<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree with kracklauers comment about isolation<br>
and would like to add, although coming in late, that i believe
Albrecht's model of rotating strong charges also generates mass
which would then be coupled to the rest of the universe if Machs
Principle is correct. <br>
<br>
I would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the properties
of the observer always in mind. The visualization of two particles
rotating is always happening in a background space that must be
identified as the imagination or mind space supplied by you the
reader of this sentence. Confusing ones own visualization space
required to experience any part of a theory with reality produces
errors. Like insisting there is a pole and probably Santa Clause at
the north pole just because such a pole is required to support a
globe model of the earth. Einstein made a similar mistake when he
developed the Special Relativity. <br>
Real isolation is only possible if the background space, the page on
which the rotating charges are drawn, is NOT part of the theory. <br>
<br>
space is generated by the material from which your coordinate frames
are built. There is no empty box out there in which things happen.
That box is your mind which is hosted in your material.<br>
<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Please Note: I will be ot of the office from Nov. 14 to Dec. 10
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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/7/2015 7:23 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-763e96f0-6588-4356-85aa-c4a7ba9f9f59-1446909786811@3capp-webde-bap50"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The main objection, not just mine, would be that two
particles orbiting each other are never really alone. The
whole universe in the stage on which their dance takes
place. It cannot be turned off! Much of the universe is
very distant, but this compensated by the fact that the
further away one considerers, the more
matter/universe/charges there are, and it adds up. Thus if
the the two are emitting "something," then to remain in
equilibrium that likewise have to be absorbing something.
In the end, what we have here then is two charges, that is,
every pair of charges in which any one charge of interest is
involved, will be mutually "interacting" just as Gauss (but
with delay) found in the first place. This can be seen
then, as the most basic statement that can be made about
E&M interaction. In consequence, "photons" and "waves"
are imaginary constructs to help describe this Gaussian
interaction. Mystical, contradictory characteristics of
these paradigms are irrelevant. What has to be
selfconsistent is/are the mutual coupled equations of motion
with delay. Problem is: differential-delay equations are
relatively seldom, in comparison to ordiary coupled
differential equaitons, studied. In addition, of course,
this mutual intereaction in the theory has to be augmented
with something to account for the rest of the uinverse---the
something is surely the machinery of QM. So, what the
Physics world needs, is a fully manifestly covariant set of
mutually coupled WAVE equations. All currently discussed
wave equations fail on one or another of the criteria.
Mostly, they are not mutually interacting, one paticle is a
small statillite orbiting a large entity but not affecting
it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>best, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
07. November 2015 um 14:58 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>, "Albrecht Giese"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard Gauthier"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></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>,
"Joakim Pettersson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"><joakimbits@gmail.com></a>,
"Ariane Mandray" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I share your concern about continuous emission. But I
think that this concern does not apply to a simple
model of charged particles not being photons. If e.g.
two charges or two charged objects orbit each other in
free space where there is no else interaction, this
configuration does not consume any energy, so it
should orbit forever. If these two charges would be at
rest, there would be a static field around this
configuration. If the charges circle around each
other, then this field is a changing field. The field
is generally able to interact with other charges
(however it will not interact as long as this
configuration is alone in space). As this field
propagates into all directions (normally with c) it
will cause an alternating field which looks like a
wave. Of course this field can interact with other
charges which react back to the particle
configuration. In this way a guiding effect is
possible. And when this happens, there can be of
course an exchange of energy.<br>
<br>
Do you have any problems with this view?<br>
<br>
Regards, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.11.2015 um 17:35
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are qutie correct, when focusing on the
historically pure story. What deBroglie
himself did was too "huristic" to make real
good sense---I seem to recall reading
somewhere that he himself said as much. The
deBroglie wave I tend to ralk about is the
version I used to rationalize QM. It's
different from the origional deBroglie wave,
but I can't get myself to call it the
Kracklauer wave (although I am unaware of any
competing priority claims). Further, the
modifications actually pertain virtually
exclusively to the palaver and not the math
involved. In the mean time, others, including
yourself, have come up with similar
explantions (not really new models) for the
original form. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In any case, I find serious fault only with
those models that require continious emission
as they don't explain where the energy for
such a process comes from. Upon reflection, it
seems im fact that this objection pertains to
all photon and wave models of light in
general. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>regards, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
04. November 2015 um 16:52 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>,
"Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion" <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>,
"Joakim Pettersson" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="joakimbits@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"><joakimbits@gmail.com></a></a>,
"Ariane Mandray" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: Aw: Re: [General]
research papers</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Al,</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">I think
that you meet the point quite well.
However, the restriction which we both
see on the de Broglie wave does not
follow from the deduction done by de
Broglie. For him this "ficticious
wave" is not related to an interaction
but accompanies the particle all the
time. And otherwise it would not have
been logical for Schrödinger to
incorporate de Broglie's Ansatz into
his wave function.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Tschüß</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Albrecht</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
<br>
Von meinem iPad gesendet</div>
<div><br>
Am 04.11.2015 um 07:33 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht & readers:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems to me that your
resolution (proposed) for the
problem you have with
deBroglie waves actually
points at the reason there is
no problem. The key:
deBroglie waves are a
characteristic of the
interaction of the particle
with other particles, not an
intrinsic property of only the
particle. In this sense it
"worls" in (better put: with
respct to) in all frames, as
the "other" particles can be
in any frame. There is no
reason to demand that it be
Lorentz invariant. Doing so
is mechanically applying a
notion without regard for its
originor or function.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The drawback (as I see it)
to your
"reflection-conception" is
that it requires the primary
particle to be continiously
emmiting waves (to get
reflected) without providing
(so far at least) an energy
source for this continious
emission.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tuschss, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px
5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px
solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0
10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
03. November 2015 um 17:58
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="phys@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "(<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>)"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>>,
"Nature of Light and
Particles - General
Discussion" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>>,
"Joakim Pettersson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com">joakimbits@gmail.com</a></a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" &</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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">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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>