<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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:part1.68BA7ABC.3237C867@nascentinc.com" alt=""
class="" 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]--> </p>
<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>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that, what we
see, is not the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is not a
better example than to cite Newton's law of motion in order to
proof that most probably our human view is questionable. For you
it seems to be tempting to use relativity because you see logical
conflicts related to different views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example that the world cannot be as
simple as assumed by the naive realism. But relativity and
particularly the twin experiment is completely in agreement with
this naive realism. The frequently discussed problems in the twin
case are in fact problems of persons who did not truly understand
relativity. And this is the fact for all working versions of
relativity, where the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are
the ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example specifically
force is a theoretical construct and not see able , what we see
is acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture with an experience but Newton assumes both
are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can be
explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize material
generates its own space i.e. there is something it feels like to
be material. I believe integrating this feeling into physics is
the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more easily explained by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in each piece of material but dependent on
its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these ideas, so
thank you.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
<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 6/11/2017 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>
It cannot be detected because we know from other observations and
facts that objects contract at motion - in the original version of
Heaviside, this happens when electric fields move in relation to
an aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to
show a phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have changed
their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe like you this
is a better explanation than Einsteins but it still leaves the
aether as a property of an independent space that exist whether we
live or die and and assume we are objects in that space it also
identifies that space with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not equal to the
universal space.<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want to show
that the twin case can also be handled as a process related to
gravity. So they define the travel of the travelling twin so that
he is permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn around
point and then accelerated back to the starting point, where the
twin at rest resides. Then they calculate the slow down of time as
a consequence of the accelerations which they relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by several
reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors to replace
completely the slow down of time by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up an experiment where one clock is
slowed down by the motion and the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention according to
my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow down.
But that does not happen. Any text book about SRT says that
acceleration does not cause a slow down of time / clocks. And
there are clear experiments proofing exactly this. For instance
the muon storage ring at CERN showed that the lifetime of muons
was extended by their high speed but in no way by the extreme
acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know of any
serious physicist who tries to explain the twin case by gravity. I
have given you by the way some strong arguments that such an
explanation is not possible. - And independently, do you have
other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of this paper but
it is relevant because it is only one of a long list of papers
that use gravity and acceleration to to explain the twin paradox.
I am not claiming they are correct only that a large community
believes this is the way to explain the twin paradox. If you look
at the Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say explanations
fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these categories does not
mean a community supporting the gravity explanation view point
does not exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book that has Einstein
and other notables explanation and will see what they say. <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[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>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never heard
about this and I am caring about this twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is certainly how I was
taught but I have notr looked up papers on the subject for many
years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely different approach I
do not think which of two explanations is more right is a fruitful
argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in the same
way as much or as little depending on the Mind as Newton's law of
motion. So to make things better understandable please explain
your position by the use of either Newton's law or something
comparable. Relativity is not appropriate as it allows for too
much speculation which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I hope to show
the whole business is a confusion introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis which introduces artifacts. I hpe
you will critique my writeup when it is finished./</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original frame of the one
moving twin in order to be close to your experiment and your
description. Any other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the consequence of
having an observer who feels a force like gravity which according
to the equivalence principle and any ones experience in a
centrifuge is indistinguishable from gravity, is such a person
needs to transfer to the initial start frame that would mean we
would all be moving at the speed of light and need to transfer
back to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I still get
older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the whole basis does
not make common experience sense, which is what I want to base our
physics on. We have gotten our heads into too much math.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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">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>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a correct
way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you tell us that
results are logically conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly covered
by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at
our Italy conference has a nice explanation of how Maxwells
Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms "if you do it
the right way" check out
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the right way</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as gravity
causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is given by theory
and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run faster at
higher altitude? I was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct
for its altitude it would not be as accurate if it did not. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de"> <br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there is no
gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of it into the
vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But then the question
whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats all
participants in the same way And anyhow there is no solution
needed as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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">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>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of two frames of
linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz transformation it always
presents the relation between two frames, normally called S and
S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use equations (here
for kinetic energy) which are strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has nothing
to do with a gravitational potential. In special relativity the
slow down of clocks is formally necessary to "explain" the
constancy of c in any frame. In general relativity it was
necessary to explain that the speed of light is also constant in a
gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence </i>of
c from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in any case a
measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of this
equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His goal was to keep
c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also those
which have been performed here including my own experiment, have
used the true Einstein relation with consistent results for energy
and momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which violate conservation of energy and
of momentum. So, any experiment performed here during many decades
is a proof that the equation of Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very
simple almost classical expression based upon action invariance
is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they
are in a deeper gravity well and my calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has been tested. You
say Einsteins formula has been tested to the fourth order. This
would make my theory wrong. Please give me a reference so I can
look at the assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither length
contraction or time dilation beyond the approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have been tested.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But let's
start then with something like Newton's law of motion which is in
that case also affected. Relativity is bad for this as it is
mathematically more complicated without providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<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" 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">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>