[General] research papers

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Thanks Wolf! I will read more when I get back. I am in Spain (ICFO & IONS).
Chandra.



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
Date: 09/25/2015 9:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

chandra

I read the URL <http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb> http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb

I think he idea that gravity and inertial mass might be different and perhaps velocity, which effects kinetic energy  might be related to
inertial fields due to distant matter (Mach's Principle) has not been properly taken into account in Special Relativity

However the authors simple equations varying G rather than "m" seems a bit simplistic and certainly could not be called a derivation
A lot more development needs to be done to connect this to physics

Wolf


Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>

On 9/25/2015 9:49 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:
> Gentlemen: > > Regarding "time dilation," many consider the situation altogether > unclear---not without reason. > > The argument about mesons seen at sea level seems not to take account > of the cosmic rays reaching the lower atomosphere before initiang the > chain pi->mu->e.  At CERN, the 10 or so detectors had to be put > inside the ring (so I'm told) for lack of space and the results > recalibrated theoretically to compensate!  Thus, there was enough > wiggle room here to protect reputation and !! funding. > > Clocks-around-the-workd has been criticized for two reasons: 1) the > data was post-selected (i.e., some thrown out becasue it "obviously" > didn't fit) and 2) the stability of atomic clocks then (probably now > too) was at least two order of magnitude too low for the experiment. > Also note, this experiment was funded by the Navy resulting in the > fact that the raw data was classified!  This may still be the case > although I think I remember hearing that at least a portion was > sprung by the Irishman who was then first to discover and point out > the data manipulation. > > At the end of the day, perhaps the best account of the two SR effects > can be called: "Minkowski perspective."  Which means that no objects > are LF contracted, nor are clocks (time intervals) dilated; rather > just their reports to observers in different inertial frames get the > info so as to form an aborrated "virtual image,"  which is modified, > just like objects seen from a distance appear smaller in Newtonian > physics. > > Even Einstein always said:  "As SEEN from the observer's (stationary) > frame" regarding all supposed LFcontrated displacements and dilated > intervals. > > ciao,  Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 11:07 Uhr *Von:* "Dr. > Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> *An:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" > <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu><mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>, "Nature of Light and Particles - > General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, > "phys at a-giese.de"<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> <phys at a-giese.de><mailto:phys at a-giese.de> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research > papers > > Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an > "at hoc" assumption? The dilation is -  easily visible; one can move > a clock forth and back and compare it later to another clock which > was at rest all the time. The clock in motion is then retarded. This > fact is used (and so also proven) at the operation of GPS > satellites. -  there are a lot of indications that in elementary > particles there is a permanent motion at c (speed of light), > "zitterbewegung". This is a simple physical reason for dilation. It > does not even need a relativity principle. > > > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish > to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles > General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> <a > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>> > >
Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150926/76fe2250/attachment.htm>