<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip;</p>
<p>In my opinion your experiment is just another example of why SRT
only works is "properly used" as Albrecht insists. Which means
work like a dog and bend over backwards to make Einstein look
good. <br>
</p>
<p>The signals you are talking about are not proper use and fall
more or less along the lines of transmitting the images in a Fax
machine or perhaps the group velocity or wave front. SRT only
works if both space ships build coordinate frames out beyond their
shells and synchronize their clocks and adjust the rods in these
coordinate frames to make the speed of light constant. What this
means is define time and length by the phase of light. In this way
the signal that was sent 1 light year away by both space ships is
immediately picked up by the cocks and at a location one light
year away in each extended coordinate frame. If each spaceship
sends pulses out at constant dT intervals which are picked up by
the other coordinate frame then each one will conclude the other
clock's constant dT pulses are only dt*sqrt(1-v^2.c^2). <br>
</p>
<p>The entire SRT is based upon the assumption that there is no
preferred space such as the CBR space, and that the speed of light
is constant and to make it so the clocks of this extended out to 1
light year must be carefully adjusted to make the light travel at
constant "c" in that coordinate frame. The whole theory would be
passed off as a parlor game if it were not for the fact that some
phenomena predicted by it are actually verified by experiments. <br>
</p>
<p>However the same experiments are also calculated by the
in-variance of action. Which is much simpler and more powerful.
Two identical systems perform the same activity between two clock
ticks. The amount of activity in an event is measured by action.
so if they are identical and perform the same activities the
amount of action between ticks is the same.</p>
<p>The amount of action is calculate by dS = (T-V)*dT , where T= 1/2
m v^2 and V = -m*c^2 - MGm/R</p>
<p>here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in the mass shell of the
universe. <br>
</p>
<p>if one twin is standing still T=0 so the Lagrangian is (m*c^
+ MGm/R), the moving lagrangian is (1/2 m v^2 m*c^ + MGm/R)</p>
<p>calculating the action for both clocks gives</p>
<p>
(m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 *m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'</p>
<p>so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the stationary
one which is experimentally verified to accuracies of v*v/c*c and
differs from einstein's theory in c^4/c^4 terms. Albrecht claims
Einsteins theory has been verified to better than v^4/c^4 but I do
not believe it until I see the evidence. Because the invariance of
action theory is so simple and logical. As well as the fact that
if one drops m out of these equations one get the gravitational
speed of light, which has been verified by Sapiro's experiment,
but if you read his paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group velocity)
so why assume the speed of light is constant. <br>
</p>
<p>Wolf </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 10:39 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-1e9eb8ba-5dd7-46cd-a173-6dc5695e0811-1497548371770@3capp-webde-bs55">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Chip, this argument appears false. Why is it different
from this version?: Suppose we are standing 200 yeards
apart, each next to a tree. I see that your tree is much
smaller than mine. You see that my tree is much smaller
than yours. This cannot be! Thus, there is no perspective.
(Perhaps the difference between ontological and
epistological should be taken into account. No?)</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
15. Juni 2017 um 16:52 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
h1 {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 24.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
font-weight: bold;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
p {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
pre {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: "Courier New";
}
span.Heading1Char {
font-family: "Calibri Light" , sans-serif;
color: rgb(46,116,181);
}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar {
font-family: Consolas;
}
span.EmailStyle21 {
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
-->
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Hi
John</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">The
concept in Special Relativity that all motion is
relative is logically flawed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Let
me pose a modified thought experiment to
illustrate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Our
experiment begins with all the following
conditions in place…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">During
the experiment there is no acceleration applied
to either spaceship.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">The
receivers are adjacent to Spaceship A just for
an example.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.
If all motion is relative this is what they MUST
expect.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">But
those two outcomes are mutually exclusive, so
logically, all motion is NOT relative. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri , sans-serif;"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Phil Butler
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz"><phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz></a>; Mark,
Martin van der
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>;
Innes Morrison
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>; John
Duffield <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"><johnduffield@btconnect.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:
center;" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center"></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
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of </span><a
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 12, 2017 6:12
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><br>
<span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;color: black;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">
</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></p>
</div>
<div style="border: none;border-left:
solid rgb(195,217,229)
1.5pt;padding: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in
8.0pt;margin-left: 7.5pt;margin-top:
7.5pt;margin-right:
3.75pt;margin-bottom: 3.75pt;">
<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><a
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;">><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><br>
<span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;"><b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] STR twin Paradox</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;">Wolf:</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></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></p>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
14.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;">So
let me try again</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<p style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;color:
black;"><img
alt="cid:part1.D14364AF.F5B9AFBC@a-giese.de"
id="Picture_x0020_4"
src="cid:part5.2E0181DF.F31D5323@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="440"
width="556" border="0"></span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></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></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<h1 style="text-indent:
0.5in;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></h1>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Research Director</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Nascent Systems Inc.</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">E-mail </span><a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div>
<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></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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </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></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></p>
<p style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </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></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></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></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;"> </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;">:</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:
</span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="color:
black;">
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.</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></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></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.</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></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></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></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></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></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></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.</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></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><a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b><span
style="font-family:
Verdana , sans-serif;">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</span></b></a><br>
<span style="font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;">As
mentioned in my preamble I
do not want to argue about
what Einstein really
meant. </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></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.</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></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></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></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;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="color:
black;">Lorentz
Approach:</span></b></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.</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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="color:
black;"> </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.</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 .</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></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></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></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;"><br>
<span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;">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></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></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></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.</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></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></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></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 .</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></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></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></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.</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></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></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></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.</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.</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 </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>.</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.</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></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></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></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></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></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></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’</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="color:
black;">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</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>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="color:
black;">Which to
first order
approximation is
equal to</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></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></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></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></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.</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></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></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></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;"><br>
<span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;">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></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></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></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></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></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.</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></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></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></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;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Research Director</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Nascent Systems Inc.</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">E-mail </span><a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div>
<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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<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></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></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><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<span
style="font-size:
13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;">"Starting with </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin" target="_blank"
title="Paul
Langevin"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">Paul Langevin</span></a><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><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sup><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family:
Times ,
serif;">[5]</span></sup></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" target="_blank"
title="Max von
Laue"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">Max von Laue</span></a><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><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames" target="_blank"
title="Inertial
frames"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">inertial frames</span></a><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><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sup><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family:
Times ,
serif;">[6]</span></sup></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;">
Explanations put
forth by </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein" target="_blank"
title="Albert
Einstein"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">Albert Einstein</span></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"> and
</span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born"
target="_blank"
title="Max Born"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times
, serif;">Max
Born</span></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;">
invoked </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
target="_blank"
title="Gravitational time dilation" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;">gravitational time dilation</span></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"> to
explain the
aging as a
direct effect of
acceleration.</span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sup><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family:
Times ,
serif;">[7]</span></sup></a><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><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sup><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family:
Times ,
serif;">[9]</span></sup></a><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;">.</span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sup><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;font-family:
Times ,
serif;">[10]"</span></sup></a></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<sup
id="cite_ref-10"><span
style="font-size: 18.0pt;color: black;">Then I agree with you.</span></sup><br>
<br>
<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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Research Director</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Nascent Systems Inc.</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">E-mail </span><a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div>
<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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </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 physics
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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><br>
<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></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></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;"><br>
<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></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Research Director</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Nascent Systems Inc.</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">E-mail </span><a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;">
</span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </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></p>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:
none;border-top: solid rgb(211,212,222) 1.0pt;" cellpadding="0"
border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
41.25pt;border: none;padding: 13.5pt 0.75pt 0.75pt 0.75pt;" width="55">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="text-decoration:
none;"><img
alt="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:
352.5pt;border: none;padding: 12.75pt 0.75pt 0.75pt 0.75pt;" width="470">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height: 13.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(65,66,78);">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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(68,83,234);">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;">
</span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;color:
black;"> </span></p>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">_______________________________________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color: black;">></span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;"></a></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background: white;"><br>
<span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to
receive communication from
the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion
List at </span><a
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de'; return
false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana ,
sans-serif;color: black;"> </span><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;">Click here
to unsubscribe </span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>