<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">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 5/28/2017 2:05 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>following my attempts to answer.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.05.2017 um 19:12 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht: <br>
</p>
<p>I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately.
then please check if it gets to you on both</p>
<p>1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see exactly
where the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the
experiment from my observer inclusive perspective. The problem
is that so many "truths" are simply consistent results inside
quantum theory. There are always two operations separating
reality from our observational experience and since science is
operating under the assumption that quantum reality (i.e.
anything that cannot be seen directly such as atomic
structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that
the two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality
assumptions self consistent.</p>
</blockquote>
Here it was about the question whether the photon is in deed a
particle. In the experiment we have converted electrons into
photons as a spectrum with a cut-off at its high end, and then
reconverted these photons into an electron-positron pair which can
be easily measured. And the measurement reproduced the spectrum
with its specific cut-off at its high end. Where do you see
questions of quantum reality in this process?<br>
</blockquote>
As I mentioned in my last E-mail your description above is of a
quantum reality, i.e. what you believe is real. At the vonNeuman cut
this reality touches your observables. It is these observables you
explain with a theory which in specific application cases, such as
your thesis becomes a model, which you project into the workings of
your equipment. This is and always has been a mental projection.
That photons are particles is a mental projection that satisfies an
explanation of certain observable facts. Like my distant bilin miles
away star light. However I believe thisa projection has outlived its
usefulness and we should look for alternatives - the one I suggested
at the San diego conference is that EM waves produce an energy
threshold field but physical disturbances due to gravito-inertial
fluctuations produce fluctuations in detector material that then
meet or not the threshold at what appear to be random absorption
events.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current
theory because if force and charge are treated as separate
degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled apart by external
gravito-electric forces then in order to keep them at the same
point the current theory would implicitly require an infinite
force. relaxing this requirement then allows current theory to
be an approximation to one that does not require such an
infinite force. Much like classical physics is an
approximation of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum
theory is an approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when
the force between mass and charge does NOT approach infinity.
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Is current theory a specific theory?<br>
We have particles without electric charge like a neutron or a
neutrino. We do not have particles without mass, however with
little mass like the electron and (again) the neutrino. Between a
neutron and an electron there is no infinite force, between an
electron and a neutrino almost zero force. So where do you see in
practice an infinite force or at least an approximation to an
infinite force? I cannot see any connection between the phenomenon
mass and the phenomenon electric charge. <br>
</blockquote>
Yes it is the copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.<br>
what holds charge and mass together? <br>
When an electric force pulls an electron in one direction and a
gravitational force pulls it in the other does the electron not
distort in shape so that charge and mass centers are pulled apart?
and if we assume both charge and mass ar always located at the same
point does this not require an infinite force? <br>
I'm not syaing there is an infinite force I'm saying the physical
assumptions of point particles implies an infinite force and
therefore there cannot be point particles - I know you agree with
this.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin
Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here
is wikipedia <br>
</p>
<p>" Starting with <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin"
title="Paul Langevin">Paul Langevin</a> in 1911, there have
been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations
"can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of
different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and
those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the
travelling twin] as the main reason...".<sup
id="cite_ref-Debs_Redhead_5-0" class="reference"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5">[5]</a></sup>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" title="Max
von Laue">Max von Laue</a> argued in 1913 that since the
traveling twin must be in two separate <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames"
class="mw-redirect" title="Inertial frames">inertial frames</a>,
one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame
switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the
acceleration <i>per se</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-6"
class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup>
Explanations put forth by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
title="Albert Einstein">Albert Einstein</a> and <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" title="Max
Born">Max Born</a> invoked <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
title="Gravitational time dilation">gravitational time
dilation</a> to explain the aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.<sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7">[7]</a>"</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>There have been a lot of discussions in the
beginning of SRT and there were a lot of errors about it.
Should we reopen the whole history of errors and discussions
here?<br>
What you mention about Paul Langevin is quite exactly what our
present understanding is. And similarly the explanation of Max
von Laue. On the other hand acceleration cannot be an
explanation for the twin situation (which is indeed not a
paradox). Assume the two twins and one twin moves off at speed
0,87c . That means that if he travels off and comes back after
20 years he will be aged - compared to his twin at home, only
by 10 years. Now assume that he has travelled - in the view of
his twin at home - 10 years and then he accelerated to return
to home, and assume that he had a soft acceleration which took
a week, and then assume that during the acceleration the time
in his frame stood still (which is extreme and physically
senseless) then there after his return his ageing will have
been 1 week less. But thhe reduction of ageing is in fact, in
this example, 10 years. So it is very clear that acceleration,
even if it would have an influence in SRT, would in no way be
able to explain the ageing of the travelling twin. <br>
<br>
So we should really forget acceleration in this case. And even
more we should forget gravitation. (And btw. I did not find
any statement of Einstein in this sense).<br>
</sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference">i'm simply
saying the these explanations explicitly select an
experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due to
velocity with the clock speed up due to acceleration. The
equivalence principle equates acceleration and gravity in
Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has two twins
in inter stellar space accelerating and decelerating in
opposite directions coming back to rest at the meeting point
at the origin. If everything is symmetric one explanation is
that velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at
all. But by allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the
relative velocity low down will always dominate and the twin
paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's clocks
must slow down according to SRT and GRT, so when theories
reach a logical inconsistency they must be improved.</sup></p>
</blockquote>
So. let's look at this case where both twins travel to different
directions in a symmetric way. Twin 1 moves to the left and twin
2 moves to the right. Seen from an observer in the middle they
move with speed v<sub>1</sub>. After a well defined time they turn
and move back to their starting point. - This is symmetric and
simple.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes the observer in the middle would say both twins will have aged
because both in the outgoing and incoming drft period they are
moving with a same velocity squared<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Now we take the view of twin 1. And we understand his initial
frame as the frame at rest. For him the other twin moves with
respect to this frame. Then twin 2 moves to the right with <br>
speed v<sub>2</sub> which is the relativistic sum: v<sub>2 </sub>=
(v<sub>1</sub> plus v<sub>1</sub>)<font size="+1">. <br>
</font>Now when the time has come to return, both change their
motion so that they move back towards their starting point as seen
by the observer in the middle at rest. That means for the twin 1
that he has now to move with speed v<sub>2</sub> to the right, for
twin 2 it means that he stays at speed 0, both related to the
original frame of twin 1. <font size="+1"><sup><br>
</sup></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1">No twin one remaind in his own frame and
believes he is not moving all he has felt is a bit of gravity
during the turn around period. so during the second period both
twins still believe the other is moving relative to them at the
</font></sup>relativistic sum: v<sub>2 </sub>= (v<sub>1</sub>
plus v<sub>1</sub>)<font size="+1">. </font><br>
<sup><font size="+1">each carries his own frame according to SRT </font></sup><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><sup> <br>
Now, what about the time progress of both twins? Twin 1 moves
in the first period with speed 0, in the second with speed v<sub>2</sub>.<br>
Twin 2 moves in the first period with speed v<sub>2 </sub>and
in the second period with speed 0. <br>
If summed up, both will have at the end experienced the same
delay of time. And when they meet, they will have aged less
compared to a state without motion, but they will have aged in
exactly the same way.<br>
<br>
So now: where is a paradox? There is none. It is at the end
the same symmetry as if viewed from the observer in the
middle.<br>
</sup></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1">The paradox is that both twins believe they are
stationary and the other twin as well as the third observer is
always moving except for the acceleration periods, which can be
made small relative to the drift periods</font></sup><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><sup> </sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"> What I
believe is happening is that the general relativity
expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v +
m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru = the gravitational
potential energy of a mass inside the mass shell of the
universe Mu of radius Ru. We are living inside the a black
hole of radius Ru according to the Schwarzschield solution.
Then the term in the brackets becomes; <br>
</sup></p>
<p>m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) -
1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V</p>
</blockquote>
Why gravity here? There is no reason for it.<br>
</blockquote>
yes this is the schwarzschild solution for a moving particle in a
single central force field. and the GR correction to SR. ( Xg is the
gravitational potential )<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates half
the change of energy transfer from electric to gravitational
energy. But it observes the change in electromagentic energy
as a slow down in clock rate. As I have often said on this
issue the equations are correct it is the world view that is
wrong. The error started with Newton when he equated F=m*a.
This confused a Theoretical force with an Observational
experience. It happened because the observer was taken out of
physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the world in front
of your nose) were taken to be reality instead of the mental
experiences they are. Quantum theory is the beginning of
correcting this error but it will take a while to find the
right interpretation. We must add the mind back into physics.</p>
</blockquote>
I don't understand: Is this still about the twins? The so called
twin paradox has nothing to do with energy or with fields and even
less with quantum mechanics. Or do you mean something different
here? Then please explain. I else do not understand what your
arguments are about.<br>
</blockquote>
It is about SRT being wrong because each observer predicts any other
observer moving with v^2 (independent of sign) will have slowing
clocks<br>
<br>
and the GR being overly complex and incomplete. Both theories start
with the assumption that the speed of light is constant and pile
complexity upon complexity on top of this initially bad assumption.<br>
<br>
The speed of light is NOT constant as Shapiro's experiment measured
and as you yourself have shown me when you do your refraction
calculation on light bending around the sun.<br>
<br>
My calculation shows that the speed f light depends upon the
Lagrangian energy field and therefore clocks slow down in a valley
and speed up on a mountain top. It is a simple gravity effect on
electromagnetic material. space warp is a complicated and misleading
way of explaining something simple. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<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 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:784808e1-6179-df38-1ef7-07f5b8e936a9@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>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</p>
</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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.</p>
</blockquote>
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".
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>SRT:</p>
<p>"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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>"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</p>
</blockquote>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the
time until the other twin changes his speed.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
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 <i><b>his</b></i> 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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>do my Emails show up</b></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>I CC'd you and you should
get this directly and in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></b></span><br>
</p>
<p>Let me know if you get them</p>
</blockquote>
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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<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 5/20/2017 12:19 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32340A2A0F83E4D195FB878A93FA0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Andrew W.: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">==================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Wolfgang Baer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: May 18 2017,
08:34 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Albrecht Giese" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] HA:
Gravity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">again comments in the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> No Kc is the spring
constant of the force holding charge and mass <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> together<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> In order to build a
framework of a physical theory that properly <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> includes the observer as a
measurement model building and acting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> component I use a very
simplified concept built on the classic <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> metaphysical ideas that
mass,charge, space, time along with the forces <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> between them are
fundamental. Here are some of the differences between
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> my cognitive action theory
CAT and classic physics<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The examples provided in
this section are intended to show how action <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> theory is applied to well
known and observable situations that can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> compared with analysis
using classical physics concepts. What CAT has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> added is summarized as
follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change involving
transitions between states is where physics is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> happening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change, visualized as
stable action patterns, propagates through <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> material media.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -The degrees of freedom of
classical systems has been doubled by <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> separating mass and charge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Internal material forces
between mass and charge are introduced as <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> heuristic visualizations to
augment understanding of the interior of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> matter which is
conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> chapter 6)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Mach’s principle and the
connection between the inertial field is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> introduced in place of the
observational pseudo forces such as the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> centrifugal force and “m∙a”
in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Mach’s Principle)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Time is defined as the
name of the state of the system adopted as a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> clock, and time intervals
are measured as action required to change a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> state separated by a
constant state distance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Action theory is being
developed as the physical underpinnings of an <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> event oriented world view
and a description of reality which includes <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> both the subjective and
objective aspect of reality described by CAT.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The question here is again: what
is more fundamental, action or force? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *Twin Paradox:*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> You mentioned the twin
paradox is explained by the Lorenz <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> transformation since
t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> How do you avoid the
paradox in the following experiment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Two twins are accelerated
with a small short pulse in opposite directions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> At some very long time they
are both reversed with a double pulse<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> when they meet they are
stopped by a short pulse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The experiment is
completely symmetric. both twins experience the same <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> acceleration pulse so
gravity clock effects are equal and can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> eliminated from a
comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> long period where they are
traveling with a velocity relative to each <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> other. Since the time
dilation formula only contains<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> velocity squared the
direction of relative travel does not make a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> difference. If the theory
is correct there is a paradox and gravity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> cannot explain it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">First: this whole process has
absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">do you connect it to gravity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And second: the whole process as
you describe it is completely <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">symmetrical. Both twins make the
same experience with time and with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there according ageing. Where
the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">see a paradox and the whole
thing is as simple as it can be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *do my Emails show up in
the general discussion I keep only getting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> replies from people who
send them directly and my E-mails do not show <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> up in the discussion forum,
so I'm wondering?*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To test it, you may sent this
mail again without my address in the list; <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">then I can tell you (if
informed) if I got it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"> </a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>