<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>AL;</p>
<p>Thanks for the endorsement and indeed we do not "see" waves any
more than we see light particles, it's all an interpretation
derived from what we do see which in popular lingo is "qualia" I
use Heisenberg's term "observables" <br>
</p>
<p>Which means our personal and social filter is always between
"reality" and the observables we can personally experience and
that leaves a huge amount two errors making a right, self
deception, and just alternative theories even after Occam's razor
is applied. the point is not to get too invested in any
theoretical "truth" they all change.<br>
</p>
<p>There is one approach I believe that can transcend the filter
problem. We may have different explanations for our experiences
but the framework that can include all explanations is to
concentrate on the observable to explanatory process. this seems
to be more fundamental than any theory in the process. Thus self
explanatory measurement cycles treated as fundamental events could
be the building blocks that replace elemetary particles as the
fundamental organizational tool of our experiences.</p>
<p>best</p>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/1/2017 3:13 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-c1c60615-0935-45a8-ab44-19809b7daef5-1496355200027@3capp-webde-bs21">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>For what it's worth, my endorsement of Wolf's point of
view: As observers, we (lab creatures) never see an E&M
wave, it is always just infered from the behavior of charged
particles in the detector. In the end, that is the
interaction of chrges in the source with those in the
detector. This interaction is described by Gauss's Law,
which is analitic everywhere but as the point locations of
the charges; so, the interaction can be resolved with
Fourier-analysis, in terms of the soultions of a
Strum-Liouville p.d.q. (the simplest of which is the wave
eq., but any complete orthonormal set---Hilbert
space---could be used) givng the impression from the largest
terms that there are waves involved. Pox on both houses: no
waves and no particles! Long live Gauss!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---Al </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
01. Juni 2017 um 22:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] STR</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<p>Albrecht: Your experiment</p>
<p>I agree there is no need to talk of waves in the
analysis of your experiment.</p>
<p>However there is, in my opinion also no statement
needing particles, in the description.
Brensestrallung produces EM wave at multiple
frequencies with a 6GEV cut off</p>
<p>Then the photons are collimated , ok the light beam
is focused</p>
<p>I do not quite understand the H small angle
deflection, but why would light passing through
material not be deflected?</p>
<p>Now comes the photon to electron positron converter
, Is not the conversion dependent on the intensity
of the field? Here we have the exact same situation
as any photon detection in a photo plate question.
Why is a single occurrence happen at a single spot?</p>
<p>First it is not clear if your Schwarm detectors are
coincidence counters that distinguish individual
interactions or just beam detectors . But let's
assume they do. In matter there are fluctuations ,
which means the conditions change and are different
at different places. A region is illuminated with a
spectrum of light energy which interact with the
material region,</p>
<p>at some random point the light energy and the pair
production proclivity at that point match up and
energy from zero to 6GEV is absorbed and a pair is
produced, you assume all the energy comes from the
EM field.</p>
<p>Now you assume just like in the photo electric
effect that because a single event takes place at a
small region that therefore the light energy can not
be spread out and must be a point like particle</p>
<p>This of course is the same logical projection made
by the photo elecric effect people. However it leads
to all the difficulties of needing a pilot wave to
guide the particles, making assumptions about the
size of such a particle, which is assumed to be a
point. and performing a simple before and after S
matrix collision calculation that conserves energy
and momentum. Basta.</p>
<p>Eliminating the possibility, which I believe is the
path to future progress, that some understandable (
not QM probability) happenings in the material
produces the random - but not fundamentally or
causally random, but exlainably random -
opportunities for pair production interactions to
occur.</p>
<p>Such possibilities are 1) thermal excitation as per
the nuclear reactions induced by sound presented at
the Vigier 10 conference you attended, 2) that the
material (here aluminum) acts like a resonance
antenna and actually pulls energy from a larger EM
area than would be calculated by e+ e- recoil
directions , 3) that there may be gravito-inertial
fluctuations that close the stalagmite stalagtite
gap between EM field and pair production proclivity
in any one small region.</p>
<p>In order for your experiment to make any statement
on the wave/particle question you would have to
focus a stream of single photon ( your language) to
a small enough spot size and make <i>consistent and
repeatable</i> measurements on the angle and
energy of a coincident pair of e+ e- so that the
single photon ( your language) alone determines the
interaction that produces the pair. Only such an
experiment would allow one to conclude that bullet
like particle hit a stationary field of pair
production possibilities (bullets) in the material
and Knocks one of them apart to produce the pair.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I conclude that there is nothing wrong with you
analyzing your experiment as flying balls of energy
and momentum but that does not mean light is made of
such balls. What it does mean is that some
experiments are easier to analyze by assuming such
balls, and others are easier to analyze by assuming
waves - the choice is in lazy and egoistical Humans
who want to project their own mental processes into
Nature and claim to have made fundamental and
mysterious discoveries about Nature that result in
Nobel prizes, rather than take on the hard and
humble job of finding out what reality is really
like.</p>
<p>Sorry for that rant</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>before we enter discussions about details I send
you a drawing of my experiment with some
explanations. I think that it is simple enough so
that we do not need too much philosophy about
epistemology to understand it.</p>
<p>My drawing: At the left side you see a part of
the ring of the synchrotron in which the electrons
cycle. They hit the target T (at 0 m) where they
are converted into photons. The photons fly until
the target H<sub>2</sub> where they are deflected
by a small angle (about one degree) (at 30.5 m).
The deflected photons meet the converter (KONV at
35 m) where a portion of the photons is converted
into an electron- position pair. The pair is
detected and analysed in the configuration of the
magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes of spark chambers
(FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest of
detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic
photon beam.</p>
<p>In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of
both particles (electron and positron) are
measured and the momentum and the energy of both
particles is determined.</p>
<p>Here all flying objects are interpreted as being
particles, there is no wave model needed. So, I do
not see where we should need here any QM.</p>
<p>The rest of the mail will be commented later.</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Andrew , Albrecht:</p>
<p>"physics happens by itself" Disagree "an
observer is not required for the universe to go
on doing what it does. " Disagree</p>
<p>This is the old classic the world is the way we
see it concept promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas,
Newton, etc. and dominated thinking for
1000years</p>
<p>until quantum Mechanics began to realize that
the in principle un-observable interior of
matter was always a mental projection requiring
an observer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>" governed and filtered by the laws which
create the things" Baer's first law of physics
is that the physicist created the law. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree
it is not an empty medium, but a tensor
description is a linear approximation</p>
<p> The medium can be
completely torn apart only such processes
involve life and death of self and are taboo in
science. This is in fact the the path of
development for quantum theory</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>Do you have a diagram of your thesis
experiment. Your descriptions are all on the
theoretical "unknowable" side, which of course
you believe describes physical reality, and
no one would argue that our (your) theory is not
self consistent, but to discuss the wave
particle problem one needs to identify the
vonNeuman cut between subjective personal
observation and the un-observable domain
described by the theory. Where are the detectors
that tell you how the "unknowable" was
stimulated and the detectors that tell you the
"unknowable's" response and the detectors that
tell you how some of the theoretical elements
along the theoretical path inside the
"unknowable" were controlled?</p>
<p>Once we have such transition points between
theory and observations identified I think I can
show you that the QM probability wave picture
is self consistent but also does science a great
disservice by hiding and ridiculing speculation,
research and experiment in deeper causes for the
probabilistic phenomena</p>
<p>A single atomic transition billions of light
years away must be a particle to reach a similar
atom and cause a transition in an atom in a
detector on earth. And the fact that this
particle transmission angle is random and
exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating the uncertainty
principle) and therefor just happens to hit
our detector as purely random QM event leaving
us with a Bohm guiding wave that controls the
probabilities. It all makes sense only, <b><font
size="+2">IF</font></b><font size="+2"><font
size="-2"> </font></font>you stop your
analysis at the external objective aspect of
reality and fail to realize that <i>beyond</i>
the emission at the distant galaxy and the
absorption of the "photon" in your retina is the
other half of the causal path which describes
your subjective existence, <b><font size="+2">then</font></b>
you will be blissfully happy with the self
consistent QM explanation.</p>
<p>So lets all stop trying to think outside the
BOX that our quantum priests have built for us
and just come up with more and more complex
explanations within the BOX. Are we such
cowards?</p>
<p>Is that what you are proposing?</p>
<p>Why not try to complete the picture and
integrate what we know to be true by direct
experience into our theories. Then you will
begin to see events not particles, cycles not
points, actions not states, are the a better
way to understand reality.</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>Hi Andrew,<br>
<br>
where do you miss reciprocity at STR?<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
<blockquote>I have some problems with STR<br>
<br>
That physical laws should be the same for all
observers is OK.<br>
<br>
But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.<br>
<br>
<br>
Peoples' thoughts?<br>
<br>
<br>
========================================<br>
Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM<br>
From: "Chip Akins"<br>
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'"<br>
Cc:<br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to add a comment to this
discussion.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is my opinion that physics happens by
itself, whether we think about it or not. And
that an observer is not required for the
universe to go on doing what it does.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also feel that our perception of what is
going on is governed and filtered by the laws
which create the things we call fields,
particles, forces, and all the other,<br>
relatively abstract things we have named in
our studies of nature.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also think there is a version of what we
call relativity which is without paradox, but
that relativity is not SR or GR, but rather a
relativity which is based on matter<br>
being made of confined light speed energy in a
fixed frame of space, with space as a tensor
medium and not empty.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The above comment is just my view or course,
but I think it makes sense.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chip Akins<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Albrecht:<br>
<br>
I'll send this to you and the nature of light
separately. then please check if it gets to
you on both<br>
<br>
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<br>
perspective. The problem is that so many
"truths" are simply consistent results inside
quantum theory. There are always two
operations separating reality from<br>
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<br>
structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is
very likely that the two operations are
adjusted to to make the quantum reality
assumptions self consistent.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
approach infinity.<br>
<br>
3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your
statements the Twin Paradox gravitational
explanation is in many text books. Here is
wikipedia<br>
<br>
" Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there
have been various explanations of this
paradox. These explanations<br>
"can be grouped into those that focus on the
effect of different standards of simultaneity
in different frames, and those that designate
the acceleration<br>
[experienced by the travelling twin] as the
main reason...".[5] Max von Laue<br>
argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin
must be in two separate inertial frames<br>
, one on the way out and another on the way
back, this frame switch is the reason for the
aging difference, not the<br>
acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put
forth by Albert Einstein<br>
and Max Born invoked gravitational time
dilation<br>
to explain the aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.[7]<br>
"<br>
<br>
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<br>
acceleration. The equivalence principle
equates acceleration and gravity in Einsteins
theory. My thought experiment simply has two
twins in inter stellar space<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
be improved.<br>
<br>
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 =<br>
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<br>
the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in
the brackets becomes;<br>
<br>
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)<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
<br>
best wishes<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer<br>
Research Director<br>
Nascent Systems Inc.<br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><br>
<br>
On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<br>
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<br>
waves as a mathematical convenience<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
exactly this energy and which is quantized
with this energy?<br>
<br>
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<br>
individually one can reject them because
anything new can be rejected when one assumes
the old is correct. So have patience.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
the force between them is not infinite.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
complicated logical connection.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
want to experience more action. I think it is
best to defer this discussion to either
metaphysics or when I have complete
presentation ready.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
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<br>
action. So, this is my argument that action is
a typical case of "human understanding".<br>
<br>
SRT:<br>
<br>
"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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
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>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
the other one?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"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.<br>
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<br>
<br>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It
is only for the time until the other twin
changes his speed.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
RESOLVED IN GRT.<br>
<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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<br>
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).<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
Observe B will also position two clocks along
the path which observer A follows in frame B
and he will synchronize these clocks in his
frame B. And with his clocks<br>
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/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 -
v2/c2)). 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<br>
and shall go into more details.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
do my Emails show up<br>
<br>
I CC'd you and you should get this directly
and in <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<br>
Let me know if you get them<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer<br>
Research Director<br>
Nascent Systems Inc.<br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><br>
<br>
On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Andrew W.:<br>
<br>
Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is
not a theory of physics. It is smart
mathematics only.<br>
<br>
Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics,
even though, quantization is postulated
wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum
mechanically bound<br>
electrons!<br>
<br>
Chandra.<br>
<br>
==================================<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 ;<br>
Wolfgang Baer<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi all<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
STR is a complex subject - all observers are
equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's
the bit that's flawed actually<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
========================================<br>
<br>
Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM<br>
<br>
From: "Albrecht Giese"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion"<br>
<br>
Cc:<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
again comments in the text.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote>No Kc is the spring constant of
the force holding charge and mass<br>
together</blockquote>
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<br>
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 :<br>
relativity).<br>
<blockquote>In order to build a framework of a
physical theory that properly<br>
includes the observer as a measurement model
building and acting<br>
component I use a very simplified concept
built on the classic<br>
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space,
time along with the forces<br>
between them are fundamental. Here are some
of the differences between<br>
my cognitive action theory CAT and classic
physics</blockquote>
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<br>
time and space are most probably different
categories from the others, at least for some
of the physical community.<br>
<blockquote>* Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<br>
The examples provided in this section are
intended to show how action<br>
theory is applied to well known and
observable situations that can be<br>
compared with analysis using classical
physics concepts. What CAT has<br>
added is summarized as follows:<br>
-Change involving transitions between states
is where physics is<br>
happening.<br>
-Change, visualized as stable action
patterns, propagates through<br>
material media.<br>
-The degrees of freedom of classical systems
has been doubled by<br>
separating mass and charge.<br>
-Internal material forces between mass and
charge are introduced as<br>
heuristic visualizations to augment
understanding of the interior of<br>
matter which is conventionally the domain of
quantum theory (see<br>
chapter 6)<br>
-Mach’s principle and the connection between
the inertial field is<br>
introduced in place of the observational
pseudo forces such as the<br>
centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s
formulation. (See Appendix on<br>
Mach’s Principle)<br>
-Time is defined as the name of the state of
the system adopted as a<br>
clock, and time intervals are measured as
action required to change a<br>
state separated by a constant state
distance.<br>
Action theory is being developed as the
physical underpinnings of an<br>
event oriented world view and a description
of reality which includes<br>
both the subjective and objective aspect of
reality described by CAT.</blockquote>
The question here is again: what is more
fundamental, action or force?<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
the category "tree".<br>
<br>
That is helpful. But the cells in the trees
have no logical connection to the
category-building, they follow fundamental
rules.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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<br>
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<br>
process. This brain-related process is in my
view a less fundamental view to the world,
even though a helpful one.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote>*Twin Paradox:*<br>
You mentioned the twin paradox is explained
by the Lorenz<br>
transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c)
which describes time dilation<br>
How do you avoid the paradox in the
following experiment<br>
Two twins are accelerated with a small short
pulse in opposite directions.<br>
At some very long time they are both
reversed with a double pulse<br>
when they meet they are stopped by a short
pulse.<br>
The experiment is completely symmetric. both
twins experience the same<br>
acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects
are equal and can be<br>
eliminated from a comparison but not
eliminated is the arbitrarily<br>
long period where they are traveling with a
velocity relative to each<br>
other. Since the time dilation formula only
contains<br>
velocity squared the direction of relative
travel does not make a<br>
difference. If the theory is correct there
is a paradox and gravity<br>
cannot explain it.</blockquote>
First: this whole process has absolutely
nothing to do with gravity. Why<br>
<br>
do you connect it to gravity?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And second: the whole process as you describe
it is completely<br>
<br>
symmetrical. Both twins make the same
experience with time and with<br>
<br>
there according ageing. Where the hell do you
see a paradox? I cannot<br>
<br>
see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple
as it can be.<br>
<blockquote>*do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting<br>
replies from people who send them directly
and my E-mails do not show<br>
up in the discussion forum, so I'm
wondering?*</blockquote>
To test it, you may sent this mail again
without my address in the list;<br>
<br>
then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.<br>
<blockquote>Best,<br>
wolf</blockquote>
Best<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Virenfrei. <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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:phys@a-giese.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><br>
<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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(211,212,222);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55.0px;padding-top:
18.0px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width: 46.0px;height: 29.0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470.0px;padding-top:
17.0px;color: rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family: Arial , Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height: 18.0px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"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>
_______________________________________________ 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>