<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>it is not the question here whether I grasp your approach.
Because first of all we have to agree on valid physics. Your past
statements and calculations are in conflict with all physics we
know. On this basis nothing can be discussed.</p>
<p>Should you have a new theory which is complete and which is in
agreement with the experiments then you should present it. But for
now I did not see anything like that. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.06.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
It is experimental evidence that the mass of an object increases at
motion. In my experiment the mass of the electrons was increased by
a factor of 10'000. Your equation ignores this increase. - It is by
the way a consequence of the limitation of the speed at c. If an
object like an electron has a speed close to c and there is then a
force applied to it which of course means that energy is transferred
to it, then the mass increases. Anything else would mean a violation
of the conservation of energy. <br>
<br>
So, this increase of mass is not only a result of Einstein's theory
but it is unavoidable logic and also confirmed by the experiments. <br>
<br>
Therefore, if you use for the kinetic energy T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>,
then you assume a constancy of m which is clearly not the case. This
relation can only be used for speeds v<<c where the mass
increase is negligible. In our discussion we talk about relativistic
situations and for these your equation is wrong. In the example of
my experiment it is wrong by a factor of 10'000. You ignore this and
that cannot give you correct results. You find the correct equation
for energy in my last mail. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com"> <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>
<font color="#000066">I think that I have made it obvious enough
that you have used a wrong equation. So your result will be wrong
by a factor which at the end is not limited. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<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>
<font color="#000066">A good proof was the muon storage ring at CERN
in 1975. The muons have been accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c.
Their lifetime was extended by a factor of 30 which is in
agreement with Einstein. In Einstein's equation the difference of
this value to 1 has to be built resulting in 0.0006. If you
think that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> has to be added
then you have to add 0.9994<sup>4</sup> to this value of 0.0006 ,
so you change 0.0006 to (0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do you really
expect that the physicists at CERN overlook it if they get 0.9982
for 0.0006 ? <br>
<br>
I think that this is a very clear evidence that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is not missing. <br>
<br>
And this huge difference is the result of your use of the equation
T = 1/2m*v<sup>2</sup> in the wrong context. <br>
<br>
So, what is your argument?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<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>
<font color="#000066">You have derived your equation by equalizing
kinetic and potential energy. What is your argument that both
energies are equal? If an object is in free fall then both types
of energy change in a different direction so that the sum is
constant. The <i>sum </i>is the value conserved, but both
energies are not at all equal. <br>
<br>
In Einstein's world there is c=0 at the event horizon. But you are
saying that your equation above is just valid at the event
horizon, and that is at least in disagreement with Einstein. <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
The speed of light depends indeed on the gravitational potential and
I have given you the equation for that: 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>
Your equations above are not usable as I have just explained in my
paragraph above. <br>
<br>
If we should live in a black hole then we need a completely
different physics. I do not have understood that this is the
situation we are discussing here. In our real world there is
nowhere c=0, but your equation suggests this. If you are in free
space where no masses are present or masses are very far away then
according to your equation c has to be close to 0. That has never
been observed.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com"> <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>
</blockquote>
Why are you looking for a connection between electricity and
gravitation? I do not seen any connection. And if there should be
something like that we should include the strong force which is much
more essential for our physical world than electricity or
gravitation. <br>
<br>
Summary: You may try a lot but please present here equations which
are either known or contain a minimum of logic. You are permanently
presenting equations here which are your free inventions and are
not given by any existing theory and are not in agreement with any
existing experiments. This will not converge towards a result.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com"> <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 size="+1" color="#330033">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:part7.B9FF4B0C.C3F01CA9@a-giese.de"
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" 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">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">"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>
</body>
</html>