<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font color="#000066">Hi Wolf,</font></p>
<p><font color="#000066">you are doing here the same as in your last
mails: you derive an equation for the Lorentz factor by the use
of an incorrect equation for energy and you ignore my
information that it is incorrect. And then you argue that the
result proofs that Einstein is wrong. The details further down.</font><br>
</p>
Am Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:16:58 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e12dd84e-6530-b579-d537-e59a62f3d9cb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">The equation T= 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is
incorrect here as it is only usable for non-relativistic speeds (v
<< c). I have given you the correct equation in a preceding
mail. <br>
Consequence of your deduction is the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
in your version of the Lorentz factor which otherwise does not exist.
</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e12dd84e-6530-b579-d537-e59a62f3d9cb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">If a term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> would be
mistakenly omitted in the high energy calculations for particle
kinematics, the results would be wrong by a factor of more than
100 for typical processes (also in my PhD experiment). It is
impossible to overlook such a factor.<br>
<br>
How can we go on? Shall we continue with a discussion which is
based on wrong equations and wrong facts? With no reactions on
feed back? Where do you think </font><font color="#000066">will </font><font
color="#000066">this end?<br>
<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e12dd84e-6530-b579-d537-e59a62f3d9cb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Phil Butler <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz"
moz-do-not-send="true"><phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz></a>;
Mark, Martin van der <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>;
Innes Morrison <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life"
moz-do-not-send="true"><innes.morrison@cocoon.life></a>;
John Duffield <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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 size="2" align="center" width="100%"></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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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:part17.DE20EF29.84474F14@a-giese.de" 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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>