<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Of course you are right its an epistemological effect</p>
<p>I do this quite often when I discuss this topic in person , the
person and his wristwatch is sitting there ticking away</p>
<p>I get up and run around forward backward , Have you or he clock
changed? Obviously the answer is no. <br>
</p>
<p>So clocks do not slow down in themselves because the are moving
with respect to an observer it is the the display of the clock in
the space of the moving observer that slows down</p>
<p>and that was my point in the I,You, U diagram each of us has the
image of the other and it the image the perception that changes <br>
</p>
<p>Classical physics, Maxwells equations , the Lorentz
ransformation, Newtons laws are all based upon the assumption that
the images of our perception is the objective reality and that
assumption produces a self consistent "science" just like the
assumption that Jesus was the son of God produces a self
consistent religion.</p>
<p>However if I see a clock, no matter what it apears to be doing,
if I separate that appearance from its reality ( I know all I can
do is make a theoretical symbol of that reality i cannot
experience the clock as a reality directly) but if I learn that
clock is in a gravitational field its rate will slow when compared
to a clock that is in a higher gravitational field <br>
</p>
<p>the rate of the clock being an EM system is determined by the
speed of EM interactions thus the speed of light is a surrogate <br>
</p>
<p>if we are living in a universe surrounded by a mass Mu at an
average radius Ru the speed of light is c*c = Mu*G/Ru and m*c*c is
simply the gravitational potential of a mass in he universe. Then
I believe all the experimentally verified effect of relativity
boil down to the observation that the rate of a clock is
proportional to its classic Lagrangian energy T-V <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 10:12 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-a54e3512-9643-42e2-8513-f253ac9af88a-1497287525714@3capp-webde-bap35">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Clocks do not slow down; they don't even know that they
are moving. This is obvious: a Lorentz x-form to a frame
moving with respect to the clock-watcher with relative
velocity "0" will yield no time dilation nor
LF-contraction. TD & LF appear only to those moving
with repspect to the clock with nonzero velocity. Could be
that the clock is stationary and the observer is moving.
Thus, these effects are not ontological, but
epistomological. They are a sort of SR-perspective. They
change the appearance of the object moving with respcet to
the observer. Has to do with the fact that light (better:
E&M interaction) takes time to get from source to sink
depending on the separation distance, etc.. Thus, 3-D
objects, with parts at different distances from the
observer will appear distorted. That is, the projection
with light on the retina of the observer is distoreted,
not the entity itself. (BTW, this is not me talking, See
J. Terrell, Am. J. Phys. 1959, p. 1041.) </div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag,
12. Juni 2017 um 18:42 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<p>Wolf:</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
<blockquote>
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">I
agree we should make detailed arguments. <span> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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> </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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 14.0pt;">So let me try again</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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>
<p><img alt=""
src="cid:part1.21BAA819.A106FD4B@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">.
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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">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.
<blockquote>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight: normal;">Now
to respond to your comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would
use detailed arguments and counter-arguments
instead of pure repetitions of statements.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um
07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>WE all agree clocks
slow down, but If I include the observer
then I get an equation for the slow down
that agrees with eperimetn but disagrees
with Einstein in the higher order, so it
should be testable</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b></div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lets look at this
thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are
valid in a medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span> </span>of
free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span> </span>These equations<span>
</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.</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind.
<blockquote>
<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> </b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the
observer doing the experiment , see my drawing
above.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Einstein’s Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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.</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;">Ref: The clock paradox in a static
homogeneous gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
target="_blank" 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. </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?
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it
using gravity</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lorentz Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th
person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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.</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.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the
issue, its whether the world view is correct.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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.</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.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>So both Lorentz’s and
Einstein’s approaches are flawed</b>
because both require a disembodied 3d person
observer who is observing that independent
Aristotilian objective universe that must
exist whether we look at it or not.</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.</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</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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> </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> </span><span>
</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> </span>is <span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span>
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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> </span>A
stationary clock interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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)</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock
rates and <b>assuming the Action is an
invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span>
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span> </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>
</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>
</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.</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply
derivable from action invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational potential</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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. -</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.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment</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.
<blockquote>I have said no correction of 4th order is
necessary the very simple almost classical
expression based upon action invariance is adequate.</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation,
i.e. the Lorentz transformation.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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.</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. </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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Wolf:</p>
Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:
<blockquote>
<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.
<blockquote>
<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 ,</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.
<blockquote>
<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">.</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>
<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">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</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>
<blockquote><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">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></font><br>
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</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>
<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">and further
that URL <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote><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"
target="_blank"
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
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-Debs_Redhead_5-0"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">[5]</a></sup> <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue"
target="_blank"
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
class="mw-redirect"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames" target="_blank"
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
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-6"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">[6]</a></sup> Explanations put forth by <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
target="_blank"
title="Albert
Einstein"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albert
Einstein</a> and
<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born"
target="_blank"
title="Max Born"
moz-do-not-send="true">Max Born</a> invoked <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
target="_blank"
title="Gravitational time dilation" moz-do-not-send="true">gravitational
time dilation</a>
to explain the
aging as a direct
effect of
acceleration.<sup
class="reference" id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7"
target="_blank" 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
class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">[8]</a></sup><sup
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-9"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-9"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">[9]</a></sup>.<sup class="reference"
id="cite_ref-10"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">[10]"</a></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>
<blockquote><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"><sup
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-10"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+2">Einstein
and Born
explanation<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
i</font>s bull
shit because
in fact there
is a <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">preferred</font>
inertial
frame i.e the
frame in which
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">both
twins were <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">initially</font>
at rest </font></font></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+1">Al<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">bert
Einstein and
Max <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">Born
are accor<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ding
to Wikipedia <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">cited
by other
books, but no
cont<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ents
are given. So,
what shall I
say<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">?<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
I know about
Einstein that
he has<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">,
when he <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">was
asked a<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">bout
the <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">win
paradox, </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></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
size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif" size="+2"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+1"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">that
Einstein has
mention<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ed</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">something
like that at
any t<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">ime</font>.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></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>
<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
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-10"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+2"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">Then
I agree with
you.<br>
<br>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+1">But
be careful
what you wish
for because
this <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">leads
to</font> my
CAT theory<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">
that all
objects are
created in the
obserer<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">'s
space and the
observer
always
provides the
fundamental
background in
which both
Einsteins
theory and
Lorenz theory
and for that
matter
maxwell's
equations are
valid. I would
love to have
you agree with
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">my</font>
object<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">-</font>subject
integrated
physics, which
I am
developing.
Look at my
Vigier 10
paper to see I
argued that <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">Einsteins</font>
<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">imagination</font>
was he special
background
space in which
his thought
experiment <font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">occurred<font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">.</font></font></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>
<blockquote><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"><sup
class="reference"
id="cite_ref-10"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+2"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"
size="+1"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">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. </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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></sup>
<blockquote><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"> 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></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></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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:</div>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+1">Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+1">to summarize:
Einstein's book is not wrong, but if
you use it in a wrong way then the
results are conflicting.</font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+1">Am 05.06.2017 um
04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="+1">On 6/4/2017 9:40
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
Each twin has two choices</font></div>
<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">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.</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></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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">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></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>
<blockquote><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif">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.</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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New 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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New 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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times New
Roman, Times,
serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New 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.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></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.</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>
<blockquote><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">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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><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"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
face="Times
New Roman,
Times, serif"><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>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(211,212,222);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
55.0px;padding-top: 18.0px;"><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
alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width:
46.0px;height: 29.0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
17.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family: Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
style="color:
rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" 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" target="_blank" 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>
_______________________________________________ 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>