<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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.D14364AF.F5B9AFBC@a-giese.de" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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>
<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 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 size="+2" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
and Born explanation<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> i</font>s
bull shit because in fact
there is a <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">preferred</font>
inertial frame i.e the
frame in which <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">both twins
were <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">initially</font>
at rest </font><br>
</font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font size="+2" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font size="+1"
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Al<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">bert
Einstein and Max <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Born are
accor<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">ding to
Wikipedia <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">cited
by other books, but
no cont<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">ents are
given. So, what
shall I say<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">?<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
I know about
Einstein that
he has<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">,
when he <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">was
asked a<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">bout
the <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
paradox, </font></font></font></font></font>refer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">red
to
acceleration i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">so
far that in an<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">y
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">case
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">of
acceleration
the original <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">frames
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">are
left and so
the Lorentz
trans<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">formation
is no longer <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">applicable.
I have the
facsimile of a
letter which
Einstein<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
once wrote to
a former
member of our
pre-Vigier
group<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
(i.e. PIRT) s<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">aying
just this. <br>
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">I
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">do
not know and
have never
heard that
Einstein refer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">red
the twin
paradox to gra<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">vity.
And to <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">refer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
here </font>to
gravitational
time dilation
is <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">so
far from any
logic that I
cannot imagine
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font size="+2" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font size="+1"
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">that
Einstein has
mention<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">something
like that at
any t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ime</font>.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><sup
id="cite_ref-10"
class="reference"><font
size="+2" face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Then I agree
with you.<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">But be
careful what you wish
for because this <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">leads to</font>
my CAT theory<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> that
all objects are
created in the obserer<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">'s
space and the
observer always
provides the
fundamental
background in which
both Einsteins
theory and Lorenz
theory and for that
matter maxwell's
equations are valid.
I would love to have
you agree with <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">my</font>
object<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">-</font>subject
integrated physics,
which I am
developing. Look at
my Vigier 10 paper
to see I argued that
<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">Einsteins</font>
<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">imagination</font>
was he special
background space in
which his thought
experiment <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">occurred<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">.</font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I am afraid that you will o<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">verload or over-interpret
Einstein's theory if using it for <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">any
observer <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">dependent </font>theor<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">i<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">es.
Einstein himself believed that <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">there
is an objective <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">reali<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ty
but that every i<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">nertia<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">l frame <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">is an
own wo<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">rld in
some sen<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">se.
Relativity exists according
to Einstein completely
independent of the exist<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ence of
thinking humans.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><sup
id="cite_ref-10"
class="reference"><font
size="+2" face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
size="+1" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">
<br>
<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">PS: your
explanation is
like Max von
Laue's only he <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">did not
use a symmetric
experiment
protocol and
therefore
requires four
reference frame
switches, which
lead<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
me to ask how
is the frame
change
implemented if
not through
the <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">gravitational</font>
time dilation
explanation
put forward by
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">E</font>instein
and Born. <br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Wh<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">y
so complicated? As soo<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">n as some ob<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">ject<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">changes its speed it
leaves its original frame. Th<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">at
is <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">simpl<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">y</font> the d<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">e<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">finition of a <font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">linear motion, nothing
philosophical beyond that.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">And the <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">symmetric</font>
version of the <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">twin para<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">do<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">x is
your proposal, so
neither Max von <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Lau<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">e nor
somebody else will
have used it. So
only one change of
the frame, not <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">two or
more changes.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font></font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> we are getting
clos<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">er soon I'll show you
that the speed with which your
particles move is the speed of Now
In CAT not the speed of light, which
is always changing and not at all
constant.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For
Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I
personally do no<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">t agree to this because I follow the
Lorentzian relativity, which I<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> do because the Lorentzian S<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">RT is based
on physics whereas Einstein's relativity i<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">s based
on abstract p<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">rinciples. In g<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">eneral
I do not like pri<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">n<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">ciples as <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">final
solutions of open questions.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">In a <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">genera<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">l view it is a b<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">i<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">g surpri<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">se for <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">me that
such a s<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">imple
physical phenomenon
like SRT can be made
<font face="Times
New Roman, Times,
serif">or seen so
compl<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">icated as
it appears in
this <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">discu<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ssion.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2a3b09b8-e9a5-e4b8-aa7a-4358c88ad111@nascentinc.com"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font></font></font></font></font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37975513-f5d2-b928-6e2b-027ea7a134ed@a-giese.de">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">to summarize: Einstein's book is not wrong,
but if you use it in a wrong way then the results
are conflicting.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Am
05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="+1"
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">On 6/4/2017
9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
Each twin has two choices</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">1.) <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">He ignores physics. He
travels forth and back and when he is
back ag<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ain, he meets t<font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">win 2 and can compare the
clocks of both. They will indicate
the same time. So he will not see
any problem.<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">He does not ignore physics but ignores
SRT. Both twins do exactly the same thing and
physics tells them to expect to get the same
result. </font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"> <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">2.) He
knows <strike>physics</strike>
SRT and partic<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">ularly
<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">special
relativity. And, to be clo<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">se to your
case, he may define after
his start his frame of
motion <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">as
</font>the <font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">reference
frame. So in this fram<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">e his
clock will run with
normal speed. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is his spaceship
outfitted with real meter sticks and real
clocks. He looks outside and measures the
doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency
and so each one knows the other is moving away
at velocity 'v' relative to himself</font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Any rod and any clock is according to
Einstein related to one frame. If one changes his
frame, anything is new.</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Then, when<font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"> his
retro rocket has
started, he will notic<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">e
the acceleration. He
knows that compared
to his previous
state of motion he
is now movin<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">g towards t<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">win 2 wi<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">th
a speed which
you have c<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">alled
v. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">His frame of reference is still his
spaceship outfitted with real meter sticks and
real clocks. He looks outside and measures the
doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency
and so each one knows the other is moving away
at velocity 'v' relative to himself only now the
velocity is toward each other.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">If he still understands his spaceship as
his frame after the retro rocket has started then
he leaves the conditions for the validity of SRT.</font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">And
as he knows physics,
he will be aware of
the fa<font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">ct <font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif">that now
h<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">is
own clock will
run
differently
than before. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">No he reads a book on special relativity
written by Einstein that tells him the other
twins clock should run slow<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> than his own.</font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">f
he rea<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ds
and understands special relativity followin<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">g
Einstein then he knows that now <i>also his
own clock </i>runs slower.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">S<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">o
if he w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ants
to understand
what is going
on and if he
still takes
his original
state of motio<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n
a<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">s
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">his
reference
frame, he has
to<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">realize
that his clock
i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">s</font>
now running <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">slower</font><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Why would he take his original state of
motion as his reference frame? That would be
some imaginaty space ship still moving away at
velocity "v". His reference frame is his space
ship<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">,
something may have effected its clocks and
rods but his frame is his frame. </font>You <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">are</font>
mak<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ing</font>
up a story about his own clocks that are
obviously running exactly the way they always as
far as his observations are concerned in order
to make the theory he read in the SRT book m<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ore valid
than what he <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">actually</font> sees and can
measure. </font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">The Lorentz transformation which we are
talking about <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">defines the transformation from one
(inertial) frame to another one. If twin 1 takes
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">his
spaceship as his frame <i>a</i><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i>fter
</i>the acceleration then any facts from <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">the<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
time <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">before </font></font></font>are
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">no
longer <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">of relevance. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">-
On the other
hand, if he
wants to under<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">stand
the situation
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin
2 he has to
realize that
the speed of t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
2, <b>takin</b><b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">g
p<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">lace
with v in
relation to
his own
original
frame,</font></font></b><b>
</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>causes
a slow down of
the clock </b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>of
t</b><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><b>win
2</b>. <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">But
</font>then,
after t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
2 has <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">fired
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">his
retro rocket,
tw<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">in
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">2
will have
speed = 0 with
respect to the
original frame
of <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twin<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
1. So the
clock of twin
2 will now <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">run
in the normal
way. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Compared with an imaginary frame<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">. We and
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Einstein
claimed to</font> deals with real rods and
clocks</font></font></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Any rod and any clock is according to
Einstein related to a frame and makes no sense</font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
without such reference</font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">.
If one changes his frame, anything is new. The
word "real" has a limited meaning in that case. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
- If you n<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ow
add the
different
phases of both
clocks, i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.e.
the phases of
normal run<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
and the ph<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ases
of slow down,
you will see
that the
result is the
same <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">for
both <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">twins.
And this is w<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">hat
I have expl<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ain<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed
quantitatively
i<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">n
my last mail.<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">All one has to do is to add to the
protocol that each twin should take a faximily
of their own clocks and compare them later by
your own analysis (<b> see bold face above</b>)
each twin would <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">believe</font> his own Fax would
run at the normal rate but the other would slow
down.<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Here you misunderstand how dilation works.
I have tried to show you earlier that clock
comparison is not so simple. If two observers move
with respect to each other, then in a naive view
the observer holding clock 1 would say that clock
2 runs slower and at the same time the observer
holding clock 2 would say that clock 1 runs
slower. This is as a fact logically not possible.
I have explained in the other mail how this
comparison works correctly so that the logical
conflict does not occur. Please look at that mail
again and we can continue our discussion on that
basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In
other words the experiment gives the answer
logic would <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">expect</font>, but the story
in Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">mooving
clocks do not slow down but the theory <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">explaining
it is different and must include the
physics of the observer<font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">, which I'll
describe next once we get this point <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">straightened</font>
out.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Einstein is not wrong but you are using the
Lorentz transformation in an incorrect way. Please
read the other mail again and we can discuss on
that basis. </font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a607e9a1-3b7f-6e2e-f0d0-05a2989f878e@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> </font></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:910d6201-cd55-1d61-55cb-4906b9d653c0@a-giese.de"><font
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">I
mus<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t
say that I
have problems
to understand
where you <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">have
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">a
</font>difficult<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">y
to see this.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height:
29px;" moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>