<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply say
what you believe to be true. I respect that and you may be right
but I am not talking about what has been discovered at CERN but
rather what Einstein published, the theory he proposed and I have
ordered and now have <br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein,
A.
(1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">The Principle of Relativity</i>:<i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">; a collection of original memoirs
on the special and
general theory of relativity</span></i>, Edited by A
Sommerfeld, Translated by
W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65
ISBN486-60081-5</p>
</p>
<p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is a collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski and
Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained st rest the travelled clock on its
arrival will be 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> slow. "
...."this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher order"<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is an unambiguous statement. It follows directly from his
derivation of the Lorentz transformations and immediately leads
to the twin paradox because from the point of view of the moving
clock the so called "stationary" clock is moving and the
stationary clock when returning to A would by SRT be the
traveled clock which is slow by 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup></p>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete.
You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails as the questions
below are answered in my last mails, most of them in the mail of
yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued gripe about my
referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask some
simple yes and no questions to get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and
acceleration and gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my last mails </i>that
the equivalence principle is violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does not cause dilation.
And, as I have also written earlier, that you find this in any
textbook about special relativity and that it was experimentally
proven at the muon storage ring at CERN. - It seems to me that
you did not read my last mails but write your answering text
independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs faster than
one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail</i>. In addition
I have given you the numerical result for the gravitational
dilation on the surface of the sun where the slow down of a clock
is the little difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a
zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for the twin
case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is related to the gravity
potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the equation for this, which
is c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)) which has no additional
terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>. This gamma is
similarly applicable for time dilation and for every kinematic or
dynamic calculation where special relativity applies. And in the
latter context it is used by thousands of physicists all over the
world who work at accelerators. One could find it in their
computer programs. To ask them whether they have done it in this
way would seem to them like the doubt whether they have calculated
5 * 5 = 25 correctly. This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is different only for the case
of time dilation then the answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of light c could never
be constant (or measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite likely
the wave function is a mental projection and therefore its
collapse is a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments
have been incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully by others
(as also Zeilinger has presented here in his last talk) and the
new experiments are said to have covered all loop holes which have
been left by Aspect. And also all these experiments are carefully
observed by an international community of physicists. But of
course this is never a guaranty that anything is correct. So it is
good practice to doubt that and I am willing follow this way.
However if you do not accept these experiments or the consequences
drawn, then please explain in detail where and why you disagree.
Otherwise critical statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we should
present arguments, which means at best: quantitative calculations
as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you on the
quantitative results if something is referred to the
gravitational force. As much as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a result which is about 30 to 40
orders of magnitude smaller that we have them in fact in
physics. - If you disagree to this statement please give us
your quantitative calculation (for instance for the twin
case). Otherwise your repeated arguments using gravity do
not help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may be affected by
human understanding in a bad way, I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been arguing that
Einstein’s special relativity claims that the clocks
of an observer moving at constant velocity with
respect to a second observer will slow down. This
lead to the twin paradox that is often resolved by
citing the need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity in
general relativity. My symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein as I understood him
could not explain the paradox. I did so in order to
set the stage for introducing a new theory. You
argued my understanding of Einstein was wrong. Ok
This is not worth arguing about because it is not
second guessing Einstein that is important but that
but I am trying to present a new way of looking at
reality which is based on Platonic thinking rather
than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle believed the
world was essentially the way you see it. This is
called naive realism. And science from Newton up to
quantum theory is based upon it. If you keep
repeating that my ideas are not what physicists
believe I fully agree. It is not an argument to say
the mainstream of science disagrees. I know that.
I'm proposing something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am suggesting that
there is no independent physically objective space
time continuum in which the material universe
including you, I, and the rest of the particles and
fields exist. Instead I believe a better world view
is that (following Everett) that all systems are
observers and therefore create their own space in
which the objects you see in front of your face
appear. The situation is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img src="cid:part3.23E9AA3B.9C8E1E5D@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three parts
You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I do a
symmetric twin thought experiment in which both
twins do exactly the same thing. They accelerate in
opposite directions turn around and come back at
rest to compare clocks. You does a though experiment
that is not symmetric one twin is at rest the other
accelerates and comes back to rest and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that each
thought experiment is done in the space associated
with You,I and U. The speed of light is constant in
each of these spaces and so the special relativity ,
Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I
have said many times these are self consistent
equations and I have no problem with them under the
Aristotilian assumption that each of the three parts
believes what they see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they see
is in each parts space. This space provides the
background aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic interactions is constant BECAUSE
this speed is determined by the Lagrangian energy
level largely if not totally imposed by the gravity
interactions the physical material from which each
part is made experiences. Each part you and your
space runs at a different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for should be called the speed
of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or disagree
with this view point. But if you disagree please do
not tell me that the mainstream physicists do not
take this point of view. I know that. Main stream
physicists are not attempting to solve the
consciousness problem , and have basically
eliminated the mind and all subjective experience
from physics. I’m trying to fix this rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments that,
what we see, is not the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is
not a better example than to cite Newton's law of motion
in order to proof that most probably our human view is
questionable. For you it seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical conflicts related to
different views of the relativistic processes, to show at
this example that the world cannot be as simple as assumed
by the naive realism. But relativity and particularly the
twin experiment is completely in agreement with this naive
realism. The frequently discussed problems in the twin
case are in fact problems of persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And this is the fact for all
working versions of relativity, where the Einsteinian and
the Lorentzian version are the ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example
specifically force is a theoretical construct and not see
able , what we see is acceleration and the feeling of
push or pull so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with
an experience but Newton assumes both are objectively
real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it
can be explained much sipler and more accurately if we
realize material generates its own space i.e. there is
something it feels like to be material. I believe
integrating this feeling into physics is the next major
advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each piece
of material but dependent on its energy (gravitatinal)
state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these
ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this: Every piece
of material has its own energy. Also objects which are
connected by a gravitational field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font color="#3366ff">
energy. But it seems to me that you relate every energy
state to gravity. Here I do not follow. If pieces of
material are bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font color="#3366ff">building a
state of energy, the energy in it is dominated by the strong
force and by the electric force. In comparison the
gravitational energy is so many orders of magnitude smaller
(Where the order of magnitude is > 35) that this is an
extremely small side effect, too small to play any role in
most applications. Or please present your quantitative
calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use
detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead
of pure repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all
agree clocks slow down, but If I include the
observer then I get an equation for the slow
down that agrees with eperimetn but disagrees
with Einstein in the higher order, so it
should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look
at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th
century the hey day of Aristotelian Philosophy
everyone was convinced Reality consisted of an
external objective universe independent of
subjective living beings. Electricity and
Magnetism had largely been explored through
empirical experiments which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are
valid in a medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of free
space. URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These
equations<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are
identical in form when expressed in a different
coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen a substitution of the Lorentz
formulas into Maxwell’s equations that will then
give the same form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’,
to get E’ and B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the complete theory of
Maxwell can be deduced from two things: 1.) the
Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz transformation. It is
interesting because it shows that electromagnetism
is a consequence of special relativity. (Book:
W.G.V. Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York Plenum Press). Particularly
magnetism is not a separate force but only a certain
perspective of the electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce
to the wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a medium for them to
propagate. It was postulated that space was
filled with such a medium and that the earth was
moving through it. Therefore it should be
detectable with a Michelson –Morely experiment.
But The Null result showed this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is nothing
more than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody
believes these days that aether is some kind of
material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need
it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An aether was not
detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment which
does however not mean that no aether existed. The
only result is that it cannot be detected. This
latter conclusion was also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the
observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other
observations and facts that objects contract at motion -
in the original version of Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to show a
phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have changed
their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe like
you this is a better explanation than Einsteins but it
still leaves the aether as a property of an independent
space that exist whether we live or die and and assume we
are objects in that space it also identifies that space
with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we
see ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not
equal to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and derived the
Lorentz Transformations assuming the speed of
light is constant, synchronization protocol of
clocks, and rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all inertial frames, and the null
result of Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein
went on to eliminate any absolute space and
instead proposed that all frames and observers
riding in them are equivalent and each such
observer would measure another observers clocks
slowing down when moving with constant relative
velocity. This interpretation lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since each observer according to
Einstein, being in his own frame would according
to his theory claim the other observer’s clocks
would slow down. However both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications that use
general relativity, gravity and the equivalence
principle as the the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue
about what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want
to show that the twin case can also be handled as a
process related to gravity. So they define the travel of
the travelling twin so that he is permanently accelerated
until he reaches the turn around point and then
accelerated back to the starting point, where the twin at
rest resides. Then they calculate the slow down of time as
a consequence of the accelerations which they relate to an
fictive gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by
several reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors
to replace completely the slow down of time by the slow
down by gravity / acceleration. They do not set up an
experiment where one clock is slowed down by the motion
and the other twin slowed down by acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your intention according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock slow
down. But that does not happen. Any text book about SRT
says that acceleration does not cause a slow down of time
/ clocks. And there are clear experiments proofing exactly
this. For instance the muon storage ring at CERN showed
that the lifetime of muons was extended by their high
speed but in no way by the extreme acceleration in the
ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know
of any serious physicist who tries to explain the twin
case by gravity. I have given you by the way some strong
arguments that such an explanation is not possible. - And
independently, do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of this
paper but it is relevant because it is only one of a long
list of papers that use gravity and acceleration to to
explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming they are
correct only that a large community believes this is the
way to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say
explanations fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these categories
does not mean a community supporting the gravity
explanation view point does not exist. I've ordered
Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many
orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to
play any role here. And this can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an answer to this paradox
in his invention of general relativity where
clocks speed up when in a higher gravity field
i.e one that feels less strong like up on top of
a mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the moving twin at velocity
“v” and thinks the moving twin’s clock slows
down. The moving twin does not move relative to
his clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a
round trip (using the equivalence principle
calculated the being equivalent to a
gravitational force). Feeling the acceleration
as gravity and knowing that gravity slows her
clocks she would also calculate her clocks would
slow down. The paradox is resolved because in
one case the explanation is velocity the other
it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General relativity
has nothing to do with the twin situation, and so
gravity or any equivalent to gravity has nothing to
do with it. The twin situation is not a paradox but
is clearly free of conflicts if special relativity,
i.e. the Lorentz transformation, is properly
applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it using
gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have never
heard about this and I am caring about this twin
experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is certainly how
I was taught but I have notr looked up papers on the
subject for many years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely different
approach I do not think which of two explanations is more
right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures slow down and lengths
in the direction of motion contract in the
absolute aether of space according to his
transformation and therefore the aether could
not be detected. In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief in an absolute aether
filled space, but that electromagnetic objects
relative to that space slow down and contract.
Gravity and acceleration had nothing to do with
it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued by Max Van Laue
argued that the observer subject to acceleration
would know that he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and therefore calculate
that his clocks must be slowing down, even
though he has no way of measuring such a slow
down because all the clocks in his reference
frame. Therefore does not consider gravity but
only the knowledge that due to his acceleration
he must be moving as well and knowing his clocks
are slowed by motion he is not surprised that
his clock has slowed down when he gets back to
the stationary observer and therefore no paradox
exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the moving
clocks slow down but we have two different
reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame remains which in the
completely symmetric twin paradox experiment
described above implies that both observers have
to calculate their own clock rates from the same
initial start frame and therefore both calculate
the same slow down. This introduces a
disembodied 3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some constant
speed somewhere can make this calculation and has
the same result. No specific frame like the god-like
one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th
person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in
the same way as much or as little depending on the Mind as
Newton's law of motion. So to make things better
understandable please explain your position by the use of
either Newton's law or something comparable. Relativity is
not appropriate as it allows for too much speculation
which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I hope
to show the whole business is a confusion introduced by
our habit of displaying time in a space axis which
introduces artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup
when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not understand the underlying physics. So,
this does not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not correct
that moving clocks slow down. If we follow Einstein,
also the synchronization of the clocks in different
frames and different positions is essential. If this
synchronization is omitted (as in most arguments of
this discussion up to now) we will have conflicting
results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving twin was to be done in the
inertial frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in
which the theory was defined and it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original frame of
the one moving twin in order to be close to your
experiment and your description. Any other frame can be
used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the consequence
of having an observer who feels a force like gravity which
according to the equivalence principle and any ones
experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to the initial
start frame that would mean we would all be moving at the
speed of light and need to transfer back to the big bang
or the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I
still get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff - the
whole basis does not make common experience sense, which
is what I want to base our physics on. We have gotten our
heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand what you mean
here. - Your are right that we should never forget that
mathematics is a tool and not an understanding of the
world. But regarding your heavily discussed example of
relativity, it is fundamentally understandable without a lot
of mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik Lorentz.
That one is accessible to imagination without much
mathematics and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both
observers would see the other moving at a
relative velocity and calculate their clocks to
run slower than their own when they calculate
their own experience they would also calculate
their own clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant
with Einstein one has to take into account the
synchronization state of the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot be compared in a simple
view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g.
to carry a "transport" clock from one clock to the
other one. And the "transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again - is the
problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the issue,
its whether the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in a
correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and then you
tell us that results are logically conflicting. No, they
are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and correctly
covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney who
was at our Italy conference has a nice explanation of how
Maxwells Equations are invariant under Galilean transforms
"if you do it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the
right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know the
other twin is also accelerating these effects
cancel and all that is left is the velocity slow
down. In other words the Einstein explanation
that one twin explains the slow down as a
velocity effect and the other as a gravity
effect so both come to the same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would have to
fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins calculate
both the gravity effect and the velocity effect
from a disembodied 3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this process
as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is
none, neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom I
know. Even if the equivalence between gravity and
acceleration would be valid (which it is not) there
are two problems. Even if the time would stand still
during the whole process of backward acceleration so
that delta t' would be 0, this would not at all
explain the time difference experienced by the
twins. And on the other hand the gravitational field
would have, in order to have the desired effect
here, to be greater by a factor of at least 20
orders of magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>) of
the gravity field around the sun etc to achieve the
time shift needed. So this approach has no argument
at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from. Gravity,
the equivalence principle is , and the slow down of
clocks and the speed of light in a lower ( closer to a
mass) field is the heart of general relativity. why do
you keep insisting it is not. GPs clocks are corrected
for gravty potential and orbit speed, I was a consultant
for Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made a calculation that
the bendng of light around the sun is due to a gravity
acing like a refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as
gravity causes dilation but acceleration does not. This is
given by theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run
faster at higher altitude? I was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude it would not be as
accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that is
gravity, not acceleration. And even gravity has a small
influence. The gravitational field on the surface of the sun
slows down clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the factors of slow down which are
normally assumed in the examples for the twin travel.
--> Absolutely not usable, even if equivalence would be
working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free space,
there is no gravity involved. Of course one may put the
concept of it into the vicinity of the sun or of a neutron
star. But then the question whether it is a paradox or not
is not affected by this change. And particularly gravity
is not a solution as it treats all participants in the
same way And anyhow there is no solution needed as it is
in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both
Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are flawed</b>
because both require a disembodied 3d person
observer who is observing that independent
Aristotilian objective universe that must exist
whether we look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole situation can be
completely evaluated from the view of one of the
twins or of the other twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the world who is in a
defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if you
object here you should give clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of your statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d
person, he clear argument is that he clock slow down is
also derivable form the invariance of action required to
execute a clock tick of identical clocks in any
observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of two
frames of linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always presents the relation between two
frames, normally called S and S'. Nothing else shows up
anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along and says
the entire Aristotelian approach is wrong and
the Platonic view must be taken. Einstein is
right in claiming there is no independent of
ourselves space however his derivation of
Lorentz Transformations was conducted under the
assumption that his own imagination provided the
3d person observer god like observer but he
failed to recognize the significance of this
fact. And therefore had to invent additional and
incorrect assumptions that lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is properly taken into
account each observer generates his own
observational display in which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those appearance are
stationary relative to the observer’s supplied
background space or they might be moving. But in
either case some external stimulation has caused
the two appearances. If two copies of the same
external clock mechanism are involved and in
both cases the clock ticks require a certain
amount of action to complete a cycle of activity
that is called a second i.e. the moving of the
hand from line 1 to line 2 on the dial.
Therefore the action required to complete the
event between clock ticks is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two clocks do not slow down because they appear
to be moving relative to each other their rates
are determined by their complete Lagrangian
Energy L = T-V calculated inside the fixed mass
underlying each observer’s universe. The
potential gravitational energy of a mass inside
the mass shell <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub> are
the mass and radius of the mass shell and also
the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each
of us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval is Δt’ its
Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in
the non-relativistic case. But we discuss relativity
here. So the correct equation has to be used which
is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use
equations (here for kinetic energy) which are strictly
restricted to non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock rates
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming
the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order
approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply
derivable from action invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special relativity, it has
nothing to do with a gravitational potential. In special
relativity the slow down of clocks is formally necessary
to "explain" the constancy of c in any frame. In general
relativity it was necessary to explain that the speed of
light is also constant in a gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence </i>of c from a
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field or
with the understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in
any case a measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order terms
are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not been tested
to the second term accuracy. In both theories
the moving clock interval is smaller when the
clock moves with constant velocity in the space
of an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here which is
a bit different from Einstein's solution. And then
you say that Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask that the approximation
in Einstein's solution should be experimentally
checked. No, the approximation is in your solution
as you write it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the
simple lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation of
this equation. Please look into his paper of 1905. His
goal was to keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock
has longer time periods and so indicates a smaller
time for a given process. And if you follow Einstein
the equation <span style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of
synchronization which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I repeat the correct
equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the case
ends up with logical conflicts. Just those conflicts
which you have repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators Einstein's
theory has been tested with v very close to c. Here
in Hamburg at DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it here without
any argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also
those which have been performed here including my own
experiment, have used the true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and momentum. An assumed
term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> would have caused
results which violate conservation of energy and of
momentum. So, any experiment performed here during many
decades is a proof that the equation of Einstein is
correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary the
very simple almost classical expression based upon
action invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e.
the Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are slowed when
they are in a deeper gravity well and my calculations and
theory predicts this fact to the same accuracy that has
been tested. You say Einsteins formula has been tested to
the fourth order. This would make my theory wrong. Please
give me a reference so I can look at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge neither length contraction or
time dilation beyond the approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I would have
to present here the computer programs which we have used to
calculate e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do not
have them any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at DESY over
40 years and as well no experiment at CERN and as well no
experiment at the Standford accelerator without using
Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if Einstein would be
wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any evaluation
would have shown a violation of the conservation of energy
and the conservation of momentum. That means one would have
received chaotic results for every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that there is an aether
and Einstein is right that there is no absolute
frame and everything is relative. But Baer
resolve both these “rights” by identifying the
aether as the personal background memory space
of each observer who feels he is living in his
own universe. We see and experience our own
individual world of objects and incorrectly feel
what we are looking at is an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if seen
from an epistemological position. Only the
measurement results are equal. Beyond that I do not
see any need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in the
different frames are in fact the measurement tools
like clocks and rulers. The only human-related
problem is that a human may read the indication of a
clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in this
view independent of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz tried
to find a solution within the Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the
size of electromagentic structures shrink or stretch the
same as electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not
show an effect. What Lorentz did not understand is that
both the yard stick and the EM wave are appearances in
an observers space and runs at an observers speed of
NOW. The observer must be included in physics if we are
to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But
let's start then with something like Newton's law of
motion which is in that case also affected. Relativity is
bad for this as it is mathematically more complicated
without providing additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>