<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>Hello Richard,</div><div><br></div><div>First I have to apologize very much that I am so late answering. I was off for a week to a conference and then quite sick. So, sorry for the delay.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Von meinem iPad gesendet</div></div><div><br><div><br><br>Von meinem iPad gesendet</div>Am 10.03.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Is the 1/r^3 repulsive force that you mention a
universal law of nature? Are you claiming that Newton’s 3 laws
of motion require the existence of such a law of repulsive
force (or even a law of attraction of 1/r^2 for that matter?)
I found a reference to a 1/r^3 force in a discussion of
Yukawa’s work at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm" class="">http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm</a> . </div>
<div class="">but the 1/r^3 force postulated by Yukawa was an
ATTRACTIVE force, while he postulated a 1/r^4 REPULSIVE force
! :</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>The fundamental assumption which I have to make so that my modell for mass can work is than there is a bind between fundamental objects which takes care that a certain distance between these objects is kept. This is the fundamental requirement. The rest are refinements. </div><div><br></div><div>I am presently travelling, so it is difficult to invoce the paper you give above. I shall try to answer in the following text.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container"><blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">"In 1935 a
scientist by the name of Hideki Yukawa hypothesised that
there exists a force that could bind nucleons (protons and
neutrons) together. He called this the ‘strong nuclear
force’ because it had to be stronger than the electrical
force that would otherwise push protons apart.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">The strong nuclear
force (SNF) was a curious contrivance that required some
unusual properties:</span><br style="font-family: Verdana,
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">1. The force, while
stronger than the electrical force, needed to operate only
within a short range. Otherwise it would attract protons at
any distance.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">2. The force needed
to become neutral at even shorter distances. Otherwise
protons would be forced together, possibly extinguishing
themselves as an electron and positron are said to do.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">3. The force also
needed to work on neutrons which have neutral electric
charge. Thus the possibility exists that the force should
probably affect all subatomic particles and also cause
electrons to cling together.</span><br style="font-family:
Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">To overcome the first
problem it was proposed that the SNF’s strength might vary
with the inverse cube of the distance, i.e. 1/</span><strong style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">r</strong><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">3</sup><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">. To
overcome the second it was proposed that a repulsive SNF
also exists. This would need to be even stronger than the
first and work at an even shorter range, for example as the
inverse forth power of the distance, i.e. 1/</span><strong style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">r</strong><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">4</sup><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">With such an unusual
range of forces, the SNF was shaping up to be somewhat
bizarre. Normally in three-dimensional space we would expect
a force function to vary with the inverse square of
distance. Yet here were cubed and forth powers. What have we
now: 4D and 5D space?" </span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I was told at the university that the Yukawa potential has a plateau in the center, further out steep walls and then a fall-off which in an exponential way. (I have understood that QM likes exponential rules.) </div><div><br></div><div>To my knowledge Yukawa has developed his potential to explain scattering processes. So the conclusions for the potential cannot be very precise. </div><div><br></div><div>If we use the mass mechanism of my model to conclude back from Newton's law to the shape of the binding potential of the strong force, then the result for the shape should be much closer to the physical relality. If you take the shape which have proposed for the mechanism of inertia, then the shape proposed does not have any problems with keeping a distance and with a long range attraction. There must be a long range attraction which, however, must not be too strong, because otherwise protons and neutrons could not be bound in a nucleus. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container"><blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> But Yukawa’s hypothesis of such forces has
anyway been superseded by quantum chromodynamics, quarks and
gluons, hasn’t it?</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div>That is surely true but the old problem that QM does not explain physics, only presents abstract rules.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container"><blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class=""> By the way, what do you think of the work of
Vernon Brown, who mentions you in his website <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://photontheory.com" class="">photontheory.com</a></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>With the approach of Vernon Brown I have the problem already mentioned here some times: For him a photon is the most fundamental object in the physical world. In my view, however, the photon is much too complicated as to be used as a really fundamental object.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container"><blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class=""> Richard</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Albrecht<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-forward-container"><blockquote cite="mid:FD96F484-0BB4-437F-90F0-2C815EB79F9D@gmail.com" type="cite">
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
in <u class="">no way </u>I <i class="">assume </i>inertia
in my derivation. <br class="">
<br class="">
My derivation goes logically in two steps:<br class="">
<br class="">
Step 1: It is inevitable that an extended object has
inertia. This works for any shape of a field as long as
it has a potential minimum which defines the distance
between the partners.<br class="">
Step 2: To reproduce Newton's law of motion, it is
necessary to assume a certain shape (some call it
reverse engineering). <br class="">
In my case I was lucky in so far as I have initially
looked for the simplest shape which I could find in
order to make a numerical deduction. I took the 1/r^2
law for attraction and the 1/r^3 law for repulsion. And
with this assumption the result was Newton's law. <br class="">
<br class="">
But again: Logically the steps have to be done in
sequence.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.02.2016 um 05:58
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:33DBD353-74D5-4C0C-90A8-47DC4313E346@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> You wrote </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;" class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin: 10px 5px 5px
10px; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px;
border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style:
solid; border-left-color: rgb(195, 217, 229);
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<blockquote class="">I have assumed a
certain shape of that field which leads to
Newton's law of inertia.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
How can you claim that you are deriving inertia for an
extended body when you are assuming that inertia
exists in your derivation?
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:26 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
who is the addressee of your mail? Where do
you see a specific difficulty?<br class="">
<br class="">
With respect to my first step of explaining
inertia caused by extension: Was that
explanation understandable? I would
appreciate to have a feedback.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.02.2016
um 21:58 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
Yes I think Al has described things well.<br class="">
My only additional comment is not to feel
rejected and disappointed.<br class="">
It is very difficult to write from the
perspective of a new reader when one has
been involved in ones own ideas for a long
time.<br class="">
It is already a major break through in
communication when people have enough
interest to point out what they do not
understand about your work. <br class="">
<br class="">
wolf<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2016
5:15 PM, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht & all:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Let me formulate
Wolfgang's point in my prefered
style. In telling your story, for
my taste, you do not follow a
structure in accord with formal
logic. That is, you do not FIRST
list all of your hypothetical
inputs, which are things
(mysteries) that you do not intend
to prove or explain. Then with
something like sylogisims prove
or deduce new outputs, i.e., the
benefits of the story. In stead,
you tell a chapter or so of your
story, at which point further
development requires a so far
unused hypothtical new input, and
then, zipp!, in she goes,
without mostly, proper
introduction. In the end, the
reader or consumer of your story
is unsure that the number of
benefits is actually larger than
the number of inputs, thereby
making the effort to ingest and
digest the complexitites of the
story worth the effort. It's like
reading a poorly composed Russian
novel: the reader loses all
coherance with respect to
characters coming and going and
has the feeling of being swept
along as if in a megacity's rush
hour subway throng!</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Also, some of your
points are manifestly dimentional
analysis---they prove nothing new,
they just reshuffel the building
blocks. Some see this a proof of
internal consistency, but without
recognizing that the consistency
thereby proved, if any, is within
the inputs taken from previous
work (often tautological
definitions of terms), most often
somebody else's. Such consistency
is not to the credit of the
results of the supposed new
structure/story.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For what it's worth,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Wolfgang
Baer" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Gerät gesendet, geschützt von Avast. <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>