<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails as the questions below
are answered in my last mails, most of them in the mail of
yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my
referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some simple
yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and acceleration
and gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my last mails </i>that the
equivalence principle is violated at the point that acceleration -
in contrast to gravity - does not cause dilation. And, as I have
also written earlier, that you find this in any textbook about
special relativity and that it was experimentally proven at the muon
storage ring at CERN. - It seems to me that you did not read my
last mails but write your answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster than
one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail</i>. In addition I
have given you the numerical result for the gravitational dilation
on the surface of the sun where the slow down of a clock is the
little difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a zero-field
situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for the twin
case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is related to the gravity
potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the equation for this, which is
c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup> where p =
1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)) which has no additional
terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>. This gamma is
similarly applicable for time dilation and for every kinematic or
dynamic calculation where special relativity applies. And in the
latter context it is used by thousands of physicists all over the
world who work at accelerators. One could find it in their computer
programs. To ask them whether they have done it in this way would
seem to them like the doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25
correctly. This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is different only for the case
of time dilation then the answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of light c could never
be constant (or measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite likely
the wave function is a mental projection and therefore its
collapse is a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments
have been incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully by others
(as also Zeilinger has presented here in his last talk) and the new
experiments are said to have covered all loop holes which have been
left by Aspect. And also all these experiments are carefully
observed by an international community of physicists. But of course
this is never a guaranty that anything is correct. So it is good
practice to doubt that and I am willing follow this way. However if
you do not accept these experiments or the consequences drawn, then
please explain in detail where and why you disagree. Otherwise
critical statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we should present
arguments, which means at best: quantitative calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on the
quantitative results if something is referred to the
gravitational force. As much as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a result which is about 30 to 40
orders of magnitude smaller that we have them in fact in
physics. - If you disagree to this statement please give us
your quantitative calculation (for instance for the twin
case). Otherwise your repeated arguments using gravity do not
help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may be affected by human
understanding in a bad way, I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been arguing that
Einstein’s special relativity claims that the clocks
of an observer moving at constant velocity with
respect to a second observer will slow down. This lead
to the twin paradox that is often resolved by citing
the need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity in
general relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein as I understood him
could not explain the paradox. I did so in order to
set the stage for introducing a new theory. You argued
my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not
worth arguing about because it is not second guessing
Einstein that is important but that but I am trying to
present a new way of looking at reality which is based
on Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle believed the
world was essentially the way you see it. This is
called naive realism. And science from Newton up to
quantum theory is based upon it. If you keep repeating
that my ideas are not what physicists believe I fully
agree. It is not an argument to say the mainstream of
science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing
something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am suggesting that there
is no independent physically objective space time
continuum in which the material universe including
you, I, and the rest of the particles and fields
exist. Instead I believe a better world view is that
(following Everett) that all systems are observers and
therefore create their own space in which the objects
you see in front of your face appear. The situation is
shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img src="cid:part3.AC30239C.2C5D9F68@a-giese.de"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three parts
You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I do a
symmetric twin thought experiment in which both twins
do exactly the same thing. They accelerate in opposite
directions turn around and come back at rest to
compare clocks. You does a though experiment that is
not symmetric one twin is at rest the other
accelerates and comes back to rest and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that each
thought experiment is done in the space associated
with You,I and U. The speed of light is constant in
each of these spaces and so the special relativity ,
Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I
have said many times these are self consistent
equations and I have no problem with them under the
Aristotilian assumption that each of the three parts
believes what they see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they see is
in each parts space. This space provides the
background aether, in it the speed of electromagnetic
interactions is constant BECAUSE this speed is
determined by the Lagrangian energy level largely if
not totally imposed by the gravity interactions the
physical material from which each part is made
experiences. Each part you and your space runs at a
different rate because the constant Einstein was
looking for should be called the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or disagree
with this view point. But if you disagree please do
not tell me that the mainstream physicists do not take
this point of view. I know that. Main stream
physicists are not attempting to solve the
consciousness problem , and have basically eliminated
the mind and all subjective experience from physics.
I’m trying to fix this rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that,
what we see, is not the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is not
a better example than to cite Newton's law of motion in
order to proof that most probably our human view is
questionable. For you it seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical conflicts related to
different views of the relativistic processes, to show at
this example that the world cannot be as simple as assumed
by the naive realism. But relativity and particularly the
twin experiment is completely in agreement with this naive
realism. The frequently discussed problems in the twin case
are in fact problems of persons who did not truly understand
relativity. And this is the fact for all working versions of
relativity, where the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version
are the ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example
specifically force is a theoretical construct and not see
able , what we see is acceleration and the feeling of push
or pull so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes both are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it can
be explained much sipler and more accurately if we realize
material generates its own space i.e. there is something it
feels like to be material. I believe integrating this
feeling into physics is the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each piece of
material but dependent on its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these
ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this: Every piece of
material has its own energy. Also objects which are connected
by a gravitational field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font color="#3366ff">
energy. But it seems to me that you relate every energy state
to gravity. Here I do not follow. If pieces of material are
bound to each other and are </font><font color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of energy, the energy in it
is dominated by the strong force and by the electric force. In
comparison the gravitational energy is so many orders of
magnitude smaller (Where the order of magnitude is > 35)
that this is an extremely small side effect, too small to play
any role in most applications. Or please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use
detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead of
pure repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree
clocks slow down, but If I include the observer
then I get an equation for the slow down that
agrees with eperimetn but disagrees with
Einstein in the higher order, so it should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at
this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality
consisted of an external objective universe
independent of subjective living beings.
Electricity and Magnetism had largely been
explored through empirical experiments which lead
to basic laws<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are valid
in a medium characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of free
space. URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These
equations<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are
identical in form when expressed in a different
coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve
never seen a substitution of the Lorentz formulas
into Maxwell’s equations that will then give the
same form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’
and B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the complete theory of
Maxwell can be deduced from two things: 1.) the
Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation. It is
interesting because it shows that electromagnetism is
a consequence of special relativity. (Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity, New
York Plenum Press). Particularly magnetism is not a
separate force but only a certain perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the self consistent Aristotelian
point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce
to the wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a medium for them to
propagate. It was postulated that space was filled
with such a medium and that the earth was moving
through it. Therefore it should be detectable with
a Michelson –Morely experiment. But The Null
result showed this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is nothing more
than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody believes
these days that aether is some kind of material. And
also Maxwell's theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An aether was not
detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which does
however not mean that no aether existed. The only
result is that it cannot be detected. This latter
conclusion was also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the
observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other
observations and facts that objects contract at motion - in
the original version of Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to show a
phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have changed
their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe like you
this is a better explanation than Einsteins but it still
leaves the aether as a property of an independent space that
exist whether we live or die and and assume we are objects
in that space it also identifies that space with what is in
front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not equal
to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the speed of light is
constant, synchronization protocol of clocks, and
rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the null result of
Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein went on to
eliminate any absolute space and instead proposed
that all frames and observers riding in them are
equivalent and each such observer would measure
another observers clocks slowing down when moving
with constant relative velocity. This
interpretation lead to the Twin Paradox. Since
each observer according to Einstein, being in his
own frame would according to his theory claim the
other observer’s clocks would slow down. However
both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications that use
general relativity, gravity and the equivalence principle
as the the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous gravitational
field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue about
what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want to
show that the twin case can also be handled as a process
related to gravity. So they define the travel of the
travelling twin so that he is permanently accelerated until
he reaches the turn around point and then accelerated back
to the starting point, where the twin at rest resides. Then
they calculate the slow down of time as a consequence of the
accelerations which they relate to an fictive gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by several
reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors to replace
completely the slow down of time by the slow down by gravity
/ acceleration. They do not set up an experiment where one
clock is slowed down by the motion and the other twin slowed
down by acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention
according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow
down. But that does not happen. Any text book about SRT says
that acceleration does not cause a slow down of time /
clocks. And there are clear experiments proofing exactly
this. For instance the muon storage ring at CERN showed that
the lifetime of muons was extended by their high speed but
in no way by the extreme acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know of
any serious physicist who tries to explain the twin case by
gravity. I have given you by the way some strong arguments
that such an explanation is not possible. - And
independently, do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of this
paper but it is relevant because it is only one of a long
list of papers that use gravity and acceleration to to
explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming they are correct
only that a large community believes this is the way to
explain the twin paradox. If you look at the Wikipedia entry
for Twin Paradox they will say explanations fall into two
categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these categories does
not mean a community supporting the gravity explanation
view point does not exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book
that has Einstein and other notables explanation and will
see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many
orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to play
any role here. And this can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an answer to this paradox in
his invention of general relativity where clocks
speed up when in a higher gravity field i.e one
that feels less strong like up on top of a
mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the moving twin at velocity
“v” and thinks the moving twin’s clock slows down.
The moving twin does not move relative to his
clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a
round trip (using the equivalence principle
calculated the being equivalent to a gravitational
force). Feeling the acceleration as gravity and
knowing that gravity slows her clocks she would
also calculate her clocks would slow down. The
paradox is resolved because in one case the
explanation is velocity the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity
has nothing to do with the twin situation, and so
gravity or any equivalent to gravity has nothing to do
with it. The twin situation is not a paradox but is
clearly free of conflicts if special relativity, i.e.
the Lorentz transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it using
gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never
heard about this and I am caring about this twin experiment
since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is certainly how I
was taught but I have notr looked up papers on the subject
for many years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely different
approach I do not think which of two explanations is more
right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures slow down and lengths
in the direction of motion contract in the
absolute aether of space according to his
transformation and therefore the aether could not
be detected. In other words Lorentz maintained the
belief in an absolute aether filled space, but
that electromagnetic objects relative to that
space slow down and contract. Gravity and
acceleration had nothing to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued by Max Van Laue
argued that the observer subject to acceleration
would know that he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and therefore calculate
that his clocks must be slowing down, even though
he has no way of measuring such a slow down
because all the clocks in his reference frame.
Therefore does not consider gravity but only the
knowledge that due to his acceleration he must be
moving as well and knowing his clocks are slowed
by motion he is not surprised that his clock has
slowed down when he gets back to the stationary
observer and therefore no paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the moving
clocks slow down but we have two different
reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the absolute
fixed frame remains which in the completely
symmetric twin paradox experiment described above
implies that both observers have to calculate
their own clock rates from the same initial start
frame and therefore both calculate the same slow
down. This introduces a disembodied 3d person
observer which is reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some constant
speed somewhere can make this calculation and has the
same result. No specific frame like the god-like one
is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th person's
space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in the
same way as much or as little depending on the Mind as
Newton's law of motion. So to make things better
understandable please explain your position by the use of
either Newton's law or something comparable. Relativity is
not appropriate as it allows for too much speculation which
does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I hope to
show the whole business is a confusion introduced by our
habit of displaying time in a space axis which introduces
artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup when it is
finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean? The confusion
about this "twin paradox" is solely caused by persons who do
not understand the underlying physics. So, this does not
require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not correct that
moving clocks slow down. If we follow Einstein, also
the synchronization of the clocks in different frames
and different positions is essential. If this
synchronization is omitted (as in most arguments of
this discussion up to now) we will have conflicting
results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving twin was to be done in the
inertial frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in
which the theory was defined and it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original frame of the
one moving twin in order to be close to your experiment and
your description. Any other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the consequence of
having an observer who feels a force like gravity which
according to the equivalence principle and any ones
experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to the initial
start frame that would mean we would all be moving at the
speed of light and need to transfer back to the big bang or
the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I still
get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the whole
basis does not make common experience sense, which is what I
want to base our physics on. We have gotten our heads into
too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand what you mean
here. - Your are right that we should never forget that
mathematics is a tool and not an understanding of the world.
But regarding your heavily discussed example of relativity, it
is fundamentally understandable without a lot of mathematics.
At least the version of Hendrik Lorentz. That one is
accessible to imagination without much mathematics and without
logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both
observers would see the other moving at a relative
velocity and calculate their clocks to run slower
than their own when they calculate their own
experience they would also calculate their own
clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant
with Einstein one has to take into account the
synchronization state of the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot be compared in a simple
view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g. to
carry a "transport" clock from one clock to the other
one. And the "transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again - is the
problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue,
its whether the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a
correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you tell
us that results are logically conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly
covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney who was
at our Italy conference has a nice explanation of how
Maxwells Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms
"if you do it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the right
way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know the other
twin is also accelerating these effects cancel and
all that is left is the velocity slow down. In
other words the Einstein explanation that one twin
explains the slow down as a velocity effect and
the other as a gravity effect so both come to the
same conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have to fall back on Lorentz’s
and both twins calculate both the gravity effect
and the velocity effect from a disembodied 3d
person observer which is reminiscent of a god like
.</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this process as
a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is
none, neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I
know. Even if the equivalence between gravity and
acceleration would be valid (which it is not) there
are two problems. Even if the time would stand still
during the whole process of backward acceleration so
that delta t' would be 0, this would not at all
explain the time difference experienced by the twins.
And on the other hand the gravitational field would
have, in order to have the desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at least 20 orders of magnitude
(so >> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity field
around the sun etc to achieve the time shift needed.
So this approach has no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity,
the equivalence principle is , and the slow down of clocks
and the speed of light in a lower ( closer to a mass)
field is the heart of general relativity. why do you keep
insisting it is not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1
GPS and you yoursel made a calculation that the bendng of
light around the sun is due to a gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as
gravity causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is
given by theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run faster
at higher altitude? I was a consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS
correct for its altitude it would not be as accurate if it
did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that is gravity,
not acceleration. And even gravity has a small influence. The
gravitational field on the surface of the sun slows down
clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please
compare this with the factors of slow down which are normally
assumed in the examples for the twin travel. -->
Absolutely not usable, even if equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free space, there
is no gravity involved. Of course one may put the concept of
it into the vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But
then the question whether it is a paradox or not is not
affected by this change. And particularly gravity is not a
solution as it treats all participants in the same way And
anyhow there is no solution needed as it is in fact not a
paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both
Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed</b>
because both require a disembodied 3d person
observer who is observing that independent
Aristotilian objective universe that must exist
whether we look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of one of the twins or of the
other twin or from the view of <i>any other observer
</i>in the world who is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if you object
here you should give clear arguments, not mere
repetitions of your statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d
person, he clear argument is that he clock slow down is
also derivable form the invariance of action required to
execute a clock tick of identical clocks in any observers
material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of two frames
of linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz transformation
it always presents the relation between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along and says
the entire Aristotelian approach is wrong and the
Platonic view must be taken. Einstein is right in
claiming there is no independent of ourselves
space however his derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was conducted under the assumption
that his own imagination provided the 3d person
observer god like observer but he failed to
recognize the significance of this fact. And
therefore had to invent additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is properly taken into
account each observer generates his own
observational display in which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those appearance are
stationary relative to the observer’s supplied
background space or they might be moving. But in
either case some external stimulation has caused
the two appearances. If two copies of the same
external clock mechanism are involved and in both
cases the clock ticks require a certain amount of
action to complete a cycle of activity that is
called a second i.e. the moving of the hand from
line 1 to line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action
required to complete the event between clock ticks
is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two clocks do not slow down because they appear to
be moving relative to each other their rates are
determined by their complete Lagrangian Energy L =
T-V calculated inside the fixed mass underlying
each observer’s universe. The potential
gravitational energy of a mass inside the mass
shell <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub> are
the mass and radius of the mass shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of us
is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval is Δt’ its
Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in
the non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity
here. So the correct equation has to be used which is
T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use equations
(here for kinetic energy) which are strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock rates
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming
the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order
approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply derivable
from action invariance and sped of light dependence on
gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has
nothing to do with a gravitational potential. In special
relativity the slow down of clocks is formally necessary to
"explain" the constancy of c in any frame. In general
relativity it was necessary to explain that the speed of
light is also constant in a gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence </i>of c from a
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field or with
the understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in any case
a measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order terms
are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> I
believe Einstein’s theory has not been tested to
the second term accuracy. In both theories the
moving clock interval is smaller when the clock
moves with constant velocity in the space of an
observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here which is a
bit different from Einstein's solution. And then you
say that Einstein's solution is an approximation. Then
you ask that the approximation in Einstein's solution
should be experimentally checked. No, the
approximation is in your solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the
simple lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of
this equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His goal
was to keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock has
longer time periods and so indicates a smaller time
for a given process. And if you follow Einstein the
equation <span style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt =
Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of
synchronization which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I repeat the correct
equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the case
ends up with logical conflicts. Just those conflicts
which you have repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's
theory has been tested with v very close to c. Here in
Hamburg at DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it here without
any argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also
those which have been performed here including my own
experiment, have used the true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and momentum. An assumed term
of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> would have caused results
which violate conservation of energy and of momentum. So,
any experiment performed here during many decades is a proof
that the equation of Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the
very simple almost classical expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are slowed when
they are in a deeper gravity well and my calculations and
theory predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has been
tested. You say Einsteins formula has been tested to the
fourth order. This would make my theory wrong. Please give
me a reference so I can look at the assumptions to the best
of my knowledge neither length contraction or time dilation
beyond the approximate solutions to Einsteins equations have
been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I would have to
present here the computer programs which we have used to
calculate e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have
them any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as I wrote,
there was no experiment evaluated here at DESY over 40 years
and as well no experiment at CERN and as well no experiment at
the Standford accelerator without using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all these experiments would have had
results if Einstein would be wrong at this point. Because as I
wrote, any evaluation would have shown a violation of the
conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum. That
means one would have received chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that there is an aether
and Einstein is right that there is no absolute
frame and everything is relative. But Baer resolve
both these “rights” by identifying the aether as
the personal background memory space of each
observer who feels he is living in his own
universe. We see and experience our own individual
world of objects and incorrectly feel what we are
looking at is an independent external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen
from an epistemological position. Only the measurement
results are equal. Beyond that I do not see any need
to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in the
different frames are in fact the measurement tools
like clocks and rulers. The only human-related problem
is that a human may read the indication of a clock in
a wrong way. The clock itself is in this view
independent of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried to
find a solution within the Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the
size of electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the
same as electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not
show an effect. What Lorentz did not understand is that
both the yard stick and the EM wave are appearances in an
observers space and runs at an observers speed of NOW. The
observer must be included in physics if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But
let's start then with something like Newton's law of motion
which is in that case also affected. Relativity is bad for
this as it is mathematically more complicated without
providing additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>