<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</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]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we should make detailed
arguments. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been arguing that Einstein’s
special
relativity claims that the clocks of an observer moving at
constant velocity with
respect to a second observer will slow down. This lead to the
twin paradox that
is often resolved by citing the need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity in general
relativity. My symmetric twin
experiment was intended to show that Einstein as I understood
him could not
explain the paradox. I did so in order to set the stage for
introducing a new
theory. You argued my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok
This is not worth
arguing about because it is not second guessing Einstein that is
important but
that but I am trying to present a new way of looking at reality
which is based
on Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle believed the world was
essentially the way
you see it. This is called naive realism. And science from
Newton up to quantum
theory is based upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are
not what
physicists believe I fully agree. It is not an argument to say
the mainstream
of science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something
different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">So let
me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am suggesting that there is no
independent physically
objective space time continuum in which the material universe
including you, I,
and the rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I
believe a better
world view is that (following Everett) that all systems are
observers and
therefore create their own space in which the objects you see in
front of your
face appear. The situation is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[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><img src="cid:part1.505CEADF.CCA3A6B4@nascentinc.com" alt=""
height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three parts You, I,
and the rest of the
Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin thought experiment in
which both twins do
exactly the same thing. They accelerate in opposite directions
turn around and
come back at rest to compare clocks. You does a though
experiment that is not symmetric
one twin is at rest the other accelerates and comes back to
rest and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that each thought
experiment is done in
the space associated with You,I and U. The speed of light is
constant in each
of these spaces and so the special relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said many times these are self
consistent equations and
I have no problem with them under the Aristotilian assumption
that each of the
three parts believes what they see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they see is in each
parts space. This
space provides the background aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic
interactions is constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by
the Lagrangian
energy level largely if not totally imposed by the gravity
interactions the
physical material from which each part is made experiences.
Each part you and
your space runs at a different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking
for should be called the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or disagree with this
view point. But
if you disagree please do not tell me that the mainstream
physicists do not
take this point of view. I know that. Main stream physicists
are not attempting
to solve the consciousness problem , and have basically
eliminated the mind and
all subjective experience from physics. I’m trying to fix this
rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to your comments in
detail. </span></h1>
</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 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed
arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down, but If I include the observer
then I get an equation for the slow down that agrees with
eperimetn but disagrees with Einstein in the higher order,
so it should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of magnetics, but
all within the self consistent Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> 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></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer doing
the experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </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>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications that use general
relativity, gravity and the equivalence principle as the the way to
explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational field URL
<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about what
Einstein really meant. </span>
<!--[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]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it using gravity<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's space, you
cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving twin was to be done in the inertial frame
before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in which the
theory was defined and it is the mind of the observer.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue, its whether
the world view is correct.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and the slow down of clocks and the speed
of light in a lower ( closer to a mass) field is the heart of
general relativity. why do you keep insisting it is not. GPs clocks
are corrected for gravty potential and orbit speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made a calculation that
the bendng of light around the sun is due to a gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d person, he
clear argument is that he clock slow down is also derivable form the
invariance of action required to execute a clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers material<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable from
action invariance and sped of light dependence on gravitational
potential<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the simple
lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order which is all that to
my knowledge has been verified.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the Reference for
this experiment <br>
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very simple
almost classical expression based upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried to find a
solution within the Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz did not understand is that both the yard stick
and the EM wave are appearances in an observers space and runs at an
observers speed of NOW. The observer must be included in physics if
we are to make progress. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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 face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" size="+2">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
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+1">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
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" 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">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
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Then I agree
with you.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" size="+1">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
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" size="+1"><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 face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">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 face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">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 face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">On 6/4/2017 9:40
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
Each twin has two choices</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">1.) <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">He ignores physics. He
travels forth and back and when he is
back ag<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ain, he meets t<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">win
2 and can compare the clocks of
both. They will indicate the same
time. So he will not see any
problem.<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT.
Both twins do exactly the same thing and physics
tells them to expect to get the same result. </font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">2.) He knows <strike>physics</strike>
SRT and partic<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">ularly
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">special
relativity. And, to be clo<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">se to your
case, he may define after
his start his frame of
motion <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">as
</font>the <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">reference
frame. So in this fram<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">e his
clock will run with
normal speed. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is his spaceship
outfitted with real meter sticks and real clocks.
He looks outside and measures the doppler shift
from a predefined signal frequency and so each one
knows the other is moving away at velocity 'v'
relative to himself</font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Any rod and any clock is according to
Einstein related to one frame. If one changes his
frame, anything is new.</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Then, when<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> his retro
rocket has started, he
will notic<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">e the
acceleration. He knows
that compared to his
previous state of
motion he is now movin<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">g
towards t<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">win 2 wi<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">th a
speed which you
have c<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">alled
v. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is still his
spaceship outfitted with real meter sticks and
real clocks. He looks outside and measures the
doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency
and so each one knows the other is moving away at
velocity 'v' relative to himself only now the
velocity is toward each other.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">If he still understands his spaceship as his
frame after the retro rocket has started then he
leaves the conditions for the validity of SRT.</font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">And as
he knows physics, he
will be aware of the
fa<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">ct <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">that now h<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">is own
clock will run
differently than
before. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">No he reads a book on special relativity
written by Einstein that tells him the other twins
clock should run slow<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> than his own.</font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">f
he rea<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ds
and understands special relativity followin<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">g
Einstein then he knows that now <i>also his
own clock </i>runs slower.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">S<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">o
if he w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ants
to understand
what is going
on and if he
still takes
his original
state of motio<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n
a<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">s
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">his
reference
frame, he has
to<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">realize
that his clock
i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">s</font>
now running <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">slower</font><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Why would he take his original state of
motion as his reference frame? That would be some
imaginaty space ship still moving away at velocity
"v". His reference frame is his space ship<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">, something
may have effected its clocks and rods but his
frame is his frame. </font>You <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">are</font>
mak<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ing</font>
up a story about his own clocks that are obviously
running exactly the way they always as far as his
observations are concerned in order to make the
theory he read in the SRT book m<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">ore valid than what he
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">actually</font>
sees and can measure. </font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">The Lorentz transformation which we are
talking about <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">defines the transformation from one
(inertial) frame to another one. If twin 1 takes <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">his
spaceship as his frame <i>a</i><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i>fter </i>the
acceleration then any facts from <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">the<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> time
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">before
</font></font></font>are <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">no
longer <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">of relevance. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">-
On the other
hand, if he
wants to under<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">stand
the situation
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin
2 he has to
realize that
the speed of t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
2, <b>takin</b><b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">g
p<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">lace
with v in
relation to
his own
original
frame,</font></font></b><b>
</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>causes
a slow down of
the clock </b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>of
t</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>win
2</b>. <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">But
</font>then,
after t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
2 has <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">fired
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">his
retro rocket,
tw<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">2
will have
speed = 0 with
respect to the
original frame
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
1. So the
clock of twin
2 will now <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">run
in the normal
way. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Compared with an imaginary frame<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. We and <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
claimed to</font> deals with real rods and
clocks</font></font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Any rod and any clock is according to
Einstein related to a frame and makes no sense</font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
without such reference</font></font><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. If one
changes his frame, anything is new. The word "real"
has a limited meaning in that case. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
- If you n<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ow
add the
different
phases of both
clocks, i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.e.
the phases of
normal run<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
and the ph<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ases
of slow down,
you will see
that the
result is the
same <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">for
both <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twins.
And this is w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">hat
I have expl<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ain<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed
quantitatively
i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n
my last mail.<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">All one has to do is to add to the protocol
that each twin should take a faximily of their own
clocks and compare them later by your own
analysis (<b> see bold face above</b>) each twin
would <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">believe</font>
his own Fax would run at the normal rate but the
other would slow down.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Here you misunderstand how dilation works. I
have tried to show you earlier that clock comparison
is not so simple. If two observers move with respect
to each other, then in a naive view the observer
holding clock 1 would say that clock 2 runs slower
and at the same time the observer holding clock 2
would say that clock 1 runs slower. This is as a
fact logically not possible. I have explained in the
other mail how this comparison works correctly so
that the logical conflict does not occur. Please
look at that mail again and we can continue our
discussion on that basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In other
words the experiment gives the answer logic
would <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">expect</font>, but the story in
Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">mooving
clocks do not slow down but the theory <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">explaining
it is different and must include the
physics of the observer<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">, which I'll
describe next once we get this point <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">straightened</font>
out.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Einstein is not wrong but you are using the
Lorentz transformation in an incorrect way. Please
read the other mail again and we can discuss on that
basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">I
mus<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t
say that I
have problems
to understand
where you <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">have
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">a
</font>difficult<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">y
to see this.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height:
18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<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>