<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>i see the same problem again: you did not really read my last
mail as you repeat most of your earlier statements with no
reference to my comments. <br>
</p>
<p>Details in the text:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Answers embedded below<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
I have provided numerical arguments two or three times perhaps
you do not get all the E-mails - here is a copy<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have written that
they are wrong because they are based on a wrong formula. I have
written this two times with no reaction from you. You find my
responses further down in the history of mails, so you cannot say
that you did not receive them. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in inter
galactic space perform the same activity between two clock ticks
in their own coordinate frames . The amount of activity in an
event is measured by action. So if they are identical and
perform the same activities the amount of action between ticks
is the same.
<p>An observer calculates the amount of action from classical
physics as dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V = -m*c^2
- MGm/R, here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in the mass
shell of the universe and MGm/R any local gravitational
potential energy. <br>
</p>
<p>if Twin A is riding along with clock A then T=0 for Clock A
thus the Lagrangian is (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving clock B
Lagrangian calcuated by A is (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 +
MGm/R)</p>
<p>since the action calculated for both clocks is invariant we
have the equation,<br>
</p>
<p>
(m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 + m*c^2 +
MGm/R)*dt'</p>
so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the stationary
one which is experimentally verified to accuracies of v*v/c*c
and differs from Einstein's theory because Einstein's theory has
higher order c^4/c^4 terms.<br>
<br>
This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your problem?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why did you
not respond to it? So once again (I think it is the 3rd time now):<br>
Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is wrong in
the general case. It is only usable for slow speeds, so v<<c
. But our discussion here is about relativistic situations, so v
close to c As a consequence the result of your deduction is of
course wrong, and so particularly your term c^4/c^4 is a result of
this confusion. Einstein's equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a
square-root function of (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>). And if you
make a Taylor expansion from it, there are many terms of higher
order. But the root formula is the correct solution.<br>
<br>
The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have written here
earlier: T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *( sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))-1)
.<br>
If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the second term
then you end up with the formula which you have used. But as iit is
easily visible here, only for speed v << c.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
You could claim the principle of action in-variance is false.
But whether it is false or not can be put to experimental tests.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The principle of action is correct but generally used for a
different purpose. In general I do not find it the best way to use
principles but better to
use fundamental laws. But this is a different topic. However, I
expect that you would come to a correct result with this principle
if you would use correct physical equations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> You have claimed Einsteins
theory has been verified to better than v^4/c^4 but I do not
believe it until I see the evidence. Because the in-variance of
action theory is so simple and logical. As well as the fact that
if one drops m out of these equations one get the gravitational
speed of light, which has been verified by Sapiro's experiment,
but if you read his paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group
velocity) so why assume the speed of light is constant. So if
you have experimental evidence please provide a reference. I
have seen many papers that claim only time dilation has been
verified to first order approximation of his formulas and
length contraction has never been verified. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the
calculation of energy and momentum by taking into account the
corresponding conservation laws. In all calculations which we have
done here at the accelerator DESY the relation v/c was in the order
of 0.9999 . So the gamma factor is about <u>10'000</u>. If there
would have been a term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> necessary but
omitted then this factor would change to something in the interval <u>1
to 10</u>. This is a discrepancy by a factor of at least 1'000. Do
you really believe that all the scientists at DESY and at the other
accelerators worldwide would overlook a discrepancy of this
magnitude? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
If this is <b>Not </b>a detailed argument I do not know what
is! <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have told you
now <b><i>several times</i></b>. You did not react and did not give
a justification but you merely repeated it again and again. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<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>
NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some
assumptions like the speed of light is constant in all
coordinate frames and simultaneity is defined by round trip
light measurements. He simply stated that the Lorentz
transformations have certain consequences. One of them being
that an observer viewing a clock moving around a circle at
constant velocity would slow down and he gave the numerical
value of the slow down to first order in v^2/c^2.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct derivation
of the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes an approximation
for a slow speed without saying this clearly. His text (translated
to English): <br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">"… so that this indication of the clock (as
observed in the system at rest) is delayed per second by
(1-sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>) <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>seconds
or – except for magnitudes of forth or higher order is delayed
by 1/2(v/c)<sup>2</sup> seconds."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">So, Einstein <i>excludes </i>here the higher
orders. That means clearly that it is an approximation. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If the
moving clock comes back it is delayed. Which is of course in
agreement with SRT. And also with the observation.<br>
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And what
has been experimentally proven is quite simple. A clock slows
down if it feels a force.<br>
That is it. Whether that force is called gravity experienced
when one is standing on the earth or called inertia when one is
being accelerated in a rocket makes no difference. And the
simplest theory that explains experimentally verified fact is
not Einstein's SRT or GRT but <br>
simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of
physics that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena happen
at a speed determined by<br>
c^2 = Mu*G/Ru<br>
and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein and
has something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe Einstein
should get credit.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow down of
clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on force according to
relativity and according to experiments. Also gravity slows down a
clock, but very little. Experimental proof was once the Hafele
Keating experiment for gravity and speed and the muon accelerator
for speed and the independence of acceleration. <br>
<br>
If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a force
applied this would be a new theory. If you believe this, please
present it as a complete theoretical system and refer to experiments
which are in agreement with this theory. <br>
<br>
For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of
correctness is easily visible by the following consideration. If it
would be true then a gravitational mass of M=0 would mean c=0, which
is clearly not the case. And also for some gravitational mass but a
distance R=infinite there would also be c=0, which does not make any
sense. And I repeat the correct one (perhaps you notice it <i>this
time</i>). <br>
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>
<br>
For the twin case I have given you numbers that the acceleration
phase is in no way able to explain the time offset, but I am
meanwhile sure that you ignore that again. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant velocity
slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is simply
did he or did he not say that the moving clock slows down? The
question is not whether his theory is formally consistent but
whether his theory states moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock slows
down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in his paper of
1905 he has given the conditions at which this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a difference
between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B move at constant
velocity in a circle compared with an observer B on clock B
seeing clock A move in a circle at constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been
said is that both observers see the other go in a circle at
constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins Claim
in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at constant
speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in the
middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the same
amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as SRT is
about the relation of inertial frames, and here none of the clocks
is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand this question must be
answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the other
clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight path. In
this infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves on a straight
path and both do not have any speed in relation to the other one
(i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in the Lorentz
transformation is the temporal derivative of the distance. This is 0
in this case. So no effects according to SRT and both observers see
the speed of the other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames at
this stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the other
leave his coordinate frame behind why does the other not see
the same thing. Einstein insisted there are no preferred
coordinate frames. That Einsteins theory, as published in 1905,
can be patched up by adding interpretations and even new
physics, which Einstein tried to do himself with GRT is not the
issue We can discuss whether or not the "leaving coordinate
frame" makes sense and is part of the original SRT later, after
you answer question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about inertial
frames (the question which coordinate frame is used is of no
physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the other one
permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself leaving
permanently his inertial frame. That is easily noticeable as he will
notice his acceleration. - How this case can be solved in
accordance with SRT I have explained in the preceding paragraph.
That solution is physically correct and in my understanding in
accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying to lead you and
anyone listening to the logical conclusion that Einsteins world
view expressed by his assumptions is wrong. I am not questioning
that after making his assumptions he can logically derive the
Lorentz transformations, nor that such a derivation is
inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone through his papers
often enough to know his math is correct. I'm simply trying to
lead us all to the realization that the speed of light as a
physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never will be and
warping coordinate frames and all the changes in physics
required to make that assumption consistent with experimental
fact has been a 100 year abomination. If you believe that
assumption, I've got a guy on a cross who claims to be the son
of god to introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed of
light is not constant. I would understand this as a step forward.
But you have to do it with appropriate arguments which I found
missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments which
are my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian relativity is more easy to
understand and has physical causes. Einstein's principle is not
physics but spirituality in my view and his considerations about
time and space are as well not physics. Also my view. But you have
questioned the compatibility of Einstein's theory with reality by
some examples, at last by the twin case and argued that this is a
violation of Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality. But both
is not the case, and that was the topic of the discussions during
the last dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
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:part5.750C6E09.58FA2C12@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" 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>
</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: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>