<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font color="#000066">Wolf,</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">I think we should not change the topics
which we have discussed during the last mails. And <b>as you
again </b><b>did </b><b>not react to my comments I summarize
the open points now in a list</b>:</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>o</b> You use for the kinetic energy
the erroneous equation T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>(because we
talk about relativistic cases). So you necessarily have a wrong
result. Why do you not make your deduction (using the
Lagrangian) with the correct equation which I have given you? Or
what is your consideration to use just this equation even if it
is erroneous? Please answer this. This is physics, not
philosophy.</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
Your conflict about the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> in the
Lorentz transformation is a result of your use of a wrong
equation for T (kinetic energy). Why do you not repeat your
deduction using the correct equation?</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font> The
equation 1/2*m*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> is not correct and
not part of Einstein's equations. Einstein has given this for
visualization as an <i>approximation</i>. Why do you continue
with it without a response to my information that it is
incorrect or why do you not argue why you believe that is can be
used?</font></p>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font> The
equation for the speed of light which you gave: c<sup>2</sup> =
Mu*G/Ru is senseless which is easily visible. I have explained
that. Why do you not respond to this point?</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">After we have clarified these discrepancies
about SRT we may talk about the observer or other philosophical
aspects, <b>but not earlier</b>. </font><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>DE</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.06.2017 um 07:14 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">If you have a new theory available which can
be quantitatively checked by experiments please present and
explain it here. Before you have done this, a discussion as it
was up to now does not make any sense but uses up a lot of time.
We should not waste time.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">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
<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>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">No, I do not see any answer as I have listed
it above! You always talk about different things or you repeat
your erroneous statement / equation without an argument.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com"> <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 size="+1" color="#330033">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was
wrong. Up to now I did not see any true arguments from
you, but you only presented your results of an incorrect
understanding of Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please
give us arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a
summary without any arguments is not science. I also have
some concerns about Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure
statements without arguments like in your last mails we do
not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO
is: Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do
not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant
velocity slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO
questions is simply did he or did he not say that the moving
clock slows down? The question is not whether his theory is
formally consistent but whether his theory states moving
clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock
slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in his
paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at which this slow
down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a
difference between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B
move at constant velocity in a circle compared with an
observer B on clock B seeing clock A move in a circle at
constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been
said is that both observers see the other go in a circle at
constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins
Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at
constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in the
middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the same
amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as SRT
is about the relation of inertial frames, and here none of the
clocks is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand this
question must be answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the
other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight
path. In this infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves on a
straight path and both do not have any speed in relation to the
other one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in the Lorentz
transformation is the temporal derivative of the distance. This
is 0 in this case. So no effects according to SRT and both
observers see the speed of the other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames
at this stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the
other leave his coordinate frame behind why does the other
not see the same thing. Einstein insisted there are no
preferred coordinate frames. That Einsteins theory, as
published in 1905, can be patched up by adding
interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried
to do himself with GRT is not the issue We can discuss
whether or not the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense
and is part of the original SRT later, after you answer
question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about
inertial frames (the question which coordinate frame is used is
of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the other one
permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself leaving
permanently his inertial frame. That is easily noticeable as he
will notice his acceleration. - How this case can be solved in
accordance with SRT I have explained in the preceding paragraph.
That solution is physically correct and in my understanding in
accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying to lead you
and anyone listening to the logical conclusion that
Einsteins world view expressed by his assumptions is wrong.
I am not questioning that after making his assumptions he
can logically derive the Lorentz transformations, nor that
such a derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive
gone through his papers often enough to know his math is
correct. I'm simply trying to lead us all to the
realization that the speed of light as a physical phenomena
is NOT constant, never was, never will be and warping
coordinate frames and all the changes in physics required
to make that assumption consistent with experimental fact
has been a 100 year abomination. If you believe that
assumption, I've got a guy on a cross who claims to be the
son of god to introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed of
light is not constant. I would understand this as a step
forward. But you have to do it with appropriate arguments which
I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments
which are my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz
rather Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian relativity is more
easy to understand and has physical causes. Einstein's principle
is not physics but spirituality in my view and his
considerations about time and space are as well not physics.
Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility of
Einstein's theory with reality by some examples, at last by the
twin case and argued that this is a violation of Einstein's
theory or in conflict with reality. But both is not the case,
and that was the topic of the discussions during the last dozens
of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails as the
questions below are answered in my last mails, most
of them in the mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued gripe
about my referring to gravity. Something is wrong
let me ask some simple yes and no questions to get
to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle holds
and acceleration and gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my last mails
</i>that the equivalence principle is violated at the
point that acceleration - in contrast to gravity -
does not cause dilation. And, as I have also written
earlier, that you find this in any textbook about
special relativity and that it was experimentally
proven at the muon storage ring at CERN. - It seems
to me that you did not read my last mails but write
your answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs
faster than one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail</i>.
In addition I have given you the numerical result for
the gravitational dilation on the surface of the sun
where the slow down of a clock is the little
difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a
zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples
for the twin case about a dilation by a factor of 10
to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is related to
the gravity potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the equation for
this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the
light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed
dilation experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level
do you know any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor:
gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)) which
has no additional terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable for time dilation
and for every kinematic or dynamic calculation where
special relativity applies. And in the latter context
it is used by thousands of physicists all over the
world who work at accelerators. One could find it in
their computer programs. To ask them whether they have
done it in this way would seem to them like the doubt
whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly.
This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is different only
for the case of time dilation then the answer is that
SRT would then be inconsistent in the way that e.g.
the speed of light c could never be constant (or
measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is
quite likely the wave function is a mental
projection and therefore its collapse is a
collapse of knowledge and the Aspect experiments
have been incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very
carefully by others (as also Zeilinger has presented
here in his last talk) and the new experiments are
said to have covered all loop holes which have been
left by Aspect. And also all these experiments are
carefully observed by an international community of
physicists. But of course this is never a guaranty
that anything is correct. So it is good practice to
doubt that and I am willing follow this way. However
if you do not accept these experiments or the
consequences drawn, then please explain in detail
where and why you disagree. Otherwise critical
statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we
should present arguments, which means at best:
quantitative calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind
you on the quantitative results if something is
referred to the gravitational force. As much as
I know any use of gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to 40 orders of
magnitude smaller that we have them in fact in
physics. - If you disagree to this statement
please give us your quantitative calculation
(for instance for the twin case). Otherwise your
repeated arguments using gravity do not help us
in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may be
affected by human understanding in a bad way, I
think that the case of entanglement could be a
good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um
06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we
should make detailed arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been
arguing that Einstein’s special
relativity claims that the clocks of an
observer moving at constant velocity
with respect to a second observer will
slow down. This lead to the twin paradox
that is often resolved by citing the
need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity
in general relativity. My symmetric twin
experiment was intended to show that
Einstein as I understood him could not
explain the paradox. I did so in order
to set the stage for introducing a new
theory. You argued my understanding of
Einstein was wrong. Ok This is not worth
arguing about because it is not second
guessing Einstein that is important but
that but I am trying to present a new
way of looking at reality which is based
on Platonic thinking rather than
Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was essentially the
way you see it. This is called naive
realism. And science from Newton up to
quantum theory is based upon it. If you
keep repeating that my ideas are not
what physicists believe I fully agree.
It is not an argument to say the
mainstream of science disagrees. I know
that. I'm proposing something different.
</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try
again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am
suggesting that there is no independent
physically objective space time
continuum in which the material universe
including you, I, and the rest of the
particles and fields exist. Instead I
believe a better world view is that
(following Everett) that all systems are
observers and therefore create their own
space in which the objects you see in
front of your face appear. The situation
is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part6.8D3A889F.128D348C@a-giese.de"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have
three parts You, I, and the rest of the
Universe “U” . I do a symmetric twin
thought experiment in which both twins
do exactly the same thing. They
accelerate in opposite directions turn
around and come back at rest to compare
clocks. You does a though experiment
that is not symmetric one twin is at
rest the other accelerates and comes
back to rest and compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is
that each thought experiment is done in
the space associated with You,I and U.
The speed of light is constant in each
of these spaces and so the special
relativity , Lorentz transforms, and
Maxwell’s equations apply. I have said
many times these are self consistent
equations and I have no problem with
them under the Aristotilian assumption
that each of the three parts believes
what they see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead
what they see is in each parts space.
This space provides the background
aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic interactions is constant
BECAUSE this speed is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level largely if not
totally imposed by the gravity
interactions the physical material from
which each part is made experiences.
Each part you and your space runs at a
different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for should be
called the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree
or disagree with this view point. But if
you disagree please do not tell me that
the mainstream physicists do not take
this point of view. I know that. Main
stream physicists are not attempting to
solve the consciousness problem , and
have basically eliminated the mind and
all subjective experience from physics.
I’m trying to fix this rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good
arguments that, what we see, is not the true
reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show
this. It is not a better example than to cite
Newton's law of motion in order to proof that
most probably our human view is questionable.
For you it seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical conflicts
related to different views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example that the
world cannot be as simple as assumed by the
naive realism. But relativity and particularly
the twin experiment is completely in agreement
with this naive realism. The frequently
discussed problems in the twin case are in
fact problems of persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And this is the fact
for all working versions of relativity, where
the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are
the ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good
example specifically force is a theoretical
construct and not see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of push or pull
so f=ma equates a theoretical conjecture with
an experience but Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I
believe it can be explained much sipler and
more accurately if we realize material
generates its own space i.e. there is
something it feels like to be material. I
believe integrating this feeling into physics
is the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I
think REletevistic phenomena can be more
easily explained by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in each piece of
material but dependent on its energy
(gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in
refining these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this:
Every piece of material has its own energy. Also
objects which are connected by a gravitational
field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it seems to me that
you relate every energy state to gravity. Here I
do not follow. If pieces of material are bound
to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font color="#3366ff">building
a state of energy, the energy in it is dominated
by the strong force and by the electric force.
In comparison the gravitational energy is so
many orders of magnitude smaller (Where the
order of magnitude is > 35) that this is an
extremely small side effect, too small to play
any role in most applications. Or please present
your quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to
respond to your comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017
6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion
would use detailed arguments and
counter-arguments instead of pure
repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down, but If
I include the observer then I get
an equation for the slow down that
agrees with eperimetn but
disagrees with Einstein in the
higher order, so it should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation
in your calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian Philosophy everyone was
convinced Reality consisted of an
external objective universe
independent of subjective living
beings. Electricity and Magnetism
had largely been explored through
empirical experiments which lead to
basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a medium
characterized by the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of
free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t
and are identical in form when
expressed in a different coordinate
frame x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen a substitution of
the Lorentz formulas into Maxwell’s
equations that will then give the
same form only using ∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get E’ and B’ but it must
exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much
more exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown
that the complete theory of Maxwell can
be deduced from two things: 1.) the
Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz
transformation. It is interesting
because it shows that electromagnetism
is a consequence of special relativity.
(Book: W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity, New
York Plenum Press). Particularly
magnetism is not a separate force but
only a certain perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw
point of magnetics, but all within the self
consistent Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce to the wave
equation and Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a medium for
them to propagate. It was postulated
that space was filled with such a
medium and that the earth was moving
through it. Therefore it should be
detectable with a Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null result
showed this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is
nothing more than the fact of an
absolute frame. Nobody believes these
days that aether is some kind of
material. And also Maxwell's theory does
not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An
aether was not detected by the
Michelson-Morely experiment which does
however not mean that no aether existed.
The only result is that it cannot be
detected. This latter conclusion was
also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached
to the observer doing the experiment , see
my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from
other observations and facts that objects
contract at motion - in the original version
of Heaviside, this happens when electric
fields move in relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is unable
to show a phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I
believe like you this is a better explanation
than Einsteins but it still leaves the aether
as a property of an independent space that
exist whether we live or die and and assume we
are objects in that space it also identifies
that space with what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self (
not how we see ourselves) is NOT in U's space
and what I see is not equal to the universal
space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get
this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and
derived the Lorentz Transformations
assuming the speed of light is
constant, synchronization protocol
of clocks, and rods, the invariance
of Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the null result
of Michelson-Morely experiments.
Einstein went on to eliminate any
absolute space and instead proposed
that all frames and observers riding
in them are equivalent and each such
observer would measure another
observers clocks slowing down when
moving with constant relative
velocity. This interpretation lead
to the Twin Paradox. Since each
observer according to Einstein,
being in his own frame would
according to his theory claim the
other observer’s clocks would slow
down. However both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have
explained several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many
publications that use general relativity,
gravity and the equivalence principle as the
the way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want
to argue about what Einstein really meant.
<br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The
authors want to show that the twin case can
also be handled as a process related to
gravity. So they define the travel of the
travelling twin so that he is permanently
accelerated until he reaches the turn around
point and then accelerated back to the
starting point, where the twin at rest
resides. Then they calculate the slow down of
time as a consequence of the accelerations
which they relate to an fictive gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our
discussion by several reasons. One reason is
the intent of the authors to replace
completely the slow down of time by the slow
down by gravity / acceleration. They do not
set up an experiment where one clock is slowed
down by the motion and the other twin slowed
down by acceleration and/or gravity as it was
your intention according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means
clock slow down. But that does not happen. Any
text book about SRT says that acceleration
does not cause a slow down of time / clocks.
And there are clear experiments proofing
exactly this. For instance the muon storage
ring at CERN showed that the lifetime of muons
was extended by their high speed but in no way
by the extreme acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I
do not know of any serious physicist who tries
to explain the twin case by gravity. I have
given you by the way some strong arguments
that such an explanation is not possible. -
And independently, do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the
details of this paper but it is relevant
because it is only one of a long list of
papers that use gravity and acceleration to to
explain the twin paradox. I am not claiming
they are correct only that a large community
believes this is the way to explain the twin
paradox. If you look at the Wikipedia entry
for Twin Paradox they will say explanations
fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these
categories does not mean a community
supporting the gravity explanation view point
does not exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds book
that has Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long
list? Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is
many, many orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30
orders) too small to play any role here. And
this can be proven by quite simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in his invention of
general relativity where clocks
speed up when in a higher gravity
field i.e one that feels less strong
like up on top of a mountain.
Applied to the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the moving twin
at velocity “v” and thinks the
moving twin’s clock slows down. The
moving twin does not move relative
to his clock but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to
make a round trip (using the
equivalence principle calculated the
being equivalent to a gravitational
force). Feeling the acceleration as
gravity and knowing that gravity
slows her clocks she would also
calculate her clocks would slow
down. The paradox is resolved
because in one case the explanation
is velocity the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General
relativity has nothing to do with the
twin situation, and so gravity or any
equivalent to gravity has nothing to do
with it. The twin situation is not a
paradox but is clearly free of conflicts
if special relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers
explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are.
I have never heard about this and I am caring
about this twin experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is
certainly how I was taught but I have notr
looked up papers on the subject for many
years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely
different approach I do not think which of two
explanations is more right is a fruitful
argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being electromagnetic
structures slow down and lengths in
the direction of motion contract in
the absolute aether of space
according to his transformation and
therefore the aether could not be
detected. In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief in an absolute
aether filled space, but that
electromagnetic objects relative to
that space slow down and contract.
Gravity and acceleration had nothing
to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued that the observer
subject to acceleration would know
that he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and
therefore calculate that his clocks
must be slowing down, even though he
has no way of measuring such a slow
down because all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore does not
consider gravity but only the
knowledge that due to his
acceleration he must be moving as
well and knowing his clocks are
slowed by motion he is not surprised
that his clock has slowed down when
he gets back to the stationary
observer and therefore no paradox
exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees
the moving clocks slow down but we
have two different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case
the absolute fixed frame remains
which in the completely symmetric
twin paradox experiment described
above implies that both observers
have to calculate their own clock
rates from the same initial start
frame and therefore both calculate
the same slow down. This introduces
a disembodied 3d person observer
which is reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with
some constant speed somewhere can make
this calculation and has the same
result. No specific frame like the
god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a
4th person's space, you cannot get rid of
the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process
and it is in the same way as much or as little
depending on the Mind as Newton's law of
motion. So to make things better
understandable please explain your position by
the use of either Newton's law or something
comparable. Relativity is not appropriate as
it allows for too much speculation which does
not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but
eventually I hope to show the whole business
is a confusion introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis which
introduces artifacts. I hpe you will critique
my writeup when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean?
The confusion about this "twin paradox" is
solely caused by persons who do not understand
the underlying physics. So, this does not
require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not
correct that moving clocks slow down. If
we follow Einstein, also the
synchronization of the clocks in
different frames and different positions
is essential. If this synchronization is
omitted (as in most arguments of this
discussion up to now) we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument
was that the calculations by the moving twin
was to be done in the inertial frame before
any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the
frame in which the theory was defined and it
is the mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the
original frame of the one moving twin in order
to be close to your experiment and your
description. Any other frame can be used as
well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the
consequence of having an observer who feels a
force like gravity which according to the
equivalence principle and any ones experience
in a centrifuge is indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person needs to transfer to
the initial start frame that would mean we
would all be moving at the speed of light and
need to transfer back to the big bang or the
perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very
fast but I still get older - this thinking
leads to crazy stuff - the whole basis does
not make common experience sense, which is
what I want to base our physics on. We have
gotten our heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand
what you mean here. - Your are right that we
should never forget that mathematics is a tool
and not an understanding of the world. But
regarding your heavily discussed example of
relativity, it is fundamentally understandable
without a lot of mathematics. At least the
version of Hendrik Lorentz. That one is
accessible to imagination without much
mathematics and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s
case both observers would see the
other moving at a relative velocity
and calculate their clocks to run
slower than their own when they
calculate their own experience they
would also calculate their own
clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be
compliant with Einstein one has to take
into account the synchronization state
of the clocks. Clocks at different
positions cannot be compared in a simple
view. If someone wants to compare them
he has e.g. to carry a "transport" clock
from one clock to the other one. And the
"transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again -
is the problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not
the issue, its whether the world view is
correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have
to do it in a correct way. You do it in an
incorrect way and then you tell us that
results are logically conflicting. No, they
are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully
and correctly covered by the Lorentz
transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia
Whitney who was at our Italy conference has a
nice explanation of how Maxwells Equations are
invariant under Galilean transforms "if you do
it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the
proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they
know the other twin is also
accelerating these effects cancel
and all that is left is the velocity
slow down. In other words the
Einstein explanation that one twin
explains the slow down as a velocity
effect and the other as a gravity
effect so both come to the same
conclusion is inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have to fall back
on Lorentz’s and both twins
calculate both the gravity effect
and the velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person observer which
is reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in
this process as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity
effect. There is none, neither by
Einstein nor by anyone else whom I know.
Even if the equivalence between gravity
and acceleration would be valid (which
it is not) there are two problems. Even
if the time would stand still during the
whole process of backward acceleration
so that delta t' would be 0, this would
not at all explain the time difference
experienced by the twins. And on the
other hand the gravitational field would
have, in order to have the desired
effect here, to be greater by a factor
of at least 20 orders of magnitude (so
>> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity
field around the sun etc to achieve the
time shift needed. So this approach has
no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming
from. Gravity, the equivalence principle is
, and the slow down of clocks and the speed
of light in a lower ( closer to a mass)
field is the heart of general relativity.
why do you keep insisting it is not. GPs
clocks are corrected for gravty potential
and orbit speed, I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made a
calculation that the bendng of light around
the sun is due to a gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so
far as gravity causes dilation but
acceleration does not. This is given by theory
and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do
not run faster at higher altitude? I was a
consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be as accurate if it did
not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and
that is gravity, not acceleration. And even
gravity has a small influence. The gravitational
field on the surface of the sun slows down
clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the factors of slow
down which are normally assumed in the examples
for the twin travel. --> Absolutely not
usable, even if equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free
space, there is no gravity involved. Of course
one may put the concept of it into the
vicinity of the sun or of a neutron star. But
then the question whether it is a paradox or
not is not affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not a solution as it
treats all participants in the same way And
anyhow there is no solution needed as it is in
fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are flawed</b> because
both require a disembodied 3d person
observer who is observing that
independent Aristotilian objective
universe that must exist whether we
look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b>
</b><b>not required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely evaluated
from the view of one of the twins or of
the other twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the world who
is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and
if you object here you should give clear
arguments, not mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the
context of a 3d person, he clear argument is
that he clock slow down is also derivable
form the invariance of action required to
execute a clock tick of identical clocks in
any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation
of two frames of linear motion. If you look at
the Lorentz transformation it always presents
the relation between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing else shows up
anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes
along and says the entire
Aristotelian approach is wrong and
the Platonic view must be taken.
Einstein is right in claiming there
is no independent of ourselves space
however his derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was conducted under
the assumption that his own
imagination provided the 3d person
observer god like observer but he
failed to recognize the significance
of this fact. And therefore had to
invent additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is properly
taken into account each observer
generates his own observational
display in which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those
appearance are stationary relative
to the observer’s supplied
background space or they might be
moving. But in either case some
external stimulation has caused the
two appearances. If two copies of
the same external clock mechanism
are involved and in both cases the
clock ticks require a certain amount
of action to complete a cycle of
activity that is called a second
i.e. the moving of the hand from
line 1 to line 2 on the dial.
Therefore the action required to
complete the event between clock
ticks is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks do not slow
down because they appear to be
moving relative to each other their
rates are determined by their
complete Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the fixed mass
underlying each observer’s universe.
The potential gravitational energy
of a mass inside the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and radius of the mass
shell and also the Schwarzchild
radius of the black hole each of us
is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its Lagrangian energy is L=
m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its Lagrangian energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the non-relativistic case. But
we discuss relativity here. So the
correct equation has to be used which is
T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity
is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you
use equations (here for kinetic energy) which
are strictly restricted to non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two
clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the Action is an
invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A =
<sub><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through
by m∙c<sup>2</sup> gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first
order approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable
as we are discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is
simply derivable from action invariance and
sped of light dependence on gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special
relativity, it has nothing to do with a
gravitational potential. In special relativity
the slow down of clocks is formally necessary
to "explain" the constancy of c in any frame.
In general relativity it was necessary to
explain that the speed of light is also
constant in a gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence </i>of c
from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the
field or with the understanding of Lorentz,
this invariance is in any case a measurement
result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second
order terms are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not
been tested to the second term
accuracy. In both theories the
moving clock interval is smaller
when the clock moves with constant
velocity in the space of an observer
at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation
here which is a bit different from
Einstein's solution. And then you say
that Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask that the
approximation in Einstein's solution
should be experimentally checked. No,
the approximation is in your solution as
you write it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different
from the simple lagrangian but both are
equal to v8v/c*c order which is all that to
my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the
derivation of this equation. Please look into
his paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c
constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a
moving clock has longer time periods and
so indicates a smaller time for a given
process. And if you follow Einstein the
equation <span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question
of synchronization which is essential
for all considerations about dilation. I
repeat the correct equation here: t' =
1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the
position the case ends up with logical
conflicts. Just those conflicts which
you have repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has been tested with v
very close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY
up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to
0.9999 . That is clearly measurable and
shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have introduced it
here without any argument and any need.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please
provide the Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle
interactions, so also those which have been
performed here including my own experiment,
have used the true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and momentum. An
assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which violate
conservation of energy and of momentum. So,
any experiment performed here during many
decades is a proof that the equation of
Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is
necessary the very simple almost classical
expression based upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are
slowed when they are in a deeper gravity well
and my calculations and theory predicts this
fact to the same accuracy that has been
tested. You say Einsteins formula has been
tested to the fourth order. This would make my
theory wrong. Please give me a reference so I
can look at the assumptions to the best of my
knowledge neither length contraction or time
dilation beyond the approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I
would have to present here the computer programs
which we have used to calculate e.g. the
kinematics of my experiment. (I do not have them
any more 40 years after the experiment.) And as
I wrote, there was no experiment evaluated here
at DESY over 40 years and as well no experiment
at CERN and as well no experiment at the
Standford accelerator without using Einstein's
Lorentz transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if Einstein
would be wrong at this point. Because as I
wrote, any evaluation would have shown a
violation of the conservation of energy and the
conservation of momentum. That means one would
have received chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether and Einstein is right
that there is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But Baer
resolve both these “rights” by
identifying the aether as the
personal background memory space of
each observer who feels he is living
in his own universe. We see and
experience our own individual world
of objects and incorrectly feel what
we are looking at is an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is
right if seen from an epistemological
position. Only the measurement results
are equal. Beyond that I do not see any
need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The
observers in the different frames are in
fact the measurement tools like clocks
and rulers. The only human-related
problem is that a human may read the
indication of a clock in a wrong way.
The clock itself is in this view
independent of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and
Lorenz tried to find a solution within the
Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he
argued the size of electromagentic
structures shrink or stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick
will not show an effect. What Lorentz did
not understand is that both the yard stick
and the EM wave are appearances in an
observers space and runs at an observers
speed of NOW. The observer must be included
in physics if we are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be
included. But let's start then with something
like Newton's law of motion which is in that
case also affected. Relativity is bad for this
as it is mathematically more complicated
without providing additional philosophical
insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top:
18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height:
29px;" moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top:
17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color:
#4453ea;" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>