<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed
arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down, but If I include the observer
then I get an equation for the slow down that agrees with
eperimetn but disagrees with Einstein in the higher order,
so it should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations below.
</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian Philosophy
everyone was convinced Reality consisted of an external
objective universe independent of subjective living beings.
Electricity and Magnetism had largely been explored through
empirical experiments which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by Maxwell’s
equations. These equations are valid in a medium characterized
by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These
equations<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are valid in
a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are identical in form when
expressed in a different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution of the Lorentz
formulas into Maxwell’s equations that will then give the same
form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must
exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more exciting. W.G.V. Rosser
has shown that the complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from
two things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation.
It is interesting because it shows that electromagnetism is a
consequence of special relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is not a separate force but only a certain
perspective of the electrical force. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In
empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the wave equation
and Maxwell’s field concept required an aether as a medium for
them to propagate. It was postulated that space was filled
with such a medium and that the earth was moving through it.
Therefore it should be detectable with a Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null result showed this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is nothing more than the
fact of an absolute frame. Nobody believes these days that aether
is some kind of material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need
it. <br>
<br>
An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment
which does however not mean that no aether existed. The only
result is that it cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was
also accepted by Einstein.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
came along and derived the Lorentz Transformations assuming
the speed of light is constant, synchronization protocol of
clocks, and rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the null result of Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein went on to eliminate any absolute space
and instead proposed that all frames and observers riding in
them are equivalent and each such observer would measure
another observers clocks slowing down when moving with
constant relative velocity. This interpretation lead to the
Twin Paradox. Since each observer according to Einstein, being
in his own frame would according to his theory claim the other
observer’s clocks would slow down. However both cannot be
right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained several times now. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
found an answer to this paradox in his invention of general
relativity where clocks speed up when in a higher gravity
field i.e one that feels less strong like up on top of a
mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a stationary twin sees
the moving twin at velocity “v” and thinks the moving twin’s
clock slows down. The moving twin does not move relative to
his clock but must accelerate<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>to make a round trip (using the equivalence principle
calculated the being equivalent to a gravitational force).
Feeling the acceleration as gravity and knowing that gravity
slows her clocks she would also calculate her clocks would
slow down. The paradox is resolved because in one case the
explanation is velocity the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity has nothing to
do with the twin situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to
gravity has nothing to do with it. The twin situation is not a
paradox but is clearly free of conflicts if special relativity,
i.e. the Lorentz transformation, is properly applied. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
simply proposed that clocks being electromagnetic structures
slow down and lengths in the direction of motion contract in
the absolute aether of space according to his transformation
and therefore the aether could not be detected. In other words
Lorentz maintained the belief in an absolute aether filled
space, but that electromagnetic objects relative to that space
slow down and contract. Gravity and acceleration had nothing
to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This
approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that the observer
subject to acceleration would know that he is no longer in the
same inertial frame as before and therefore calculate that his
clocks must be slowing down, even though he has no way of
measuring such a slow down because all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore does not consider gravity but only
the knowledge that due to his acceleration he must be moving
as well and knowing his clocks are slowed by motion he is not
surprised that his clock has slowed down when he gets back to
the stationary observer and therefore no paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down
but we have two different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the absolute fixed frame
remains which in the completely symmetric twin paradox
experiment described above implies that both observers have to
calculate their own clock rates from the same initial start
frame and therefore both calculate the same slow down. This
introduces a disembodied 3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some constant speed somewhere
can make this calculation and has the same result. No specific
frame like the god-like one is needed.<br>
<br>
And formally the simple statement is not correct that moving
clocks slow down. If we follow Einstein, also the synchronization
of the clocks in different frames and different positions is
essential. If this synchronization is omitted (as in most
arguments of this discussion up to now) we will have conflicting
results.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both observers would see
the other moving at a relative velocity and calculate their
clocks to run slower than their own when they calculate their
own experience they would also calculate their own clocks to
run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant with Einstein
one has to take into account the synchronization state of the
clocks. Clocks at different positions cannot be compared in a
simple view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g. to carry
a "transport" clock from one clock to the other one. And the
"transport" clock will also run differently when carried. This -
again - is the problem of synchronization.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know the other twin is
also accelerating these effects cancel and all that is left is
the velocity slow down. In other words the Einstein
explanation that one twin explains the slow down as a velocity
effect and the other as a gravity effect so both come to the
same conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would
have to fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate both
the gravity effect and the velocity effect from a disembodied
3d person observer which is reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this process as a gravity
effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is none, neither
by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I know. Even if the
equivalence between gravity and acceleration would be valid (which
it is not) there are two problems. Even if the time would stand
still during the whole process of backward acceleration so that
delta t' would be 0, this would not at all explain the time
difference experienced by the twins. And on the other hand the
gravitational field would have, in order to have the desired
effect here, to be greater by a factor of at least 20 orders of
magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity field
around the sun etc to achieve the time shift needed. So this
approach has no argument at all. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed</b>
because both require a disembodied 3d person observer who is
observing that independent Aristotilian objective universe
that must exist whether we look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not required</b>.
The whole situation can be completely evaluated from the view of
one of the twins or of the other twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the world who is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if you object here you
should give clear arguments, not mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along and says the entire
Aristotelian approach is wrong and the Platonic view must be
taken. Einstein is right in claiming there is no independent
of ourselves space however his derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was conducted under the assumption that his
own imagination provided the 3d person observer god like
observer but he failed to recognize the significance of this
fact. And therefore had to invent additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When
the observer is properly taken into account each observer
generates his own observational display in which he creates
the appearance of clocks. Those appearance are stationary
relative to the observer’s supplied background space or they
might be moving. But in either case some external stimulation
has caused the two appearances. If two copies of the same
external clock mechanism are involved and in both cases the
clock ticks require a certain amount of action to complete a
cycle of activity that is called a second i.e. the moving of
the hand from line 1 to line 2 on the dial. Therefore the
action required to complete the event between clock ticks is
the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The two clocks do
not slow down because they appear to be moving relative to
each other their rates are determined by their complete
Lagrangian Energy L = T-V calculated inside the fixed mass
underlying each observer’s universe. The potential
gravitational energy of a mass inside the mass 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
mass shell and also the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole
each of us is 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>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in the
non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity here. So the
correct equation has to be used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming the Action is
an invariant</b></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>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we are discussing
relativity here.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here which is a bit
different from Einstein's solution. And then you say that
Einstein's solution is an approximation. Then you ask that the
approximation in Einstein's solution should be experimentally
checked. No, the approximation is in your solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock has longer time
periods and so indicates a smaller time for a given process. And
if you follow Einstein the equation <span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of synchronization which is
essential for all considerations about dilation. I repeat the
correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the case ends up with
logical conflicts. Just those conflicts which you have repeatedly
mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's theory has
been tested with v very close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to
v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is 0.9996 as a term
to be added to 0.9999 . That is clearly measurable and shows that
this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> does not exist. You have
introduced it here without any argument and any need. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
is right that there is an aether and Einstein is right that
there is no absolute frame and everything is relative. But
Baer resolve both these “rights” by identifying the aether as
the personal background memory space of each observer who
feels he is living in his own universe. We see and experience
our own individual world of objects and incorrectly feel what
we are looking at is an independent external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen from an
epistemological position. Only the measurement results are equal.
Beyond that I do not see any need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in the different
frames are in fact the measurement tools like clocks and rulers.
The only human-related problem is that a human may read the
indication of a clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in this
view independent of observer related facts. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/7/2017 5:54 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6efbc75e-d69b-d360-737b-d6ad083dae73@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>First there have been so many E-mails I do not know which
one you want me to look at to understand your explanation.
So please send me a copy of it again.</p>
</blockquote>
Sorry but I am not at home now and do not have this mail at
hand. But you will find it by its contents:<br>
<br>
My mail was about this apparent conflict if two moving
observes say that the clock of the other one is slowed down
compared to his own one. Which is not a contradiction if you
look at the time related Lorentz transformation:<br>
t' = gamma*(t-vx/c2) <br>
where you have to insert correct values for v and x. You will
find it in a mail of last week.<br>
This understanding is essential for any discussion of
dilation.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com">
<p>Of course if there is some special to interpret
Einstein's intent that is not in Einstein's book then
perhaps you are right , <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Which book of Einstein do you mean? As above, this is not a
special interpretation of Einstein's intent but the correct
use of the Lorentz transformation.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">if
you are telling me that the only valid <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">inertial frame is
the frame of a third person god like observer who is
stationary before the tw<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ins fire their rockets and in that
frame both of the twins doing exactly the same thing
would have exactly the same clock rates and
therefore they will have the elapsed time when they
meet<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">.<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">No,
you can take any frame you want. But for the whole process
where you use the Lorentz transformation you have to refer
to the same frame.</font></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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">And further if you are
telling me that <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">both twins must <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">realize
that</font> their own clock <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">is
slowing down</font> and the other twin's <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">clock
is also slowing down because both <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">tw</font>ins
must do their calcu<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">lations in this
special initial god like 3d person frame
so both agree<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">No,
it is not the condition that there is a god like person,
but one has to stay with one frame whichever it is.</font></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">And
further you are telling me that <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">all
the talk about there not being a
special <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">inertial</font>
frame, and everything is relative </font></font></font><br>
</font>and neither twin </font> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">believ<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">es he
is </font></font>in <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">his </font> o<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">w</font>n
inertial frame because <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">neither feels <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">he
is moving is a misinterpretation of <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">SRT<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">whether
someone <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">fee<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ls that he is
movin<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">g or
not <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">depends
also on <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">his </font>ch<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">oice of the reference
frame.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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">and
further that URL <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</a><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><br>
<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">"Starting
with <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin"
title="Paul Langevin"
moz-do-not-send="true">Paul
Langevin</a> in 1911, there have
been various explanations of this
paradox. These explanations "can be
grouped into those that focus on the
effect of different standards of
simultaneity in different frames,
and those that designate the
acceleration [experienced by the
travelling twin] as the main
reason...".<sup
id="cite_ref-Debs_Redhead_5-0"
class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5"
moz-do-not-send="true">[5]</a></sup>
<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue"
title="Max von Laue"
moz-do-not-send="true">Max von
Laue</a> argued in 1913 that since
the traveling twin must be in two
separate <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames"
class="mw-redirect"
title="Inertial frames"
moz-do-not-send="true">inertial
frames</a>, one on the way out and
another on the way back, this frame
switch is the reason for the aging
difference, not the acceleration <i>per
se</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-6"
class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6"
moz-do-not-send="true">[6]</a></sup>
Explanations put forth by <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
title="Albert Einstein"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albert
Einstein</a> and <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born"
title="Max Born"
moz-do-not-send="true">Max Born</a>
invoked <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
title="Gravitational time
dilation" moz-do-not-send="true">gravitational
time dilation</a> to explain the
aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.<sup
id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0"
class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7"
moz-do-not-send="true">[7]</a></sup>
General relativity is not necessary
to explain the twin paradox; special
relativity alone can explain the
phenomenon.<sup id="cite_ref-8"
class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8"
moz-do-not-send="true">[8]</a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-9"
moz-do-not-send="true">[9]</a></sup>.<sup
id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10"
moz-do-not-send="true">[10]"</a><br>
</sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Pau<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">l
Langevin and Max von Laue are both correct with their
explanation a<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">s I alre<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">ady wrote in the other mail. </font></font></font></font></font></sup><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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"><sup
id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">
<br>
<font size="+2" face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
and Born explanation<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"> i</font>s bull shit
because in fact there is a <font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">preferred</font>
inertial frame i.e the frame in
which <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">both
twins were <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">initially</font>
at rest </font><br>
</font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<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
size="+2" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
size="+1" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Al<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">bert Einstein and Max <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Born are accor<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ding to
Wikipedia <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">cited by
other books, but no cont<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ents are
given. So, what shall
I say<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">?<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"> I know
about Einstein
that he has<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">, when he
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">was
asked a<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">bout
the <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
paradox, </font></font></font></font></font>refer<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">red to
acceleration i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">so
far that in an<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">y
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">case
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">of
acceleration
the original <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">frames
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">are
left and so
the Lorentz
trans<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">formation
is no longer <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">applicable.
I have the
facsimile of a
letter which
Einstein<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
once wrote to
a former
member of our
pre-Vigier
group<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
(i.e. PIRT) s<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">aying
just this. <br>
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">I
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">do
not know and
have never
heard that
Einstein refer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">red
the twin
paradox to gra<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">vity.
And to <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">refer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
here </font>to
gravitational
time dilation
is <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">so
far from any
logic that I
cannot imagine
</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
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
size="+2" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
size="+1" 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">that
Einstein has
mention<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">something
like that at
any t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ime</font>.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</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 type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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"><sup
id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><font
size="+2" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Then I agree
with you.<br>
<br>
<font size="+1" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">But
be careful what you wish for
because this <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">leads to</font>
my CAT theory<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> that all
objects are created in the
obserer<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">'s
space and the observer
always provides the
fundamental background
in which both Einsteins
theory and Lorenz theory
and for that matter
maxwell's equations are
valid. I would love to
have you agree with <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">my</font>
object<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">-</font>subject
integrated physics,
which I am developing.
Look at my Vigier 10
paper to see I argued
that <font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">Einsteins</font>
<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">imagination</font>
was he special
background space in
which his thought
experiment <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">occurred<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">.</font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I am afraid that you will o<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">verload or over-interpret
Einstein's theory if using it for <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">any observer <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">dependent </font>theor<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">i<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">es.
Einstein himself believed that <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">there is
an objective <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">reali<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">ty but that every i<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">nertia<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">l
frame <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">is an own wo<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">rld in some sen<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">se. Relativity exists
according to Einstein completely
independent of the exist<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">ence of thinking
humans.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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"><sup
id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><font
size="+2" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
size="+1" face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">PS:
your explanation is
like Max von Laue's
only he <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">did
not use a symmetric
experiment protocol
and therefore
requires four
reference frame
switches, which lead<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"> me to ask
how is the frame
change implemented
if not through the
<font face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">gravitational</font>
time dilation
explanation put
forward by <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">E</font>instein
and Born. <br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Wh<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">y so
complicated? As soo<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">n as some ob<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ject<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">changes its speed it leaves its
original frame. Th<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">at is <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">simpl<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">y</font>
the d<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">e<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">finition of a <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">linear
motion, nothing philosophical beyond
that.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">And the <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">symmetric</font>
version of the <font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">twin para<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">do<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">x is your
proposal, so neither Max
von <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Lau<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">e nor
somebody else will
have used it. So only
one change of the
frame, not <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">two
or more changes.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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"><br>
</font></font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> we are getting clos<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">er
soon I'll show you that the speed with
which your particles move is the speed
of Now In CAT not the speed of light,
which is always changing and not at all
constant.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For
Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I
personally do no<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">t
agree to this because I follow the Lorentzian
relativity, which I<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"> do because the Lorentzian S<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">RT is based on physics
whereas Einstein's relativity i<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">s based on abstract p<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">rinciples.
In g<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">eneral
I do not like pri<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">n<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ciples as <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">final solutions
of open questions.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">In a <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">genera<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">l view it is a b<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">i<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">g surpri<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">se for <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">me that such
a s<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">imple
physical phenomenon like
SRT can be made <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">or seen
so compl<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">icated
as it appears in
this <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">discu<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">ssion.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><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></font></font></font></font>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37975513-f5d2-b928-6e2b-027ea7a134ed@a-giese.de">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">to
summarize: Einstein's book is not wrong, but if you
use it in a wrong way then the results are
conflicting.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Am
05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="+1" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">On 6/4/2017 9:40 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
Each twin has two choices</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT.
Both twins do exactly the same thing and physics
tells them to expect to get the same result. </font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">2.) He knows <strike>physics</strike>
SRT 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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is his spaceship
outfitted with real meter sticks and real clocks. He
looks outside and measures the doppler shift from a
predefined signal frequency and so each one knows
the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to
himself</font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Any
rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to
one frame. If one changes his frame, anything is new.</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is still his spaceship
outfitted with real meter sticks and real clocks. He
looks outside and measures the doppler shift from a
predefined signal frequency and so each one knows
the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to
himself only now the velocity is toward each other.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If
he still understands his spaceship as his frame after
the retro rocket has started then he leaves the
conditions for the validity of SRT.</font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">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. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">No he reads a book on special relativity
written by Einstein that tells him the other twins
clock should run slow<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> than his own.</font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">f he rea<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ds and
understands special relativity followin<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">g Einstein
then he knows that now <i>also his own clock </i>runs
slower.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">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">.
</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>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Why would he take his original state of
motion as his reference frame? That would be some
imaginaty space ship still moving away at velocity
"v". His reference frame is his space ship<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">, something
may have effected its clocks and rods but his
frame is his frame. </font>You <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">are</font> mak<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ing</font> up
a story about his own clocks that are obviously
running exactly the way they always as far as his
observations are concerned in order to make the
theory he read in the SRT book m<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">ore valid than what he <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">actually</font>
sees and can measure. </font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The
Lorentz transformation which we are talking about <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">defines the
transformation from one (inertial) frame to another
one. If twin 1 takes <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">his spaceship as his frame <i>a</i><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i>fter </i>the
acceleration then any facts from <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">the<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> time <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">before
</font></font></font>are <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">no longer <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">of
relevance. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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">-
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, <b>takin</b><b><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></b><b>
</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>causes
a slow down of
the clock </b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>of
t</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>win
2</b>. <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></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></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Compared with an imaginary frame<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. We and <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
claimed to</font> deals with real rods and
clocks</font></font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Any
rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to
a frame and makes no sense</font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
without such reference</font></font><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. If one changes
his frame, anything is new. The word "real" has a
limited meaning in that case. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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"><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">
- 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>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">All one has to do is to add to the protocol
that each twin should take a faximily of their own
clocks and compare them later by your own analysis
(<b> see bold face above</b>) each twin would <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">believe</font>
his own Fax would run at the normal rate but the
other would slow down.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Here
you misunderstand how dilation works. I have tried to
show you earlier that clock comparison is not so
simple. If two observers move with respect to each
other, then in a naive view the observer holding clock
1 would say that clock 2 runs slower and at the same
time the observer holding clock 2 would say that clock
1 runs slower. This is as a fact logically not
possible. I have explained in the other mail how this
comparison works correctly so that the logical
conflict does not occur. Please look at that mail
again and we can continue our discussion on that
basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In other
words the experiment gives the answer logic
would <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">expect</font>, but the story in
Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">mooving
clocks do not slow down but the theory <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">explaining
it is different and must include the physics
of the observer<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">, which I'll describe next
once we get this point <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">straightened</font>
out.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
is not wrong but you are using the Lorentz
transformation in an incorrect way. Please read the
other mail again and we can discuss on that basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><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"><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">
<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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<br>
<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>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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>
</div>
</body>
</html>