<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Answers embedded below<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>here is the difference. I do not simply say what I believe to
be true, but I give arguments for it if I do not refer to
standard physics. And I do of course not expect that you agree
to what I say but I expect that you object if you disagree,
but please <i>with arguments</i>. In the case of the formula
for kinetic energy for instance you have just repeated your
formula which is in conflict with basic physics, but there was
no argument at all. This will not help us to proceed.</p>
</blockquote>
I have provided numerical arguments two or three times perhaps you
do not get all the E-mails - here is a copy<br>
<br>
Two identical moving clock systems at constant velocity in inter
galactic space perform the same activity between two clock ticks
in their own coordinate frames . The amount of activity in an
event is measured by action. So if they are identical and perform
the same activities the amount of action between ticks is the
same.
<p>An observer calculates the amount of action from classical
physics as dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V = -m*c^2 -
MGm/R, here mc^2 is the gravitational potential in the mass
shell of the universe and MGm/R any local gravitational
potential energy. <br>
</p>
<p>if Twin A is riding along with clock A then T=0 for Clock A
thus the Lagrangian is (m*c^ + MGm/R), the moving clock B
Lagrangian calcuated by A is (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 +
MGm/R)</p>
<p>since the action calculated for both clocks is invariant we
have the equation,<br>
</p>
<p>
(m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'</p>
so the moving clock dt' slows down compared with the stationary
one which is experimentally verified to accuracies of v*v/c*c and
differs from Einstein's theory because Einstein's theory has
higher order c^4/c^4 terms. <br>
<br>
This is a perfectly quantitative argument. What is your problem?<br>
<br>
You could claim the principle of action in-variance is false. But
whether it is false or not can be put to experimental tests. <br>
<br>
You have claimed Einsteins theory has been verified to better
than v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it until I see the evidence.
Because the in-variance of action theory is so simple and logical.
As well as the fact that if one drops m out of these equations one
get the gravitational speed of light, which has been verified by
Sapiro's experiment, but if you read his paper, it uses chip rate
(i.e. group velocity) so why assume the speed of light is
constant. So if you have experimental evidence please provide a
reference. I have seen many papers that claim only time dilation
has been verified to first order approximation of his formulas
and length contraction has never been verified. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<p>If someone does not agree to main stream physics (what to a
certain extend we all want to do here, otherwise we would not
have these discussions) then everyone who has a basic
objection against it, should name that explicitly and give
detailed arguments. <br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
If this is <b>Not </b>a detailed argument I do not know what is!
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I read your E-mails but I do not agree because you simply
say what you believe to be true. I respect that and you may
be right but I am not talking about what has been discovered
at CERN but rather what Einstein published, the theory he
proposed and I have ordered and now have <br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein, A.
(1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Principle of
Relativity</i>:<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><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">; a collection of original
memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity</span></i>,
Edited by A Sommerfeld, Translated by W. Perrett and G.
Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65 ISBN486-60081-5</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This is a
collection of papers from Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski and
Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says " If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with
constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting
t seconds, then by the clock which has remained st rest the
travelled clock on its arrival will be 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
slow. " ...."this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher
order"<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This is an
unambiguous statement. It follows directly from his
derivation of the Lorentz transformations and immediately
leads to the twin paradox because from the point of view of
the moving clock the so called "stationary" clock is moving
and the stationary clock when returning to A would by SRT be
the traveled clock which is slow by 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>No, the case cannot be mirrored. Only one
clock is at rest, the other one is not as it leaves the
original frame. <br>
<br>
Again: The Lorentz transformation is about the relation
between <i> inertial frames</i>. Otherwise not applicable.
If this is not really clear, you will not have any progress
in your understanding.<br>
In this case of two clocks the motion of the moving clock
can be split up into infinitesimal pieces of straight
motions and then the pieces of tim</sup></font><font
size="+1"><sup>e can be summed up</sup></font><font size="+1"><sup>.
In that way the Lorentz transformation could be applied.<br>
<br>
And do you notice this: It is the same problem you have
again and again. SRT is about relations of <i>inertial
frames</i>. Not in others than these. And I must clearly
say: as long as this does not enter your mind and strongly
settles there, it makes little sense to discuss more complex
cases in special relativity.<br>
<br>
The statement of Einstein which you give above is correct,
but only as an approximation for v<<c. In his
original paper of 1905 Einstein has earlier given the
correct equation and then given the approximation for
v<<c. Unfortunately he has not said this explicitly
but it is said by his remark which you have quoted:<br>
</sup>"</font>this is up to magnitude of fourth and higher
order" . Because if it would be the correct equation it would be
valid up to infinite orders of magnitude. - We should forgive
Einstein for this unclear statement as this was the first paper
which Einstein has ever written. </blockquote>
NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from some
assumptions like the speed of light is constant in all coordinate
frames and simultaneity is defined by round trip light
measurements. He simply stated that the Lorentz transformations
have certain consequences. One of them being that an observer
viewing a clock moving around a circle at constant velocity would
slow down and he gave the numerical value of the slow down to
first order in v^2/c^2.<br>
<br>
Nothing is proven until it is experimentally proven. And what has
been experimentally proven is quite simple. A clock slows down if
it feels a force.<br>
That is it. Whether that force is called gravity experienced when
one is standing on the earth or called inertia when one is being
accelerated in a rocket makes no difference. And the simplest
theory that explains experimentally verified fact is not
Einstein's SRT or GRT but <br>
simple classic action in-variance with the one new piece of
physics that the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena happen at
a speed determined by<br>
c^2 = Mu*G/Ru<br>
and I believe this relationship was given before Einstein and has
something to do with Mach's Principle, but maybe Einstein should
get credit.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that Einstein was
wrong. Up to now I did not see any true arguments from you, but
you only presented your results of an incorrect understanding of
Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then please give us
arguments. Step by step. To say YES or NO as a summary without
any arguments is not science. I also have some concerns about
Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure statements without
arguments like in your last mails we do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for YES or NO is:
Einstein's SRT is formally consistent; however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant velocity
slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is simply
did he or did he not say that the moving clock slows down? The
question is not whether his theory is formally consistent but
whether his theory states moving clocks slow down. <br>
<br>
<br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a difference
between an observer A on clock A seeing clock B move at constant
velocity in a circle compared with an observer B on clock B seeing
clock A move in a circle at constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that has been said
is that both observers see the other go in a circle at constant
velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to Einsteins Claim in
Question 1 above? <br>
<br>
<br>
Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate frames at
this stage of our discussion. If one observer sees the other leave
his coordinate frame behind why does the other not see the same
thing. Einstein insisted there are no preferred coordinate frames.
That Einsteins theory, as published in 1905, can be patched up by
adding interpretations and even new physics, which Einstein tried
to do himself with GRT is not the issue We can discuss whether or
not the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is part of the
original SRT later, after you answer question 2 above. . <br>
I am trying to lead you and anyone listening to the logical
conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by his assumptions
is wrong. I am not questioning that after making his assumptions
he can logically derive the Lorentz transformations, nor that such
a derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone
through his papers often enough to know his math is correct. I'm
simply trying to lead us all to the realization that the speed of
light as a physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never
will be and warping coordinate frames and all the changes in
physics required to make that assumption consistent with
experimental fact has been a 100 year abomination. If you believe
that assumption, I've got a guy on a cross who claims to be the
son of god to introduce you to.<br>
<br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de"> Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails as the
questions below are answered in my last mails, most of
them in the mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued gripe about
my referring to gravity. Something is wrong let me ask
some simple yes and no questions to get to the bottom of
it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle holds and
acceleration and gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my last mails </i>that
the equivalence principle is violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does not cause
dilation. And, as I have also written earlier, that you find
this in any textbook about special relativity and that it
was experimentally proven at the muon storage ring at CERN.
- It seems to me that you did not read my last mails but
write your answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a mountain runs
faster than one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail</i>. In
addition I have given you the numerical result for the
gravitational dilation on the surface of the sun where the
slow down of a clock is the little difference of about 1 /
100'000 compared to a zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical examples for the
twin case about a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is related to the
gravity potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the equation for this,
which is c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know
any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)) which has no
additional terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable for time dilation and for
every kinematic or dynamic calculation where special
relativity applies. And in the latter context it is used by
thousands of physicists all over the world who work at
accelerators. One could find it in their computer programs.
To ask them whether they have done it in this way would seem
to them like the doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 =
25 correctly. This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is different only for
the case of time dilation then the answer is that SRT would
then be inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of light
c could never be constant (or measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since it is quite
likely the wave function is a mental projection and
therefore its collapse is a collapse of knowledge and
the Aspect experiments have been incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very carefully by
others (as also Zeilinger has presented here in his last
talk) and the new experiments are said to have covered all
loop holes which have been left by Aspect. And also all
these experiments are carefully observed by an international
community of physicists. But of course this is never a
guaranty that anything is correct. So it is good practice to
doubt that and I am willing follow this way. However if you
do not accept these experiments or the consequences drawn,
then please explain in detail where and why you disagree.
Otherwise critical statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical facts. Or we should
present arguments, which means at best: quantitative
calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017 1:45 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to remind you
on the quantitative results if something is referred
to the gravitational force. As much as I know any use
of gravitational force yields a result which is about
30 to 40 orders of magnitude smaller that we have them
in fact in physics. - If you disagree to this
statement please give us your quantitative calculation
(for instance for the twin case). Otherwise your
repeated arguments using gravity do not help us in any
way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may be affected
by human understanding in a bad way, I think that the
case of entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um 06:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017 9:42 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree we should
make detailed arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had been arguing
that Einstein’s special relativity claims that
the clocks of an observer moving at constant
velocity with respect to a second observer
will slow down. This lead to the twin paradox
that is often resolved by citing the need for
acceleration and<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>gravity in general relativity. My
symmetric twin experiment was intended to show
that Einstein as I understood him could not
explain the paradox. I did so in order to set
the stage for introducing a new theory. You
argued my understanding of Einstein was wrong.
Ok This is not worth arguing about because it
is not second guessing Einstein that is
important but that but I am trying to present
a new way of looking at reality which is based
on Platonic thinking rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle believed
the world was essentially the way you see it.
This is called naive realism. And science from
Newton up to quantum theory is based upon it.
If you keep repeating that my ideas are not
what physicists believe I fully agree. It is
not an argument to say the mainstream of
science disagrees. I know that. I'm proposing
something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am suggesting
that there is no independent physically
objective space time continuum in which the
material universe including you, I, and the
rest of the particles and fields exist.
Instead I believe a better world view is that
(following Everett) that all systems are
observers and therefore create their own space
in which the objects you see in front of your
face appear. The situation is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part5.412CB4FC.C7540712@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we have three
parts You, I, and the rest of the Universe “U”
. I do a symmetric twin thought experiment in
which both twins do exactly the same thing.
They accelerate in opposite directions turn
around and come back at rest to compare
clocks. You does a though experiment that is
not symmetric one twin is at rest the other
accelerates and comes back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The point is that
each thought experiment is done in the space
associated with You,I and U. The speed of
light is constant in each of these spaces and
so the special relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s equations apply. I
have said many times these are self consistent
equations and I have no problem with them
under the Aristotilian assumption that each of
the three parts believes what they see is the
independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">. Instead what they
see is in each parts space. This space
provides the background aether, in it the
speed of electromagnetic interactions is
constant BECAUSE this speed is determined by
the Lagrangian energy level largely if not
totally imposed by the gravity interactions
the physical material from which each part is
made experiences. Each part you and your space
runs at a different rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for should be called the
speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may agree or
disagree with this view point. But if you
disagree please do not tell me that the
mainstream physicists do not take this point
of view. I know that. Main stream physicists
are not attempting to solve the consciousness
problem , and have basically eliminated the
mind and all subjective experience from
physics. I’m trying to fix this rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have good arguments
that, what we see, is not the true reality. So far
so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to show this.
It is not a better example than to cite Newton's law
of motion in order to proof that most probably our
human view is questionable. For you it seems to be
tempting to use relativity because you see logical
conflicts related to different views of the
relativistic processes, to show at this example that
the world cannot be as simple as assumed by the
naive realism. But relativity and particularly the
twin experiment is completely in agreement with this
naive realism. The frequently discussed problems in
the twin case are in fact problems of persons who
did not truly understand relativity. And this is the
fact for all working versions of relativity, where
the Einsteinian and the Lorentzian version are the
ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a good
example specifically force is a theoretical
construct and not see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of push or pull so f=ma
equates a theoretical conjecture with an experience
but Newton assumes both are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity because I believe
it can be explained much sipler and more accurately
if we realize material generates its own space i.e.
there is something it feels like to be material. I
believe integrating this feeling into physics is the
next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can be more easily explained
by assuming the speed of light is NOT constant in
each piece of material but dependent on its energy
(gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful in refining
these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to this: Every
piece of material has its own energy. Also objects
which are connected by a gravitational field build a
system which has</font><font color="#3366ff"> of
course</font><font color="#3366ff"> energy. But it
seems to me that you relate every energy state to
gravity. Here I do not follow. If pieces of material
are bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font color="#3366ff">building
a state of energy, the energy in it is dominated by
the strong force and by the electric force. In
comparison the gravitational energy is so many orders
of magnitude smaller (Where the order of magnitude is
> 35) that this is an extremely small side effect,
too small to play any role in most applications. Or
please present your quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to respond to
your comments in detail. </span></h1>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our discussion would
use detailed arguments and counter-arguments
instead of pure repetitions of statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2017 um
07:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down, but If I
include the observer then I get an
equation for the slow down that agrees
with eperimetn but disagrees with
Einstein in the higher order, so it
should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the
19’th century the hey day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was convinced Reality
consisted of an external objective
universe independent of subjective living
beings. Electricity and Magnetism had
largely been explored through empirical
experiments which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These equations
are valid in a medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of
free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame x,y,z,t and
are identical in form when expressed in a
different coordinate frame x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve never seen a
substitution of the Lorentz formulas into
Maxwell’s equations that will then give
the same form only using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’,
to get E’ and B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is much more
exciting. W.G.V. Rosser has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell can be deduced from
two things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the
Lorentz transformation. It is interesting
because it shows that electromagnetism is a
consequence of special relativity. (Book:
W.G.V. Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is not a separate force
but only a certain perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw point
of magnetics, but all within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In
empty space Maxwell’s equations reduce to
the wave equation and Maxwell’s field
concept required an aether as a medium for
them to propagate. It was postulated that
space was filled with such a medium and
that the earth was moving through it.
Therefore it should be detectable with a
Michelson –Morely experiment. But The Null
result showed this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics aether is
nothing more than the fact of an absolute
frame. Nobody believes these days that aether
is some kind of material. And also Maxwell's
theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> An aether
was not detected by the Michelson-Morely
experiment which does however not mean that no
aether existed. The only result is that it
cannot be detected. This latter conclusion was
also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is attached to
the observer doing the experiment , see my drawing
above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know from other
observations and facts that objects contract at
motion - in the original version of Heaviside, this
happens when electric fields move in relation to an
aether. So the interferometer in the MM experiment
is unable to show a phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and I believe
like you this is a better explanation than Einsteins
but it still leaves the aether as a property of an
independent space that exist whether we live or die
and and assume we are objects in that space it also
identifies that space with what is in front of our
nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger self ( not
how we see ourselves) is NOT in U's space and what I
see is not equal to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get this
from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
came along and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the speed of
light is constant, synchronization
protocol of clocks, and rods, the
invariance of Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the null result of
Michelson-Morely experiments. Einstein
went on to eliminate any absolute space
and instead proposed that all frames and
observers riding in them are equivalent
and each such observer would measure
another observers clocks slowing down when
moving with constant relative velocity.
This interpretation lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since each observer according to
Einstein, being in his own frame would
according to his theory claim the other
observer’s clocks would slow down. However
both cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have explained
several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many publications
that use general relativity, gravity and the
equivalence principle as the the way to explain
the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not want to
argue about what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document. The authors
want to show that the twin case can also be handled
as a process related to gravity. So they define the
travel of the travelling twin so that he is
permanently accelerated until he reaches the turn
around point and then accelerated back to the
starting point, where the twin at rest resides.
Then they calculate the slow down of time as a
consequence of the accelerations which they relate
to an fictive gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our discussion by
several reasons. One reason is the intent of the
authors to replace completely the slow down of time
by the slow down by gravity / acceleration. They do
not set up an experiment where one clock is slowed
down by the motion and the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as it was your intention
according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration means clock
slow down. But that does not happen. Any text book
about SRT says that acceleration does not cause a
slow down of time / clocks. And there are clear
experiments proofing exactly this. For instance the
muon storage ring at CERN showed that the lifetime
of muons was extended by their high speed but in no
way by the extreme acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics. And I do not
know of any serious physicist who tries to explain
the twin case by gravity. I have given you by the
way some strong arguments that such an explanation
is not possible. - And independently, do you have
other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the details of
this paper but it is relevant because it is only one
of a long list of papers that use gravity and
acceleration to to explain the twin paradox. I am
not claiming they are correct only that a large
community believes this is the way to explain the
twin paradox. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for
Twin Paradox they will say explanations fall into
two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of these
categories does not mean a community supporting the
gravity explanation view point does not exist. I've
ordered Sommerfelds book that has Einstein and
other notables explanation and will see what they
say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that long list?
Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity is many,
many orders of magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too
small to play any role here. And this can be proven by
quite simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein
found an answer to this paradox in his
invention of general relativity where
clocks speed up when in a higher gravity
field i.e one that feels less strong like
up on top of a mountain. Applied to the
twin paradox: a stationary twin sees the
moving twin at velocity “v” and thinks the
moving twin’s clock slows down. The moving
twin does not move relative to his clock
but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to
make a round trip (using the equivalence
principle calculated the being equivalent
to a gravitational force). Feeling the
acceleration as gravity and knowing that
gravity slows her clocks she would also
calculate her clocks would slow down. The
paradox is resolved because in one case
the explanation is velocity the other it
is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong! General
relativity has nothing to do with the twin
situation, and so gravity or any equivalent to
gravity has nothing to do with it. The twin
situation is not a paradox but is clearly free
of conflicts if special relativity, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation, is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers explain it
using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers" are. I have
never heard about this and I am caring about this
twin experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It is
certainly how I was taught but I have notr looked up
papers on the subject for many years, will try to
find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a completely
different approach I do not think which of two
explanations is more right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
simply proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures slow down and
lengths in the direction of motion
contract in the absolute aether of space
according to his transformation and
therefore the aether could not be
detected. In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief in an absolute
aether filled space, but that
electromagnetic objects relative to that
space slow down and contract. Gravity and
acceleration had nothing to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This
approach pursued by Max Van Laue argued
that the observer subject to acceleration
would know that he is no longer in the
same inertial frame as before and
therefore calculate that his clocks must
be slowing down, even though he has no way
of measuring such a slow down because all
the clocks in his reference frame.
Therefore does not consider gravity but
only the knowledge that due to his
acceleration he must be moving as well and
knowing his clocks are slowed by motion he
is not surprised that his clock has slowed
down when he gets back to the stationary
observer and therefore no paradox exists.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone agrees the
moving clocks slow down but we have two
different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame remains which in the
completely symmetric twin paradox
experiment described above implies that
both observers have to calculate their own
clock rates from the same initial start
frame and therefore both calculate the
same slow down. This introduces a
disembodied 3d person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves with some
constant speed somewhere can make this
calculation and has the same result. No
specific frame like the god-like one is
needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in a 4th
person's space, you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical" process and it
is in the same way as much or as little depending on
the Mind as Newton's law of motion. So to make
things better understandable please explain your
position by the use of either Newton's law or
something comparable. Relativity is not appropriate
as it allows for too much speculation which does not
really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but eventually I
hope to show the whole business is a confusion
introduced by our habit of displaying time in a
space axis which introduces artifacts. I hpe you
will critique my writeup when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin paradox" is solely caused
by persons who do not understand the underlying
physics. So, this does not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
And formally the simple statement is not
correct that moving clocks slow down. If we
follow Einstein, also the synchronization of
the clocks in different frames and different
positions is essential. If this
synchronization is omitted (as in most
arguments of this discussion up to now) we
will have conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial argument was
that the calculations by the moving twin was to be
done in the inertial frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is always the frame
in which the theory was defined and it is the mind
of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the original
frame of the one moving twin in order to be close to
your experiment and your description. Any other
frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought that the
consequence of having an observer who feels a force
like gravity which according to the equivalence
principle and any ones experience in a centrifuge is
indistinguishable from gravity, is such a person
needs to transfer to the initial start frame that
would mean we would all be moving at the speed of
light and need to transfer back to the big bang or
the perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running very fast but
I still get older - this thinking leads to crazy
stuff - the whole basis does not make common
experience sense, which is what I want to base our
physics on. We have gotten our heads into too much
math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really understand what
you mean here. - Your are right that we should never
forget that mathematics is a tool and not an
understanding of the world. But regarding your
heavily discussed example of relativity, it is
fundamentally understandable without a lot of
mathematics. At least the version of Hendrik Lorentz.
That one is accessible to imagination without much
mathematics and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In Einstein’s case both
observers would see the other moving at a
relative velocity and calculate their
clocks to run slower than their own when
they calculate their own experience they
would also calculate their own clocks to
run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But to be
compliant with Einstein one has to take into
account the synchronization state of the
clocks. Clocks at different positions cannot
be compared in a simple view. If someone wants
to compare them he has e.g. to carry a
"transport" clock from one clock to the other
one. And the "transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This - again - is
the problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is not the
issue, its whether the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you have to do
it in a correct way. You do it in an incorrect way
and then you tell us that results are logically
conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are fully and
correctly covered by the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but Cynthia Whitney
who was at our Italy conference has a nice
explanation of how Maxwells Equations are invariant
under Galilean transforms "if you do it the right
way" check out <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do the proof
the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because they know
the other twin is also accelerating these
effects cancel and all that is left is the
velocity slow down. In other words the
Einstein explanation that one twin
explains the slow down as a velocity
effect and the other as a gravity effect
so both come to the same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s explanation would
have to fall back on Lorentz’s and both
twins calculate both the gravity effect
and the velocity effect from a disembodied
3d person observer which is reminiscent of
a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow down in this
process as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity effect.
There is none, neither by Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I know. Even if the
equivalence between gravity and acceleration
would be valid (which it is not) there are two
problems. Even if the time would stand still
during the whole process of backward
acceleration so that delta t' would be 0, this
would not at all explain the time difference
experienced by the twins. And on the other
hand the gravitational field would have, in
order to have the desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at least 20 orders of
magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the
gravity field around the sun etc to achieve
the time shift needed. So this approach has no
argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are coming from.
Gravity, the equivalence principle is , and the
slow down of clocks and the speed of light in a
lower ( closer to a mass) field is the heart of
general relativity. why do you keep insisting it
is not. GPs clocks are corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed, I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made a calculation
that the bendng of light around the sun is due to
a gravity acing like a refractive media. Why tis
constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct in so far
as gravity causes dilation but acceleration does
not. This is given by theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying clocks do not run
faster at higher altitude? I was a consultant for
GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude it would
not be as accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster, and that is
gravity, not acceleration. And even gravity has a
small influence. The gravitational field on the
surface of the sun slows down clocks by the small
portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please compare this with
the factors of slow down which are normally assumed in
the examples for the twin travel. --> Absolutely
not usable, even if equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run in free
space, there is no gravity involved. Of course one
may put the concept of it into the vicinity of the
sun or of a neutron star. But then the question
whether it is a paradox or not is not affected by
this change. And particularly gravity is not a
solution as it treats all participants in the same
way And anyhow there is no solution needed as it is
in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s approaches
are flawed</b> because both require a
disembodied 3d person observer who is
observing that independent Aristotilian
objective universe that must exist whether
we look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole situation can be
completely evaluated from the view of one of
the twins or of the other twin or from the
view of <i>any other observer </i>in the
world who is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last mail, and if
you object here you should give clear
arguments, not mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the context of a
3d person, he clear argument is that he clock slow
down is also derivable form the invariance of
action required to execute a clock tick of
identical clocks in any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the relation of
two frames of linear motion. If you look at the
Lorentz transformation it always presents the
relation between two frames, normally called S and
S'. Nothing else shows up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer comes along
and says the entire Aristotelian approach
is wrong and the Platonic view must be
taken. Einstein is right in claiming there
is no independent of ourselves space
however his derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was conducted under the
assumption that his own imagination
provided the 3d person observer god like
observer but he failed to recognize the
significance of this fact. And therefore
had to invent additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When
the observer is properly taken into
account each observer generates his own
observational display in which he creates
the appearance of clocks. Those appearance
are stationary relative to the observer’s
supplied background space or they might be
moving. But in either case some external
stimulation has caused the two
appearances. If two copies of the same
external clock mechanism are involved and
in both cases the clock ticks require a
certain amount of action to complete a
cycle of activity that is called a second
i.e. the moving of the hand from line 1 to
line 2 on the dial. Therefore the action
required to complete the event between
clock ticks is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
two clocks do not slow down because they
appear to be moving relative to each other
their rates are determined by their
complete Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the fixed mass
underlying each observer’s universe. The
potential gravitational energy of a mass
inside the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here
M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub> are the
mass and radius of the mass shell and also
the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole
each of us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
stationary clock interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A
moving clock interval is Δt’ its
Lagrangian energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the non-relativistic case. But we
discuss relativity here. So the correct
equation has to be used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity is
wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way that you use
equations (here for kinetic energy) which are
strictly restricted to non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the two clock
rates and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the Action is an
invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to first order
approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not usable as we
are discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is simply
derivable from action invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special relativity,
it has nothing to do with a gravitational potential.
In special relativity the slow down of clocks is
formally necessary to "explain" the constancy of c
in any frame. In general relativity it was necessary
to explain that the speed of light is also constant
in a gravitational field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position outside the field
or with the understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a measurement result, not
true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the second order
terms are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory has not been
tested to the second term accuracy. In
both theories the moving clock interval is
smaller when the clock moves with constant
velocity in the space of an observer at
rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an approximation here
which is a bit different from Einstein's
solution. And then you say that Einstein's
solution is an approximation. Then you ask
that the approximation in Einstein's solution
should be experimentally checked. No, the
approximation is in your solution as you write
it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is different from
the simple lagrangian but both are equal to
v8v/c*c order which is all that to my knowledge
has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for the
derivation of this equation. Please look into his
paper of 1905. His goal was to keep c constant in
any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Maybe I misunderstood something but a moving
clock has longer time periods and so indicates
a smaller time for a given process. And if you
follow Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt = Δt’/(1
- v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the question of
synchronization which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I repeat the
correct equation here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the position the
case ends up with logical conflicts. Just
those conflicts which you have repeatedly
mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has been tested with v very
close to c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to v =
0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is
0.9996 as a term to be added to 0.9999 . That
is clearly measurable and shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> does not
exist. You have introduced it here without any
argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please provide
the Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle interactions, so
also those which have been performed here including
my own experiment, have used the true Einstein
relation with consistent results for energy and
momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which violate conservation
of energy and of momentum. So, any experiment
performed here during many decades is a proof that
the equation of Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order is
necessary the very simple almost classical
expression based upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's equation,
i.e. the Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that clocks are
slowed when they are in a deeper gravity well and my
calculations and theory predicts this fact to the
same accuracy that has been tested. You say
Einsteins formula has been tested to the fourth
order. This would make my theory wrong. Please give
me a reference so I can look at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge neither length contraction
or time dilation beyond the approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you want I would
have to present here the computer programs which we
have used to calculate e.g. the kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have them any more 40 years
after the experiment.) And as I wrote, there was no
experiment evaluated here at DESY over 40 years and
as well no experiment at CERN and as well no
experiment at the Standford accelerator without using
Einstein's Lorentz transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if Einstein would
be wrong at this point. Because as I wrote, any
evaluation would have shown a violation of the
conservation of energy and the conservation of
momentum. That means one would have received chaotic
results for every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz
is right that there is an aether and
Einstein is right that there is no
absolute frame and everything is relative.
But Baer resolve both these “rights” by
identifying the aether as the personal
background memory space of each observer
who feels he is living in his own
universe. We see and experience our own
individual world of objects and
incorrectly feel what we are looking at is
an independent external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or Lorentz is right
if seen from an epistemological position. Only
the measurement results are equal. Beyond that
I do not see any need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The observers in
the different frames are in fact the
measurement tools like clocks and rulers. The
only human-related problem is that a human may
read the indication of a clock in a wrong way.
The clock itself is in this view independent
of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein and Lorenz
tried to find a solution within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in that he argued
the size of electromagentic structures shrink or
stretch the same as electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard stick will
not show an effect. What Lorentz did not
understand is that both the yard stick and the EM
wave are appearances in an observers space and
runs at an observers speed of NOW. The observer
must be included in physics if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must be included.
But let's start then with something like Newton's
law of motion which is in that case also affected.
Relativity is bad for this as it is mathematically
more complicated without providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</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
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
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
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;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></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" 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" 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>
<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:phys@a-giese.de" 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" 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>
<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" 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" 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>
<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:phys@a-giese.de" 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" 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>
<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" 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" 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>
</div>
</body>
</html>