<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe to be
true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer to standard
physics. And I do of course not expect that you agree to what I
say but I expect that you object if you disagree, but please <i>with
arguments</i>. In the case of the formula for kinetic energy for
instance you have just repeated your formula which is in conflict
with basic physics, but there was no argument at all. This will
not help us to proceed.</p>
<p>If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to a
certain extend we all want to do here, otherwise we would not have
these discussions) then everyone who has a basic objection against
it, should name that explicitly and give detailed arguments. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
<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>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one clock
is at rest, the other one is not as it leaves the original
frame. <br>
<br>
Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation between
<i> inertial frames</i>. Otherwise not applicable. If this is
not really clear, you will not have any progress in your
understanding.<br>
In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock can be
split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight motions and then
the pieces of tim</sup></font><font size="+1"><sup>e can be
summed up</sup></font><font size="+1"><sup>. In that way the
Lorentz transformation could be applied.<br>
<br>
And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have again
and again. SRT is about relations of <i>inertial frames</i>.
Not in others than these. And I must clearly say: as long as
this does not enter your mind and strongly settles there, it
makes little sense to discuss more complex cases in special
relativity.<br>
<br>
The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct, but
only as an approximation for v<<c. In his original paper
of 1905 Einstein has earlier given the correct equation and then
given the approximation for v<<c. Unfortunately he has not
said this explicitly but it is said by his remark which you have
quoted:<br>
</sup>"</font>this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher order"
. Because if it would be the correct equation it would be valid up
to infinite orders of magnitude. - We should forgive Einstein for
this unclear statement as this was the first paper which Einstein
has ever written.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1" color="#330033">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. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was wrong. Up
to now I did not see any true arguments from you, but you only
presented your results of an incorrect understanding of Einstein's
theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">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.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please give us
arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a summary without any
arguments is not science. I also have some concerns about Einstein's
SRT myself, but with pure statements without arguments like in your
last mails we do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO is:
Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
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" moz-do-not-send="true">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:part4.53CFC496.01E01A6E@a-giese.de"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three
parts You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U” . I
do a symmetric twin thought experiment in which
both twins do exactly the same thing. They
accelerate in opposite directions turn around and
come back at rest to compare clocks. You does a
though experiment that is not symmetric one twin
is at rest the other accelerates and comes back to
rest and compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that each
thought experiment is done in the space associated
with You,I and U. The speed of light is constant
in each of these spaces and so the special
relativity , Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said many times these are
self consistent equations and I have no problem
with them under the Aristotilian assumption that
each of the three parts believes what they see is
the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they see
is in each parts space. This space provides the
background aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic interactions is constant BECAUSE
this speed is determined by the Lagrangian energy
level largely if not totally imposed by the
gravity interactions the physical material from
which each part is made experiences. Each part you
and your space runs at a different rate because
the constant Einstein was looking for should be
called the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or
disagree with this view point. But if you disagree
please do not tell me that the mainstream
physicists do not take this point of view. I know
that. Main stream physicists are not attempting to
solve the consciousness problem , and have
basically eliminated the mind and all subjective
experience from physics. I’m trying to fix this
rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments
that, what we see, is not the true reality. So far so
good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this. It is
not a better example than to cite Newton's law of motion
in order to proof that most probably our human view is
questionable. For you it seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical conflicts related to
different views of the relativistic processes, to show
at this example that the world cannot be as simple as
assumed by the naive realism. But relativity and
particularly the twin experiment is completely in
agreement with this naive realism. The frequently
discussed problems in the twin case are in fact problems
of persons who did not truly understand relativity. And
this is the fact for all working versions of relativity,
where the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are the
ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good example
specifically force is a theoretical construct and not
see able , what we see is acceleration and the feeling
of push or pull so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture
with an experience but Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe it
can be explained much sipler and more accurately if we
realize material generates its own space i.e. there is
something it feels like to be material. I believe
integrating this feeling into physics is the next major
advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in each
piece of material but dependent on its energy
(gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining these
ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this: Every
piece of material has its own energy. Also objects which
are connected by a gravitational field build a system
which has</font><font color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it seems to me that you
relate every energy state to gravity. Here I do not
follow. If pieces of material are bound to each other and
are </font><font color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of energy, the energy in
it is dominated by the strong force and by the electric
force. In comparison the gravitational energy is so many
orders of magnitude smaller (Where the order of magnitude
is > 35) that this is an extremely small side effect,
too small to play any role in most applications. Or please
present your quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would use
detailed arguments and counter-arguments instead
of pure repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um
07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all
agree clocks slow down, but If I include the
observer then I get an equation for the slow
down that agrees with eperimetn but
disagrees with Einstein in the higher order,
so it should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the
19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality
consisted of an external objective universe
independent of subjective living beings.
Electricity and Magnetism had largely been
explored through empirical experiments which
lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These equations are
valid in a medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of free
space. URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These
equations<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and are
identical in form when expressed in a
different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a substitution
of the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s
equations that will then give the same form
only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get E’ and B’
but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more
exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from two
things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz
transformation. It is interesting because it shows
that electromagnetism is a consequence of special
relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity, New York Plenum
Press). Particularly magnetism is not a separate
force but only a certain perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In
empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to the
wave equation and Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a medium for them to
propagate. It was postulated that space was
filled with such a medium and that the earth
was moving through it. Therefore it should be
detectable with a Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null result showed this to
be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is nothing
more than the fact of an absolute frame. Nobody
believes these days that aether is some kind of
material. And also Maxwell's theory does not need
it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An aether was
not detected by the Michelson-Morely experiment
which does however not mean that no aether
existed. The only result is that it cannot be
detected. This latter conclusion was also accepted
by Einstein.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to the
observer doing the experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other
observations and facts that objects contract at motion -
in the original version of Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is unable to show a
phase shift as the arms of the interferometer have
changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe like
you this is a better explanation than Einsteins but it
still leaves the aether as a property of an independent
space that exist whether we live or die and and assume
we are objects in that space it also identifies that
space with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not how we
see ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I see is not
equal to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this from
you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
came along and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the speed of light is
constant, synchronization protocol of clocks,
and rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all inertial frames, and the null
result of Michelson-Morely experiments.
Einstein went on to eliminate any absolute
space and instead proposed that all frames and
observers riding in them are equivalent and
each such observer would measure another
observers clocks slowing down when moving with
constant relative velocity. This
interpretation lead to the Twin Paradox. Since
each observer according to Einstein, being in
his own frame would according to his theory
claim the other observer’s clocks would slow
down. However both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications that
use general relativity, gravity and the equivalence
principle as the the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to argue
about what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors want
to show that the twin case can also be handled as a
process related to gravity. So they define the travel of
the travelling twin so that he is permanently
accelerated until he reaches the turn around point and
then accelerated back to the starting point, where the
twin at rest resides. Then they calculate the slow down
of time as a consequence of the accelerations which they
relate to an fictive gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by
several reasons. One reason is the intent of the authors
to replace completely the slow down of time by the slow
down by gravity / acceleration. They do not set up an
experiment where one clock is slowed down by the motion
and the other twin slowed down by acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your intention according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock
slow down. But that does not happen. Any text book about
SRT says that acceleration does not cause a slow down of
time / clocks. And there are clear experiments proofing
exactly this. For instance the muon storage ring at CERN
showed that the lifetime of muons was extended by their
high speed but in no way by the extreme acceleration in
the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not know
of any serious physicist who tries to explain the twin
case by gravity. I have given you by the way some strong
arguments that such an explanation is not possible. -
And independently, do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of this
paper but it is relevant because it is only one of a
long list of papers that use gravity and acceleration to
to explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming they are
correct only that a large community believes this is the
way to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say
explanations fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these categories
does not mean a community supporting the gravity
explanation view point does not exist. I've ordered
Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long list?
Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is many, many
orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too small to
play any role here. And this can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
found an answer to this paradox in his
invention of general relativity where clocks
speed up when in a higher gravity field i.e
one that feels less strong like up on top of a
mountain. Applied to the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the moving twin at
velocity “v” and thinks the moving twin’s
clock slows down. The moving twin does not
move relative to his clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a
round trip (using the equivalence principle
calculated the being equivalent to a
gravitational force). Feeling the acceleration
as gravity and knowing that gravity slows her
clocks she would also calculate her clocks
would slow down. The paradox is resolved
because in one case the explanation is
velocity the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General
relativity has nothing to do with the twin
situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to
gravity has nothing to do with it. The twin
situation is not a paradox but is clearly free of
conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it
using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have
never heard about this and I am caring about this twin
experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is certainly
how I was taught but I have notr looked up papers on the
subject for many years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely different
approach I do not think which of two explanations is
more right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
simply proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures slow down and
lengths in the direction of motion contract in
the absolute aether of space according to his
transformation and therefore the aether could
not be detected. In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief in an absolute aether
filled space, but that electromagnetic objects
relative to that space slow down and contract.
Gravity and acceleration had nothing to do
with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This
approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued that
the observer subject to acceleration would
know that he is no longer in the same inertial
frame as before and therefore calculate that
his clocks must be slowing down, even though
he has no way of measuring such a slow down
because all the clocks in his reference frame.
Therefore does not consider gravity but only
the knowledge that due to his acceleration he
must be moving as well and knowing his clocks
are slowed by motion he is not surprised that
his clock has slowed down when he gets back to
the stationary observer and therefore no
paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the moving
clocks slow down but we have two different
reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame remains which in the
completely symmetric twin paradox experiment
described above implies that both observers
have to calculate their own clock rates from
the same initial start frame and therefore
both calculate the same slow down. This
introduces a disembodied 3d person observer
which is reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some constant
speed somewhere can make this calculation and has
the same result. No specific frame like the
god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th
person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it is in
the same way as much or as little depending on the Mind
as Newton's law of motion. So to make things better
understandable please explain your position by the use
of either Newton's law or something comparable.
Relativity is not appropriate as it allows for too much
speculation which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I hope
to show the whole business is a confusion introduced by
our habit of displaying time in a space axis which
introduces artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup
when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not understand the underlying physics. So,
this does not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not correct
that moving clocks slow down. If we follow
Einstein, also the synchronization of the clocks
in different frames and different positions is
essential. If this synchronization is omitted (as
in most arguments of this discussion up to now) we
will have conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was that
the calculations by the moving twin was to be done in
the inertial frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame in
which the theory was defined and it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original frame of
the one moving twin in order to be close to your
experiment and your description. Any other frame can be
used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the
consequence of having an observer who feels a force like
gravity which according to the equivalence principle and
any ones experience in a centrifuge is indistinguishable
from gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to the
initial start frame that would mean we would all be
moving at the speed of light and need to transfer back
to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but I
still get older - this thinking leads to crazy stuff -
the whole basis does not make common experience sense,
which is what I want to base our physics on. We have
gotten our heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand what you
mean here. - Your are right that we should never forget
that mathematics is a tool and not an understanding of the
world. But regarding your heavily discussed example of
relativity, it is fundamentally understandable without a
lot of mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik
Lorentz. That one is accessible to imagination without
much mathematics and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both
observers would see the other moving at a
relative velocity and calculate their clocks
to run slower than their own when they
calculate their own experience they would also
calculate their own clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be compliant
with Einstein one has to take into account the
synchronization state of the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot be compared in a simple
view. If someone wants to compare them he has e.g.
to carry a "transport" clock from one clock to the
other one. And the "transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again - is the
problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the
issue, its whether the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do it in
a correct way. You do it in an incorrect way and then
you tell us that results are logically conflicting. No,
they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and
correctly covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney who
was at our Italy conference has a nice explanation of
how Maxwells Equations are invariant under Galilean
transforms "if you do it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof the
right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know the
other twin is also accelerating these effects
cancel and all that is left is the velocity
slow down. In other words the Einstein
explanation that one twin explains the slow
down as a velocity effect and the other as a
gravity effect so both come to the same
conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have to fall back on
Lorentz’s and both twins calculate both the
gravity effect and the velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this
process as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect. There is
none, neither by Einstein nor by anyone else whom
I know. Even if the equivalence between gravity
and acceleration would be valid (which it is not)
there are two problems. Even if the time would
stand still during the whole process of backward
acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this
would not at all explain the time difference
experienced by the twins. And on the other hand
the gravitational field would have, in order to
have the desired effect here, to be greater by a
factor of at least 20 orders of magnitude (so
>> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity field
around the sun etc to achieve the time shift
needed. So this approach has no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from.
Gravity, the equivalence principle is , and the slow
down of clocks and the speed of light in a lower (
closer to a mass) field is the heart of general
relativity. why do you keep insisting it is not. GPs
clocks are corrected for gravty potential and orbit
speed, I was a consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you
yoursel made a calculation that the bendng of light
around the sun is due to a gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far as
gravity causes dilation but acceleration does not. This
is given by theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run
faster at higher altitude? I was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude it would not be as
accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that is
gravity, not acceleration. And even gravity has a small
influence. The gravitational field on the surface of the
sun slows down clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the factors of slow down which
are normally assumed in the examples for the twin
travel. --> Absolutely not usable, even if
equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free space,
there is no gravity involved. Of course one may put the
concept of it into the vicinity of the sun or of a
neutron star. But then the question whether it is a
paradox or not is not affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not a solution as it treats all
participants in the same way And anyhow there is no
solution needed as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both
Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches are
flawed</b> because both require a
disembodied 3d person observer who is
observing that independent Aristotilian
objective universe that must exist whether we
look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole situation can be
completely evaluated from the view of one of the
twins or of the other twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the world who is in a
defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if you
object here you should give clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of your statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a 3d
person, he clear argument is that he clock slow down
is also derivable form the invariance of action
required to execute a clock tick of identical clocks
in any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of two
frames of linear motion. If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always presents the relation between
two frames, normally called S and S'. Nothing else shows
up anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along and
says the entire Aristotelian approach is wrong
and the Platonic view must be taken. Einstein
is right in claiming there is no independent
of ourselves space however his derivation of
Lorentz Transformations was conducted under
the assumption that his own imagination
provided the 3d person observer god like
observer but he failed to recognize the
significance of this fact. And therefore had
to invent additional and incorrect assumptions
that lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When
the observer is properly taken into account
each observer generates his own observational
display in which he creates the appearance of
clocks. Those appearance are stationary
relative to the observer’s supplied background
space or they might be moving. But in either
case some external stimulation has caused the
two appearances. If two copies of the same
external clock mechanism are involved and in
both cases the clock ticks require a certain
amount of action to complete a cycle of
activity that is called a second i.e. the
moving of the hand from line 1 to line 2 on
the dial. Therefore the action required to
complete the event between clock ticks is the
invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two clocks do not slow down because they
appear to be moving relative to each other
their rates are determined by their complete
Lagrangian Energy L = T-V calculated inside
the fixed mass underlying each observer’s
universe. The potential gravitational energy
of a mass inside the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here
M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub> are the mass
and radius of the mass shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of the black hole each of
us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
stationary clock interval is Δt its Lagrangian
energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
moving clock interval is Δt’ its Lagrangian
energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only
in the non-relativistic case. But we discuss
relativity here. So the correct equation has to be
used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *(
1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use
equations (here for kinetic energy) which are strictly
restricted to non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock
rates and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order
approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply
derivable from action invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special relativity, it
has nothing to do with a gravitational potential. In
special relativity the slow down of clocks is formally
necessary to "explain" the constancy of c in any frame.
In general relativity it was necessary to explain that
the speed of light is also constant in a gravitational
field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence </i>of c
from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field or
with the understanding of Lorentz, this invariance is in
any case a measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order
terms are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not been
tested to the second term accuracy. In both
theories the moving clock interval is smaller
when the clock moves with constant velocity in
the space of an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here which
is a bit different from Einstein's solution. And
then you say that Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask that the approximation
in Einstein's solution should be experimentally
checked. No, the approximation is in your solution
as you write it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from the
simple lagrangian but both are equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the derivation
of this equation. Please look into his paper of 1905.
His goal was to keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving clock
has longer time periods and so indicates a smaller
time for a given process. And if you follow
Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of
synchronization which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I repeat the
correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the case
ends up with logical conflicts. Just those
conflicts which you have repeatedly mentioned
here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has been tested with v very
close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to v =
0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is
0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it here
without any argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so also
those which have been performed here including my own
experiment, have used the true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and momentum. An assumed
term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> would have caused
results which violate conservation of energy and of
momentum. So, any experiment performed here during many
decades is a proof that the equation of Einstein is
correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is necessary
the very simple almost classical expression based upon
action invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation, i.e.
the Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are slowed
when they are in a deeper gravity well and my
calculations and theory predicts this fact to the same
accuracy that has been tested. You say Einsteins formula
has been tested to the fourth order. This would make my
theory wrong. Please give me a reference so I can look
at the assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither
length contraction or time dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to Einsteins equations have been
tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I would have
to present here the computer programs which we have used
to calculate e.g. the kinematics of my experiment. (I do
not have them any more 40 years after the experiment.) And
as I wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at
DESY over 40 years and as well no experiment at CERN and
as well no experiment at the Standford accelerator without
using Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if Einstein would be
wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any evaluation
would have shown a violation of the conservation of
energy and the conservation of momentum. That means one
would have received chaotic results for every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
is right that there is an aether and Einstein
is right that there is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But Baer resolve both
these “rights” by identifying the aether as
the personal background memory space of each
observer who feels he is living in his own
universe. We see and experience our own
individual world of objects and incorrectly
feel what we are looking at is an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right if
seen from an epistemological position. Only the
measurement results are equal. Beyond that I do
not see any need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in the
different frames are in fact the measurement tools
like clocks and rulers. The only human-related
problem is that a human may read the indication of
a clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is in
this view independent of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz
tried to find a solution within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued the
size of electromagentic structures shrink or stretch
the same as electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will not
show an effect. What Lorentz did not understand is
that both the yard stick and the EM wave are
appearances in an observers space and runs at an
observers speed of NOW. The observer must be included
in physics if we are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included. But
let's start then with something like Newton's law of
motion which is in that case also affected. Relativity
is bad for this as it is mathematically more complicated
without providing additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" 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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>