<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I
cannot answer
everyone individually but I realize I have not been clear enough
so I’ll make a
few comments on your responses and try again. Please see the
write-up after the
comments and let me know if I made a mistake in calculating the
test of
Einstein’s theory I included at the end.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> John Willamson</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No I have not read your 2015 SPIE paper I do
not think I
ever got a Proceedings. But I have no problem with the math or
the derivations
but a more fundamental issue of <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>what
kind of reality are we being asked to imagine.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Graham Blackwell</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes That was my mistake I got the prime and
unprimed mixed
up it has been corrected</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard Gauthier</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is exactly it in a symmetric experiment
both twins
clocks run the same , the third persons point of view is
critical.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Hodge</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes of course it has to be the right clock, a
pendulum clock
won’t work in the thought experiment, but there are plenty of
reasons it cannot
be carried out in practice. And you are right to question
whether the
assumption that the dilation principle works for all clocks when
we do not know
the mechanism for all clocks is a streach. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Chip Akins</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The observer plays a pivotal role because it
is in his imagination
that all these thought experiments are carried out</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Chandra </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are thinking along the same lines except
that the
universal complex Tension Field will turn out to be your own </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>MY SECOND TRY </b></p>
<h1><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational field
URL <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a></span></h1>
<h1><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">This
is a very complex analysis involving general relativity. The
trick in this
paper and all I’ve seen is to explain the clock paradox using
Einstein’s
relativity involves two reference frames. In the stationary
twin’s frame
velocity of the moving twin causes the slow down of the moving
twins clock as
predicted by special relativity. In the frame of the moving
twin his clocks are
stationary but gravity (using the equivalence principle) from
general
relativity causes the slow down. Here is a picture:</span></h1>
<p><img src="cid:part2.07A03D36.1C733BAC@nascentinc.com" alt=""></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<h1><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">In
the above referenced paper phase 3 and 4 are symmetric to 1
and 2 so are not separately identified. In
both frames the twin 1’s clocks in the rocket slow down so
there is no paradox.
But since both frames see the other twin move with the same
velocity and
acceleration, special relativity, as Einstein originally
explained it, gave rise to a
paradox. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Einstein
required gravity and
the equivalence principle to explain the asymmetry. This lead
to a very complex
and I suggest incorrect view of reality.</span></h1>
<h1><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>To understand
this we must remember
that points of view of both twins and the transformations
between them were
derived from a 3d person perspective that is an absolute
background space
provided by Einstein’s and Lorentz’s imagination. We could add
Maxwell and all
who believe what they see in front of their noses is reality.
This is wrong. One can never take the
observer in this case the 3’d person out of consideration. The
3d person never
sees or imagines the reality of the two twins. He imagines his
own
interpretation of stimulation as objects on a background space
that is always supplied
by himself.( the walls of Platos cave)<br>
</span></h1>
</p>
<p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Once one realizes that the
imaginings of Einstein
were images projected on his background display space, (i.e
Plato not
Aristotle) then one can ask what is the difference between the
reality of the
two twins? And to answer this question we can simply ask them.
Twin 1 feels no
force. Twin 2 feels a force, we call it gravity. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The difference between the two
twins is simply that
the speed of electromagnetic interaction depends upon the
gravitational field
in which the physical material of twin 1 or twin 2 or observer
3 is subject to.
The physical material is NOT the observable objects appearing
in front of our
noses. That is why in the symmetric thought experiment I
proposed both twins
would have identical times on their clocks, but both would
have their clocks would
be delayed relative to the 3d person, ( As Gauthier
suggested).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Now I
repeat what I believe to be the correct theory:</span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
special relativity
interpretation gives the wrong world view of reality. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two
clocks do not slow down because they are moving relative to each
other. Their rates
are determined by their complete Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated relative
to the observer observing them. In case that is a universal 3<sup>d</sup>
person it is relative to the fixed star shell of the universe.
The potential
gravitational energy of a mass inside the fixed stars shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V=
-mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here
M<sub>u</sub>
and R<sub>u</sub> are the mass and radius of the star shell and
R<sub>u </sub>is also the
Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of us is living in..
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
moving
clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock rates and assuming
the Action is an
invariant</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup> gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt
= Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order approximation is equal
to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order terms are on the order
of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not been tested to the second
term accuracy. In
both theories the moving clock interval is smaller when the
clock moves with
constant velocity in the space of an observer at rest.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
additional important point is that equation 1 shows that the
speed of light is
not constant but rather depends upon the gravitational
potential. The higher
the gravitational potential the faster this speed. The speed of
light is constant in each of our imagination i.e. perceptive
space but it should be called our individual speed of now.<br>
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I often make trivial math mistakes so please correct me if you
see a problem.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>