<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I thought I had answered the last E-mail pretty thoroughly, I'll
try again however I think you are not grasping my position</p>
<p>Einstein
Lorentz Baer</p>
<p>make assumptions make assumptions make
assumptions</p>
<p>and write a theory And write a
theory And am in the process</p>
<p>That has conclusions That has conclusions
That has preliminary conclusions <br>
</p>
<p>c=constant
c is dependent on gravity</p>
<p>change physics Em material stretches
emphasize invariant of action</p>
<p>lots of non intuitive probably
Ok Needs to understand the role of
the observer</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So far Ive sent you a classic calculation based upon the fact
that Em penomena go at rates determined by the classic Lagrangian
and I believe this very simple formulation explains all
experimentally verified effects up to fourth order in v/c and in
addition and in fact the whole reason for my effort is to include
the observer and recognize that the plenum within the theories of
these eminent physicist was their own imaginations which is always
a background space.</p>
<p>I think I am working on a new and better theory. So far what I
have is a calculation using in-variance of action.Tell me why I am
wrong based on experimental evidence not that I have a different
theory then either Einstein or Lorentz. I know our theories are
different but i think they are wrong because they are Aristotelian
realists and I'm using Platonic logic.<br>
</p>
<p>Now I'll try to answer your coments<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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2017 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,ghly</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>
THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is right 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup>
is correct in my theory<sup></sup>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<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>
Yes I know but I'm using it because independent and isolated system
have no external clocks to measure progress and the amount of
activity is all that is available to measure the completion of
identical activities. You must understand I assume evnets not
objects are fundamental.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<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>
If this v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> term accuracy has been measured
by experiment I am not aware of it I've asked you for a reference.
Yes I believe all the scientists are simply not aware of their own
fundamental assumptions regarding the role of the conscious being,
which is why I and a few of us are working on these issues.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<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>
IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions that you disagree
with? <br>
<br>
I believe the question "what does it feel like to be a piece of
material" is quite legitimate and if we can entertain the question
why not ask if feelings are not intrinsically part of material and
the perhaps space is a feeling, the phase of an never ending event
<br>
Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...." quickly for a few
minutes and you'll get the experience of a subject object event
that takes on an existence of its own.<br>
<br>
Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think "that time dilations
and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts<br>
of the observation, and not induced characteristics of the objects
being observed themselves."<br>
<br>
Well its hard to disagree with this statement because the reason the
transformations were invented is to show that the Maxwell equations
which describe a physical fact will transform to describe the same
physical fact no mater what body you are attached to.<br>
<br>
And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe there is a reality
and the appearances in any observers coordinate frame i.e. body ,
represent something real that is effected by gravity. And simply
recognizing that the rate of electromagnetic activity is dependent
on the gravitational influence the system in which the activity
happens is under , is a simple provable assumption that connects
electricity with gravity. Once this is established as an observer
independent fact. THen that fact also applies to the body making the
measurement and in that sense and only that sense time dilations and
FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts of the observing body.
<br>
<br>
I did like "It is, that each particle is effectively an “observer”<br>
of all the others, necessitating the incorporation of the<br>
attendant mathematical machinery into the coupled equations<br>
of motion of the particles.' <br>
<br>
and am looking forward to Al' promised further work in this
coupling.<br>
<br>
so Albrecht have I answered your comments for this go around?<br>
<br>
best wishes ,<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<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 color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </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.F579C94F.359813F9@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have
three parts You, I, and the rest of the
Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin
thought experiment in which both twins do
exactly the same thing. They accelerate in
opposite directions turn around and come
back at rest to compare clocks. You does a
though experiment that is not symmetric
one twin is at rest the other accelerates
and comes back to rest and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is
that each thought experiment is done in
the space associated with You,I and U. The
speed of light is constant in each of
these spaces and so the special relativity
, Lorentz transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said many times
these are self consistent equations and I
have no problem with them under the
Aristotilian assumption that each of the
three parts believes what they see is the
independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what
they see is in each parts space. This
space provides the background aether, in
it the speed of electromagnetic
interactions is constant BECAUSE this
speed is determined by the Lagrangian
energy level largely if not totally
imposed by the gravity interactions the
physical material from which each part is
made experiences. Each part you and your
space runs at a different rate because the
constant Einstein was looking for should
be called the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree
or disagree with this view point. But if
you disagree please do not tell me that
the mainstream physicists do not take this
point of view. I know that. Main stream
physicists are not attempting to solve the
consciousness problem , and have basically
eliminated the mind and all subjective
experience from physics. I’m trying to fix
this rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good
arguments that, what we see, is not the true
reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show
this. It is not a better example than to cite
Newton's law of motion in order to proof that
most probably our human view is questionable.
For you it seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical conflicts
related to different views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example that the
world cannot be as simple as assumed by the
naive realism. But relativity and particularly
the twin experiment is completely in agreement
with this naive realism. The frequently
discussed problems in the twin case are in fact
problems of persons who did not truly understand
relativity. And this is the fact for all working
versions of relativity, where the Einsteinian
and the Lorentzian version are the ones which I
know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good
example specifically force is a theoretical
construct and not see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so
f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I
believe it can be explained much sipler and more
accurately if we realize material generates its
own space i.e. there is something it feels like
to be material. I believe integrating this
feeling into physics is the next major advance
we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I
think REletevistic phenomena can be more easily
explained by assuming the speed of light is NOT
constant in each piece of material but dependent
on its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in
refining these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this:
Every piece of material has its own energy. Also
objects which are connected by a gravitational
field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it seems to me that
you relate every energy state to gravity. Here I
do not follow. If pieces of material are bound to
each other and are </font><font color="#3366ff">so
</font><font color="#3366ff">building a state of
energy, the energy in it is dominated by the
strong force and by the electric force. In
comparison the gravitational energy is so many
orders of magnitude smaller (Where the order of
magnitude is > 35) that this is an extremely
small side effect, too small to play any role in
most applications. Or please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond
to your comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion
would use detailed arguments and
counter-arguments instead of pure
repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017
um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down, but If I
include the observer then I get an
equation for the slow down that
agrees with eperimetn but disagrees
with Einstein in the higher order,
so it should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in
your calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian Philosophy everyone was
convinced Reality consisted of an
external objective universe
independent of subjective living
beings. Electricity and Magnetism had
largely been explored through
empirical experiments which lead to
basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a medium
characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of
free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t
and are identical in form when
expressed in a different coordinate
frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely I’ve
never seen a substitution of the
Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s
equations that will then give the same
form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to
get E’ and B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more
exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced
from two things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.)
the Lorentz transformation. It is
interesting because it shows that
electromagnetism is a consequence of
special relativity. (Book: W.G.V. Rosser,
Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity,
New York Plenum Press). Particularly
magnetism is not a separate force but only
a certain perspective of the electrical
force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw
point of magnetics, but all within the self
consistent Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce to the wave equation
and Maxwell’s field concept required
an aether as a medium for them to
propagate. It was postulated that
space was filled with such a medium
and that the earth was moving through
it. Therefore it should be detectable
with a Michelson –Morely experiment.
But The Null result showed this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is
nothing more than the fact of an absolute
frame. Nobody believes these days that
aether is some kind of material. And also
Maxwell's theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An
aether was not detected by the
Michelson-Morely experiment which does
however not mean that no aether existed.
The only result is that it cannot be
detected. This latter conclusion was also
accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached
to the observer doing the experiment , see my
drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other
observations and facts that objects contract at
motion - in the original version of Heaviside,
this happens when electric fields move in
relation to an aether. So the interferometer in
the MM experiment is unable to show a phase
shift as the arms of the interferometer have
changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I
believe like you this is a better explanation
than Einsteins but it still leaves the aether as
a property of an independent space that exist
whether we live or die and and assume we are
objects in that space it also identifies that
space with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self (
not how we see ourselves) is NOT in U's space
and what I see is not equal to the universal
space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this
from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and derived
the Lorentz Transformations assuming
the speed of light is constant,
synchronization protocol of clocks,
and rods, the invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all inertial frames, and
the null result of Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein went on to
eliminate any absolute space and
instead proposed that all frames and
observers riding in them are
equivalent and each such observer
would measure another observers clocks
slowing down when moving with constant
relative velocity. This interpretation
lead to the Twin Paradox. Since each
observer according to Einstein, being
in his own frame would according to
his theory claim the other observer’s
clocks would slow down. However both
cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained
several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many
publications that use general relativity,
gravity and the equivalence principle as the
the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to
argue about what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The
authors want to show that the twin case can also
be handled as a process related to gravity. So
they define the travel of the travelling twin so
that he is permanently accelerated until he
reaches the turn around point and then
accelerated back to the starting point, where
the twin at rest resides. Then they calculate
the slow down of time as a consequence of the
accelerations which they relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion
by several reasons. One reason is the intent of
the authors to replace completely the slow down
of time by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up an experiment
where one clock is slowed down by the motion and
the other twin slowed down by acceleration
and/or gravity as it was your intention
according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means
clock slow down. But that does not happen. Any
text book about SRT says that acceleration does
not cause a slow down of time / clocks. And
there are clear experiments proofing exactly
this. For instance the muon storage ring at CERN
showed that the lifetime of muons was extended
by their high speed but in no way by the extreme
acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do
not know of any serious physicist who tries to
explain the twin case by gravity. I have given
you by the way some strong arguments that such
an explanation is not possible. - And
independently, do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details
of this paper but it is relevant because it is
only one of a long list of papers that use
gravity and acceleration to to explain the twin
paradox. I am not claiming they are correct only
that a large community believes this is the way
to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox they will say
explanations fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these
categories does not mean a community supporting
the gravity explanation view point does not
exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book that has
Einstein and other notables explanation and will
see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long
list? Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is
many, many orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30
orders) too small to play any role here. And this
can be proven by quite simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in his invention of
general relativity where clocks speed
up when in a higher gravity field i.e
one that feels less strong like up on
top of a mountain. Applied to the twin
paradox: a stationary twin sees the
moving twin at velocity “v” and thinks
the moving twin’s clock slows down.
The moving twin does not move relative
to his clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to
make a round trip (using the
equivalence principle calculated the
being equivalent to a gravitational
force). Feeling the acceleration as
gravity and knowing that gravity slows
her clocks she would also calculate
her clocks would slow down. The
paradox is resolved because in one
case the explanation is velocity the
other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General
relativity has nothing to do with the twin
situation, and so gravity or any
equivalent to gravity has nothing to do
with it. The twin situation is not a
paradox but is clearly free of conflicts
if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain
it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I
have never heard about this and I am caring
about this twin experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is
certainly how I was taught but I have notr
looked up papers on the subject for many years,
will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely
different approach I do not think which of two
explanations is more right is a fruitful
argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being electromagnetic
structures slow down and lengths in
the direction of motion contract in
the absolute aether of space according
to his transformation and therefore
the aether could not be detected. In
other words Lorentz maintained the
belief in an absolute aether filled
space, but that electromagnetic
objects relative to that space slow
down and contract. Gravity and
acceleration had nothing to do with
it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued that the observer
subject to acceleration would know
that he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and therefore
calculate that his clocks must be
slowing down, even though he has no
way of measuring such a slow down
because all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore does not
consider gravity but only the
knowledge that due to his acceleration
he must be moving as well and knowing
his clocks are slowed by motion he is
not surprised that his clock has
slowed down when he gets back to the
stationary observer and therefore no
paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the
moving clocks slow down but we have
two different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case
the absolute fixed frame remains which
in the completely symmetric twin
paradox experiment described above
implies that both observers have to
calculate their own clock rates from
the same initial start frame and
therefore both calculate the same slow
down. This introduces a disembodied 3d
person observer which is reminiscent
of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some
constant speed somewhere can make this
calculation and has the same result. No
specific frame like the god-like one is
needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a
4th person's space, you cannot get rid of the
Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and
it is in the same way as much or as little
depending on the Mind as Newton's law of motion.
So to make things better understandable please
explain your position by the use of either
Newton's law or something comparable. Relativity
is not appropriate as it allows for too much
speculation which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but
eventually I hope to show the whole business is
a confusion introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis which introduces
artifacts. I hpe you will critique my writeup
when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean?
The confusion about this "twin paradox" is solely
caused by persons who do not understand the
underlying physics. So, this does not require any
action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not
correct that moving clocks slow down. If
we follow Einstein, also the
synchronization of the clocks in different
frames and different positions is
essential. If this synchronization is
omitted (as in most arguments of this
discussion up to now) we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument
was that the calculations by the moving twin
was to be done in the inertial frame before
any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the
frame in which the theory was defined and it
is the mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original
frame of the one moving twin in order to be
close to your experiment and your description.
Any other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the
consequence of having an observer who feels a
force like gravity which according to the
equivalence principle and any ones experience in
a centrifuge is indistinguishable from gravity,
is such a person needs to transfer to the
initial start frame that would mean we would all
be moving at the speed of light and need to
transfer back to the big bang or the perhaps the
CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast
but I still get older - this thinking leads to
crazy stuff - the whole basis does not make
common experience sense, which is what I want to
base our physics on. We have gotten our heads
into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand
what you mean here. - Your are right that we
should never forget that mathematics is a tool and
not an understanding of the world. But regarding
your heavily discussed example of relativity, it
is fundamentally understandable without a lot of
mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik
Lorentz. That one is accessible to imagination
without much mathematics and without logical
conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case
both observers would see the other
moving at a relative velocity and
calculate their clocks to run slower
than their own when they calculate
their own experience they would also
calculate their own clocks to run
slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be
compliant with Einstein one has to take
into account the synchronization state of
the clocks. Clocks at different positions
cannot be compared in a simple view. If
someone wants to compare them he has e.g.
to carry a "transport" clock from one
clock to the other one. And the
"transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again -
is the problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not
the issue, its whether the world view is
correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to
do it in a correct way. You do it in an
incorrect way and then you tell us that results
are logically conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and
correctly covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia
Whitney who was at our Italy conference has a
nice explanation of how Maxwells Equations are
invariant under Galilean transforms "if you do
it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the
proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they
know the other twin is also
accelerating these effects cancel and
all that is left is the velocity slow
down. In other words the Einstein
explanation that one twin explains the
slow down as a velocity effect and the
other as a gravity effect so both come
to the same conclusion is inadequate.
Einstein’s explanation would have to
fall back on Lorentz’s and both twins
calculate both the gravity effect and
the velocity effect from a disembodied
3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in
this process as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect.
There is none, neither by Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I know. Even if the
equivalence between gravity and
acceleration would be valid (which it is
not) there are two problems. Even if the
time would stand still during the whole
process of backward acceleration so that
delta t' would be 0, this would not at all
explain the time difference experienced by
the twins. And on the other hand the
gravitational field would have, in order
to have the desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at least 20 orders
of magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity field around the sun etc to
achieve the time shift needed. So this
approach has no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from.
Gravity, the equivalence principle is , and
the slow down of clocks and the speed of light
in a lower ( closer to a mass) field is the
heart of general relativity. why do you keep
insisting it is not. GPs clocks are corrected
for gravty potential and orbit speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel
made a calculation that the bendng of light
around the sun is due to a gravity acing like
a refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so
far as gravity causes dilation but acceleration
does not. This is given by theory and by
experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not
run faster at higher altitude? I was a
consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be as accurate if it did
not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that
is gravity, not acceleration. And even gravity has
a small influence. The gravitational field on the
surface of the sun slows down clocks by the small
portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please compare this
with the factors of slow down which are normally
assumed in the examples for the twin travel.
--> Absolutely not usable, even if equivalence
would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free
space, there is no gravity involved. Of course
one may put the concept of it into the vicinity
of the sun or of a neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox or not is not
affected by this change. And particularly
gravity is not a solution as it treats all
participants in the same way And anyhow there is
no solution needed as it is in fact not a
paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are flawed</b> because
both require a disembodied 3d person
observer who is observing that
independent Aristotilian objective
universe that must exist whether we
look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b>
</b><b>not required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely evaluated from
the view of one of the twins or of the
other twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the world who is
in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and
if you object here you should give clear
arguments, not mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context
of a 3d person, he clear argument is that he
clock slow down is also derivable form the
invariance of action required to execute a
clock tick of identical clocks in any
observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation
of two frames of linear motion. If you look at
the Lorentz transformation it always presents
the relation between two frames, normally called
S and S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in
these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes
along and says the entire Aristotelian
approach is wrong and the Platonic
view must be taken. Einstein is right
in claiming there is no independent of
ourselves space however his derivation
of Lorentz Transformations was
conducted under the assumption that
his own imagination provided the 3d
person observer god like observer but
he failed to recognize the
significance of this fact. And
therefore had to invent additional and
incorrect assumptions that lead to
false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is properly
taken into account each observer
generates his own observational
display in which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those appearance
are stationary relative to the
observer’s supplied background space
or they might be moving. But in either
case some external stimulation has
caused the two appearances. If two
copies of the same external clock
mechanism are involved and in both
cases the clock ticks require a
certain amount of action to complete a
cycle of activity that is called a
second i.e. the moving of the hand
from line 1 to line 2 on the dial.
Therefore the action required to
complete the event between clock ticks
is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two clocks do not slow down because
they appear to be moving relative to
each other their rates are determined
by their complete Lagrangian Energy L
= T-V calculated inside the fixed mass
underlying each observer’s universe.
The potential gravitational energy of
a mass inside the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and radius of the mass
shell and also the Schwarzchild radius
of the black hole each of us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock interval is
Δt its Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval is Δt’
its Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the non-relativistic case. But we
discuss relativity here. So the correct
equation has to be used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is
wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you
use equations (here for kinetic energy) which
are strictly restricted to non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two
clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming
the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by
m∙c<sup>2</sup> gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first
order approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as
we are discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is
simply derivable from action invariance and
sped of light dependence on gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special
relativity, it has nothing to do with a
gravitational potential. In special relativity
the slow down of clocks is formally necessary to
"explain" the constancy of c in any frame. In
general relativity it was necessary to explain
that the speed of light is also constant in a
gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the
field or with the understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a measurement result,
not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second
order terms are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not
been tested to the second term
accuracy. In both theories the moving
clock interval is smaller when the
clock moves with constant velocity in
the space of an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here
which is a bit different from Einstein's
solution. And then you say that Einstein's
solution is an approximation. Then you ask
that the approximation in Einstein's
solution should be experimentally checked.
No, the approximation is in your solution
as you write it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different
from the simple lagrangian but both are equal
to v8v/c*c order which is all that to my
knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the
derivation of this equation. Please look into
his paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c
constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a
moving clock has longer time periods and
so indicates a smaller time for a given
process. And if you follow Einstein the
equation <span style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of
synchronization which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I repeat
the correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position
the case ends up with logical conflicts.
Just those conflicts which you have
repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has been tested with v
very close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY
up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999
. That is clearly measurable and shows
that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it
here without any argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please
provide the Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions,
so also those which have been performed here
including my own experiment, have used the true
Einstein relation with consistent results for
energy and momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which violate
conservation of energy and of momentum. So, any
experiment performed here during many decades is
a proof that the equation of Einstein is correct
at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is
necessary the very simple almost classical
expression based upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are
slowed when they are in a deeper gravity well
and my calculations and theory predicts this
fact to the same accuracy that has been tested.
You say Einsteins formula has been tested to the
fourth order. This would make my theory wrong.
Please give me a reference so I can look at the
assumptions to the best of my knowledge neither
length contraction or time dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to Einsteins equations
have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I
would have to present here the computer programs
which we have used to calculate e.g. the
kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have them
any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here at
DESY over 40 years and as well no experiment at
CERN and as well no experiment at the Standford
accelerator without using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all these experiments
would have had results if Einstein would be wrong
at this point. Because as I wrote, any evaluation
would have shown a violation of the conservation
of energy and the conservation of momentum. That
means one would have received chaotic results for
every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that there is
an aether and Einstein is right that
there is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But Baer
resolve both these “rights” by
identifying the aether as the personal
background memory space of each
observer who feels he is living in his
own universe. We see and experience
our own individual world of objects
and incorrectly feel what we are
looking at is an independent external
universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is
right if seen from an epistemological
position. Only the measurement results are
equal. Beyond that I do not see any need
to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The
observers in the different frames are in
fact the measurement tools like clocks and
rulers. The only human-related problem is
that a human may read the indication of a
clock in a wrong way. The clock itself is
in this view independent of observer
related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and
Lorenz tried to find a solution within the
Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he
argued the size of electromagentic structures
shrink or stretch the same as electromagnetic
waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick
will not show an effect. What Lorentz did
not understand is that both the yard stick and
the EM wave are appearances in an observers
space and runs at an observers speed of NOW.
The observer must be included in physics if we
are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be
included. But let's start then with something
like Newton's law of motion which is in that
case also affected. Relativity is bad for this
as it is mathematically more complicated without
providing additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height:
29px;" moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" 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" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>