<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
p.ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext, li.ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext, div.ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext
{mso-style-name:ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Thanks, Eric!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I am glad that you are picking up the discussion on “gamma” experiments with Albrecht.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Dissecting these experiments will advance our group discussion towards bridging the gap between obviously diffracting radio waves and seemingly “particle-like” (non-diffracting) gamma rays.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> This is a very important “black box” in physics, which we have been avoiding for almost a century.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Reiter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">Hello Albrecht:</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">I would like to see the details of your experiment:</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">"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."</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">I did original experiments explaining light and charge also.</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">Thank you</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">Eric Reiter</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">____________________________________________________________________</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp599d92d6yahoo_quoted_6484411612">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 12:02:03 PM PDT, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. <br>
<br>
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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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".
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">SRT:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">"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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">"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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time until the other twin changes his speed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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
<b><i>his</i></b> frame B. And with his clocks he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own ones.<br>
<br>
This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related part of the Lorentz transformation:<br>
<br>
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c<sup>2</sup>) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)). Regarding the example above v is the speed between the frames of A and of B.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b>do my Emails show up</b><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b>I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Let me know if you get them<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew have answered. So the general distribution seems to work<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hi Andrew W.:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of physics. It is smart mathematics only.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though, quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum mechanically bound electrons!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">==================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM<br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>; Wolfgang Baer <a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">
<wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hi all<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">========================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">From: "Albrecht Giese"
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Cc:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">again comments in the text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> together<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the forces
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences between
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> added is summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> happening.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> material media.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> separating mass and charge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> chapter 6)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Mach’s Principle)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> state separated by a constant state distance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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".
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> *Twin Paradox:*<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite directions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the same
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> cannot explain it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">do you connect it to gravity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the list;
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> wolf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655msoplaintext"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="ydp599d92d6yiv2188358655DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="69" style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="46" height="29" id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td width="588" style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com" target="_blank">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>