<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>When we get the SRT argument with Albrecht straightened out i'll
get to discuss what you are alluding to and I agree with<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/2017 8:17 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-6ebcbf99-b13a-4456-b15d-bfb94987b37d-1496675826181@3capp-webde-bap45">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whatever else, in our discussions on SRT John W. never
decisively came down for either epistomological or
ontological essence for time-dilation &
space-contraction. Seems to me there many contributing
aspects to this issue, but a central one, not found in the
explantion below (or is it a TV screen play?), is due
attention to the fact that the E&M interaction involves
TWO SR-events: emission and absortion. By not carefully
separating these two events, many paradoxes can be
generated! Most reasonably, perhaps, it should be taken
that these preternatural phenomena are manifest in the
reception events, and not in the emission events. In plane
text: they are appearances, not physical modifications.
They result from a kind-of relativistic perspective.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, how about the muons? Well, maybe they were not, as
assumed, all generated at the same altitude, but at various
heights as the cosmic rays penetrte different depths of
atm. I don't know the nuclear chemistry involved, but could
it be that the x-section for the conversion grows as the
cosmic ray penetrates more atm.? Like nutrons in flesh,
say. Such would result in muon decays at much greater
depths of atm than naively expected, thus busting the main
empirical support for time-dilation. (Don't need a busting
theory for lenght-contraction, it's never been seen anyway.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
04. Juni 2017 um 10:27 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Mark, Martin van der"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>, "John Duffield"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"><johnduffield@btconnect.com></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Cambria;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Gentlefolk,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>With the exception of
Grahame, who I agree with here in every respect,
you are just not thinking clearly enough.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paraphrasing Feynmann,
you have to be careful not to fool yourself and
the easiest person to fool is yourself.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Firstly, Albrecht you are
right, of course, that special relativity says
nothing about acceleration: the equations
contain only space, time and velocity. Putting
oneself “inside the box” of special relativity
then is, obviously, not going to enable one to
understand it. This is why I used the special
properties of “unphysicality” spaceships to
simplify the argument and give an almost
instantaneous acceleration. Understanding the
maths must not be confused with understanding
the physics!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span>Grahame is
right in that one passes continually through
many frames if one considers uniform
acceleration. The message is that special
relativity is one of the many things that needs
to follow from a deeper understanding of how the
universe works, not act as a starting point for
it. Also, showing that the mere mathematics of
special relativity is incomplete as a starting
point is so obvious as to be scarcely worth
mentioning. It has been known for over a
century, so why are you wasting your time
talking about it? Actually, come to think of it,
why am I wasting my time talking about it? Oh
well …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It is just not true that
there is no basis for an “understanding” of SR.
One can derive it in many ways from deeper
principles, including from the principle of
general covariance. This means that “relativity”
is not the same as “special relativity”. There
was a whole discussion on this earlier on this
thread which I have neither the time nor the
energy to repeat.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I derived SR from the
conservation of energy and the linearity of
field in my 2015 SPIE paper (have you read this
yet?). It can be, of course, derived from the
experimental properties of light, as by
Heaviside and Lorentz. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>To properly understand
SR, though, you do need to expand your thinking
to include acceleration and the variation
between inertial frames. I have the impression
that some of you think that relativity says that
clocks elsewhere ACTUALLY speed up and slow
down. They do not. Each observer observes their
local clocks to be in harmony with all their
local processes. Wolf, you are right about this,
though it appears to be confusing you rather
than helping for some reason, as you seem to
contradict yourself in some of your statements.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In the accelerated
system, the observers clock is being wound up.
Energy is being put into it. The effects of this
can be seen. She can feel the force and knows it
is there. The universe ahead is gradually
becoming bluer (and shorter!) and the universe
behind redder. It is the effect of the frame
change that is shrinking the scale of the
forward universe with respect to her own rulers
and clocks in a way that is exactly consistent
with a linear transformation to infinite
velocity that is the underling physics of
relativity. I realize that sentence will not
make any sense at first. When you get it you
will have got it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Let me try to explain:
every single particle inside the local spaceship
is equally “spun up” by the acceleration. The
relative rate of local clocks with respect to
the protons, electrons, neutrons and local
lightbulb photons remains the same. The clocks
act normally. It is the forward universe that
appears to shrink as it “blues”. The operative
word is, and always is “appears”. The universe
is not actually shrinking at all! For the stay
at home quintuplet, she also knows the
spaceships clocks are all being wound up, yet
she observes them to slow down. You need to
understand this. You need to understand how the
harmony of phases works. <span> </span>When you
see things with light you have to understand the
consequences of seeing things with light. You
need to read de Broglie. Luckily, if you do not
read French there is an English translation of
this. Thanks Al! It is no good thinking inside a
half understanding of relativity by restricting
yourself to special relativity. In doing that
you just will not get it. Albrecht is right in
the fragment Wolf includes in his email (I do
not have Albrecht’s whole reply as it has not
appeared on my version of this forum).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Just to finish up: I
agree with Grahame about the first four
paragraphs in Albrechts email but, not to be too
British about it, not the last two. Here they
are and here is why:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Times;background: white;">Another
point in this discussion: Acceleration <b>does
not play any role </b>in relativity, neither
in SRT nor in GRT. The reference to acceleration
in case of e.g. the twin paradox comes from the
(indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration
of one party / one twin this one will leave his
inertial frame. So the Lorentz transformation
does not apply any longer. But, not to confuse
it here, an acceleration does not give any
quantitative contribution to the processes
treated by SRT and GRT. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Times;background: white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Times;color:
blue;background: white;">Nonsense. See above.
This is the effect of fooling oneself with a set
of true assertions (nearly all of the above
paragraph is true!) The missing link is
precisely the fact that one leaves the inertial
frame that is the whole point. It is the
acceleration that adds energy to clocks, and it
is the conservation of energy that requires
space and time to appear to shrink. What is
“indirect” about the kick in the pants the
unphysicality spaceships need to accelerate you
to near lightspeed in a second? Acceleration is
that thing that changes your frame. Obviously!
As you yourself say. This does not mean SR is
wrong. SR does not purport to include
acceleration. It deals with apparent
transformations, from the point of view of an
observer in one inertail frame, of another in
another. Just and no more. It is no good just
using SR in an argument involving accelerations.
This is the same sort of thing as proving 1 is 2
by dividing by zero somewhere.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Times;background: white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Times;background: white;">Another
comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity: Following Lorentz makes relativity
much better understandable than the one of
Einstein, and it avoids all paradoxes which I
know. This applies particularly to GRT which
becomes so simple that it can be treated at
school, whereas the Einsteinian is too
complicated even for most students of physics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue;">I
will paraphrase this: You understand the Lorentz
one but not the Einstein one. You are claiming
ignorance of the symmetry which exists when one
does particle physics, experiments in very
different frames with respect to local space.
This does introduce paradoxes for Lorentz. This
is ok. It is alright to not know about certain
things. Ignorance of something, however, is not
an argument that it does not exist. One can get
SR from Lorentz contraction, or general
covariance,<span> </span>or a consideration
that everything is made from light, or
conservation of energy and momentum in waves. So
what? In all these cases SR is a derivative, not
a starting point. The Lorentz view of GR is
contained in the Einstein view of GR, where the
latter includes the observed transformations of
space and time as well as the “curvature”. This
does not, of course, mean that GR is true in
every respect. Experimentally, however, so far
so good. Or do you know otherwise?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue;">Sorry,
it is Sunday morning and that is all I’m
prepared to put in at the moment. There is a
deeper discussion of this from a year or so ago
which you may have missed Grahame, but can be
downloaded from somewhere I think.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue;">Cheers,
John. </span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF762032" style="direction: ltr;"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 03, 2017 11:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Fw: STR twin
Paradox</font><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Hi
Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I
agree fully with at least your first four
paragraphs. It looks as if you may not have
read my email in full: in my 4th-from-last
paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2),
which effectively summarise all that you say
(in your reply) in your first 4 paras.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I'm
not sure that I agree, though, with your
observation on acceleration. Constant
acceleration is of course just a steady
transition through inertial frames, so that
transition has an effect on relationships
between an accelerating frame and a
non-accelerating frame (or another
constantly-accelerating frame) that fits
with principles of SR; I suppose it depends
on what you mean by "does not play any
role". I believe that the Equivalence
Principle, equating effects of acceleration
to effects of an equivalent gravitational
field, has pretty good experimental
credentials.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">For
me, though, the important thing is the
claimed <strong>reciprocity</strong> of SR,
which in turn leads to the claim of frame
symmetry. The fact is, that reciprocity is
also borne out by experiment, including in
particle accelerator experiments. The
critical point here, though, is that this
reciprocity is reciprocity of <strong>measurement</strong>.
That's why I refer to aspects of SR as
'observer effects'.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Apart
from in my own writings I haven't seen <strong>any</strong>
explanation for that observed reciprocity
that doesn't depend on objective inertial
frame symmetry. Such an explanation is
essential to non-symmetric explanations of
anomolous aberration of starlight, for
example, as well as various particle
accelerator experiments. I have fully
explored this issue and have derived
reciprocal relationships for observers on
the move who observe events in a static
frame: I have shown that for fully
subjective reasons such observers (and
instruments) will yield results that appear
to show the Lorentz Transformation acting
reciprocally - thus 'proving' objective
frame symmetry. Without such an explanation
any claim that SR is <strong>not</strong>
an objective reality cannot hold water.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I
agree also that principles that establish SR
as an explainable phenomenon can be extended
to GR, including every aspect of the
Equivalence Principle. But this of course
depends on a rational explanation for
gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance'
interaction of massive bodies and 'curvature
of spacetime' by such bodies comes about.
This I have also done, simply by reference
to phenomena already discussed and widely
agreed.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<blockquote style="border-left: rgb(0,0,128)
2.0px solid;padding-left: 5.0px;padding-right:
0.0px;margin-left: 5.0px;margin-right: 0.0px;">
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;">-----
Original Message -----</div>
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"
title="phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true"> Albrecht Giese</a></div>
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;"><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a></div>
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;"><b>Sent:</b>
Saturday, June 03, 2017 8:01 PM</div>
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox</div>
<div> </div>
<p>Hi Grahame,</p>
<p>fully agreement that Einstein's relativity
is a working theory but does not have any
causal explanation. This has to do with the
general attitude of Einstein with respect to
science when he developed relativity. But
before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz had already
started to work on these problems, and his
approach does in fact have causal physical
explanations.</p>
<p>Shortly after the Michelson-Morley
experiment Oliver Heaviside presented a
calculation (1888), deduced from Maxwell's
theory of electromagnetism, that an
electrical field necessarily contracts at
motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if fields
contract also objects will contract at
motion. If this happens also the apparatus
of the MM experiment would contract at
motion. And if it contracts, so the
conclusion of Lorentz, the null-result of
the experiment is fully explained even if an
ether should exist.</p>
<p>Next step is dilation. It was (to my
knowledge) already suspected by Lorentz and
it was later found by Schrödinger (1930)
that inside elementary particles there is a
permanent motion with c, the speed of light.
If this is assumed it follows geometrically
that any elementary particle acts like a
light clock and its internal motion and so
its frequency is reduced in the way
described by the Lorentz transformation. The
reduction of the internal frequency
propagates to all cases of motion in
physics.</p>
<p>This is special relativity. But the
considerations of Lorentz can be also
extended to general relativity, and the
result is a mathematical model which fully
conforms to the one of Einstein but is also
based on physical explanations.</p>
<p>Another point in this discussion:
Acceleration <b>does not play any role </b>in
relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The
reference to acceleration in case of e.g.
the twin paradox comes from the (indirect)
fact that in case of an acceleration of one
party / one twin this one will leave his
inertial frame. So the Lorentz
transformation does not apply any longer.
But, not to confuse it here, an acceleration
does not give any quantitative contribution
to the processes treated by SRT and GRT.</p>
<p>Another comment to the Lorentzian
interpretation of relativity: Following
Lorentz makes relativity much better
understandable than the one of Einstein, and
it avoids all paradoxes which I know. This
applies particularly to GRT which becomes so
simple that it can be treated at school,
whereas the Einsteinian is too complicated
even for most students of physics.</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.06.2017 um
19:43 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:</div>
<blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et
al.,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">I want to express complete
agreement with John W on the role of
accel'n/grav'n in resolving any apparent
paradox in the twins saga.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">I must first, though, draw
attention to what appears to be an
elementary error in Wolf's analysis
(unless I've totally misunderstood you,
Wolf - I can't see how this would be the
case).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">Wolf, you propose (quite
reasonably) that each twin is initially
moving away from the other at speed
'v'. You then propose a variation in
each twin's clock as perceived by the
other, delta-t'. However your
expression for that delta-t' shows the
other twin's clock progressing FASTER
than that of the observer-twin (13
months instead of 12 months) - whereas
of course the whole point of SRT is that
the moving clock progresses SLOWER than
that of the static observer. This is
due to a common fallacy, of applying the
time-dilation factor, which gives the
extended duration of each second, say,
in the moving frame as observed from the
static frame (hence the phrase
'time-dilation'), to the apparent
time-passed in that moving frame. This
makes the ratio of observed/observer
clock-time the inverse of what it should
be according to SRT. The perceived
elapsed time in the moving frame should
be observer time multiplied by the
INVERSE of the Lorentz Factor.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">This doesn't totally destroy
your argument (though it does render it
rather less plausible), since you are
implying that on re-meeting the apparent
accumulated difference will not be shown
on either clock - as of course it
couldn't be. However, as John W points
out, any apparent difference will be
precisely wiped out by acceleration
considerations: SRT is 100% internally
self-consistent, it cannot be faulted on
ANY application of its assertions with
respect to time.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">However, the fact that it's
internally self-consistent doesn't make
it RIGHT. It's not difficult to
envisage a set of mathematical rules -
for instance, relating to trajectories
- that give totally self-consistent
results but don't accord with practical
observations.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">Here's where it gets
interesting. Because of course results
of calculations in SRT DO fit with
practical observations, and have done so
for over a century. The question then
arises as to why this should be so -
since, unlike pretty well every other
branch of physics, no causal explanation
has been found (or even sought?) for
effects in spacetime as given by SRT.
It's been tacitly accepted by the
mainstream physics community as "That's
just how it is". This is a statement of
belief, not of science - the prime
directive of science is to ask "Why?"</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">When I started on my own
scientific investigations 20 years ago I
took SRT totally at face value, totally
uncritically. I didn't actually start
by asking "Why?" in relation to SRT.
As I progressed with my research,
essentially into aspects on
electromagnetic waves anf the
fundamental nature of time, it gradually
became apparent that there IS a "Why!".
That 'why' rests on the fact that all
material objects are formed from
electromagnetic energy (hence E =
Mc-squared); in a moving object that
energy is travelling linearly as well as
cyclically within the object - and this
combined motion beautifully explains
EVERY aspect of SRT.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">This explanation boils down to
two considerations:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">(1) Material objects are
affected by their formative energy-flows
moving linearly as well as cyclically,
giving rise to time-dilation precisely
in accordance with the formula given by
SRT and Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction
as also 'imported' into SRT;</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">(2) Material objects which
happen to be (a) observers or (b)
measuring instruments are likewise
affected in both these respects when in
motion, giving all other observed
consequences detailed by SRT - as
observer effects.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">[As a point of detail, it IS
possible to show the fallacy in SRT only
if you consider matters from the level
of particle formation, rather than
complete particles.]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">In other words, ALL observed
phenomena that appear to confirm SRT
(and also, in fact, GRT) can be fully
explained WITHOUT the 'metaphysical'
claim that "All inertial reference
frames are equivalent" - that claim by
SRT is a myth, one that has NO support
in the evidence claimed for it. It is a
totally superfluous add-on to our
picture of physical reality.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">This being the case, the
requirement (by mainstream physics) that
all phenomena/fields/whatever MUST
conform to that claim is arguably
holding us back from making significant
breakthroughs in our understanding of
reality - breakthroughs that might even
(dare I say it?) take us to the stars.
We are fencing ourselves in with an
imaginary boundary.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font: 10.0pt arial;">-----
Original Message -----
<div style="background: rgb(228,228,228);"><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"> Wolfgang Baer</a></div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a></div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 03, 2017
7:46 AM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR
twin Paradox</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<p>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman";
font-size: 12.0pt;
}
li.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman";
font-size: 12.0pt;
}
div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman";
font-size: 12.0pt;
}
BODY {
direction: ltr;
font-family: Tahoma;
color: rgb(0,0,0);
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
P {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
--></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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twin Paradox
Experiment:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="position:
absolute;margin-top: 46.0px;width:
64.0px;height: 59.0px;margin-left:
229.0px;"><img
src="cid:part5.A9AA6415.AB1E5A0A@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="59" width="64"></span><span
style="position: absolute;margin-top:
46.0px;width: 64.0px;height:
58.0px;margin-left: 280.0px;"><img
src="cid:part6.FCF33521.69277DF7@nascentinc.com"
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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="7" width="148"> </td>
<td width="64"> </td>
<td width="144"> </td>
<td width="65"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="58"> </td>
<td valign="top" align="left"><img
src="cid:part7.7F421FF2.F52FCA48@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="58" width="64"></td>
<td> </td>
<td rowspan="2" valign="top"
align="left"><img
src="cid:part8.8701A760.A3E48F88@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<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> </span>Δt’ is; Δt’ =
Δt/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="2" width="1"> </td>
<td width="65"> </td>
<td width="437"> </td>
<td width="66"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"> </td>
<td rowspan="3" valign="top"
align="left"><img
src="cid:part9.ACB64443.1662B464@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="66" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="59"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td valign="top" align="left"><img
src="cid:part10.B3DB4C4C.D0BA2D3D@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="59" width="66"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="4"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After 1 year on Twin
1’s<span> </span>clock he believes twin
two’s clock is Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1</sub>/
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span> </span>clock
he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
12 months Lets assume the velocities are
such that Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= 13 months.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) After one year on
their own clock each twin fires a retro
rocket that reverses their velocities. By
the equivalence principle the both clocks
experience a gravity like force and their
clocks speed up. Lets assume the
acceleration lasts 1 day on their own
clocks so now <span> </span>Δt<sub>1</sub>=
Δt<sub>2</sub>= 12 months + 1day and
knowing the plan Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= 13m + 1d</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="4" width="154"> </td>
<td width="64"> </td>
<td width="143"> </td>
<td width="65"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td rowspan="2" valign="top"
align="left"><img
src="cid:part11.A01891F3.B96F6341@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="56"> </td>
<td rowspan="2" valign="top"
align="left"><img
src="cid:part12.F536BF06.863789CE@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="64" width="64"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="8"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5) Now the two twins
are drifting with the same relative
velocity but toward each other with
opposite signs. Each twin thinks the
others clocks are lowing down by the
formula Δt’ = Δt/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.
They drift for exactly one year and now Δt<sub>1</sub>=
Δt<sub>2</sub>= 24 months + 1day and they
believing in special relativity think Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 26 months.+ 1.083days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="position:
relative;"><span style="position:
absolute;width: 64.0px;height:
59.0px;top: -22.0px;left: 264.0px;"><img
src="cid:part13.4B1D258C.7DB08284@nascentinc.com" class="" height="59"
width="64"></span></span><span
style="position: relative;"><span
style="position: absolute;width:
64.0px;height: 59.0px;top:
-21.0px;left: 213.0px;"><img
src="cid:part14.44352DFB.3D87CBA5@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="59" width="64"></span></span><span>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6) now the stop rocket
fires for half a day on each twins clock
and the twins come to rest exactly at the
place they started. Their own clocks tell
Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>= 24 months
+ 1.5day and they believing in special
relativity think the others clock should
be Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 26
months.+ 1.583days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><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.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/2017
1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<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.</p>
<p>The rest of the mail will be commented
later.</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
</blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<table style="border-top: rgb(211,212,222)
1.0px solid;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55.0px;padding-top:
18.0px;"><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 alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width: 46.0px;height:
29.0px;" moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="line-height: 18.0px;width:
470.0px;font-family: Arial ,
Helvetica , sans-serif;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;padding-top: 17.0px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p> </p>
<hr>
<p> </p>
_______________________________________________<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:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>