<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my
referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some simple
yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and acceleration
and gravity are related?</p>
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster than one
at sea level?</p>
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is related to the gravity
potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite likely the
wave function is a mental projection and therefore its collapse is
a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments have been
incorrectly interpreted</p>
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <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 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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.C2175264.754D4751@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three parts You,
I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I do a symmetric
twin thought experiment in which both twins do exactly
the same thing. They accelerate in opposite directions
turn around and come back at rest to compare clocks. You
does a though experiment that is not symmetric one twin
is at rest the other accelerates and comes back to rest
and compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that each
thought experiment is done in the space associated with
You,I and U. The speed of light is constant in each of
these spaces and so the special relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I have said
many times these are self consistent equations and I
have no problem with them under the Aristotilian
assumption that each of the three parts believes what
they see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they see is in
each parts space. This space provides the background
aether, in it the speed of electromagnetic interactions
is constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level largely if not totally imposed
by the gravity interactions the physical material from
which each part is made experiences. Each part you and
your space runs at a different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for should be called the speed of
NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or disagree
with this view point. But if you disagree please do not
tell me that the mainstream physicists do not take this
point of view. I know that. Main stream physicists are
not attempting to solve the consciousness problem , and
have basically eliminated the mind and all subjective
experience from physics. I’m trying to fix this rather
gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that,
what we see, is not the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is not a
better example than to cite Newton's law of motion in order to
proof that most probably our human view is questionable. For
you it seems to be tempting to use relativity because you see
logical conflicts related to different views of the
relativistic processes, to show at this example that the world
cannot be as simple as assumed by the naive realism. But
relativity and particularly the twin experiment is completely
in agreement with this naive realism. The frequently discussed
problems in the twin case are in fact problems of persons who
did not truly understand relativity. And this is the fact for
all working versions of relativity, where the Einsteinian and
the Lorentzian version are the ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example
specifically force is a theoretical construct and not see able
, what we see is acceleration and the feeling of push or pull
so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an experience
but Newton assumes both are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can be
explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize
material generates its own space i.e. there is something it
feels like to be material. I believe integrating this feeling
into physics is the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each piece of
material but dependent on its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these
ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<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;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">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>