<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.heading1char0
{mso-style-name:heading1char;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Hi John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>I agree with you that time does not slow for a moving particle for example. But the rate at which particles can exchange energy (photons), does change with their velocity through space.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Saying that time does not slow for a relatively moving spaceship is like saying it has no length contraction. In the moving spaceship, perception of time does not change, but there is still a change of the interaction rate of particles within the spaceship, when measured by an outside observer. An atomic clock, at rest in space, ticks faster than an atomic clock which is moving very fast, but someone traveling with the moving atomic clock could not sense any difference.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>We have an equation which expresses time dilation related to velocity. Saying that time does not slow, is equivalent to saying we don’t need this equation for anything. But we do.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Often when we find that our magical theory, which we fervently believe in, might have a shortcoming, we find ways to invent more “magic” to accompany the theory so that it can be kept alive. Making a problem more and more complicated until the explanation is too complex and convoluted to effectively argue against, is not science.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>No matter how complex the system, it can be broken down into simple parts, and explained. There is one part of Special Relativity which is broken. Here I am speaking of the Special Relativity as explained by Einstein, not a professor or text on the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>But after these exchanges, I too am beginning to think it is useless to discuss such items in this forum.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Darren Eggenschwiler <darren@makemeafilm.com>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; Innes Morrison <innes.morrison@cocoon.life><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>No Chip you are mistaken. <br><br>Time is not running "slower" in either ship. It is only the perception of time that differs. It is a common misconception in relativity that "clocks slow down". The fact that the misconception is widely believed and widely quoted does not make it more true. Both folk in both spaceships should know this and should be able to calculate exactly what the other observes. Pretty simple really as it is wholly symmetric.<br><br>In(general covariant) relativity, the point is that each inertial observer considers their frame "stationary". In fact every observer can be aware of their motion w.r.t. the cosmic microwave background, so there is an absolute frame -obviously. This is not, however, the purview of special relativity which deals with, in its simplest form, only space and time and velocity, I say "in its simplest form" because many folk move the line as to what "special relativity" is. The fact there is clearly a given frame, the CMB does not contradict general covariance. In a slightly more extended relativity, some would go for the Lorentz group (which contains rotations and boosts). It matters little, if you put yourself inside any mathematical box (including the concept of general covariance!) you can only say things about the situation in the box, and can not even describe the boundaries of the box (Wittgenstein, Godel). To try then to talk about things outside the box is simply meaningless, and a complete and utter waste of time. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Looking at this conversation going past I have agreed with most of what some folk have said (Viv, Grahame and Al, for example), but I know that we all differ at some level on this (ref my earlier conversation with Al, for example). It is not really that one of us is "right" and the others are "wrong" or that we are all "wrong". What we are doing is, as Viv says, setting up a conceptual framework and then considering it faithfully (as faithfully as we can anyway) within those boundaries. What I am saying is that SR is in NO WAY a starting point, but is a simple derivative of deeper consideration. These deeper considerations have a multitude of possibilities, only one of which is the concept of "general covariance", which is what we are talking about. For example, my derivation of SR has nothing at all to do with general covariance. It looks at the properties of self-confined mass-light. It is another starting point, one of very many, which also gives SR as a consequence. Always a consequence. Never a starting point. SR is not a scientific “holy cow”, it is more a scientific pint of pasteurized, homogenized milk from an international set of cows, mostly non-holy. I would appeal to everyone to put this conversation to bed as it is neither useful nor decorative and, go and make a nice hot cup of tea (or a glass of warm milk).</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Proving SR true within its realm of validity (likely) or even false in some experiment is anyway of very little consequence for the maths of SR itself, which will prove to be a limiting case anyway. If one gets a "false" where there is gravity and/or acceleration, for example has reference only to the super-theory, as SR does not make any claims to include acceleration or gravitation. When I say that to understand it you need to step outside SR and consider (at least) acceleration, I am talking about understanding the (maths) box. Remember that this is a box of ones own creation. Maths is just marks on paper one makes up. It is the physics and the understanding that counts. Maths can help you see, but maths can make you blind.<br><br>Coming back to the physics, personally, I do not think acceleration alone cuts this although this is vital to getting the so-called "paradox". I think one needs to look at energy conservation and the very mechanism of the generation of the universe (itself a zero-energy system) and the way in which the elementary processes cause this to come into being to make any real progress.<br><br>In short I think the whole conversation has been a complete waste of time in making any actual progress, as all the examples brought up have been long-considered, but has perhaps been useful in getting people to think further.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br>Regards to all, John W.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>I will go blue below</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF312942><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:52 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>You are absolutely right regarding rotations, and the need for a more complete theory as in General relativity to describe them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>However, the point of my thought experiment was to take a look at a specific aspect of Special Relativity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The concept in Special Relativity that all motion is relative is logically flawed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Let me pose a modified thought experiment to illustrate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Our experiment begins with all the following conditions in place…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Spaceship A thinks it is stationary (not moving) in space, Spaceship A views Spaceship B approaching at a highly relativistic speed. Spaceship B thinks it is stationary and thinks that Spaceship A is approaching at the same highly relativistic speed. When the Spaceships are 1 light year apart they both transmit their reference time (and date). When Spaceship B passes very close to Spaceship A they again both transmit their time and date.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>During the experiment there is no acceleration applied to either spaceship.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Receivers are set up to record the time and date information (and are tuned to accommodate any blue shift from either spaceship).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The receivers are adjacent to Spaceship A just for an example.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If in fact Spaceship B is the moving ship, the signal transmitted 1 light year before the ships pass each other, will arrive at the receiver Adjacent to A moments before Spaceship B passes Spaceship A.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>Good so far</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>In this situation Spaceship A expects Spaceship B time to be running slower. And Spaceship B expects Spaceship A time to be running slower. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><br>This is where you go into the mist. No. Both expect each others time to be running normally.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If all motion is relative this is what they MUST expect.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>No - precisely the opposite. If all is relative they must expect the situation to be EXACTLY SYMMETRIC, as it is.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>But those two outcomes are mutually exclusive, so logically, all motion is NOT relative. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>No the two outcomes are exactly the same, as one must expect.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If we feel all motion is relative then there is a logical error in our theoretical basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:22 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Phil Butler <<a href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz</a>>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>; Innes Morrison <<a href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">innes.morrison@cocoon.life</a>>; John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Dear all,<br><br>It is just (light) perspective. If one has particles in a ring (e.g muon storage ring) they decay (much) more slowly. For the muons, the ring appears much smaller. The muons, with their clock, decay at a normal rate, for them, and decay in a normal average time, for them, around what looks like, to them, a mini ring. Why? because every element of the ring is permanently blue-shifted to them. Also, remember they feel an acceleration.<br><br>Remember also that SR is a LIMITED form of relativity. It is not, and never was, the starting point for relativity.The full group also contains generalised rotations: that is rotations and boosts. Accelerations then. Chip and Wolf you are confusing yourselves by thinking only inside a special limited box, the framework of SPECIAL relativity. Rotations imply a radial acceleration. You want to describe these you need to get into a bigger, broader theory than just special relativity which only relates clocks and rulers and velocities.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF982424><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of </span><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 12, 2017 6:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> </span><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Clocks do not slow down; they don't even know that they are moving. This is obvious: a Lorentz x-form to a frame moving with respect to the clock-watcher with relative velocity "0" will yield no time dilation nor LF-contraction. TD & LF appear only to those moving with repspect to the clock with nonzero velocity. Could be that the clock is stationary and the observer is moving. Thus, these effects are not ontological, but epistomological. They are a sort of SR-perspective. They change the appearance of the object moving with respcet to the observer. Has to do with the fact that light (better: E&M interaction) takes time to get from source to sink depending on the separation distance, etc.. Thus, 3-D objects, with parts at different distances from the observer will appear distorted. That is, the projection with light on the retina of the observer is distoreted, not the entity itself. (BTW, this is not me talking, See J. Terrell, Am. J. Phys. 1959, p. 1041.) </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> Montag, 12. Juni 2017 um 18:42 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <</span><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>><br><b>An:</b> </span><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Wolf:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Albrecht:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>I agree we should make detailed arguments. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>I had been arguing that Einstein’s special relativity claims that the clocks of an observer moving at constant velocity with respect to a second observer will slow down. This lead to the twin paradox that is often resolved by citing the need for acceleration and 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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>Aristotle believed the world was essentially the way you see it. This is called naive realism. And science from Newton up to quantum theory is based upon it. If you keep repeating that my ideas are not what physicists believe I fully agree. It is not an argument to say the mainstream of science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing something different. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>So let me try again</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>I am suggesting that there is no independent physically objective space time continuum in which the material universe including you, I, and the rest of the particles and fields exist. Instead I believe a better world view is that (following Everett) that all systems are observers and therefore create their own space in which the objects you see in front of your face appear. The situation is shown below. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><img border=0 width=556 height=440 id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D2E604.1C121350" alt="cid:part1.D14364AF.F5B9AFBC@a-giese.de"></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>Here we have three parts You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin thought experiment in which both twins do exactly the same thing. They accelerate in opposite directions turn around and come back at rest to compare clocks. You does a though experiment that is not symmetric one twin is at rest the other accelerates and comes back to rest and compares clocks. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>The point is that each thought experiment is done in the space associated with You,I and U. The speed of light is constant in each of these spaces and so the special relativity , Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I have said many times these are self consistent equations and I have no problem with them under the Aristotilian assumption that each of the three parts believes what they see is the independent space.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>. Instead what they see is in each parts space. This space provides the background aether, in it the speed of electromagnetic interactions is constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by the Lagrangian energy level largely if not totally imposed by the gravity interactions the physical material from which each part is made experiences. Each part you and your space runs at a different rate because the constant Einstein was looking for should be called the speed of NOW.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>You may agree or disagree with this view point. But if you disagree please do not tell me that the mainstream physicists do not take this point of view. I know that. Main stream physicists are not attempting to solve the consciousness problem , and have basically eliminated the mind and all subjective experience from physics. I’m trying to fix this rather gross oversight.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><h1 style='text-indent:.5in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;font-weight:normal'>Now to respond to your comments in detail. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></h1><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Research Director<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Wolf,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>I would feel better if our discussion would use detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead of pure repetitions of statements.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='color:black'>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</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>I disagree and I show the deviation in your calculations below. </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='color:black'>Lets look at this thing Historically</span></b><span style='color:black'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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 summarized by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are valid in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub> and permeability μ<sub>0</sub> of free space. URL: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br> These equations 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of magnetics, but all within the self consistent Aristotelian point of view </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>just an example physics does not need mind. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>An aether was not detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which does however not mean that no aether existed. The only result is that it cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was also accepted by Einstein.<b> </b></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>It cannot be detected because it is attached to the observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='color:black'>Einstein’s Approach:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>No! This can be right as I have explained several times now.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Ref: The clock paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational field URL </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025" target="_blank"><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</span></b></a></span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br>As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about what Einstein really meant. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>You may be right but again most papers explain it using gravity</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='color:black'>Lorentz Approach:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Everyone agrees the moving clocks slow down but we have two different reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>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 .<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue, its whether the world view is correct.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>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 .<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as gravity causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is given by theory and by experiment.<br><br>The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there is no gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of it into the vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But then the question whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by this change. And particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats all participants in the same way And anyhow there is no solution needed as it is in fact not a paradox. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='color:black'>So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed</span></b><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>No, this 3rd person is definitely not required</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>. 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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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 is <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Eq. 1) V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> A stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> A moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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)</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Comparing the two clock rates and <b>assuming the Action is an invariant</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Eq. 2) (m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub> </sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup> gives<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Eq. 3) Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Which to first order approximation is equal to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Eq. 4) Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>First order approximation is not usable as we are discussing relativity here.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable from action invariance and sped of light dependence on gravitational potential</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. -</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><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 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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>This is the only important point. Please provide the Reference for this experiment</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the very simple almost classical expression based upon action invariance is adequate.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the Lorentz transformation. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Research Director<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>On 6/7/2017 5:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Wolf:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Albrecht:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>First there have been so many E-mails I do not know which one you want me to look at to understand your explanation. So please send me a copy of it again.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Sorry but I am not at home now and do not have this mail at hand. But you will find it by its contents:<br><br>My mail was about this apparent conflict if two moving observes say that the clock of the other one is slowed down compared to his own one. Which is not a contradiction if you look at the time related Lorentz transformation:<br>t' = gamma*(t-vx/c2)<br>where you have to insert correct values for v and x. You will find it in a mail of last week.<br>This understanding is essential for any discussion of dilation. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Of course if there is some special to interpret Einstein's intent that is not in Einstein's book then perhaps you are right ,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Which book of Einstein do you mean? As above, this is not a special interpretation of Einstein's intent but the correct use of the Lorentz transformation. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>if you are telling me that the only valid inertial frame is the frame of a third person god like observer who is stationary before the twins fire their rockets and in that frame both of the twins doing exactly the same thing would have exactly the same clock rates and therefore they will have the elapsed time when they meet.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>No, you can take any frame you want. But for the whole process where you use the Lorentz transformation you have to refer to the same frame.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>And further if you are telling me that both twins must realize that their own clock is slowing down and the other twin's </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>clock is also slowing down because both </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>tw</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>ins must do their calculations in this special initial god like 3d person frame so both agree</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>No, it is not the condition that there is a god like person, but one has to stay with one frame whichever it is.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>And further you are telling me that </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>all the talk about there not being a special inertial</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'> frame, and everything is relative <br>and neither twin believes he is in his own inertial frame because neither feels he is moving is a misinterpretation of SRT</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>whether someone feels that he is moving or not depends also on </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>his </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>choice of the reference frame.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>and further that URL </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>"Starting with </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin" target="_blank" title="Paul Langevin"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>Paul Langevin</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[5]</span></sup></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" target="_blank" title="Max von Laue"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>Max von Laue</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames" target="_blank" title="Inertial frames"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>inertial frames</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration <i>per se</i>.</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[6]</span></sup></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> Explanations put forth by </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein" target="_blank" title="Albert Einstein"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>Albert Einstein</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> and </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" target="_blank" title="Max Born"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>Max Born</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> invoked </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation" target="_blank" title="Gravitational time
dilation"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>gravitational time dilation</span></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[7]</span></sup></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> General relativity is not necessary to explain the twin paradox; special relativity alone can explain the phenomenon.</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[8]</span></sup></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-9" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[9]</span></sup></a></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>.</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10" target="_blank"><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'>[10]"</span></sup></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Paul Langevin and Max von Laue are both correct with their explanation as I alre</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>ady wrote in the other mail. </span></sup><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Einstein and Born explanation</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;color:black'> i</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>s bull shit because in fact there is a </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;color:black'>preferred</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> inertial frame i.e the frame in which </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;color:black'>both twins were </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>initially</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:18.0pt;color:black'> at rest </span></sup><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Albert Einstein and Max Born are accor</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>ding to Wikipedia cited by other books, but no contents are given. So, what shall I say? I know about Einstein that he has, when he was asked about the twin paradox, </span><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>referred to acceleration in so far that in any case of acceleration the original frames are left and so the Lorentz transformation is no longer applicable. I have the facsimile of a letter which Einstein once wrote to a former member of our pre-Vigier group (i.e. PIRT) saying just this.<br><br>I do not know and have never heard that Einstein referred the twin paradox to gravity. And to refer here to gravitational time dilation is so far from any logic that I cannot imagine </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>that Einstein has mentioned something like that at any time. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span style='font-size:18.0pt;color:black'>Then I agree with you.<br><br></span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>But be careful what you wish for because this leads to my CAT theory that all objects are created in the obserer</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>'s space and the observer always provides the fundamental background in which both Einsteins theory and Lorenz theory and for that matter maxwell's equations are valid. I would love to have you agree with my object-subject integrated physics, which I am developing. Look at my Vigier 10 paper to see I argued that Einsteins imagination was he special background space in which his thought experiment occurred.</span></sup><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>I am afraid that you will o</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>verload or over-interpret Einstein's theory if using it for </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>any observer dependent theories. Einstein himself believed that there is an objective </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>reali</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>ty but that every i</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>nertia</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>l frame </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>is an own world in some sense. Relativity exists according to Einstein completely independent of the exist</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>ence of thinking humans.</span></sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><sup id="cite_ref-10"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>PS: your explanation is like Max von Laue's only he did not use a symmetric experiment protocol and therefore requires four reference frame switches, which lead me to ask how is the frame change implemented if not through the gravitational time dilation explanation put forward by Einstein and Born. </span></sup><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Why so complicated? As soon as some ob</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>ject changes its speed it leaves its original frame. Th</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>at is simpl</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>y</span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'> the definition of a linear motion, nothing philosophical beyond that.<br>And the symmetric version of the twin paradox is your proposal, so neither Max von </span></sup><sup><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Laue nor somebody else will have used it. So only one change of the frame, not two or more changes.</span></sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> we are getting clos</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>er soon I'll show you that the speed with which your particles move is the speed of Now In CAT not the speed of light, which is always changing and not at all constant.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>For Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I personally do not agree to this because I follow the Lorentzian relativity, which I</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> do because the Lorentzian S</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>RT is based on physics whereas Einstein's relativity is based on abstract principles. In general I do not like pri</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>nciples as </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>final solutions of open questions.<br><br>In a </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>genera</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>l view it is a big surprise for me that such a s</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>imple physical phenomenon like SRT can be made or seen so complicated as it appears in this discussion.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Research Director<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Wolf,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>to summarize: Einstein's book is not wrong, but if you use it in a wrong way then the results are conflicting.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Am 05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>On 6/4/2017 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>Each twin has two choices</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>1.) He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is back again, he meets twin 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They will indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT. Both twins do exactly the same thing and physics tells them to expect to get the same result. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>2.) He knows <s>physics</s> SRT and particularly </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>special relativity. And, to be close to your case, he may define after his start his frame of motion </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>as </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>the reference frame. So in this frame his clock will run with normal speed. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>His frame of reference is his spaceship outfitted with real meter sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to one frame. If one changes his frame, anything is new.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Then, when his retro rocket has started, he will notic</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>e the acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion he is now moving towards twin 2 with a speed which you have called v. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>His frame of reference is still his spaceship outfitted with real meter sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself only now the velocity is toward each other.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>If he still understands his spaceship as his frame after the retro rocket has started then he leaves the conditions for the validity of SRT.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>And as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fact that now his own clock will run differently than before. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>No he reads a book on special relativity written by Einstein that tells him the other twins clock should run slow</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> than his own.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>If he reads and understands special relativity following Einstein then he knows that now <i>also his own clock </i>runs slower.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>So if he wants to understand what is going on and if he still takes his original state of motion as his reference frame, he has to realize that his clock is now running slower. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Why would he take his original state of motion as his reference frame? That would be some imaginaty space ship still moving away at velocity "v". His reference frame is his space ship, something may have effected its clocks and rods but his frame is his frame. You are making up a story about his own clocks that are obviously running exactly the way they always as far as his observations are concerned in order to make the theory he read in the SRT book more valid than what he actually sees and can measure. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>The Lorentz transformation which we are talking about defines the transformation from one (inertial) frame to another one. If twin 1 takes his spaceship as his frame <i>after </i>the acceleration then any facts from the time before are no longer of relevance. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>- On the other hand, if he wants to understand the situation of twin 2 he has to realize that the speed of twin 2, <b>taking place with v in relation to his own original frame, causes a slow down of the clock of twin 2</b>. But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro rocket, twin 2 will have speed = 0 with respect to the original frame of twin 1. So the clock of twin 2 will now run in the normal way. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Compared with an imaginary frame. We and Einstein claimed to deals with real rods and clocks</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to a frame and makes no sense without such reference. If one changes his frame, anything is new. The word "real" has a limited meaning in that case. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>- If you now add the different phases of both clocks, i.e. the phases of normal run and the phases of slow down, you will see that the result is the same for both twins. And this is what I have explained quantitatively in my last mail.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>All one has to do is to add to the protocol that each twin should take a faximily of their own clocks and compare them later by your own analysis (<b> see bold face above</b>) each twin would believe his own Fax would run at the normal rate but the other would slow down.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Here you misunderstand how dilation works. I have tried to show you earlier that clock comparison is not so simple. If two observers move with respect to each other, then in a naive view the observer holding clock 1 would say that clock 2 runs slower and at the same time the observer holding clock 2 would say that clock 1 runs slower. This is as a fact logically not possible. I have explained in the other mail how this comparison works correctly so that the logical conflict does not occur. Please look at that mail again and we can continue our discussion on that basis. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>In other words the experiment gives the answer logic would expect, but the story in Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that mooving clocks do not slow down but the theory explaining it is different and must include the physics of the observer</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>, which I'll describe next once we get this point </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>straightened</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> out.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Einstein is not wrong but you are using the Lorentz transformation in an incorrect way. Please read the other mail again and we can discuss on that basis. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>I must say that I have problems to understand where you have a difficulty to see this.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Research Director<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 style='border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt'><tr><td width=55 style='width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=46 height=29 id="_x0000_i1028" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td width=470 style='width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:13.5pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E'>Virenfrei. </span><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='background:white'><span style='color:black'></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Click here to unsubscribe </span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>