<html><head></head><body><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" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>, "John Duffield" <johnduffield@btconnect.com><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 color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame@starweave.com]<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 color="#000080" face="Arial" size="2">Hi Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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"> 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"> 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" size="2">Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et al.,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" size="2">This explanation boils down to two considerations:</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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 color="#000080" face="Arial" 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"> 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"> 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 height="59" src="cid:4F582D7776044836BFF4DA63E503FA4D@vincent" width="64"/></span><span style="position: absolute;margin-top: 46.0px;width: 64.0px;height: 58.0px;margin-left: 280.0px;"><img height="58" src="cid:FAE31A8D9C774033BC9BFE7E6559F69A@vincent" 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 align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<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 align="left" valign="top"><img height="58" src="cid:0A935D79F0FD4744958E74F8D3444F68@vincent" width="64"/></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" rowspan="2" valign="top"><img height="59" src="cid:41B64D1E3CAA43D99D24E341A47B76C6@vincent" 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 align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<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 align="left" rowspan="3" valign="top"><img height="66" src="cid:8786FA123FBE440EBF1AAC2871F2D5D8@vincent" width="65"/></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="59"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img height="59" src="cid:BBF662EFF72E4C3E9F8336BC49A141B0@vincent" 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 align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<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 align="left" rowspan="2" valign="top"><img height="59" src="cid:9E31EB9589BB4A03A368281B48118552@vincent" width="65"/></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="56"> </td>
<td align="left" rowspan="2" valign="top"><img height="64" src="cid:B57A9113917E4D66AB596C9C674A10AF@vincent" 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 height="59" src="cid:90B48C22EA724FAAB06A9BDA88A5A4B6@vincent" 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 height="59" src="cid:B7A5E7DBCE8442328DE20A41183DCFBE@vincent" 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">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">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">"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"><img alt="" height="29" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" style="width: 46.0px;height: 29.0px;" 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"> 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 grahame@starweave.com<br/>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><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 af.kracklauer@web.de <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>