<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>we have now progress in so far as you have read about 30% of what
I have written to you. 90% would be really better, but this is
maybe too much at this stage.<br>
</p>
Am 30.06.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
We should agree on what it is. It should at least be in accordance
with the experiments. And if it deviates from the fundamental
physics which we have learned at the university, then these parts
should be thoroughly justified.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
As I have mentioned frequently in the preceding mails, I for myself
do NOT believe that c is always constant. How often do I have to say
this again until it reaches you? But if we use a variation of c
(which was always also the conviction of Hendrik Lorentz) then we
should use the correct functions for its variation. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, if you use Einstein's equations then you should
use them correctly. <br>
<br>
I for myself refer to experiments when I deviate from classical
physics to understand relativistic phenomena.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
The "higher order terms" may be a considerable portion if we talk
about speeds v > 0.1 c , i.e. relativistic situations. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
I do NOT insist in this, to say it once again and again and ... !
But what does this have to do with your equation above? The equation
is correct and well known.<br>
<br>
And of course you can divide such equation by c any time
irrespective of any constancy of c. Basic mathematics!<br>
<br>
For the variation of c I have given you the correct dependency for
the case of gravity. I did it several times! Always overlooked??<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
The mass increases at motion is not only clear experimental evidence
but is determined with high precision in accordance with the
equation above.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
What shall this equation tell us? Which physical situation shall be
described by this relation?<br>
<br>
If you follow the approach of relativity of Lorentz (or of myself)
then the relation is very simply: c = c<sub>0</sub> +/- v . But if
an observers moving with v measures c then his result will always
be: c = c<sub>0</sub> . You get this by applying the Lorentz
transformation to the functioning of the measurement tools in
motion. And that again is in precise compliance with the experiment.
<br>
<br>
It is correct that c changes in a gravitational field and I have
given you <i>several times </i>the formula for this. It is easily
visible that the variation in a gravitational field is very small
and in no way able to explain the variations which we observe in the
usual experiments of relativity. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sub>You have again used here the wrong equation for
the kinetic energy T, again ignoring the increase of mass at
motion. So we cannot discuss physics.</sub></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
I have explained the muon experiment at CERN. Overlooked again??<br>
<br>
If the equation which you believe to be correct is used, then the
result would be wrong by a great factor. I have given you numbers.
No one can ignore such great discrepancies only because he/she is
biased by his/her faith in Einstein. <br>
<br>
Or do you assume that there is a conspiracy of physicists all over
the world, in all nations and all political systems, in order to
save Einstein's theory? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?</p>
</blockquote>
Your presentation here is not legitimate, if you mean this by your
question. Again you use physical equations and formulae in a
completely wrong way. This is not able to convince anyone. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
I am working myself on alternative physics since > 20 years. But
not with equations which are nothing else than non-physical
fantasies ignoring experiments. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">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 size="+1" color="#330033">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that
Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did not see any
true arguments from you, but you only presented
your results of an incorrect understanding of
Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT then
please give us arguments. Step by step. To say YES
or NO as a summary without any arguments is not
science. I also have some concerns about
Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure statements
without arguments like in your last mails we do
not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for YES
or NO is: Einstein's SRT is formally consistent;
however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at constant
velocity slows down in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO
questions is simply did he or did he not say that
the moving clock slows down? The question is not
whether his theory is formally consistent but
whether his theory states moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving
clock slows down. Which is of course not new. But notice
that in his paper of 1905 he has given the conditions at
which this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is there
a difference between an observer A on clock A seeing
clock B move at constant velocity in a circle
compared with an observer B on clock B seeing clock
A move in a circle at constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all that
has been said is that both observers see the other
go in a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to
Einsteins Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer move
at constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer positioned
in the middle of both clocks at rest. And they slow down
by the same amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct way
as SRT is about the relation of inertial frames, and
here none of the clocks is in an inertial frame. - On
the other hand this question must be answerable in a
formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one clock
the other clock moves for an infinitesimal distance on a
straight path. In this infinitesimal moment the own
clock also moves on a straight path and both do not have
any speed in relation to the other one (i.e. no change
of the distance). Speed in the Lorentz transformation is
the temporal derivative of the distance. This is 0 in
this case. So no effects according to SRT and both
observers see the speed of the other clock not slowed
down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving coordinate
frames at this stage of our discussion. If one
observer sees the other leave his coordinate frame
behind why does the other not see the same thing.
Einstein insisted there are no preferred coordinate
frames. That Einsteins theory, as published in 1905,
can be patched up by adding interpretations and even
new physics, which Einstein tried to do himself with
GRT is not the issue We can discuss whether or not
the "leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is
part of the original SRT later, after you answer
question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but
about inertial frames (the question which coordinate
frame is used is of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the
other one permanently leaving his inertial frame but
also himself leaving permanently his inertial frame.
That is easily noticeable as he will notice his
acceleration. - How this case can be solved in
accordance with SRT I have explained in the preceding
paragraph. That solution is physically correct and in my
understanding in accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying to
lead you and anyone listening to the logical
conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by
his assumptions is wrong. I am not questioning that
after making his assumptions he can logically derive
the Lorentz transformations, nor that such a
derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive
gone through his papers often enough to know his
math is correct. I'm simply trying to lead us all
to the realization that the speed of light as a
physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was, never
will be and warping coordinate frames and all the
changes in physics required to make that assumption
consistent with experimental fact has been a 100
year abomination. If you believe that assumption,
I've got a guy on a cross who claims to be the son
of god to introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that the
speed of light is not constant. I would understand this
as a step forward. But you have to do it with
appropriate arguments which I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the
arguments which are my arguments to follow the
relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my view the
Lorentzian relativity is more easy to understand and has
physical causes. Einstein's principle is not physics but
spirituality in my view and his considerations about
time and space are as well not physics. Also my view.
But you have questioned the compatibility of Einstein's
theory with reality by some examples, at last by the
twin case and argued that this is a violation of
Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality. But both
is not the case, and that was the topic of the
discussions during the last dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my mails
as the questions below are answered in my
last mails, most of them in the mail of
yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your continued
gripe about my referring to gravity.
Something is wrong let me ask some simple
yes and no questions to get to the bottom
of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence principle
holds and acceleration and gravity are
related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my
last mails </i>that the equivalence
principle is violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does
not cause dilation. And, as I have also
written earlier, that you find this in any
textbook about special relativity and that it
was experimentally proven at the muon storage
ring at CERN. - It seems to me that you did
not read my last mails but write your
answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a
mountain runs faster than one at sea
level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last
mail</i>. In addition I have given you the
numerical result for the gravitational
dilation on the surface of the sun where the
slow down of a clock is the little difference
of about 1 / 100'000 compared to a zero-field
situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical
examples for the twin case about a dilation by
a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is
related to the gravity potential by c*c =
G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the
equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction
of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock
speed dilation experiments at the v^4/v^4
accuracy level do you know any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz factor:
gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable for time
dilation and for every kinematic or dynamic
calculation where special relativity applies.
And in the latter context it is used by
thousands of physicists all over the world who
work at accelerators. One could find it in
their computer programs. To ask them whether
they have done it in this way would seem to
them like the doubt whether they have
calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly. This is daily
work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is
different only for the case of time dilation
then the answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed of
light c could never be constant (or measured
as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement since
it is quite likely the wave function is a
mental projection and therefore its
collapse is a collapse of knowledge and
the Aspect experiments have been
incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated very
carefully by others (as also Zeilinger has
presented here in his last talk) and the new
experiments are said to have covered all loop
holes which have been left by Aspect. And also
all these experiments are carefully observed
by an international community of physicists.
But of course this is never a guaranty that
anything is correct. So it is good practice to
doubt that and I am willing follow this way.
However if you do not accept these experiments
or the consequences drawn, then please explain
in detail where and why you disagree.
Otherwise critical statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree and
go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical
facts. Or we should present arguments, which
means at best: quantitative calculations as
proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017
1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have
to remind you on the quantitative
results if something is referred to the
gravitational force. As much as I know
any use of gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to 40 orders of
magnitude smaller that we have them in
fact in physics. - If you disagree to
this statement please give us your
quantitative calculation (for instance
for the twin case). Otherwise your
repeated arguments using gravity do not
help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which
may be affected by human understanding
in a bad way, I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.06.2017
um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in
Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make detailed
arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I had
been arguing that Einstein’s
special relativity claims that
the clocks of an observer moving
at constant velocity with
respect to a second observer
will slow down. This lead to the
twin paradox that is often
resolved by citing the need for
acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity
in general relativity. My
symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein
as I understood him could not
explain the paradox. I did so in
order to set the stage for
introducing a new theory. You
argued my understanding of
Einstein was wrong. Ok This is
not worth arguing about because
it is not second guessing
Einstein that is important but
that but I am trying to present
a new way of looking at reality
which is based on Platonic
thinking rather than Aristotle.
</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was
essentially the way you see it.
This is called naive realism.
And science from Newton up to
quantum theory is based upon it.
If you keep repeating that my
ideas are not what physicists
believe I fully agree. It is not
an argument to say the
mainstream of science disagrees.
I know that. I'm proposing
something different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let
me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I am
suggesting that there is no
independent physically objective
space time continuum in which
the material universe including
you, I, and the rest of the
particles and fields exist.
Instead I believe a better world
view is that (following Everett)
that all systems are observers
and therefore create their own
space in which the objects you
see in front of your face
appear. The situation is shown
below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part8.A1633E2A.CCF1066F@a-giese.de"
alt="" class="" height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts You, I, and
the rest of the Universe “U” . I
do a symmetric twin thought
experiment in which both twins
do exactly the same thing. They
accelerate in opposite
directions turn around and come
back at rest to compare clocks.
You does a though experiment
that is not symmetric one twin
is at rest the other accelerates
and comes back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each thought
experiment is done in the space
associated with You,I and U. The
speed of light is constant in
each of these spaces and so the
special relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said
many times these are self
consistent equations and I have
no problem with them under the
Aristotilian assumption that
each of the three parts believes
what they see is the independent
space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see is in each
parts space. This space provides
the background aether, in it the
speed of electromagnetic
interactions is constant BECAUSE
this speed is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level largely
if not totally imposed by the
gravity interactions the
physical material from which
each part is made experiences.
Each part you and your space
runs at a different rate because
the constant Einstein was
looking for should be called the
speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or disagree with this
view point. But if you disagree
please do not tell me that the
mainstream physicists do not
take this point of view. I know
that. Main stream physicists are
not attempting to solve the
consciousness problem , and have
basically eliminated the mind
and all subjective experience
from physics. I’m trying to fix
this rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may - have
good arguments that, what we see, is
not the true reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example
to show this. It is not a better
example than to cite Newton's law of
motion in order to proof that most
probably our human view is
questionable. For you it seems to be
tempting to use relativity because you
see logical conflicts related to
different views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example
that the world cannot be as simple as
assumed by the naive realism. But
relativity and particularly the twin
experiment is completely in agreement
with this naive realism. The
frequently discussed problems in the
twin case are in fact problems of
persons who did not truly understand
relativity. And this is the fact for
all working versions of relativity,
where the Einsteinian and the
Lorentzian version are the ones which
I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law is
a good example specifically force is a
theoretical construct and not see able
, what we see is acceleration and the
feeling of push or pull so f=ma
equates a theoretical conjecture with
an experience but Newton assumes both
are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity
because I believe it can be explained
much sipler and more accurately if we
realize material generates its own
space i.e. there is something it feels
like to be material. I believe
integrating this feeling into physics
is the next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new
premise I think REletevistic phenomena
can be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light is NOT
constant in each piece of material but
dependent on its energy (gravitatinal)
state. <br>
I think our discussion is most helpful
in refining these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment
to this: Every piece of material has its
own energy. Also objects which are
connected by a gravitational field build
a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it seems to
me that you relate every energy state to
gravity. Here I do not follow. If pieces
of material are bound to each other and
are </font><font color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of
energy, the energy in it is dominated by
the strong force and by the electric
force. In comparison the gravitational
energy is so many orders of magnitude
smaller (Where the order of magnitude
is > 35) that this is an extremely
small side effect, too small to play any
role in most applications. Or please
present your quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your comments in
detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our
discussion would use detailed
arguments and
counter-arguments instead of
pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow
down, but If I include the
observer then I get an
equation for the slow down
that agrees with eperimetn
but disagrees with
Einstein in the higher
order, so it should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the
deviation in your calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your
comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing
Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey
day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was
convinced Reality consisted
of an external objective
universe independent of
subjective living beings.
Electricity and Magnetism
had largely been explored
through empirical
experiments which lead to
basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>summarized by
Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a
medium characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>are valid in a
coordinate frame x,y,z,t and
are identical in form when
expressed in a different
coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’. Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen a
substitution of the Lorentz
formulas into Maxwell’s
equations that will then
give the same form only
using ∂/∂x’, and d/dt’, to
get E’ and B’ but it must
exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which is
much more exciting. W.G.V.
Rosser has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell can
be deduced from two things: 1.)
the Coulomb law; 2.) the Lorentz
transformation. It is
interesting because it shows
that electromagnetism is a
consequence of special
relativity. (Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via Relativity,
New York Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is not a
separate force but only a
certain perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with
this viw point of magnetics, but all
within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space
Maxwell’s equations reduce
to the wave equation and
Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a
medium for them to
propagate. It was postulated
that space was filled with
such a medium and that the
earth was moving through it.
Therefore it should be
detectable with a Michelson
–Morely experiment. But The
Null result showed this to
be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics
aether is nothing more than the
fact of an absolute frame.
Nobody believes these days that
aether is some kind of material.
And also Maxwell's theory does
not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not
need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not detected by
the Michelson-Morely experiment
which does however not mean that
no aether existed. The only
result is that it cannot be
detected. This latter conclusion
was also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> <br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it is
attached to the observer doing the
experiment , see my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we know
from other observations and facts that
objects contract at motion - in the
original version of Heaviside, this
happens when electric fields move in
relation to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM experiment is
unable to show a phase shift as the
arms of the interferometer have
changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand
and I believe like you this is a
better explanation than Einsteins but
it still leaves the aether as a
property of an independent space that
exist whether we live or die and and
assume we are objects in that space it
also identifies that space with what
is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our bigger
self ( not how we see ourselves) is
NOT in U's space and what I see is not
equal to the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect
to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along
and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming the
speed of light is constant,
synchronization protocol of
clocks, and rods, the
invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all inertial
frames, and the null result
of Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein went
on to eliminate any absolute
space and instead proposed
that all frames and
observers riding in them are
equivalent and each such
observer would measure
another observers clocks
slowing down when moving
with constant relative
velocity. This
interpretation lead to the
Twin Paradox. Since each
observer according to
Einstein, being in his own
frame would according to his
theory claim the other
observer’s clocks would slow
down. However both cannot be
right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I have
explained several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many
publications that use general
relativity, gravity and the
equivalence principle as the the way
to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static
homogeneous gravitational field
URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do
not want to argue about what
Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv
document. The authors want to show
that the twin case can also be handled
as a process related to gravity. So
they define the travel of the
travelling twin so that he is
permanently accelerated until he
reaches the turn around point and then
accelerated back to the starting
point, where the twin at rest resides.
Then they calculate the slow down of
time as a consequence of the
accelerations which they relate to an
fictive gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with our
discussion by several reasons. One
reason is the intent of the authors to
replace completely the slow down of
time by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up an
experiment where one clock is slowed
down by the motion and the other twin
slowed down by acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your intention
according to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that
acceleration means clock slow down.
But that does not happen. Any text
book about SRT says that acceleration
does not cause a slow down of time /
clocks. And there are clear
experiments proofing exactly this. For
instance the muon storage ring at CERN
showed that the lifetime of muons was
extended by their high speed but in no
way by the extreme acceleration in the
ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect physics.
And I do not know of any serious
physicist who tries to explain the
twin case by gravity. I have given you
by the way some strong arguments that
such an explanation is not possible.
- And independently, do you have
other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like
the details of this paper but it is
relevant because it is only one of a
long list of papers that use gravity
and acceleration to to explain the
twin paradox. I am not claiming they
are correct only that a large
community believes this is the way to
explain the twin paradox. If you look
at the Wikipedia entry for Twin
Paradox they will say explanations
fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one of
these categories does not mean a
community supporting the gravity
explanation view point does not exist.
I've ordered Sommerfelds book that
has Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see what they
say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please,
that long list? Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now,
gravity is many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too
small to play any role here. And this
can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an
answer to this paradox in
his invention of general
relativity where clocks
speed up when in a higher
gravity field i.e one that
feels less strong like up on
top of a mountain. Applied
to the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the
moving twin at velocity “v”
and thinks the moving twin’s
clock slows down. The moving
twin does not move relative
to his clock but must
accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>to make a round trip
(using the equivalence
principle calculated the
being equivalent to a
gravitational force).
Feeling the acceleration as
gravity and knowing that
gravity slows her clocks she
would also calculate her
clocks would slow down. The
paradox is resolved because
in one case the explanation
is velocity the other it is
gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely wrong!
General relativity has nothing
to do with the twin situation,
and so gravity or any equivalent
to gravity has nothing to do
with it. The twin situation is
not a paradox but is clearly
free of conflicts if special
relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly
applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most
papers explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most
papers" are. I have never heard about
this and I am caring about this twin
experiment since long time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last comment.
It is certainly how I was taught but I
have notr looked up papers on the
subject for many years, will try to
find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a
completely different approach I do not
think which of two explanations is
more right is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply
proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures
slow down and lengths in the
direction of motion contract
in the absolute aether of
space according to his
transformation and therefore
the aether could not be
detected. In other words
Lorentz maintained the
belief in an absolute aether
filled space, but that
electromagnetic objects
relative to that space slow
down and contract. Gravity
and acceleration had nothing
to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach pursued
by Max Van Laue argued that
the observer subject to
acceleration would know that
he is no longer in the same
inertial frame as before and
therefore calculate that his
clocks must be slowing down,
even though he has no way of
measuring such a slow down
because all the clocks in
his reference frame.
Therefore does not consider
gravity but only the
knowledge that due to his
acceleration he must be
moving as well and knowing
his clocks are slowed by
motion he is not surprised
that his clock has slowed
down when he gets back to
the stationary observer and
therefore no paradox exists.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving clocks
slow down but we have two
different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the absolute
fixed frame remains which in
the completely symmetric
twin paradox experiment
described above implies that
both observers have to
calculate their own clock
rates from the same initial
start frame and therefore
both calculate the same slow
down. This introduces a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who moves
with some constant speed
somewhere can make this
calculation and has the same
result. No specific frame like
the god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an
object in a 4th person's space, you
cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical"
process and it is in the same way as
much or as little depending on the
Mind as Newton's law of motion. So to
make things better understandable
please explain your position by the
use of either Newton's law or
something comparable. Relativity is
not appropriate as it allows for too
much speculation which does not really
help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right, but
eventually I hope to show the whole
business is a confusion introduced by
our habit of displaying time in a
space axis which introduces artifacts.
I hpe you will critique my writeup
when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do
you mean? The confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused by persons who
do not understand the underlying
physics. So, this does not require any
action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the simple
statement is not correct that
moving clocks slow down. If we
follow Einstein, also the
synchronization of the clocks in
different frames and different
positions is essential. If this
synchronization is omitted (as
in most arguments of this
discussion up to now) we will
have conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial
argument was that the calculations
by the moving twin was to be done in
the inertial frame before any
acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is
always the frame in which the theory
was defined and it is the mind of
the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to the
original frame of the one moving twin
in order to be close to your
experiment and your description. Any
other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought
that the consequence of having an
observer who feels a force like
gravity which according to the
equivalence principle and any ones
experience in a centrifuge is
indistinguishable from gravity, is
such a person needs to transfer to the
initial start frame that would mean we
would all be moving at the speed of
light and need to transfer back to the
big bang or the perhaps the CBR frame
<br>
perhaps non of our clocks are running
very fast but I still get older - this
thinking leads to crazy stuff - the
whole basis does not make common
experience sense, which is what I want
to base our physics on. We have gotten
our heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really
understand what you mean here. - Your
are right that we should never forget
that mathematics is a tool and not an
understanding of the world. But
regarding your heavily discussed example
of relativity, it is fundamentally
understandable without a lot of
mathematics. At least the version of
Hendrik Lorentz. That one is accessible
to imagination without much mathematics
and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case both
observers would see the
other moving at a relative
velocity and calculate their
clocks to run slower than
their own when they
calculate their own
experience they would also
calculate their own clocks
to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying.
But to be compliant with
Einstein one has to take into
account the synchronization
state of the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot be
compared in a simple view. If
someone wants to compare them he
has e.g. to carry a "transport"
clock from one clock to the
other one. And the "transport"
clock will also run differently
when carried. This - again - is
the problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but
this is not the issue, its whether
the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity
you have to do it in a correct way.
You do it in an incorrect way and then
you tell us that results are logically
conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention are
fully and correctly covered by the
Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but
Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy
conference has a nice explanation of
how Maxwells Equations are invariant
under Galilean transforms "if you do
it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you
do the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But
because they know the other
twin is also accelerating
these effects cancel and all
that is left is the velocity
slow down. In other words
the Einstein explanation
that one twin explains the
slow down as a velocity
effect and the other as a
gravity effect so both come
to the same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have to
fall back on Lorentz’s and
both twins calculate both
the gravity effect and the
velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow
down in this process as a
gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a
gravity effect. There is none,
neither by Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I know. Even if
the equivalence between gravity
and acceleration would be valid
(which it is not) there are two
problems. Even if the time would
stand still during the whole
process of backward acceleration
so that delta t' would be 0,
this would not at all explain
the time difference experienced
by the twins. And on the other
hand the gravitational field
would have, in order to have the
desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at least
20 orders of magnitude (so
>> 10<sup>20</sup>) of the
gravity field around the sun etc
to achieve the time shift
needed. So this approach has no
argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are
coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and the
slow down of clocks and the speed of
light in a lower ( closer to a mass)
field is the heart of general
relativity. why do you keep
insisting it is not. GPs clocks are
corrected for gravty potential and
orbit speed, I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made a
calculation that the bendng of light
around the sun is due to a gravity
acing like a refractive media. Why
tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not
correct in so far as gravity causes
dilation but acceleration does not.
This is given by theory and by
experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying
clocks do not run faster at higher
altitude? I was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude
it would not be as accurate if it did
not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run
faster, and that is gravity, not
acceleration. And even gravity has a
small influence. The gravitational field
on the surface of the sun slows down
clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the factors of
slow down which are normally assumed in
the examples for the twin travel.
--> Absolutely not usable, even if
equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to run
in free space, there is no gravity
involved. Of course one may put the
concept of it into the vicinity of the
sun or of a neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox or
not is not affected by this change.
And particularly gravity is not a
solution as it treats all participants
in the same way And anyhow there is no
solution needed as it is in fact not a
paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and
Einstein’s approaches are
flawed</b> because both
require a disembodied 3d
person observer who is
observing that independent
Aristotilian objective
universe that must exist
whether we look at it or
not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is
definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of one
of the twins or of the other
twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the
world who is in a defined frame.
<br>
<br>
I have written this in my last
mail, and if you object here you
should give clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in
the context of a 3d person, he clear
argument is that he clock slow down
is also derivable form the
invariance of action required to
execute a clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as the
relation of two frames of linear
motion. If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always presents the
relation between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing else shows up
anywhere in these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now Baer
comes along and says the
entire Aristotelian approach
is wrong and the Platonic
view must be taken. Einstein
is right in claiming there
is no independent of
ourselves space however his
derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was
conducted under the
assumption that his own
imagination provided the 3d
person observer god like
observer but he failed to
recognize the significance
of this fact. And therefore
had to invent additional and
incorrect assumptions that
lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer is
properly taken into account
each observer generates his
own observational display in
which he creates the
appearance of clocks. Those
appearance are stationary
relative to the observer’s
supplied background space or
they might be moving. But in
either case some external
stimulation has caused the
two appearances. If two
copies of the same external
clock mechanism are involved
and in both cases the clock
ticks require a certain
amount of action to complete
a cycle of activity that is
called a second i.e. the
moving of the hand from line
1 to line 2 on the dial.
Therefore the action
required to complete the
event between clock ticks is
the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks do not
slow down because they
appear to be moving relative
to each other their rates
are determined by their
complete Lagrangian Energy L
= T-V calculated inside the
fixed mass underlying each
observer’s universe. The
potential gravitational
energy of a mass inside the
mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup> =
-m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub>
and R<sub>u</sub> are the
mass and radius of the mass
shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of the
black hole each of us is in.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock
interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock
interval is Δt’ its
Lagrangian energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the non-relativistic
case. But we discuss relativity
here. So the correct equation
has to be used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe
relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the way
that you use equations (here for
kinetic energy) which are strictly
restricted to non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙
Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which to
first order approximation is
equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is not
usable as we are discussing
relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow
down is simply derivable from action
invariance and sped of light
dependence on gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of
special relativity, it has nothing to
do with a gravitational potential. In
special relativity the slow down of
clocks is formally necessary to
"explain" the constancy of c in any
frame. In general relativity it was
necessary to explain that the speed of
light is also constant in a
gravitational field. So, Einstein
meant the <i>independence </i>of c
from a gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position
outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a
measurement result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the
second order terms are on
the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s theory
has not been tested to the
second term accuracy. In
both theories the moving
clock interval is smaller
when the clock moves with
constant velocity in the
space of an observer at
rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an
approximation here which is a
bit different from Einstein's
solution. And then you say that
Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask that
the approximation in Einstein's
solution should be
experimentally checked. No, the
approximation is in your
solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is
different from the simple lagrangian
but both are equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my knowledge
has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian
for the derivation of this equation.
Please look into his paper of 1905.
His goal was to keep c constant in any
frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood something
but a moving clock has longer
time periods and so indicates a
smaller time for a given
process. And if you follow
Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the
question of synchronization
which is essential for all
considerations about dilation. I
repeat the correct equation
here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on the
position the case ends up with
logical conflicts. Just those
conflicts which you have
repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle
accelerators Einstein's theory
has been tested with v very
close to c. Here in Hamburg at
DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be added
to 0.9999 . That is clearly
measurable and shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have
introduced it here without any
argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point.
Please provide the Reference for
this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle
interactions, so also those which have
been performed here including my own
experiment, have used the true
Einstein relation with consistent
results for energy and momentum. An
assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which
violate conservation of energy and of
momentum. So, any experiment performed
here during many decades is a proof
that the equation of Einstein is
correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th
order is necessary the very simple
almost classical expression based
upon action invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to
Einstein's equation, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that
clocks are slowed when they are in a
deeper gravity well and my
calculations and theory predicts this
fact to the same accuracy that has
been tested. You say Einsteins formula
has been tested to the fourth order.
This would make my theory wrong.
Please give me a reference so I can
look at the assumptions to the best of
my knowledge neither length
contraction or time dilation beyond
the approximate solutions to Einsteins
equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what you
want I would have to present here the
computer programs which we have used to
calculate e.g. the kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have them any more
40 years after the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no experiment evaluated
here at DESY over 40 years and as well
no experiment at CERN and as well no
experiment at the Standford accelerator
without using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results if
Einstein would be wrong at this point.
Because as I wrote, any evaluation would
have shown a violation of the
conservation of energy and the
conservation of momentum. That means one
would have received chaotic results for
every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right that
there is an aether and
Einstein is right that there
is no absolute frame and
everything is relative. But
Baer resolve both these
“rights” by identifying the
aether as the personal
background memory space of
each observer who feels he
is living in his own
universe. We see and
experience our own
individual world of objects
and incorrectly feel what we
are looking at is an
independent external
universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or
Lorentz is right if seen from an
epistemological position. Only
the measurement results are
equal. Beyond that I do not see
any need to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers here?
The observers in the different
frames are in fact the
measurement tools like clocks
and rulers. The only
human-related problem is that a
human may read the indication of
a clock in a wrong way. The
clock itself is in this view
independent of observer related
facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both
Einstein and Lorenz tried to find a
solution within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right in
that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink or
stretch the same as electromagnetic
waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a
yard stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz did not
understand is that both the yard
stick and the EM wave are
appearances in an observers space
and runs at an observers speed of
NOW. The observer must be included
in physics if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer
must be included. But let's start then
with something like Newton's law of
motion which is in that case also
affected. Relativity is bad for this
as it is mathematically more
complicated without providing
additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid
#D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px;
height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color:
#4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>