<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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">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">"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>
</body>
</html>