<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Al</p>
<p>Her is a repeat of my comment about your paper while answering
Albrecht</p>
<p>Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think "that time
dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts<br>
of the observation, and not induced characteristics of the objects
being observed themselves."<br>
<br>
Well its hard to disagree with this statement because the reason
the transformations were invented is to show that the Maxwell
equations which describe a physical fact will transform to
describe the same physical fact no mater what body you are
attached to.<br>
<br>
And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe there is a reality
and the appearances in any observers coordinate frame i.e. body ,
represent something real that is effected by gravity. And simply
recognizing that the rate of electromagnetic activity is dependent
on the gravitational influence the system in which the activity
happens is under , is a simple provable assumption that connects
electricity with gravity. Once this is established as an observer
independent fact. THen that fact also applies to the body making
the measurement and in that sense and only that sense time
dilations and FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts of the
observing body. <br>
<br>
I did like "It is, that each particle is effectively an “observer”<br>
of all the others, necessitating the incorporation of the<br>
attendant mathematical machinery into the coupled equations<br>
of motion of the particles.' <br>
<br>
and am looking forward to Al' promised further work in this
coupling.</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 6/23/2017 12:05 AM,
<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-c038d045-cddd-4559-824e-09a2e9ee42c3-1498201553578@3capp-webde-bs21">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Wolf:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems to me the attached paper should be relvant and
interesting in light of the discussion you are having with
Albrecht.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it is worth, 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> Dienstag,
20. Juni 2017 um 08:09 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 twin Paradox</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<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</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:
0.5in;text-indent: -0.5in;">Einstein, A. (1905) “On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, <i>The
Principle of Relativity</i>:<i><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">; 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> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:
0.5in;text-indent: -0.5in;">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"</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:
0.5in;text-indent: -0.5in;">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>
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature"><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.
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.
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" 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 6/15/2017 4:57 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<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.</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
<blockquote>
<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.
<blockquote>
<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.
<blockquote>
<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.
<blockquote>
<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).
<blockquote>
<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.
<blockquote>
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and go
on.</p>
<p>Wolf</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
<blockquote>
<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 6/14/2017 1:45 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<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.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017 um
06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font></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 6/12/2017 9:42
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Wolf:</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:
<blockquote>
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">I agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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> </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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 14.0pt;">So let me
try again</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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>
<p><img alt=""
src="cid:part4.F3C50C01.B2CC0762@nascentinc.com"
class="" height="440" width="556"></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">. 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: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">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. </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.</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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<h1 style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-weight:
normal;">Now to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<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 6/11/2017
6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our
discussion would use detailed
arguments and counter-arguments
instead of pure repetitions of
statements.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>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</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the deviation
in your calculations below. </b></div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lets look at
this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a medium
characterized by the permittivity
ε<sub>0</sub><span> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span>
</span>of free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span> </span>These
equations<span> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this viw
point of magnetics, but all within the
self consistent Aristotelian point of view
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need
mind.
<blockquote>
<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> </b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is
attached to the observer doing the
experiment , see my drawing above.</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.</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.</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to get
this from you?</font>
<blockquote><font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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.</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;">Ref: The clock paradox in a
static homogeneous gravitational field
URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
target="_blank" 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. </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?</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. </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.</font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers
explain it using gravity</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.</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.</font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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>
</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.</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an object in
a 4th person's space, you cannot get rid
of the Mind.</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.</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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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.</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.</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.</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.</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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this is
not the issue, its whether the world view
is correct.</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.</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"
target="_blank" 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></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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.</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.</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.</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></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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>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.</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</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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>
</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> </span><span>
</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> </span>is
<span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span>
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> = -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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>
</span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its Lagrangian energy is L=
m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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)</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe relativity
is wrong.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing the
two clock rates and <b>assuming
the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span>
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt = A
= <sub><span> </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>
</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>
</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.</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down is
simply derivable from action invariance
and sped of light dependence on
gravitational potential</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<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. -</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.</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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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> </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.</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point. Please
provide the Reference for this experiment</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.
<blockquote>I have said no correction of 4th
order is necessary the very simple almost
classical expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz transformation.</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.</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>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
</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.</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. </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.
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</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>
<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>
<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>