<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I think i have clearly responded to all your points previously
but there is something you do not grasp about my approach</p>
<p>however the list you provide is good since perhaps I was
answering parts you did not read</p>
<p>so see below.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/2017 6:56 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#000066">Wolf,</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">I think we should not change the topics
which we have discussed during the last mails. And <b>as you
again </b><b>did </b><b>not react to my comments I
summarize the open points now in a list</b>:</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>o</b> You use for the kinetic energy
the erroneous equation T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>(because we
talk about relativistic cases). So you necessarily have a
wrong result. Why do you not make your deduction (using the
Lagrangian) with the correct equation which I have given you?
Or what is your consideration to use just this equation even
if it is erroneous? Please answer this. This is physics, not
philosophy.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">I am not using </font>T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup>
incorrectly in classic theory. I'm suggesting Einsteins theory is
wrong. I do not mean it is inconsistent with its postulates but the
postulates do not correctly represent reality. I suggest instead the
the classic Lagrangian energy L= T-V is adequate to calculate the
action if the potential energy V in inter galactic space is mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>
For an amount of time dS = L*dt , and then if an event such as a
running clock is viewed from two different coordinate frames and the
action calculated in those frames is invariant then<br>
L*dt = L'*dt' <br>
so that the appearant rate of clocks differ for the two observers.
And when calculating this out my theory, which is not only my
theory, is consistent with experimental evidence.<br>
<br>
I do not understand why you keep saying my use of T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup>
is incorrect? I'm using it correctly in my theory. If you insist
Einstein's SRT is correct a-priory then of course any alternative
is wrong. But should not experimental evidence, simplicity, and
applicability to larger problems be the judge of that? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de"> <font
color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
Your conflict about the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> in
the Lorentz transformation is a result of your use of a wrong
equation for T (kinetic energy). Why do you not repeat your
deduction using the correct equation?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Again I am not using the wrong equation in my
theory. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de"> <font
color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
The equation 1/2*m*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> is not correct
and not part of Einstein's equations. Einstein has given this
for visualization as an <i>approximation</i>. Why do you
continue with it without a response to my information that it
is incorrect or why do you not argue why you believe that is
can be used?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Yes yes yes I'm not using Einsteins equation
for kinetic energy. How many times do I have to agree with you
before you stop disagreeing with my agreement?</font><br>
<font color="#000066">A long time ago you said that cyclotron
experiments proved time dilation as Einstein described in SRT was
proven to better than </font><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
</font> and I've asked you for references </font><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
because I have not seen evidence for this claim nor have I seen
evidence for the space contraction claim, but i have seen good
paper's that dispute both these claims.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
The equation for the speed of light which you gave: c<sup>2</sup>
= Mu*G/Ru is senseless which is easily visible. I have
explained that. Why do you not respond to this point?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">How can you say it is senseless? multiply both
sides by -m you get the well known solution of the Schwarzschild
energy of a particle inside the ring of distant masses when the
masses reach the size that makes a black hole boundary. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de"> <font
color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">After we have clarified these
discrepancies about SRT we may talk about the observer or
other philosophical aspects, <b>but not earlier</b>. </font><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>DE</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<br>
</blockquote>
Fine <br>
but are we not living inside a black hole? Is the energy required to
reach escape velocity from our black hole not equal to mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>
twice the classic kinetic energy? <br>
I know you agree the speed of light depends upon the
gravitational potential, which from a local mass is MG/R. For a
local mass like the sun the speed of light is<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R = c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>(1+
M*G/(R*c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>)<br>
If light speed depends upon the gravitational potential if the
sun to bend light, why would it not depend upon the gravitational
potential of the surrounding star mass we are living in?<br>
<br>
maxwell's equations are correct, the Lorentz transformations are
correct, but the interpretation Einstein gave these equations is
what I disagree with. And the resulting almost total revision of
classic mechanics is what I disagree with.<br>
<br>
can we get on with trying to find a simpler connection between
electricity and gravitation one that has gravitation change the
permiability and susceptibility of the aether perhaps?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.06.2017 um 07:14 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>I thought I had answered the last E-mail pretty thoroughly,
I'll try again however I think you are not grasping my
position</p>
<p>Einstein
Lorentz Baer</p>
<p>make assumptions make assumptions
make assumptions</p>
<p>and write a theory And write a
theory And am in the process</p>
<p>That has conclusions That has
conclusions That has preliminary conclusions <br>
</p>
<p>c=constant
c is dependent on gravity</p>
<p>change physics Em material stretches
emphasize invariant of action</p>
<p>lots of non intuitive probably
Ok Needs to understand the role
of the observer</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So far Ive sent you a classic calculation based upon the fact
that Em penomena go at rates determined by the classic
Lagrangian and I believe this very simple formulation explains
all experimentally verified effects up to fourth order in v/c
and in addition and in fact the whole reason for my effort is
to include the observer and recognize that the plenum within
the theories of these eminent physicist was their own
imaginations which is always a background space.</p>
<p>I think I am working on a new and better theory. So far what
I have is a calculation using in-variance of action.Tell me
why I am wrong based on experimental evidence not that I have
a different theory then either Einstein or Lorentz. I know our
theories are different but i think they are wrong because they
are Aristotelian realists and I'm using Platonic logic.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">If you have a new theory available which can
be quantitatively checked by experiments please present and
explain it here. Before you have done this, a discussion as it
was up to now does not make any sense but uses up a lot of time.
We should not waste time.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now I'll try to answer your coments<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 6/23/2017 6:51 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,ghly</p>
<p>i see the same problem again: you did not really read my
last mail as you repeat most of your earlier statements with
no reference to my comments. <br>
</p>
<p>Details in the text:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have received your calculations, and I have written
that they are wrong because they are based on a wrong formula.
I have written this two times with no reaction from you. You
find my responses further down in the history of mails, so you
cannot say that you did not receive them. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
You find in our mail history (further down) my answer. Why did
you not respond to it? So once again (I think it is the 3rd
time now):<br>
Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is
wrong in the general case. It is only usable for slow speeds,
so v<<c . But our discussion here is about relativistic
situations, so v close to c As a consequence the result of
your deduction is of course wrong, and so particularly your
term c^4/c^4 is a result of this confusion. Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a square-root function
of (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>). And if you make a Taylor
expansion from it, there are many terms of higher order. But
the root formula is the correct solution.<br>
<br>
The correct formula for the kinetic energy is as I have
written here earlier: T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> *(
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))-1) .<br>
If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it after the
second term then you end up with the formula which you have
used. But as iit is easily visible here, only for speed v
<< c. </blockquote>
THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is right 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup>
is correct in my theory
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><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>
</div>
</blockquote>
The principle of action is correct but generally used for a
different purpose. In general I do not find it the best way to
use principles but better to use fundamental laws. But this is
a different topic. However, I expect that you would come to a
correct result with this principle if you would use correct
physical equations.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes I know but I'm using it because independent and isolated
system have no external clocks to measure progress and the
amount of activity is all that is available to measure the
completion of identical activities. You must understand I assume
evnets not objects are fundamental.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also used for the
calculation of energy and momentum by taking into account the
corresponding conservation laws. In all calculations which we
have done here at the accelerator DESY the relation v/c was in
the order of 0.9999 . So the gamma factor is about <u>10'000</u>.
If there would have been a term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
necessary but omitted then this factor would change to
something in the interval <u>1 to 10</u>. This is a
discrepancy by a factor of at least 1'000. Do you really
believe that all the scientists at DESY and at the other
accelerators worldwide would overlook a discrepancy of this
magnitude? <br>
</blockquote>
If this v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> term accuracy has been
measured by experiment I am not aware of it I've asked you for
a reference. Yes I believe all the scientists are simply not
aware of their own fundamental assumptions regarding the role of
the conscious being, which is why I and a few of us are working
on these issues.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation what I have
told you now <b><i>several times</i></b>. You did not react
and did not give a justification but you merely repeated it
again and again. <br>
</blockquote>
IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions that you disagree
with? <br>
<br>
I believe the question "what does it feel like to be a piece of
material" is quite legitimate and if we can entertain the
question why not ask if feelings are not intrinsically part of
material and the perhaps space is a feeling, the phase of an
never ending event <br>
Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...." quickly for a few
minutes and you'll get the experience of a subject object event
that takes on an existence of its own.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
so Albrecht have I answered your comments for this go around?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">No, I do not see any answer as I have listed
it above! You always talk about different things or you repeat
your erroneous statement / equation without an argument.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<br>
best wishes ,<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has a correct
derivation of the Lorentz transformation. And then he makes an
approximation for a slow speed without saying this clearly.
His text (translated to English): <br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">"… so that this indication of the clock (as
observed in the system at rest) is delayed per second by
(1-sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>) <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>seconds or – except for
magnitudes of forth or higher order is delayed by 1/2(v/c)<sup>2</sup>
seconds."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">So, Einstein <i>excludes </i>here the
higher orders. That means clearly that it is an
approximation. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">But the conclusion of Einstein is correct. If
the moving clock comes back it is delayed. Which is of
course in agreement with SRT. And also with the
observation.<br>
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again: According to all what we know, motion means a slow down
of clocks, NOT acceleration. And nothing depends on force
according to relativity and according to experiments. Also
gravity slows down a clock, but very little. Experimental
proof was once the Hafele Keating experiment for gravity and
speed and the muon accelerator for speed and the independence
of acceleration. <br>
<br>
If you see a dependence of the slow down of clocks from a
force applied this would be a new theory. If you believe this,
please present it as a complete theoretical system and refer
to experiments which are in agreement with this theory. <br>
<br>
For c you repeat your incorrect formula again. Its lack of
correctness is easily visible by the following consideration.
If it would be true then a gravitational mass of M=0 would
mean c=0, which is clearly not the case. And also for some
gravitational mass but a distance R=infinite there would also
be c=0, which does not make any sense. And I repeat the
correct one (perhaps you notice it <i>this time</i>). <br>
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>
<br>
For the twin case I have given you numbers that the
acceleration phase is in no way able to explain the time
offset, but I am meanwhile sure that you ignore that again. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving clock
slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice that in his
paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at which this slow
down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at
constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in the
middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by the same
amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as SRT
is about the relation of inertial frames, and here none of the
clocks is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand this
question must be answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock the
other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a straight
path. In this infinitesimal moment the own clock also moves on
a straight path and both do not have any speed in relation to
the other one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in the
Lorentz transformation is the temporal derivative of the
distance. This is 0 in this case. So no effects according to
SRT and both observers see the speed of the other clock not
slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about
inertial frames (the question which coordinate frame is used
is of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the other one
permanently leaving his inertial frame but also himself
leaving permanently his inertial frame. That is easily
noticeable as he will notice his acceleration. - How this
case can be solved in accordance with SRT I have explained in
the preceding paragraph. That solution is physically correct
and in my understanding in accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that the speed
of light is not constant. I would understand this as a step
forward. But you have to do it with appropriate arguments
which I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the arguments
which are my arguments to follow the relativity of Lorentz
rather Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian relativity is more
easy to understand and has physical causes. Einstein's
principle is not physics but spirituality in my view and his
considerations about time and space are as well not physics.
Also my view. But you have questioned the compatibility of
Einstein's theory with reality by some examples, at last by
the twin case and argued that this is a violation of
Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality. But both is not
the case, and that was the topic of the discussions during the
last dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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:part6.9B1A9E2E.D741E174@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>
<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">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>