<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I fully agree with your statement: " 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." I am working on such a theory and so are many of us in
this group, I will send you sections of the book to get your
highly valued opinion when they are ready.</p>
<p>I also agree with: " first of all we have to agree on valid
physics."</p>
<p>So what is valid physics? <br>
</p>
<p>You seem to insist that one cannot question Einstein specifically
on his assumption that the speed of light is constant and his
subsequent turning most of well established classic physics
principles on its head. <br>
</p>
<p>My understanding is that you object to my use of the classic
definition of Kinetic energy <br>
</p>
<p>m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~ m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
<p>Now if you insist, with Einstein that c is always constant then
dividing the above equation by c<sup>2</sup> gives <br>
</p>
<p>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
</p>
<p>Of course then mass must increase. This is simply an example of
one of the many classic physics principles on its head.</p>
<p>I think there is a great deal of evidence that the speed of light
is NOT constant and if we simply realize that the effective speed
of light is effected by gravity, which in the case of an
electromagnetic propagation in a sphere of distant masses gives by
Mach's Principle and the Scharzshild black hole limit the
relationship</p>
<p>c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
<p>Furthermore if we realize that -mc<sup>2</sup> = V<sub>U</sub> ;
the potential energy inside the mass shell of stars then the total
classic Lagrangian <br>
</p>
<p>L = T- V = (1/2)* m<sub>0</sub>* v<sup>2</sup> - m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
- m<sub>0</sub> * G* M<sub>L</sub>/R<sub>L</sub><br>
</p>
<p>If we substitute the Lagrangian into the equation for the speed
of light I believe we would get all of the special and general
relativistic effects at least up to the higher order terms ,
including the clock slow down from SRT., which I believe is all
that has been verified. Your claim that higher order accuracy has
been experimentally proven is something I doubt and have asked you
for explicit experimental references many times. WHy because most
people who do these experiments are so brow beat into believing
Einsteins assumptions as God given truth that they simply put the
correction factor on the wrong parameter and get papers published.<br>
</p>
<p>Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?</p>
<p>Are you now ready to discuss the metaphysical assumptions
underlying physics that I am questioning and trying to help me and
others work on possible alternative physics formulations that
might get us out of the mess we are in?</p>
<p>best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Dr. Wolfgang Baer
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2017 1:58 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e230a22e-0de6-f584-86e2-8cd1197c72a5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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 color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that
Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did not see any true
arguments from you, but you only presented your
results of an incorrect understanding of Einstein's
theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then
please give us arguments. Step by step. To say YES
or NO as a summary without any arguments is not
science. I also have some concerns about Einstein's
SRT myself, but with pure statements without
arguments like in your last mails we do not achieve
anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for YES
or NO is: Einstein's SRT is formally consistent;
however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant
velocity slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO
questions is simply did he or did he not say that the
moving clock slows down? The question is not whether
his theory is formally consistent but whether his
theory states moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving
clock slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice
that in his paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at
which this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is there a
difference between an observer A on clock A seeing
clock B move at constant velocity in a circle compared
with an observer B on clock B seeing clock A move in a
circle at constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that
has been said is that both observers see the other go
in a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to
Einsteins Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move at
constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned in
the middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down by
the same amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way as
SRT is about the relation of inertial frames, and here
none of the clocks is in an inertial frame. - On the other
hand this question must be answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock
the other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a
straight path. In this infinitesimal moment the own clock
also moves on a straight path and both do not have any
speed in relation to the other one (i.e. no change of the
distance). Speed in the Lorentz transformation is the
temporal derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this
case. So no effects according to SRT and both observers
see the speed of the other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate
frames at this stage of our discussion. If one
observer sees the other leave his coordinate frame
behind why does the other not see the same thing.
Einstein insisted there are no preferred coordinate
frames. That Einsteins theory, as published in 1905,
can be patched up by adding interpretations and even
new physics, which Einstein tried to do himself with
GRT is not the issue We can discuss whether or not
the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is part
of the original SRT later, after you answer question 2
above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but about
inertial frames (the question which coordinate frame is
used is of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the other
one permanently leaving his inertial frame but also
himself leaving permanently his inertial frame. That is
easily noticeable as he will notice his acceleration. -
How this case can be solved in accordance with SRT I have
explained in the preceding paragraph. That solution is
physically correct and in my understanding in accordance
with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying to lead
you and anyone listening to the logical conclusion
that Einsteins world view expressed by his assumptions
is wrong. I am not questioning that after making his
assumptions he can logically derive the Lorentz
transformations, nor that such a derivation is
inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone through
his papers often enough to know his math is correct.
I'm simply trying to lead us all to the realization
that the speed of light as a physical phenomena is NOT
constant, never was, never will be and warping
coordinate frames and all the changes in physics
required to make that assumption consistent with
experimental fact has been a 100 year abomination. If
you believe that assumption, I've got a guy on a
cross who claims to be the son of god to introduce you
to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that the
speed of light is not constant. I would understand this as
a step forward. But you have to do it with appropriate
arguments which I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the
arguments which are my arguments to follow the relativity
of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian
relativity is more easy to understand and has physical
causes. Einstein's principle is not physics but
spirituality in my view and his considerations about time
and space are as well not physics. Also my view. But you
have questioned the compatibility of Einstein's theory
with reality by some examples, at last by the twin case
and argued that this is a violation of Einstein's theory
or in conflict with reality. But both is not the case, and
that was the topic of the discussions during the last
dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails as
the questions below are answered in my last
mails, most of them in the mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued
gripe about my referring to gravity.
Something is wrong let me ask some simple
yes and no questions to get to the bottom of
it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle
holds and acceleration and gravity are
related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my last
mails </i>that the equivalence principle is
violated at the point that acceleration - in
contrast to gravity - does not cause dilation.
And, as I have also written earlier, that you
find this in any textbook about special
relativity and that it was experimentally proven
at the muon storage ring at CERN. - It seems to
me that you did not read my last mails but write
your answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a
mountain runs faster than one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last mail</i>.
In addition I have given you the numerical
result for the gravitational dilation on the
surface of the sun where the slow down of a
clock is the little difference of about 1 /
100'000 compared to a zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical
examples for the twin case about a dilation by a
factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is
related to the gravity potential by c*c =
G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the
equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup> where
p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the
light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock
speed dilation experiments at the v^4/v^4
accuracy level do you know any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor:
gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable for time
dilation and for every kinematic or dynamic
calculation where special relativity applies.
And in the latter context it is used by
thousands of physicists all over the world who
work at accelerators. One could find it in their
computer programs. To ask them whether they have
done it in this way would seem to them like the
doubt whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25
correctly. This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is different
only for the case of time dilation then the
answer is that SRT would then be inconsistent in
the way that e.g. the speed of light c could
never be constant (or measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since
it is quite likely the wave function is a
mental projection and therefore its collapse
is a collapse of knowledge and the Aspect
experiments have been incorrectly
interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very
carefully by others (as also Zeilinger has
presented here in his last talk) and the new
experiments are said to have covered all loop
holes which have been left by Aspect. And also
all these experiments are carefully observed by
an international community of physicists. But of
course this is never a guaranty that anything is
correct. So it is good practice to doubt that
and I am willing follow this way. However if you
do not accept these experiments or the
consequences drawn, then please explain in
detail where and why you disagree. Otherwise
critical statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and
go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical facts.
Or we should present arguments, which means at
best: quantitative calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017 1:45
PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have to
remind you on the quantitative results if
something is referred to the gravitational
force. As much as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a result which
is about 30 to 40 orders of magnitude
smaller that we have them in fact in
physics. - If you disagree to this
statement please give us your quantitative
calculation (for instance for the twin
case). Otherwise your repeated arguments
using gravity do not help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which may
be affected by human understanding in a
bad way, I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017
um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2017
9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I agree
we should make detailed arguments.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had
been arguing that Einstein’s
special relativity claims that the
clocks of an observer moving at
constant velocity with respect to
a second observer will slow down.
This lead to the twin paradox that
is often resolved by citing the
need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity
in general relativity. My
symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein as
I understood him could not explain
the paradox. I did so in order to
set the stage for introducing a
new theory. You argued my
understanding of Einstein was
wrong. Ok This is not worth
arguing about because it is not
second guessing Einstein that is
important but that but I am trying
to present a new way of looking at
reality which is based on Platonic
thinking rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was essentially
the way you see it. This is called
naive realism. And science from
Newton up to quantum theory is
based upon it. If you keep
repeating that my ideas are not
what physicists believe I fully
agree. It is not an argument to
say the mainstream of science
disagrees. I know that. I'm
proposing something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me
try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am
suggesting that there is no
independent physically objective
space time continuum in which the
material universe including you,
I, and the rest of the particles
and fields exist. Instead I
believe a better world view is
that (following Everett) that all
systems are observers and
therefore create their own space
in which the objects you see in
front of your face appear. The
situation is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part7.28D44FC7.91CB3ADC@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here we
have three parts You, I, and the
rest of the Universe “U” . I do a
symmetric twin thought experiment
in which both twins do exactly the
same thing. They accelerate in
opposite directions turn around
and come back at rest to compare
clocks. You does a though
experiment that is not symmetric
one twin is at rest the other
accelerates and comes back to rest
and compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each thought
experiment is done in the space
associated with You,I and U. The
speed of light is constant in each
of these spaces and so the special
relativity , Lorentz transforms,
and Maxwell’s equations apply. I
have said many times these are
self consistent equations and I
have no problem with them under
the Aristotilian assumption that
each of the three parts believes
what they see is the independent
space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see is in each
parts space. This space provides
the background aether, in it the
speed of electromagnetic
interactions is constant BECAUSE
this speed is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level largely if
not totally imposed by the gravity
interactions the physical material
from which each part is made
experiences. Each part you and
your space runs at a different
rate because the constant Einstein
was looking for should be called
the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You may
agree or disagree with this view
point. But if you disagree please
do not tell me that the mainstream
physicists do not take this point
of view. I know that. Main stream
physicists are not attempting to
solve the consciousness problem ,
and have basically eliminated the
mind and all subjective experience
from physics. I’m trying to fix
this rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have
good arguments that, what we see, is not
the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example to
show this. It is not a better example
than to cite Newton's law of motion in
order to proof that most probably our
human view is questionable. For you it
seems to be tempting to use relativity
because you see logical conflicts
related to different views of the
relativistic processes, to show at this
example that the world cannot be as
simple as assumed by the naive realism.
But relativity and particularly the twin
experiment is completely in agreement
with this naive realism. The frequently
discussed problems in the twin case are
in fact problems of persons who did not
truly understand relativity. And this is
the fact for all working versions of
relativity, where the Einsteinian and
the Lorentzian version are the ones
which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is a
good example specifically force is a
theoretical construct and not see able ,
what we see is acceleration and the
feeling of push or pull so f=ma equates
a theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity
because I believe it can be explained
much sipler and more accurately if we
realize material generates its own space
i.e. there is something it feels like to
be material. I believe integrating this
feeling into physics is the next major
advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new
premise I think REletevistic phenomena
can be more easily explained by assuming
the speed of light is NOT constant in
each piece of material but dependent on
its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful
in refining these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment to
this: Every piece of material has its own
energy. Also objects which are connected
by a gravitational field build a system
which has</font><font color="#3366ff"> of
course</font><font color="#3366ff">
energy. But it seems to me that you relate
every energy state to gravity. Here I do
not follow. If pieces of material are
bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of
energy, the energy in it is dominated by
the strong force and by the electric
force. In comparison the gravitational
energy is so many orders of magnitude
smaller (Where the order of magnitude is
> 35) that this is an extremely small
side effect, too small to play any role in
most applications. Or please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to
respond to your comments in
detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our
discussion would use detailed
arguments and counter-arguments
instead of pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow down,
but If I include the
observer then I get an
equation for the slow down
that agrees with eperimetn
but disagrees with Einstein
in the higher order, so it
should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the
deviation in your calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing
Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey day
of Aristotelian Philosophy
everyone was convinced Reality
consisted of an external
objective universe independent
of subjective living beings.
Electricity and Magnetism had
largely been explored through
empirical experiments which
lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized
by Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a
medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and
permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of
free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are
valid in a coordinate frame
x,y,z,t and are identical in
form when expressed in a
different coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen a substitution
of the Lorentz formulas into
Maxwell’s equations that will
then give the same form only
using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to get
E’ and B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is
much more exciting. W.G.V. Rosser
has shown that the complete theory
of Maxwell can be deduced from two
things: 1.) the Coulomb law; 2.)
the Lorentz transformation. It is
interesting because it shows that
electromagnetism is a consequence
of special relativity. (Book:
W.G.V. Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity,
New York Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is not a
separate force but only a certain
perspective of the electrical
force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with this
viw point of magnetics, but all within
the self consistent Aristotelian point
of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space
Maxwell’s equations reduce to
the wave equation and
Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a medium
for them to propagate. It was
postulated that space was
filled with such a medium and
that the earth was moving
through it. Therefore it
should be detectable with a
Michelson –Morely experiment.
But The Null result showed
this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics
aether is nothing more than the
fact of an absolute frame. Nobody
believes these days that aether is
some kind of material. And also
Maxwell's theory does not need it.
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not need
mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not detected by the
Michelson-Morely experiment which
does however not mean that no
aether existed. The only result is
that it cannot be detected. This
latter conclusion was also
accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is
attached to the observer doing the
experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know
from other observations and facts that
objects contract at motion - in the
original version of Heaviside, this
happens when electric fields move in
relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is
unable to show a phase shift as the arms
of the interferometer have changed their
lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand and
I believe like you this is a better
explanation than Einsteins but it still
leaves the aether as a property of an
independent space that exist whether we
live or die and and assume we are
objects in that space it also identifies
that space with what is in front of our
nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger
self ( not how we see ourselves) is NOT
in U's space and what I see is not equal
to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect to
get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along and
derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the
speed of light is constant,
synchronization protocol of
clocks, and rods, the
invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all inertial
frames, and the null result of
Michelson-Morely experiments.
Einstein went on to eliminate
any absolute space and instead
proposed that all frames and
observers riding in them are
equivalent and each such
observer would measure another
observers clocks slowing down
when moving with constant
relative velocity. This
interpretation lead to the
Twin Paradox. Since each
observer according to
Einstein, being in his own
frame would according to his
theory claim the other
observer’s clocks would slow
down. However both cannot be
right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have
explained several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many
publications that use general
relativity, gravity and the
equivalence principle as the the way
to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static
homogeneous gravitational field URL
<a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do not
want to argue about what Einstein
really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv document.
The authors want to show that the twin
case can also be handled as a process
related to gravity. So they define the
travel of the travelling twin so that he
is permanently accelerated until he
reaches the turn around point and then
accelerated back to the starting point,
where the twin at rest resides. Then
they calculate the slow down of time as
a consequence of the accelerations which
they relate to an fictive gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our
discussion by several reasons. One
reason is the intent of the authors to
replace completely the slow down of time
by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up an
experiment where one clock is slowed
down by the motion and the other twin
slowed down by acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your intention
according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that acceleration
means clock slow down. But that does not
happen. Any text book about SRT says
that acceleration does not cause a slow
down of time / clocks. And there are
clear experiments proofing exactly this.
For instance the muon storage ring at
CERN showed that the lifetime of muons
was extended by their high speed but in
no way by the extreme acceleration in
the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics.
And I do not know of any serious
physicist who tries to explain the twin
case by gravity. I have given you by the
way some strong arguments that such an
explanation is not possible. - And
independently, do you have other
sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like the
details of this paper but it is relevant
because it is only one of a long list of
papers that use gravity and acceleration
to to explain the twin paradox. I am not
claiming they are correct only that a
large community believes this is the way
to explain the twin paradox. If you look
at the Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox
they will say explanations fall into two
categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of
these categories does not mean a
community supporting the gravity
explanation view point does not exist.
I've ordered Sommerfelds book that has
Einstein and other notables explanation
and will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please, that
long list? Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now, gravity
is many, many orders of magnitude (maybe
20 or 30 orders) too small to play any
role here. And this can be proven by quite
simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an
answer to this paradox in his
invention of general
relativity where clocks speed
up when in a higher gravity
field i.e one that feels less
strong like up on top of a
mountain. Applied to the twin
paradox: a stationary twin
sees the moving twin at
velocity “v” and thinks the
moving twin’s clock slows
down. The moving twin does not
move relative to his clock but
must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to
make a round trip (using the
equivalence principle
calculated the being
equivalent to a gravitational
force). Feeling the
acceleration as gravity and
knowing that gravity slows her
clocks she would also
calculate her clocks would
slow down. The paradox is
resolved because in one case
the explanation is velocity
the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong!
General relativity has nothing to
do with the twin situation, and so
gravity or any equivalent to
gravity has nothing to do with it.
The twin situation is not a
paradox but is clearly free of
conflicts if special relativity,
i.e. the Lorentz transformation,
is properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most papers
explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most papers"
are. I have never heard about this and I
am caring about this twin experiment
since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment. It
is certainly how I was taught but I have
notr looked up papers on the subject for
many years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a
completely different approach I do not
think which of two explanations is more
right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply proposed
that clocks being
electromagnetic structures
slow down and lengths in the
direction of motion contract
in the absolute aether of
space according to his
transformation and therefore
the aether could not be
detected. In other words
Lorentz maintained the belief
in an absolute aether filled
space, but that
electromagnetic objects
relative to that space slow
down and contract. Gravity and
acceleration had nothing to do
with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued
by Max Van Laue argued that
the observer subject to
acceleration would know that
he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and
therefore calculate that his
clocks must be slowing down,
even though he has no way of
measuring such a slow down
because all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore
does not consider gravity but
only the knowledge that due to
his acceleration he must be
moving as well and knowing his
clocks are slowed by motion he
is not surprised that his
clock has slowed down when he
gets back to the stationary
observer and therefore no
paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving clocks slow
down but we have two different
reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the absolute
fixed frame remains which in
the completely symmetric twin
paradox experiment described
above implies that both
observers have to calculate
their own clock rates from the
same initial start frame and
therefore both calculate the
same slow down. This
introduces a disembodied 3d
person observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves
with some constant speed somewhere
can make this calculation and has
the same result. No specific frame
like the god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an
object in a 4th person's space, you
cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical"
process and it is in the same way as
much or as little depending on the Mind
as Newton's law of motion. So to make
things better understandable please
explain your position by the use of
either Newton's law or something
comparable. Relativity is not
appropriate as it allows for too much
speculation which does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but
eventually I hope to show the whole
business is a confusion introduced by
our habit of displaying time in a space
axis which introduces artifacts. I hpe
you will critique my writeup when it is
finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do you
mean? The confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused by persons who
do not understand the underlying physics.
So, this does not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the simple statement
is not correct that moving clocks
slow down. If we follow Einstein,
also the synchronization of the
clocks in different frames and
different positions is essential.
If this synchronization is omitted
(as in most arguments of this
discussion up to now) we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial
argument was that the calculations by
the moving twin was to be done in the
inertial frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is
always the frame in which the theory
was defined and it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the
original frame of the one moving twin in
order to be close to your experiment and
your description. Any other frame can be
used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought
that the consequence of having an
observer who feels a force like gravity
which according to the equivalence
principle and any ones experience in a
centrifuge is indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person needs to
transfer to the initial start frame that
would mean we would all be moving at the
speed of light and need to transfer back
to the big bang or the perhaps the CBR
frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running
very fast but I still get older - this
thinking leads to crazy stuff - the
whole basis does not make common
experience sense, which is what I want
to base our physics on. We have gotten
our heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really
understand what you mean here. - Your are
right that we should never forget that
mathematics is a tool and not an
understanding of the world. But regarding
your heavily discussed example of
relativity, it is fundamentally
understandable without a lot of
mathematics. At least the version of
Hendrik Lorentz. That one is accessible to
imagination without much mathematics and
without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case both observers
would see the other moving at
a relative velocity and
calculate their clocks to run
slower than their own when
they calculate their own
experience they would also
calculate their own clocks to
run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying. But
to be compliant with Einstein one
has to take into account the
synchronization state of the
clocks. Clocks at different
positions cannot be compared in a
simple view. If someone wants to
compare them he has e.g. to carry
a "transport" clock from one clock
to the other one. And the
"transport" clock will also run
differently when carried. This -
again - is the problem of
synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but this
is not the issue, its whether the
world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity you
have to do it in a correct way. You do
it in an incorrect way and then you tell
us that results are logically
conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are
fully and correctly covered by the
Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but
Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy
conference has a nice explanation of how
Maxwells Equations are invariant under
Galilean transforms "if you do it the
right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you do
the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But because
they know the other twin is
also accelerating these
effects cancel and all that is
left is the velocity slow
down. In other words the
Einstein explanation that one
twin explains the slow down as
a velocity effect and the
other as a gravity effect so
both come to the same
conclusion is inadequate.
Einstein’s explanation would
have to fall back on Lorentz’s
and both twins calculate both
the gravity effect and the
velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person observer
which is reminiscent of a god
like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow
down in this process as a gravity
effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a gravity
effect. There is none, neither by
Einstein nor by anyone else whom I
know. Even if the equivalence
between gravity and acceleration
would be valid (which it is not)
there are two problems. Even if
the time would stand still during
the whole process of backward
acceleration so that delta t'
would be 0, this would not at all
explain the time difference
experienced by the twins. And on
the other hand the gravitational
field would have, in order to have
the desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at least 20
orders of magnitude (so >>
10<sup>20</sup>) of the gravity
field around the sun etc to
achieve the time shift needed. So
this approach has no argument at
all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are
coming from. Gravity, the equivalence
principle is , and the slow down of
clocks and the speed of light in a
lower ( closer to a mass) field is the
heart of general relativity. why do
you keep insisting it is not. GPs
clocks are corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you
yoursel made a calculation that the
bendng of light around the sun is due
to a gravity acing like a refractive
media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not correct
in so far as gravity causes dilation but
acceleration does not. This is given by
theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying
clocks do not run faster at higher
altitude? I was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude it
would not be as accurate if it did not.
</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run faster,
and that is gravity, not acceleration. And
even gravity has a small influence. The
gravitational field on the surface of the
sun slows down clocks by the small portion
of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please compare this
with the factors of slow down which are
normally assumed in the examples for the
twin travel. --> Absolutely not
usable, even if equivalence would be
working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run
in free space, there is no gravity
involved. Of course one may put the
concept of it into the vicinity of the
sun or of a neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox or not
is not affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not a solution
as it treats all participants in the
same way And anyhow there is no solution
needed as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and
Einstein’s approaches are
flawed</b> because both
require a disembodied 3d
person observer who is
observing that independent
Aristotilian objective
universe that must exist
whether we look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is
definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of one of
the twins or of the other twin or
from the view of <i>any other
observer </i>in the world who
is in a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last
mail, and if you object here you
should give clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in the
context of a 3d person, he clear
argument is that he clock slow down is
also derivable form the invariance of
action required to execute a clock
tick of identical clocks in any
observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the
relation of two frames of linear motion.
If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always presents the
relation between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing else shows up
anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer
comes along and says the
entire Aristotelian approach
is wrong and the Platonic view
must be taken. Einstein is
right in claiming there is no
independent of ourselves space
however his derivation of
Lorentz Transformations was
conducted under the assumption
that his own imagination
provided the 3d person
observer god like observer but
he failed to recognize the
significance of this fact. And
therefore had to invent
additional and incorrect
assumptions that lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is
properly taken into account
each observer generates his
own observational display in
which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those
appearance are stationary
relative to the observer’s
supplied background space or
they might be moving. But in
either case some external
stimulation has caused the two
appearances. If two copies of
the same external clock
mechanism are involved and in
both cases the clock ticks
require a certain amount of
action to complete a cycle of
activity that is called a
second i.e. the moving of the
hand from line 1 to line 2 on
the dial. Therefore the action
required to complete the event
between clock ticks is the
invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks do not
slow down because they appear
to be moving relative to each
other their rates are
determined by their complete
Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the fixed
mass underlying each
observer’s universe. The
potential gravitational energy
of a mass inside the mass
shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> =
-m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and
R<sub>u</sub> are the mass and
radius of the mass shell and
also the Schwarzchild radius
of the black hole each of us
is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock
interval is Δt its Lagrangian
energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock interval
is Δt’ its Lagrangian energy
is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the non-relativistic case.
But we discuss relativity here. So
the correct equation has to be
used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe
relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way
that you use equations (here for kinetic
energy) which are strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the Action
is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt
= A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to
first order approximation is
equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not
usable as we are discussing
relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow down
is simply derivable from action
invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of special
relativity, it has nothing to do with a
gravitational potential. In special
relativity the slow down of clocks is
formally necessary to "explain" the
constancy of c in any frame. In general
relativity it was necessary to explain
that the speed of light is also constant
in a gravitational field. So, Einstein
meant the <i>independence </i>of c
from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position
outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a measurement
result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the
second order terms are on the
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory
has not been tested to the
second term accuracy. In both
theories the moving clock
interval is smaller when the
clock moves with constant
velocity in the space of an
observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an
approximation here which is a bit
different from Einstein's
solution. And then you say that
Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask that
the approximation in Einstein's
solution should be experimentally
checked. No, the approximation is
in your solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is
different from the simple lagrangian
but both are equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my knowledge has
been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian for
the derivation of this equation. Please
look into his paper of 1905. His goal
was to keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood something
but a moving clock has longer time
periods and so indicates a smaller
time for a given process. And if
you follow Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the
question of synchronization which
is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I
repeat the correct equation here:
t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the
position the case ends up with
logical conflicts. Just those
conflicts which you have
repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle
accelerators Einstein's theory has
been tested with v very close to
c. Here in Hamburg at DESY up to v
= 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added to
0.9999 . That is clearly
measurable and shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have
introduced it here without any
argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point.
Please provide the Reference for this
experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle
interactions, so also those which have
been performed here including my own
experiment, have used the true Einstein
relation with consistent results for
energy and momentum. An assumed term of
v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> would have
caused results which violate
conservation of energy and of momentum.
So, any experiment performed here during
many decades is a proof that the
equation of Einstein is correct at this
point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th order
is necessary the very simple almost
classical expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that
clocks are slowed when they are in a
deeper gravity well and my calculations
and theory predicts this fact to the
same accuracy that has been tested. You
say Einsteins formula has been tested to
the fourth order. This would make my
theory wrong. Please give me a reference
so I can look at the assumptions to the
best of my knowledge neither length
contraction or time dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to Einsteins
equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you
want I would have to present here the
computer programs which we have used to
calculate e.g. the kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have them any more
40 years after the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no experiment evaluated
here at DESY over 40 years and as well no
experiment at CERN and as well no
experiment at the Standford accelerator
without using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if
Einstein would be wrong at this point.
Because as I wrote, any evaluation would
have shown a violation of the
conservation of energy and the
conservation of momentum. That means one
would have received chaotic results for
every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that
there is an aether and
Einstein is right that there
is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But
Baer resolve both these
“rights” by identifying the
aether as the personal
background memory space of
each observer who feels he is
living in his own universe. We
see and experience our own
individual world of objects
and incorrectly feel what we
are looking at is an
independent external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or
Lorentz is right if seen from an
epistemological position. Only the
measurement results are equal.
Beyond that I do not see any need
to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here? The
observers in the different frames
are in fact the measurement tools
like clocks and rulers. The only
human-related problem is that a
human may read the indication of a
clock in a wrong way. The clock
itself is in this view independent
of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both Einstein
and Lorenz tried to find a solution
within the Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in
that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink or
stretch the same as electromagnetic
waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a yard
stick will not show an effect. What
Lorentz did not understand is that
both the yard stick and the EM wave
are appearances in an observers space
and runs at an observers speed of NOW.
The observer must be included in
physics if we are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer must
be included. But let's start then with
something like Newton's law of motion
which is in that case also affected.
Relativity is bad for this as it is
mathematically more complicated without
providing additional philosophical
insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid
#D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top:
18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px;
height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color:
#4453ea;" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>