<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
chandra<br>
<br>
I read the URL <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="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</a></a></span><br>
<br>
I think he idea that gravity and inertial mass might be different
and perhaps velocity, which effects kinetic energy might be related
to<br>
inertial fields due to distant matter (Mach's Principle) has not
been properly taken into account in Special Relativity<br>
<br>
However the authors simple equations varying G rather than "m" seems
a bit simplistic and certainly could not be called a derivation<br>
A lot more development needs to be done to connect this to physics<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer<br>
Research Director<br>
Nascent Systems Inc.<br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><br>
<br>
On 9/25/2015 9:49 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> 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" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a> *An:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra"
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a>, "Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>,
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">"phys@a-giese.de"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a> *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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a> <a
> href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
>
> </span><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> </a></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>