[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Jun 4 09:40:52 PDT 2017
Hi Wolf
another round, the same arguments as it seems.
Am 04.06.2017 um 06:17 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Thanks for correcting the time dilation formula's yes I mixed up the
> apostrophes. And have corrected them below so we have a correct basis
> to discuss the numbers..
>
> To keep the description of the experiment simple I've corrected it so
> it is pure and we can discuss your objections directly below.
>
> You state "No, this has several errors as I have already explained in
> the preceding mail. Each twin, when he fires the retro rocket, knows
> that he leaves his original frame. So, as he knows relativity, he
> realizes that his clock is now running more slowly than before. He
> knows that now his clock will, compared the the run of his clock in
> the preceding phase, measure the time according to Δt_1 ’ = Δt_1*
> (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 . So the drift of his time will be, when back to his
> starting point, T = Δt_1 + Δt_1 ’ . And the other twin will have T =
> Δt_2 + Δt_2 ’ and so the same result. "
>
> I do not understand what you mean by "leaving his original frame"?
> each twin is in a rocket with a clock and a protocol. The protocol
> says fire a rocket for half a day to make them separate, after exactly
> one year fire a reverse rocket for one day on each twins clock to
> reverse the velocities, drift for one year fire a stopping rocket for
> half a day to come to a stop. Now both twins are stopped where they
> started at zero velocity. Everything is symmetric both twins do
> exactly the same thing and use their own clocks to carry out the
> function. But relativity says since the other twin was moving with
> velocity "v" for one year going out and one year coming in and though
> the sign has changed the formula Δt_1 ’ = Δt_1* (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 only
> contains the square of the velocity both twins would according toSRT
> claim the other twins clocks would have slowed down. Its simple. The
> theory gives the wrong answer.
>
> what do you mean leave the frame? both twins are in a capsule looking
> at a clock. They are not leaving anything.
>
Take twin 1 as an example. He has two choices:
1.) He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is back
again, he meets twin 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They will
indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.
2.) He knows physics and particularly special relativity. And, to be
close to your case, he may define after his start his frame of motion as
the reference frame. So in this frame his clock will run with normal
speed. Then, whenhis retro rocket has started, he will notice the
acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion he
is now moving towards twin 2 with a speed which you have called v. And
as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fact that now his own clock
will run differently than before. So if he wants to understand what is
going on and if he still takes his original state of motion as his
reference frame, he has torealize that his clock is now running slower.
- On the other hand, if he wants to understand the situation of twin 2
he has to realize that the speed of twin 2, taking place with v in
relation to his own original frame, causes a slow down of the clock of
twin 2. But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro rocket, twin 2 will
have speed = 0 with respect to the original frame of twin1. So the clock
of twin 2 will now run in the normal way. - If you now add the different
phases of both clocks, i.e. the phases of normal runand the phases of
slow down, you will see that the result is the same for both twins. And
this is what I have explained quantitatively in my last mail.
I must say that I have problems to understand where you have a
difficulty to see this.
> Then You state:"Twin 1 will have measured as given above, using your
> example, T = 12 months +13 months = 25 months. Twin 2 will have the
> same result, and both results fully conform to special relativity. "
>
> If I put in 13 it was a typo it should have been 12. I'm saying both
> twins according to the protocol use only their own clocks and travel
> out and back for 12 months on their own clocks so T= 24 months.
> However according to SRT each believes the other's clock has slowed by
> 1 month and would show 11 months. Sorry about my error and falsely
> reversing the effect and introducing 13 instead of 11, It was late. My
> mistake.
>
No problem with that. But now: The twin may look at his clock in an
uncritical way. But that means that he does not understand physics. See
my case 1.) above. There no conflict for him.
>
>
> Then You state: And, by the way, this gedanken experiment is in fact
> not a paradox. There are paradoxes like the Ehrenfest paradox which is
> differently interpreted by specialists. But the case with the twins is
> an example from the early time of SR and it is raised from time to
> time again by those who start to understand SR.
>
> How can this not be a paradox?it has been called a paradox for 80+
> years. In my experiment Two twins do exactly the same thing , their
> theory predicts the other's clocks would slow down, when in fact they
> do not. Is this not a paradox in the theory? is such a paradox not a
> demonstration that the theory is incorrect? If you look up "Twin
> Paradox" you will find several explanations all of them agree SRT is
> incomplete. Most state that adding GRT fixes the problem. I'm showing
> these fixes are insufficient and GRT does not fix the problem.
>
It is called a paradox because there are always again beginners
regarding SRT, and at a first glance it looks for them as a paradox.
From the view of the twins their theory does in fact *not *predict that
the other's clock slows down. I hope that I have clearly explained that.
Your write "... all of them agree SRT is incomplete". Where do you find
such statements? I do not know anyone in my physical vicinity here who
states that.
> In addition you say gravity has nothing to do with it? Does not the
> "equivalence principle' equate acceleration and gravity? Have I been
> living in a tree for 50years? how do you interpret the equivalence
> principle if not "ma =mg' therefore "s=g" ? Just depend on whether you
> believe Einstein meant in the strong or weak equivalence principle.
>
Acceleration has nothing to do with SRT. And so also gravity would have
nothing to do with it even if the strong equivalence principle would be
correct. However, it is not correct as I have explained in my last mail
to Grahame.
The weak equivalence principle works in fact, but up to now no physicist
knows why. Except me, my model of gravity explains it (what I have
presented several times in our meetings).
Albrecht
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/3/2017 11:32 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> here your numerical example of the twin case:
>>
>>
>> Am 03.06.2017 um 08:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> Tell me why this is not thought experiment that shows Einsteins SRT
>>> interpretation gives rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Twin Paradox Experiment:
>>>
>>> 1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space far away from all local
>>> masses two identical twins are accelerated to opposite velocities so
>>> that each thinks the other is traveling away from themselves at
>>> velocity “v”.
>>>
>>> By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent of a temporary
>>> gravitational force which slows their clocks the same amount. They
>>> are now drifting apart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. It is true
>> that both twin's clocks run slower in motion, but it is *independent
>> of the acceleration *and purely caused by the linear motion. So, I
>> propose that we start here with a steady motion and omit the
>> acceleration phase.
>>
>>> 2) Each of the twins feels he is standing still and the other twin
>>> is moving with a constant velocity “v” away. According to special
>>> relativity the relation between their own time Δt and the time they
>>> believe the other twins elapsed time Δt’ is; Δt’ = Δt· (1-v^2 /c^2
>>> )^1/2 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is true except that the relation is Δt’ = Δt · (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>> and I have explained in a preceding mail that this does not mean a
>> logical conflict.
>>>
>>> 3) After 1 year on Twin 1’sclock he believes twin two’s clock is
>>> Δt_1 ’ = Δt_1 · (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>
>>> After 1 year on Twin 1’sclock he believes twin two’s clock is Δt_2 ’
>>> = Δt_2 / (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>>
>>> Thus Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months Lets assume the velocities are such
>>> that Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 11 months.
>>>
>>
>>> 4) After one year on their own clock each twin fires a retro rocket
>>> that reverses their velocities. By the equivalence principle the
>>> both clocks experience a gravity like force and their clocks slow
>>> down in a lower gravity field. Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1
>>> day on their own clocks so now Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months + 1day and
>>> knowing the plan Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 11m + 1d. It does not mater if
>>> acceleration slows down the clocks since both twins experience the
>>> same effect both clocks would advance the same amount.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 5) Now the two twins are drifting with the same relative velocity but
>> toward each other with opposite signs. Each twin thinks the others
>> clocks are lowing down by the formula Δt’ = Δt· (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 .
>> They drift for exactly one year and now Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 24 months +
>> 1day and they believing in special relativity think Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ =
>> 22 months.+ 1day.
>>>
>>
>>> 6) now the stop rocket fires for half a day on each twins clock and
>>> the twins come to rest exactly at the place they started. Their own
>>> clocks tell Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 24 months + 1.5day and they believing in
>>> special relativity think the others clock should be Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’
>>> = 22 months.+ 1.5days.
>>>
>>> They get out of their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that
>>> the two clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief in special
>>> relativity was wrong.
>>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> before we enter discussions about details I send you a drawing of
>>>> my experiment with some explanations. I think that it is simple
>>>> enough so that we do not need too much philosophy about
>>>> epistemology to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of the
>>>> synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the target T (at
>>>> 0 m) where they are converted into photons. The photons fly until
>>>> the target H_2 where they are deflected by a small angle (about one
>>>> degree) (at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the converter
>>>> (KONV at 35 m) where a portion of the photons is converted into an
>>>> electron- position pair. The pair is detected and analysed in the
>>>> configuration of the magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes of spark
>>>> chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest of detectors at the
>>>> right is for monitoring the basic photon beam.
>>>>
>>>> In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles
>>>> (electron and positron) are measured and the momentum and the
>>>> energy of both particles is determined.
>>>>
>>>> Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles, there
>>>> is no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we should need here
>>>> any QM.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the mail will be commented later.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew , Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> "physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not required
>>>>> for the universe to go on doing what it does. " Disagree
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the old classic the world is the way we see it concept
>>>>> promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and dominated
>>>>> thinking for 1000years
>>>>>
>>>>> until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle
>>>>> un-observable interior of matter was always a mental projection
>>>>> requiring an observer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> " governed and filtered by the laws which create the things"
>>>>> Baer's first law of physics is that the physicist created the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an empty
>>>>> medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation
>>>>>
>>>>> The medium can be completely torn apart
>>>>> only such processes involve life and death of self and are taboo
>>>>> in science. This is in fact the the path of development for
>>>>> quantum theory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht;
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your descriptions
>>>>> are all on the theoretical "unknowable" side, which of course you
>>>>> believe describes physical reality, and no one would argue
>>>>> that our (your) theory is not self consistent, but to discuss the
>>>>> wave particle problem one needs to identify the vonNeuman cut
>>>>> between subjective personal observation and the un-observable
>>>>> domain described by the theory. Where are the detectors that tell
>>>>> you how the "unknowable" was stimulated and the detectors that
>>>>> tell you the "unknowable's" response and the detectors that tell
>>>>> you how some of the theoretical elements along the theoretical
>>>>> path inside the "unknowable" were controlled?
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we have such transition points between theory and
>>>>> observations identified I think I can show you that the QM
>>>>> probability wave picture is self consistent but also does science
>>>>> a great disservice by hiding and ridiculing speculation, research
>>>>> and experiment in deeper causes for the probabilistic phenomena
>>>>>
>>>>> A single atomic transition billions of light years away must be a
>>>>> particle to reach a similar atom and cause a transition in an atom
>>>>> in a detector on earth. And the fact that this particle
>>>>> transmission angle is random and exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating
>>>>> the uncertainty principle) and therefor just happens to hit our
>>>>> detector as purely random QM event leaving us with a Bohm guiding
>>>>> wave that controls the probabilities. It all makes sense only,
>>>>> *IF*you stop your analysis at the external objective aspect of
>>>>> reality and fail to realize that /beyond/ the emission at the
>>>>> distant galaxy and the absorption of the "photon" in your retina
>>>>> is the other half of the causal path which describes your
>>>>> subjective existence, *then* you will be blissfully happy with the
>>>>> self consistent QM explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that our quantum
>>>>> priests have built for us and just come up with more and more
>>>>> complex explanations within the BOX. Are we such cowards?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what you are proposing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we know to
>>>>> be true by direct experience into our theories. Then you will
>>>>> begin to see events not particles, cycles not points, actions not
>>>>> states, are the a better way to understand reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> wolf
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where do you miss reciprocity at STR?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
>>>>>>> I have some problems with STR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That physical laws should be the same for all observers is OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peoples' thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ========================================
>>>>>>> Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM
>>>>>>> From: "Chip Akins"
>>>>>>> To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Wolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to add a comment to this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is my opinion that physics happens by itself, whether we
>>>>>>> think about it or not. And that an observer is not required for
>>>>>>> the universe to go on doing what it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also feel that our perception of what is going on is governed
>>>>>>> and filtered by the laws which create the things we call fields,
>>>>>>> particles, forces, and all the other,
>>>>>>> relatively abstract things we have named in our studies of nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also think there is a version of what we call relativity which
>>>>>>> is without paradox, but that relativity is not SR or GR, but
>>>>>>> rather a relativity which is based on matter
>>>>>>> being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed frame of
>>>>>>> space, with space as a tensor medium and not empty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above comment is just my view or course, but I think it
>>>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chip Akins
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: General
>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM
>>>>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then
>>>>>>> please check if it gets to you on both
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see exactly
>>>>>>> where the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the experiment
>>>>>>> from my observer inclusive
>>>>>>> perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are simply
>>>>>>> consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always two
>>>>>>> operations separating reality from
>>>>>>> our observational experience and since science is operating
>>>>>>> under the assumption that quantum reality (i.e. anything that
>>>>>>> cannot be seen directly such as atomic
>>>>>>> structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that
>>>>>>> the two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality
>>>>>>> assumptions self consistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current
>>>>>>> theory because if force and charge are treated as separate
>>>>>>> degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled
>>>>>>> apart by external gravito-electric forces then in order to keep
>>>>>>> them at the same point the current theory would implicitly
>>>>>>> require an infinite force. relaxing this
>>>>>>> requirement then allows current theory to be an approximation to
>>>>>>> one that does not require such an infinite force. Much like
>>>>>>> classical physics is an approximation
>>>>>>> of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum theory is an
>>>>>>> approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when the force
>>>>>>> between mass and charge does NOT
>>>>>>> approach infinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin
>>>>>>> Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is
>>>>>>> wikipedia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various
>>>>>>> explanations of this paradox. These explanations
>>>>>>> "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different
>>>>>>> standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that
>>>>>>> designate the acceleration
>>>>>>> [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5]
>>>>>>> Max von Laue
>>>>>>> argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two
>>>>>>> separate inertial frames
>>>>>>> , one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame
>>>>>>> switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the
>>>>>>> acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein
>>>>>>> and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation
>>>>>>> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7]
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly select an
>>>>>>> experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due to
>>>>>>> velocity with the clock speed up due to
>>>>>>> acceleration. The equivalence principle equates acceleration and
>>>>>>> gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has
>>>>>>> two twins in inter stellar space
>>>>>>> accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions coming back
>>>>>>> to rest at the meeting point at the origin. If everything is
>>>>>>> symmetric one explanation is that
>>>>>>> velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at all. But by
>>>>>>> allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the relative velocity
>>>>>>> low down will always dominate and the twin
>>>>>>> paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's clocks must
>>>>>>> slow down according to SRT and GRT, so when theories reach a
>>>>>>> logical inconsistency they must
>>>>>>> be improved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I believe is happening is that the general relativity
>>>>>>> expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now
>>>>>>> since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru =
>>>>>>> the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside the mass
>>>>>>> shell of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are living inside the
>>>>>>> a black hole of radius Ru according to
>>>>>>> the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) - 1/2*m*v*v ]
>>>>>>> => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates half the
>>>>>>> change of energy transfer from electric to gravitational energy.
>>>>>>> But it observes the change in
>>>>>>> electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate. As I have
>>>>>>> often said on this issue the equations are correct it is the
>>>>>>> world view that is wrong. The error
>>>>>>> started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused a
>>>>>>> Theoretical force with an Observational experience. It happened
>>>>>>> because the observer was taken
>>>>>>> out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the world in
>>>>>>> front of your nose) were taken to be reality instead of the
>>>>>>> mental experiences they are. Quantum
>>>>>>> theory is the beginning of correcting this error but it will
>>>>>>> take a while to find the right interpretation. We must add the
>>>>>>> mind back into physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> best wishes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during
>>>>>>> interaction with matter and then we project the quantized
>>>>>>> material state changes back into the
>>>>>>> waves as a mathematical convenience
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to
>>>>>>> my PhD experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of
>>>>>>> a well defined energy to
>>>>>>> convert them into photons. The photons were after a flight of
>>>>>>> several meters in the air detected by pair building in a thin
>>>>>>> layer of copper. The energy of the pair
>>>>>>> was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of the
>>>>>>> original electron. So, how can we understand this result if it
>>>>>>> is not the photon which carries
>>>>>>> exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment; I'm
>>>>>>> introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in
>>>>>>> physical theory. Treated
>>>>>>> individually one can reject them because anything new can be
>>>>>>> rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means
>>>>>>> what it says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of
>>>>>>> particles. Particles have been
>>>>>>> assumed to be points and so mass and charge are located at
>>>>>>> points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and charge should be given
>>>>>>> separate degrees of freedom and
>>>>>>> the force between them is not infinite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot
>>>>>>> be a force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is
>>>>>>> obvious (in the mind of physicists) that a
>>>>>>> charge can only interact with a charge of the same type. So the
>>>>>>> electrical charge and the charge of the strong force will by
>>>>>>> common understanding not react in
>>>>>>> any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of a charge
>>>>>>> (which is, however, not the understanding of present physics)
>>>>>>> then there should not be any
>>>>>>> force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding,
>>>>>>> then charges may influence the dynamical process which we call
>>>>>>> "inertia". But that is in that case a
>>>>>>> complicated logical connection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action
>>>>>>> or force?" The rest of your comments are simply addressing an
>>>>>>> incomplete presentation of my
>>>>>>> theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change to be
>>>>>>> fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action is the material
>>>>>>> of change. Form is the state in which it
>>>>>>> is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate of
>>>>>>> action happening, force is the experience of all finite
>>>>>>> particles in a non homogeneous action flow who all
>>>>>>> want to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this
>>>>>>> discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete
>>>>>>> presentation ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow
>>>>>>> this argument that action is something which the human brain
>>>>>>> needs to structure the world so that it
>>>>>>> fits into our brains. Particles which react to each other do not
>>>>>>> have this need. They react to a force, and the force and also
>>>>>>> the reaction to it can be infinitesimal.
>>>>>>> An action is (by my understanding) something which happens or
>>>>>>> does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal single steps which
>>>>>>> each can be understood as an
>>>>>>> action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of
>>>>>>> "human understanding".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SRT:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>>>> gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen
>>>>>>> the twin paradox explained by
>>>>>>> including gravity in text books. clocks slow down because of
>>>>>>> velocity but speed up because of acceleration the two cancel
>>>>>>> when two twins are accelerated with
>>>>>>> constant acceleration for the first quarter of the trip, the
>>>>>>> ship turned around decelerated for the second quarter and
>>>>>>> continued to be accelerated toward the start
>>>>>>> point, during the third quarter and then rocket reverses for the
>>>>>>> third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where the
>>>>>>> second twin has been waiting at rest.
>>>>>>> Now both twins will agree on the amount of time passing. The
>>>>>>> paradox is said to be resolved because Einstein's Srt is
>>>>>>> expanded to GRT and gravity is introduced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects
>>>>>>> the twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea;
>>>>>>> and the discussion about
>>>>>>> ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can perform this
>>>>>>> twin paradox in an environment where no gravitational sources
>>>>>>> are around, and it would work as
>>>>>>> usually described.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The
>>>>>>> degree of slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to
>>>>>>> nothing else. Acceleration or
>>>>>>> deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of clock. This
>>>>>>> statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third
>>>>>>> quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where the second
>>>>>>> twin has been waiting at rest." Now I am
>>>>>>> confused. I have understood that both twins move and change
>>>>>>> their motion at exactly the same times. How can it then happen
>>>>>>> that on twin is at rest and expects
>>>>>>> the other one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and
>>>>>>> with there according ageing.
>>>>>>> Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is that both
>>>>>>> twins see the other moving at a constant velocity for an
>>>>>>> arbitrarily long period of time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the
>>>>>>> time until the other twin changes his speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin has
>>>>>>> aged relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making the
>>>>>>> acceleration period small and
>>>>>>> symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the gravity
>>>>>>> explanation but retain an arbitrarily long constant velocity. SO
>>>>>>> SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE
>>>>>>> RESOLVED IN GRT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the
>>>>>>> following case which is sometimes discussed. There are two
>>>>>>> observers, A and B, and both
>>>>>>> have clocks with them. We assume that both observers move with
>>>>>>> respect to each other. Then observer A will find that the clock
>>>>>>> of observer B runs more slowly.
>>>>>>> But as both observers are physically equivalent also observer B
>>>>>>> will find that the clock of observer A runs more slowly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But
>>>>>>> it is not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how
>>>>>>> clock speeds (or the time in different
>>>>>>> frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of
>>>>>>> observer B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will
>>>>>>> call clock 1 and clock 2 (and which he
>>>>>>> has of course synchronized) along the path of observer B. Then
>>>>>>> he will compare the clock of observer B with his clock 1 and
>>>>>>> then with clock 2 in the moment
>>>>>>> when the observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that
>>>>>>> the clock of observer B have run more slowly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course
>>>>>>> compare his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes
>>>>>>> these clocks. But now a
>>>>>>> difference: Both clocks of observer A have been synchronized in
>>>>>>> the frame of A. But in the frame of B they will not be
>>>>>>> synchronized (a fundamental fact in SRT).
>>>>>>> From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A will be
>>>>>>> retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the observer B can
>>>>>>> reproduce the observation of observer
>>>>>>> A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed down.
>>>>>>> But observer B will use a different method to determine the
>>>>>>> speed of the clocks of observer A.
>>>>>>> Observe B will also position two clocks along the path which
>>>>>>> observer A follows in frame B and he will synchronize these
>>>>>>> clocks in his frame B. And with his clocks
>>>>>>> he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own
>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This different clock synchronization follows from the
>>>>>>> time-related part of the Lorentz transformation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)). Regarding
>>>>>>> the example above v is the speed between the frames of A and of B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when
>>>>>>> I talked about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not
>>>>>>> clear, please ask further questions I
>>>>>>> and shall go into more details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do my Emails show up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
>>>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know if you get them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and
>>>>>>> Adrew have answered. So the general distribution seems to work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Andrew W.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
>>>>>>> physics. It is smart mathematics only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
>>>>>>> quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on
>>>>>>> quantum mechanically bound
>>>>>>> electrons!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: General
>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
>>>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ;
>>>>>>> Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then
>>>>>>> implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ========================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>> Discussion"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Wolf,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> again comments in the text.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>> That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding
>>>>>>> mass and charge are completely different categories as a wrote
>>>>>>> last time. Charge is a
>>>>>>> permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a dynamical
>>>>>>> process which also changes when the object changes its motion
>>>>>>> state (which at the end is :
>>>>>>> relativity).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
>>>>>>>> includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
>>>>>>>> component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
>>>>>>>> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the
>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>>>>>>> Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical
>>>>>>> ideas" do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at
>>>>>>> least mass is a different category. And also
>>>>>>> time and space are most probably different categories from the
>>>>>>> others, at least for some of the physical community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*
>>>>>>>> The examples provided in this section are intended to show how
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> theory is applied to well known and observable situations that
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>> compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What
>>>>>>>> CAT has
>>>>>>>> added is summarized as follows:
>>>>>>>> -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
>>>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>>> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
>>>>>>>> material media.
>>>>>>>> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
>>>>>>>> separating mass and charge.
>>>>>>>> -Internal material forces between mass and charge are
>>>>>>>> introduced as
>>>>>>>> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the
>>>>>>>> interior of
>>>>>>>> matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
>>>>>>>> chapter 6)
>>>>>>>> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
>>>>>>>> introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
>>>>>>>> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See
>>>>>>>> Appendix on
>>>>>>>> Mach’s Principle)
>>>>>>>> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to
>>>>>>>> change a
>>>>>>>> state separated by a constant state distance.
>>>>>>>> Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings
>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>> event oriented world view and a description of reality which
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described
>>>>>>>> by CAT.
>>>>>>> The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
>>>>>>> force?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are very
>>>>>>> simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a
>>>>>>> good strategy of our brains to build
>>>>>>> categories. For instance, there are billions of trees on our
>>>>>>> earth. No brain of a human being is able to register and to
>>>>>>> remember all these trees. So, our brain build
>>>>>>> the category "tree".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical
>>>>>>> connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else
>>>>>>> not!). If objects move which have charges the forces will cause
>>>>>>> that the motion of the objects is
>>>>>>> influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is fundamental. A
>>>>>>> human brain can now build the category of an "action" to
>>>>>>> describe, or better: to categories this
>>>>>>> process. This brain-related process is in my view a less
>>>>>>> fundamental view to the world, even though a helpful one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true
>>>>>>> that there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in
>>>>>>> the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and a
>>>>>>> dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a
>>>>>>> higher level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans
>>>>>>> to categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat
>>>>>>> the effect of charges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Twin Paradox:*
>>>>>>>> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
>>>>>>>> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time
>>>>>>>> dilation
>>>>>>>> How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
>>>>>>>> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite
>>>>>>>> directions.
>>>>>>>> At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse
>>>>>>>> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
>>>>>>>> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience
>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
>>>>>>>> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
>>>>>>>> long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative
>>>>>>>> to each
>>>>>>>> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
>>>>>>>> velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
>>>>>>>> difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and
>>>>>>>> gravity
>>>>>>>> cannot explain it.
>>>>>>> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>>>> gravity. Why
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do you connect it to gravity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do
>>>>>>>> not show
>>>>>>>> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>>>>>>> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in
>>>>>>> the list;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> wolf
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>> <a
>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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/20170604/ec90031b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 421 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/ec90031b/attachment-0009.png>
More information about the General
mailing list