<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip</p>
<p>i completely agree with your argument all motion is not relative<br>
</p>
<p>except that all motion is always perceived in some observers
space and therefore all motion is not relative to the moving
perceptions in each observers space but te perceptions are
relative to the observers display space. One can never eliminate
an observer. <br>
</p>
<p>The theory I'm building on Platonic principles has The volume of
each observers space, and the rate of EM interactions depend upon
the gravitational fild the observers material aspect is in.</p>
<p>check out my response to Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p>Best</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 5:16 PM, Chip Akins wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00eb01d2e311$2b141010$813c3030$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A question regarding what seems to be a
Special Relativity paradox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are twins. They are moving relative
to each other in a very large circle. The first twin observes
the trajectory of the second twin and thinks the second twin
is moving very fast in a huge circle, while he, the first
twin, thinks he, the first twin, is not moving. The second
twin observes the first twin, who appears to be moving very
fast and in a huge circle as well. The second twin thinks he,
the second twin, is not moving, but feels the first twin is
moving very fast and in a huge circle.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A third person, an observer, has measured
the cosmic background radiation, and put himself at a position
of “rest” in space relative to the cosmic background. The
third person, observer, as it happens, is in the same frame as
one of the twins. So he, the third person observer thinks one
twin is not moving and the other is moving.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Once the huge circle is complete, the twins
are in the same locale. Each twin believes the other is
moving relativistically for all this time, and therefore
believes the other twin will not have aged near as much. They
are very close in proximity after the circle is complete, and
transmit their respective ages to each other.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now the apparent paradox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>If all motion is relative then there is
no solution to the actual age of the either of the twins.</b>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If <b>all motion is not relative</b> then
the moving twin will appear younger.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is another illustration of what
Grahame has discussed. There is no reciprocity, so all motion
is not relative.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed
arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions
of statements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>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</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I disagree and I show the deviation in
your calculations below. </b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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 summarized by Maxwell’s equations. These equations
are valid in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub>
and permeability μ<sub>0</sub> of free space. URL: <a
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>
These equations 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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> <br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>Einstein’s
Approach:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">No! This can be right as I have explained
several times now. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>Lorentz
Approach:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Everyone
agrees the moving clocks slow down but we have two
different reasons. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 .<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 .<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>No, this 3rd person is definitely 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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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 is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Eq.
1) V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian energy is
L= m∙c<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Comparing
the two clock rates and <b>assuming the Action is an
invariant</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Eq.
2) (m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub> </sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup> gives<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Eq.
3) Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Which
to first order approximation is equal to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Eq.
4) Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">First order approximation is not usable
as we are discussing relativity here.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/7/2017 5:54 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 , <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">if
you are telling me that the only valid inertial
frame is the frame of a third person god like
observer who is stationary before the twins 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">And
further if you are telling me that </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">both twins must realize
that their own clock is slowing down and the other
twin's clock is also slowing down because both twins
must do their calcu</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">lations
in this special initial god like 3d person frame so
both agree</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">No, it
is not the condition that there is a god like person,
but one has to stay with one frame whichever it is.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><br>
And further you are telling me that all the talk
about there not being a special </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">inertial</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> frame, and everything is
relative <br>
and neither twin believes he is in </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">his
o</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">w</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">n inertial
frame because neither feels </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">he is moving is a
misinterpretation of SRT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">whether
someone feels that he is moving or not depends also on
his ch</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">oice
of the reference frame.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">and
further that URL <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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"><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"
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"><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"><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"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8"
moz-do-not-send="true">[8]</a><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"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10"
moz-do-not-send="true">[10]"</a></sup></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Paul
Langevin and Max von Laue are both correct with
their explanation as I already wrote in the other
mail. </span></sup><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"><br>
</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Einstein
and Born explanation</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:18.0pt"> i</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif">s bull shit
because in fact there is a </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:18.0pt">preferred</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> inertial
frame i.e the frame in which both twins were
initially at rest </span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albert
Einstein and Max Born are according to Wikipedia cited
by other books, but no contents are given. So, what
shall I say</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">?
I know about Einstein that he has, when he was asked
about the twin paradox, referred to acceleration in so
far that in any case of acceleration the original
frames are left and so the Lorentz transformation is
no longer applicable. I have the facsimile of a letter
which Einstein once wrote to a former member of our
pre-Vigier group (i.e. PIRT) saying just this. <br>
<br>
I do not know and have never heard that Einstein
referred the twin paradox to gravity. And to refer
here to gravitational time dilation is so far from any
logic that I cannot imagine that Einstein has
mentioned something like that at any time. <br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt"><br>
Then I agree with you.<br>
<br>
</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">But
be careful what you wish for because this </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">leads to</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> my CAT
theory</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> that all objects are
created in the obserer</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"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 </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">my</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">
object-subject integrated physics, which I am
developing. Look at my Vigier 10 paper to see I
argued that Einsteins imagination was he special
background space in which his thought experiment </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">occurred</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">.</span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I
am afraid that you will o</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">verload
or over-interpret Einstein's theory if using it for
any observer </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">dependent </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">theor</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">ies. Einstein himself
believed that there is an objective reali</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">ty but that
every i</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">nertial frame is an own
world in some sense. Relativity exists according to
Einstein completely independent of the existence of
thinking humans.</span></sup><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"><br>
</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">PS:
your explanation is like Max von Laue's only he
did not use a symmetric experiment protocol and
therefore requires four reference frame switches,
which lead me to ask how is the frame change
implemented if not through the gravitational time
dilation explanation put forward by Einstein and
Born. </span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Why
so complicated? As soon as some object changes its
speed it leaves its original frame. That is </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">simpl</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">y</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">
the d</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">efinition of a linear
motion, nothing philosophical beyond that.<br>
And the symmetric</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">
version of the </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">twin paradox is your
proposal, so neither Max von </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Lau</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">e nor somebody else will
have used it. So only one change of the frame, not </span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">two or more
changes.</span></sup><sup><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"><br>
<br>
</span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><br>
we are getting closer 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">For
Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I
personally do not agree to this because I follow the
Lorentzian relativity, which I do because the
Lorentzian S</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">RT
is based on physics whereas Einstein's relativity is
based on abstract p</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">rinciples. In general I do
not like principles as </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">final
solutions of open questions.<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">In a </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">genera</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">l view it is a bi</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">g surpri</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">se for me that such a s</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">imple
physical phenomenon like SRT can be made </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">or seen so compl</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">icated as
it appears in this discussion.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">to summarize:
Einstein's book is not wrong, but if you use it in
a wrong way then the results are conflicting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Am
05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">On
6/4/2017 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
Each twin has two choices</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">1.) He ignores
physics. He travels forth and back and when he
is back ag</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">ain,
he meets t</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">win 2 and can compare
the clocks of both. They will indicate the
same time. So he will not see any problem.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">2.) He knows <s>physics</s>
SRT and partic</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">ularly
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">special
relativity. And, to be clo</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">se
to your case, he may define after his start
his frame of motion </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">as </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">the
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">reference
frame. So in this frame his clock will run
with normal speed. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Any
rod and any clock is according to Einstein related
to one frame. If one changes his frame, anything
is new.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Then,
when his retro rocket has started, he will
notic</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">e
the acceleration. He knows that compared to
his previous state of motion he is now moving
towards t</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">win
2 with a speed which you have called v. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">And as he knows
physics, he will be aware of the fact </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">that now
his own clock will run differently than
before. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">No
he reads a book on special relativity written by
Einstein that tells him the other twins clock
should run slow than his own.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If
he reads and understands special relativity
following Einstein then he knows that now <i>also
his own clock </i>runs slower.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">So
if he wants to understand what is going on and
if he still takes his original state of motion
as his reference frame, he has to realize that
his clock is now running slower. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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, something may have effected its clocks and
rods but his frame is his frame. You </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">are</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> making 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</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">ore
valid than what he </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">actually</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">
sees and can measure. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The
Lorentz transformation which we are talking about
defines the transformation from one (inertial)
frame to another one. If twin 1 takes his
spaceship as his frame <i>after </i>the
acceleration then any facts from the time before
are </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">no
longer </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">of
relevance. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">-
On the other hand, if he wants to understand
the situation of twin 2 he has to realize that
the speed of twin 2, <b>taking place with v
in relation to his own original frame,
causes a slow down of the clock of twin 2</b>.
But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro
rocket, twin 2 will have speed = 0 with
respect to the original frame of twin 1. So
the clock of twin 2 will now run in the normal
way. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Compared
with an imaginary frame. We and Einstein claimed
to deals with real rods and clocks</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Any
rod and any clock is according to Einstein related
to a frame and makes no sense without such
reference. If one changes his frame, anything is
new. The word "real" has a limited meaning in that
case. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">-
If you now add the different phases of both
clocks, i.e. the phases of normal run and the
phases of slow down, you will see that the
result is the same for both twins. And this is
what I have explained quantitatively in my
last mail.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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 believe his own Fax would run at the
normal rate but the other would slow down.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><br>
In other words the experiment gives the answer
logic would expect, but the story in Einstain's
book is wrong. It is not that mooving clocks do
not slow down but the theory explaining it is
different and must include the physics of the
observer, which I'll describe next once we get
this point </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">straightened</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> out.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"><br>
I must say that I have problems to understand
where you have a difficulty to see this.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<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"><span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>