or GR, but rather a relativity
which is based on matter <br>
being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed
frame of space, with space as a tensor medium and not
empty. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The above comment is just my view or course, but I
think it makes sense. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chip Akins <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer <br>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM <br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Albrecht: <br>
<br>
I'll send this to you and the nature of light
separately. then please check if it gets to you on
both <br>
<br>
1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see
exactly where the Von Neuman cut takes place to
evaluate the experiment from my observer inclusive <br>
perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are
simply consistent results inside quantum theory. There
are always two operations separating reality from <br>
our observational experience and since science is
operating under the assumption that quantum reality
(i.e. anything that cannot be seen directly such as
atomic <br>
structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very
likely that the two operations are adjusted to to make
the quantum reality assumptions self consistent. <br>
<br>
2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in
current theory because if force and charge are treated
as separate degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled
<br>
apart by external gravito-electric forces then in
order to keep them at the same point the current
theory would implicitly require an infinite force.
relaxing this <br>
requirement then allows current theory to be an
approximation to one that does not require such an
infinite force. Much like classical physics is an
approximation <br>
of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum
theory is an approximation to my Cognitive Action
Theory when the force between mass and charge does NOT
<br>
approach infinity. <br>
<br>
3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the
Twin Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text
books. Here is wikipedia <br>
<br>
" Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have
been various explanations of this paradox. These
explanations <br>
"can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of
different standards of simultaneity in different
frames, and those that designate the acceleration <br>
[experienced by the travelling twin] as the main
reason...".[5] Max von Laue <br>
argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be
in two separate inertial frames <br>
, one on the way out and another on the way back, this
frame switch is the reason for the aging difference,
not the <br>
acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by
Albert Einstein <br>
and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation <br>
to explain the aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.[7] <br>
" <br>
<br>
i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly
select an experiment setup that eliminates the clock
slow down due to velocity with the clock speed up due
to <br>
acceleration. The equivalence principle equates
acceleration and gravity in Einsteins theory. My
thought experiment simply has two twins in inter
stellar space <br>
accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions
coming back to rest at the meeting point at the
origin. If everything is symmetric one explanation is
that <br>
velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at
all. But by allowing an arbitrarily long coast time
the relative velocity low down will always dominate
and the twin <br>
paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's
clocks must slow down according to SRT and GRT, so
when theories reach a logical inconsistency they must
<br>
be improved. <br>
<br>
What I believe is happening is that the general
relativity expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c
- m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru = <br>
the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside
the mass shell of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are
living inside the a black hole of radius Ru according
to <br>
the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the
brackets becomes; <br>
<br>
m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) -
1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian -
(T-V) <br>
<br>
In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory
calculates half the change of energy transfer from
electric to gravitational energy. But it observes the
change in <br>
electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate.
As I have often said on this issue the equations are
correct it is the world view that is wrong. The error
<br>
started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This
confused a Theoretical force with an Observational
experience. It happened because the observer was taken
<br>
out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the
world in front of your nose) were taken to be reality
instead of the mental experiences they are. Quantum <br>
theory is the beginning of correcting this error but
it will take a while to find the right interpretation.
We must add the mind back into physics. <br>
<br>
best wishes <br>
<br>
Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer <br>
Research Director <br>
Nascent Systems Inc. <br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 <br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a> <br>
<br>
On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote: <br>
<br>
Hi Wolf, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: <br>
<br>
I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized
during interaction with matter and then we project the
quantized material state changes back into the <br>
waves as a mathematical convenience <br>
<br>
We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have
referred to my PhD experiment. In that experiment we
have used electrons of a well defined energy to <br>
convert them into photons. The photons were after a
flight of several meters in the air detected by pair
building in a thin layer of copper. The energy of the
pair <br>
was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of
the original electron. So, how can we understand this
result if it is not the photon which carries <br>
exactly this energy and which is quantized with this
energy? <br>
<br>
to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17
comment; I'm introducing some new ideas in order to
include the mind in physical theory. Treated <br>
individually one can reject them because anything new
can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct.
So have patience. <br>
<br>
1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes
it means what it says. Mass and charge are assumed to
be properties of particles. Particles have been <br>
assumed to be points and so mass and charge are
located at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and
charge should be given separate degrees of freedom and
<br>
the force between them is not infinite. <br>
<br>
The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary,
there cannot be a force at all. If we look at the
forces of charges, it is obvious (in the mind of
physicists) that a <br>
charge can only interact with a charge of the same
type. So the electrical charge and the charge of the
strong force will by common understanding not react in
<br>
any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of
a charge (which is, however, not the understanding of
present physics) then there should not be any <br>
force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass. <br>
<br>
If we look deeper into what mass is by present
understanding, then charges may influence the
dynamical process which we call "inertia". But that is
in that case a <br>
complicated logical connection. <br>
<br>
2)"The question here is again: what is more
fundamental, action or force?" The rest of your
comments are simply addressing an incomplete
presentation of my <br>
theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change
to be fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action
is the material of change. Form is the state in which
it <br>
is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the
rate of action happening, force is the experience of
all finite particles in a non homogeneous action flow
who all <br>
want to experience more action. I think it is best to
defer this discussion to either metaphysics or when I
have complete presentation ready. <br>
<br>
Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I
still follow this argument that action is something
which the human brain needs to structure the world so
that it <br>
fits into our brains. Particles which react to each
other do not have this need. They react to a force,
and the force and also the reaction to it can be
infinitesimal. <br>
An action is (by my understanding) something which
happens or does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal
single steps which each can be understood as an <br>
action. So, this is my argument that action is a
typical case of "human understanding". <br>
<br>
SRT: <br>
<br>
"First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to
do with gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?"
Because I have seen the twin paradox explained by <br>
including gravity in text books. clocks slow down
because of velocity but speed up because of
acceleration the two cancel when two twins are
accelerated with <br>
constant acceleration for the first quarter of the
trip, the ship turned around decelerated for the
second quarter and continued to be accelerated toward
the start <br>
point, during the third quarter and then rocket
reverses for the third quarter and come to rest rest
at the origin where the second twin has been waiting
at rest. <br>
Now both twins will agree on the amount of time
passing. The paradox is said to be resolved because
Einstein's Srt is expanded to GRT and gravity is
introduced. <br>
<br>
Can you please give me a reference to a text book
which connects the twin paradox to gravity? I never
heard about such an idea; and the discussion about <br>
ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
perform this twin paradox in an environment where no
gravitational sources are around, and it would work as
<br>
usually described. <br>
<br>
According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity.
The degree of slow-down is related to the speed of the
clocks and to nothing else. Acceleration or <br>
deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all
textbooks. <br>
<br>
Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the
third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin
where the second twin has been waiting at rest." Now I
am <br>
confused. I have understood that both twins move and
change their motion at exactly the same times. How can
it then happen that on twin is at rest and expects <br>
the other one? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"And second: the whole process as you describe it is
completely symmetrical. Both twins make the same
experience with time and with there according ageing.
<br>
Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is
that both twins see the other moving at a constant
velocity for an arbitrarily long period of time <br>
<br>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only
for the time until the other twin changes his speed. <br>
<br>
and each one would according to SRT calculate the
other twin has aged relative to himself. both cannot
be right. by making the acceleration period small and
<br>
symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the
gravity explanation but retain an arbitrarily long
constant velocity. SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT
BE <br>
RESOLVED IN GRT. <br>
<br>
Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox.
Assume the following case which is sometimes
discussed. There are two observers, A and B, and both
<br>
have clocks with them. We assume that both observers
move with respect to each other. Then observer A will
find that the clock of observer B runs more slowly. <br>
But as both observers are physically equivalent also
observer B will find that the clock of observer A runs
more slowly. <br>
<br>
This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical
conflict. But it is not. To see why not we have to
have a closer look on how clock speeds (or the time in
different <br>
frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks
like. <br>
<br>
If the observer A will compare his clock run with the
one of observer B, he will e.g. place two of his
clocks, which we will call clock 1 and clock 2 (and
which he <br>
has of course synchronized) along the path of observer
B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B with
his clock 1 and then with clock 2 in the moment <br>
when the observer B passes these clocks. The result
will be that the clock of observer B have run more
slowly. <br>
<br>
But how now the other way around? The observer B can
of course compare his clock with both clocks of
observer A when he passes these clocks. But now a <br>
difference: Both clocks of observer A have been
synchronized in the frame of A. But in the frame of B
they will not be synchronized (a fundamental fact in
SRT). <br>
From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A
will be retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the
observer B can reproduce the observation of observer <br>
A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B
slowed down. But observer B will use a different
method to determine the speed of the clocks of
observer A. <br>
Observe B will also position two clocks along the path
which observer A follows in frame B and he will
synchronize these clocks in his frame B. And with his
clocks <br>
he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared
to his own ones. <br>
<br>
This different clock synchronization follows from the
time-related part of the Lorentz transformation: <br>
<br>
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)).
Regarding the example above v is the speed between the
frames of A and of B. <br>
<br>
Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto
Novo when I talked about the problem of de Broglie
with SRT.) If not clear, please ask further questions
I <br>
and shall go into more details. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
do my Emails show up <br>
<br>
I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
<br>
Let me know if you get them <br>
<br>
I have received your mail once. But last time also
Chandra and Adrew have answered. So the general
distribution seems to work <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer <br>
Research Director <br>
Nascent Systems Inc. <br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 <br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a> <br>
<br>
On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote: <br>
<br>
Hi Andrew W.: <br>
<br>
Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a
theory of physics. It is smart mathematics only. <br>
<br>
Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even
though, quantization is postulated wrongly on EM
waves, rather than on quantum mechanically bound <br>
electrons! <br>
<br>
Chandra. <br>
<br>
================================== <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- <br>
From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY <br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM <br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion ; <br>
Wolfgang Baer <br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi all <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal -
but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's
flawed actually <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
======================================== <br>
<br>
Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM <br>
<br>
From: "Albrecht Giese" <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <br>
<br>
Cc: <br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
again comments in the text. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">No Kc is the spring constant
of the force holding charge and mass <br>
together <br>
</blockquote>
That means a force between charge and mass? To my
understanding mass and charge are completely different
categories as a wrote last time. Charge is a <br>
permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
dynamical process which also changes when the object
changes its motion state (which at the end is : <br>
relativity). <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In order to build a framework
of a physical theory that properly <br>
includes the observer as a measurement model
building and acting <br>
component I use a very simplified concept built on
the classic <br>
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time
along with the forces <br>
between them are fundamental. Here are some of the
differences between <br>
my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics <br>
</blockquote>
Just a question at this point: to which set of
"metaphysical ideas" do you refer? If we refer to main
stream physics, at least mass is a different category.
And also <br>
time and space are most probably different categories
from the others, at least for some of the physical
community. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">* Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts* <br>
The examples provided in this section are intended
to show how action <br>
theory is applied to well known and observable
situations that can be <br>
compared with analysis using classical physics
concepts. What CAT has <br>
added is summarized as follows: <br>
-Change involving transitions between states is
where physics is <br>
happening. <br>
-Change, visualized as stable action patterns,
propagates through <br>
material media. <br>
-The degrees of freedom of classical systems has
been doubled by <br>
separating mass and charge. <br>
-Internal material forces between mass and charge
are introduced as <br>
heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of
the interior of <br>
matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum
theory (see <br>
chapter 6) <br>
-Mach’s principle and the connection between the
inertial field is <br>
introduced in place of the observational pseudo
forces such as the <br>
centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation.
(See Appendix on <br>
Mach’s Principle) <br>
-Time is defined as the name of the state of the
system adopted as a <br>
clock, and time intervals are measured as action
required to change a <br>
state separated by a constant state distance. <br>
Action theory is being developed as the physical
underpinnings of an <br>
event oriented world view and a description of
reality which includes <br>
both the subjective and objective aspect of reality
described by CAT. <br>
</blockquote>
The question here is again: what is more fundamental,
action or force? <br>
<br>
In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes
are very simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is
a tendency, or a good strategy of our brains to build
<br>
categories. For instance, there are billions of trees
on our earth. No brain of a human being is able to
register and to remember all these trees. So, our
brain build <br>
the category "tree". <br>
<br>
That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no
logical connection to the category-building, they
follow fundamental rules. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In an analogue way, there is a force between charges
(else not!). If objects move which have charges the
forces will cause that the motion of the objects is <br>
influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is
fundamental. A human brain can now build the category
of an "action" to describe, or better: to categories
this <br>
process. This brain-related process is in my view a
less fundamental view to the world, even though a
helpful one. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But again: mass and charge are not the same category.
It is true that there would be no inertia if there
would not be charges in the world. <br>
<br>
But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of
charges (and a dynamical consequence). So one could
say: a consequence on a higher level. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way
of humans to categorize motion. "Space" may be a
structural way to treat the effect of charges. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*Twin Paradox:* <br>
You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the
Lorenz <br>
transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which
describes time dilation <br>
How do you avoid the paradox in the following
experiment <br>
Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse
in opposite directions. <br>
At some very long time they are both reversed with a
double pulse <br>
when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse. <br>
The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins
experience the same <br>
acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are
equal and can be <br>
eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is
the arbitrarily <br>
long period where they are traveling with a velocity
relative to each <br>
other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
<br>
velocity squared the direction of relative travel
does not make a <br>
difference. If the theory is correct there is a
paradox and gravity <br>
cannot explain it. <br>
</blockquote>
First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do
with gravity. Why <br>
<br>
do you connect it to gravity? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And second: the whole process as you describe it is
completely <br>
<br>
symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with
time and with <br>
<br>
there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a
paradox? I cannot <br>
<br>
see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it
can be. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting <br>
replies from people who send them directly and my
E-mails do not show <br>
up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?* <br>
</blockquote>
To test it, you may sent this mail again without my
address in the list; <br>
<br>
then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Best, <br>
wolf <br>
</blockquote>
Best <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Virenfrei. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe <br>
</a> <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
--- <br>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a> <br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe <br>
</a> <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" 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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
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"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>