<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on the
quantitative results if something is referred to the gravitational
force. As much as I know any use of gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to 40 orders of magnitude smaller that we
have them in fact in physics. - If you disagree to this statement
please give us your quantitative calculation (for instance for the
twin case). Otherwise your repeated arguments using gravity do not
help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may be affected by human
understanding in a bad way, I think that the case of entanglement
could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we should make detailed
arguments. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been arguing that
Einstein’s special relativity claims that the clocks of an
observer moving at constant velocity with respect to a
second observer will slow down. This lead to the twin
paradox that is often resolved by citing the need for
acceleration and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity
in general relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein as I understood him could
not explain the paradox. I did so in order to set the
stage for introducing a new theory. You argued my
understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not worth
arguing about because it is not second guessing Einstein
that is important but that but I am trying to present a
new way of looking at reality which is based on Platonic
thinking rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle believed the world
was essentially the way you see it. This is called naive
realism. And science from Newton up to quantum theory is
based upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are not
what physicists believe I fully agree. It is not an
argument to say the mainstream of science disagrees. I
know that. I'm proposing something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">So
let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am suggesting that there is
no independent physically objective space time continuum
in which the material universe including you, I, and the
rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I believe
a better world view is that (following Everett) that all
systems are observers and therefore create their own space
in which the objects you see in front of your face appear.
The situation is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img src="cid:part2.9F65DAB9.B1740401@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>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example
specifically force is a theoretical construct and not see able ,
what we see is acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so
f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an experience but
Newton assumes both are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can be
explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize material
generates its own space i.e. there is something it feels like to
be material. I believe integrating this feeling into physics is
the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more easily explained by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in each piece of material but dependent on
its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these ideas,
so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this: Every piece of
material has its own energy. Also objects which are connected by a
gravitational field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font color="#3366ff"> energy.
But it seems to me that you relate every energy state to gravity.
Here I do not follow. If pieces of material are bound to each
other and are </font><font color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of energy, the energy in it is
dominated by the strong force and by the electric force. In
comparison the gravitational energy is so many orders of magnitude
smaller (Where the order of magnitude is > 35) that this is an
extremely small side effect, too small to play any role in most
applications. Or please present your quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to your comments
in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use
detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure
repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree
clocks slow down, but If I include the observer then
I get an equation for the slow down that agrees with
eperimetn but disagrees with Einstein in the higher
order, so it should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at
this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality consisted of
an external objective universe independent of
subjective living beings. Electricity and Magnetism
had largely been explored through empirical
experiments which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by
Maxwell’s equations. These equations are valid in a
medium characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability
μ<sub>0</sub><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of
free space. URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These
equations<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are identical
in form when expressed in a different coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a
substitution of the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s
equations that will then give the same form only using
∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must exist.
</p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the complete theory of
Maxwell can be deduced from two things: 1.) the Coulomb
law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation. It is interesting
because it shows that electromagnetism is a consequence of
special relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is not a separate force but only a
certain perspective of the electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of magnetics,
but all within the self consistent Aristotelian point of view
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to
the wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept required
an aether as a medium for them to propagate. It was
postulated that space was filled with such a medium
and that the earth was moving through it. Therefore it
should be detectable with a Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null result showed this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is nothing more than
the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody believes these days
that aether is some kind of material. And also Maxwell's
theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An aether was not
detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which does
however not mean that no aether existed. The only result
is that it cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was
also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer
doing the experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other observations
and facts that objects contract at motion - in the original
version of Heaviside, this happens when electric fields move in
relation to an aether. So the interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe like you this
is a better explanation than Einsteins but it still leaves the
aether as a property of an independent space that exist whether
we live or die and and assume we are objects in that space it
also identifies that space with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not equal to
the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the speed of light is
constant, synchronization protocol of clocks, and
rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the null result of
Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein went on to
eliminate any absolute space and instead proposed that
all frames and observers riding in them are equivalent
and each such observer would measure another observers
clocks slowing down when moving with constant relative
velocity. This interpretation lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since each observer according to Einstein,
being in his own frame would according to his theory
claim the other observer’s clocks would slow down.
However both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained several times
now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications that use
general relativity, gravity and the equivalence principle as
the the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational
field URL <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about
what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want to show
that the twin case can also be handled as a process related to
gravity. So they define the travel of the travelling twin so
that he is permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn
around point and then accelerated back to the starting point,
where the twin at rest resides. Then they calculate the slow
down of time as a consequence of the accelerations which they
relate to an fictive gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by several
reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors to replace
completely the slow down of time by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up an experiment where one clock
is slowed down by the motion and the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention according
to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow down.
But that does not happen. Any text book about SRT says that
acceleration does not cause a slow down of time / clocks. And
there are clear experiments proofing exactly this. For instance
the muon storage ring at CERN showed that the lifetime of muons
was extended by their high speed but in no way by the extreme
acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know of any
serious physicist who tries to explain the twin case by gravity.
I have given you by the way some strong arguments that such an
explanation is not possible. - And independently, do you have
other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of this paper
but it is relevant because it is only one of a long list of
papers that use gravity and acceleration to to explain the twin
paradox. I am not claiming they are correct only that a large
community believes this is the way to explain the twin paradox.
If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will
say explanations fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these categories does not
mean a community supporting the gravity explanation view point
does not exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book that has Einstein
and other notables explanation and will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to play any role here.
And this can be proven by quite simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an answer to this paradox in his
invention of general relativity where clocks speed up
when in a higher gravity field i.e one that feels less
strong like up on top of a mountain. Applied to the
twin paradox: a stationary twin sees the moving twin
at velocity “v” and thinks the moving twin’s clock
slows down. The moving twin does not move relative to
his clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a round
trip (using the equivalence principle calculated the
being equivalent to a gravitational force). Feeling
the acceleration as gravity and knowing that gravity
slows her clocks she would also calculate her clocks
would slow down. The paradox is resolved because in
one case the explanation is velocity the other it is
gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity has
nothing to do with the twin situation, and so gravity or
any equivalent to gravity has nothing to do with it. The
twin situation is not a paradox but is clearly free of
conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it using
gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never heard
about this and I am caring about this twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is certainly how I was
taught but I have notr looked up papers on the subject for many
years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely different approach
I do not think which of two explanations is more right is a
fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures slow down and lengths in
the direction of motion contract in the absolute
aether of space according to his transformation and
therefore the aether could not be detected. In other
words Lorentz maintained the belief in an absolute
aether filled space, but that electromagnetic objects
relative to that space slow down and contract. Gravity
and acceleration had nothing to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued
that the observer subject to acceleration would know
that he is no longer in the same inertial frame as
before and therefore calculate that his clocks must be
slowing down, even though he has no way of measuring
such a slow down because all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore does not consider gravity
but only the knowledge that due to his acceleration he
must be moving as well and knowing his clocks are
slowed by motion he is not surprised that his clock
has slowed down when he gets back to the stationary
observer and therefore no paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the moving clocks
slow down but we have two different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the absolute
fixed frame remains which in the completely symmetric
twin paradox experiment described above implies that
both observers have to calculate their own clock rates
from the same initial start frame and therefore both
calculate the same slow down. This introduces a
disembodied 3d person observer which is reminiscent of
a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some constant speed
somewhere can make this calculation and has the same
result. No specific frame like the god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's
space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in the
same way as much or as little depending on the Mind as Newton's
law of motion. So to make things better understandable please
explain your position by the use of either Newton's law or
something comparable. Relativity is not appropriate as it allows
for too much speculation which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I hope to show
the whole business is a confusion introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis which introduces artifacts. I
hpe you will critique my writeup when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean? The confusion
about this "twin paradox" is solely caused by persons who do not
understand the underlying physics. So, this does not require any
action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not correct that
moving clocks slow down. If we follow Einstein, also the
synchronization of the clocks in different frames and
different positions is essential. If this synchronization
is omitted (as in most arguments of this discussion up to
now) we will have conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving twin was to be done in the inertial
frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in which
the theory was defined and it is the mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original frame of the one
moving twin in order to be close to your experiment and your
description. Any other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the consequence of
having an observer who feels a force like gravity which
according to the equivalence principle and any ones experience
in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from gravity, is such a
person needs to transfer to the initial start frame that would
mean we would all be moving at the speed of light and need to
transfer back to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I still get
older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the whole basis
does not make common experience sense, which is what I want to
base our physics on. We have gotten our heads into too much
math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand what you mean here.
- Your are right that we should never forget that mathematics is
a tool and not an understanding of the world. But regarding your
heavily discussed example of relativity, it is fundamentally
understandable without a lot of mathematics. At least the version
of Hendrik Lorentz. That one is accessible to imagination without
much mathematics and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both observers
would see the other moving at a relative velocity and
calculate their clocks to run slower than their own
when they calculate their own experience they would
also calculate their own clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant with
Einstein one has to take into account the synchronization
state of the clocks. Clocks at different positions cannot
be compared in a simple view. If someone wants to compare
them he has e.g. to carry a "transport" clock from one
clock to the other one. And the "transport" clock will
also run differently when carried. This - again - is the
problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue, its
whether the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a
correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you tell us
that results are logically conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly
covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was at
our Italy conference has a nice explanation of how Maxwells
Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms "if you do it
the right way" check out <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know the other
twin is also accelerating these effects cancel and all
that is left is the velocity slow down. In other words
the Einstein explanation that one twin explains the
slow down as a velocity effect and the other as a
gravity effect so both come to the same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would have to fall
back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate both the
gravity effect and the velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person observer which is reminiscent of
a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this process as a
gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is none,
neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I know. Even
if the equivalence between gravity and acceleration would
be valid (which it is not) there are two problems. Even if
the time would stand still during the whole process of
backward acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this
would not at all explain the time difference experienced
by the twins. And on the other hand the gravitational
field would have, in order to have the desired effect
here, to be greater by a factor of at least 20 orders of
magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity
field around the sun etc to achieve the time shift needed.
So this approach has no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and the slow down of clocks and the
speed of light in a lower ( closer to a mass) field is the
heart of general relativity. why do you keep insisting it is
not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty potential and orbit
speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made
a calculation that the bendng of light around the sun is due
to a gravity acing like a refractive media. Why tis constant
denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as gravity
causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is given by
theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run faster at
higher altitude? I was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct
for its altitude it would not be as accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity, not
acceleration. And even gravity has a small influence. The
gravitational field on the surface of the sun slows down clocks by
the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please compare this with
the factors of slow down which are normally assumed in the
examples for the twin travel. --> Absolutely not usable, even
if equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de"> <br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there is
no gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of it
into the vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by this
change. And particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats
all participants in the same way And anyhow there is no solution
needed as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both
Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed</b>
because both require a disembodied 3d person observer
who is observing that independent Aristotilian
objective universe that must exist whether we look at
it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of one of the twins or of the
other twin or from the view of <i>any other observer </i>in
the world who is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if you object
here you should give clear arguments, not mere repetitions
of your statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d person,
he clear argument is that he clock slow down is also derivable
form the invariance of action required to execute a clock tick
of identical clocks in any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of two frames of
linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz transformation it
always presents the relation between two frames, normally called
S and S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along and says the
entire Aristotelian approach is wrong and the Platonic
view must be taken. Einstein is right in claiming
there is no independent of ourselves space however his
derivation of Lorentz Transformations was conducted
under the assumption that his own imagination provided
the 3d person observer god like observer but he failed
to recognize the significance of this fact. And
therefore had to invent additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is properly taken into
account each observer generates his own observational
display in which he creates the appearance of clocks.
Those appearance are stationary relative to the
observer’s supplied background space or they might be
moving. But in either case some external stimulation
has caused the two appearances. If two copies of the
same external clock mechanism are involved and in both
cases the clock ticks require a certain amount of
action to complete a cycle of activity that is called
a second i.e. the moving of the hand from line 1 to
line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action required to
complete the event between clock ticks is the
invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The two
clocks do not slow down because they appear to be
moving relative to each other their rates are
determined by their complete Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the fixed mass underlying each
observer’s universe. The potential gravitational
energy of a mass inside the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub> are the
mass and radius of the mass shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of us is
in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian
energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in the
non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity here. So
the correct equation has to be used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use equations
(here for kinetic energy) which are strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming the
Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order approximation
is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable from
action invariance and sped of light dependence on
gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has
nothing to do with a gravitational potential. In special
relativity the slow down of clocks is formally necessary to
"explain" the constancy of c in any frame. In general relativity
it was necessary to explain that the speed of light is also
constant in a gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in any case a
measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order terms are on
the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> I believe
Einstein’s theory has not been tested to the second
term accuracy. In both theories the moving clock
interval is smaller when the clock moves with constant
velocity in the space of an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here which is a bit
different from Einstein's solution. And then you say that
Einstein's solution is an approximation. Then you ask that
the approximation in Einstein's solution should be
experimentally checked. No, the approximation is in your
solution as you write it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the simple
lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order which is all
that to my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of this
equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His goal was to
keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock has
longer time periods and so indicates a smaller time for a
given process. And if you follow Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of synchronization
which is essential for all considerations about dilation.
I repeat the correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the case ends up
with logical conflicts. Just those conflicts which you
have repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's theory
has been tested with v very close to c. Here in Hamburg at
DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it here without any
argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the Reference
for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also those
which have been performed here including my own experiment, have
used the true Einstein relation with consistent results for
energy and momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which violate conservation of energy
and of momentum. So, any experiment performed here during many
decades is a proof that the equation of Einstein is correct at
this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very
simple almost classical expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are slowed when they
are in a deeper gravity well and my calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has been tested.
You say Einsteins formula has been tested to the fourth order.
This would make my theory wrong. Please give me a reference so I
can look at the assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither
length contraction or time dilation beyond the approximate
solutions to Einsteins equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I would have to
present here the computer programs which we have used to calculate
e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have them any more
40 years after the experiment.) And as I wrote, there was no
experiment evaluated here at DESY over 40 years and as well no
experiment at CERN and as well no experiment at the Standford
accelerator without using Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None
of all these experiments would have had results if Einstein would
be wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any evaluation would
have shown a violation of the conservation of energy and the
conservation of momentum. That means one would have received
chaotic results for every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that there is an aether and
Einstein is right that there is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But Baer resolve both these
“rights” by identifying the aether as the personal
background memory space of each observer who feels he
is living in his own universe. We see and experience
our own individual world of objects and incorrectly
feel what we are looking at is an independent external
universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen from
an epistemological position. Only the measurement results
are equal. Beyond that I do not see any need to resolve
something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in the
different frames are in fact the measurement tools like
clocks and rulers. The only human-related problem is that
a human may read the indication of a clock in a wrong way.
The clock itself is in this view independent of observer
related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried to
find a solution within the Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz did not understand is that both the yard
stick and the EM wave are appearances in an observers space
and runs at an observers speed of NOW. The observer must be
included in physics if we are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But let's
start then with something like Newton's law of motion which is
in that case also affected. Relativity is bad for this as it is
mathematically more complicated without providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>