<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Thanks Wolf! I will read more when I get back. I am in Spain (ICFO & IONS).</div>
<div>Chandra. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Wolfgang Baer <wolf@nascentinc.com> <br>
Date: 09/25/2015 9:51 PM (GMT+01:00) <br>
To: general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <br>
Subject: Re: [General] research papers <br>
<br>
<div>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><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></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>
</div>
</body>
</html>