<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I do not know how to keep answering when you insist that
somewhere in your past there is something I should answer while I
think I am answering all your objections. I can duplicate what I
believe are all experimentally verified facts by simply</p>
<p>considering a classic Lagrangian L=T-V if I add to the potential
energy the energy of a mass inside a the surrounding mass shell.
This simple recognition avoids all the strange relativistic
effects introduced by Einstein or his followers and is completely
compatible with quantum mechanics. I've given you all the standard
time dilation equations and show that the speed of light the also
varies. My formulation is completely compatible with classic
thinking to terms v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> because I believe
that is the level I believe Einsteins theory has be verified <br>
</p>
<p>Please stop telling me this is a low speed approximation and
therefore wrong because then all you are saying my theory is not
equal to Einsteins, which of corse is the whole point.<br>
</p>
<p>you have no legitimate criticism until you give me the reference
to experiments that prove the opposite. I ask this because I
believe the accelerator experiments you refer to are analyzed with
the assumption that the speed of light is constant and therefore
are very likely not proving anything more than their own
assumption.</p>
<p>If I make Einsteins gamma =(mc<sup>2</sup>/(V-T)<sup>1/2</sup> )
i get complete agreement with Einstein's equations but still do
not have to buy into his world view. Given the criticism that has
been brought up in this group about all the reasons Einstein so
called experimental verification is flawed including the
perihelion rotation, and lately the solar plasma correction, I see
no reason to deviate from the classic and understandable world
view.</p>
<p>Please give me experiment reference <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Now to answer your comments to my coments
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/2017 4:19 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
I believe I have an interpretation compatible with all experiments
that does not assume the speed of light is constant, why is this not
legitimate physics?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
Yes I have seen you criticizs Einstein and his speed of light
assumption so why do you insist it must be constant now, since this
assumption is what allows you to call my equations incorrect.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
Show me the references<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
The equation is only correct IF YOU ASSUME THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS
CONSTANT otherwise m0=m0 as assumed in classical physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de"> 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>
I do not remember any conflict here I believe you agree that c2 = Mu
G / Ru <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
The equation above is only true because everyone assumes the speed
of light is constant and therefore divides it out.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
what it tells us is that the speed of light is proportional the the
gravitational energy the material in which electro-magnetic waves
propagate since the first term is simply c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
which is the gravitational potential in the mass shell and the
second term is the velocity energy which also raises the
gravitational potential of the particle in qurstion relative to the
observer.<br>
<br>
You see Albrecht what neither Einstein nor Lorentz has understood is
that each of us to first order generates a space of awareness within
which all things happen that we can observe <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de"> <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>
</blockquote>
If v=0 in the equation above c = c<sub>0</sub> as well what. I'm not
sure c = c<sub>0</sub> +/- v is compaible with all experiments
unless one introduces othr assumptions to classic physics I am
reluctant o accept.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de"> <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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de"> <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>
<sub><font size="+1">You again have again dismissed my equation
because you think </font></sub>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) which
as I have said implies you believe c=constant. This is the correct
equation for the classic Lagrangian if the gravitational potential
of the star shell we appear to be surrounded with is included in the
gravitational potential. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
please explain why the muon experiment makes any statement about the
mass. All I believe it does is makes a statement about the energy of
the mass which contains the c^2 term so your assumption again rests
on Einstein is right come hell or high water.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de"> <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>
I understand you do not like the idea that mass and charge remain
constant and classic physics is essentially correct, because your
theory depends on correcting an error in current thinking. You want
to make two errors make a right, I want it eliminate the first error
and simplify the whole mess. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<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. </blockquote>
we have had these discussions. You want to solve all problems in he
current framework and then address the observer problem. I see the
lack of observer inclusion as the root to the problems you want to
correct and therefore the goal is to include the observer in the
foundations of physics as a first principle. Baer's first law of
physics is that the physicist made the law. <br>
Put yourself in the center of your own universe, observations from
this point of view it is all you have and ever will have to build
your theory..<br>
<br>
best wishes<br>
wolf<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">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 color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that
Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did not see any
true arguments from you, but you only presented
your results of an incorrect understanding of
Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT
then please give us arguments. Step by step. To
say YES or NO as a summary without any arguments
is not science. I also have some concerns about
Einstein's SRT myself, but with pure statements
without arguments like in your last mails we do
not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for
YES or NO is: Einstein's SRT is formally
consistent; however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at
constant velocity slows down in his 1905 paper.
The YES or NO questions is simply did he or did he
not say that the moving clock slows down? The
question is not whether his theory is formally
consistent but whether his theory states moving
clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the moving
clock slows down. Which is of course not new. But
notice that in his paper of 1905 he has given the
conditions at which this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is
there a difference between an observer A on clock
A seeing clock B move at constant velocity in a
circle compared with an observer B on clock B
seeing clock A move in a circle at constant
velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all
that has been said is that both observers see the
other go in a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to
Einsteins Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer
move at constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer
positioned in the middle of both clocks at rest. And
they slow down by the same amount. Already given by
symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct
way as SRT is about the relation of inertial frames,
and here none of the clocks is in an inertial frame. -
On the other hand this question must be answerable in
a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one
clock the other clock moves for an infinitesimal
distance on a straight path. In this infinitesimal
moment the own clock also moves on a straight path and
both do not have any speed in relation to the other
one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in the
Lorentz transformation is the temporal derivative of
the distance. This is 0 in this case. So no effects
according to SRT and both observers see the speed of
the other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving
coordinate frames at this stage of our
discussion. If one observer sees the other leave
his coordinate frame behind why does the other
not see the same thing. Einstein insisted there
are no preferred coordinate frames. That Einsteins
theory, as published in 1905, can be patched up by
adding interpretations and even new physics, which
Einstein tried to do himself with GRT is not the
issue We can discuss whether or not the "leaving
coordinate frame" makes sense and is part of the
original SRT later, after you answer question 2
above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but
about inertial frames (the question which coordinate
frame is used is of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the
other one permanently leaving his inertial frame but
also himself leaving permanently his inertial frame.
That is easily noticeable as he will notice his
acceleration. - How this case can be solved in
accordance with SRT I have explained in the preceding
paragraph. That solution is physically correct and in
my understanding in accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying to
lead you and anyone listening to the logical
conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed by
his assumptions is wrong. I am not questioning
that after making his assumptions he can logically
derive the Lorentz transformations, nor that such
a derivation is inconsistent with his assumptions.
Ive gone through his papers often enough to know
his math is correct. I'm simply trying to lead us
all to the realization that the speed of light as
a physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was,
never will be and warping coordinate frames and
all the changes in physics required to make that
assumption consistent with experimental fact has
been a 100 year abomination. If you believe that
assumption, I've got a guy on a cross who claims
to be the son of god to introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that
the speed of light is not constant. I would understand
this as a step forward. But you have to do it with
appropriate arguments which I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the
arguments which are my arguments to follow the
relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my view the
Lorentzian relativity is more easy to understand and
has physical causes. Einstein's principle is not
physics but spirituality in my view and his
considerations about time and space are as well not
physics. Also my view. But you have questioned the
compatibility of Einstein's theory with reality by
some examples, at last by the twin case and argued
that this is a violation of Einstein's theory or in
conflict with reality. But both is not the case, and
that was the topic of the discussions during the last
dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017 4:57
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my
mails as the questions below are answered
in my last mails, most of them in the mail
of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your
continued gripe about my referring to
gravity. Something is wrong let me ask
some simple yes and no questions to get
to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence
principle holds and acceleration and
gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my
last mails </i>that the equivalence
principle is violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to gravity - does
not cause dilation. And, as I have also
written earlier, that you find this in any
textbook about special relativity and that
it was experimentally proven at the muon
storage ring at CERN. - It seems to me that
you did not read my last mails but write
your answering text independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a
mountain runs faster than one at sea
level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my last
mail</i>. In addition I have given you the
numerical result for the gravitational
dilation on the surface of the sun where the
slow down of a clock is the little
difference of about 1 / 100'000 compared to
a zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical
examples for the twin case about a dilation
by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is
related to the gravity potential by c*c
= G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the
equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about clock
speed dilation experiments at the
v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz
factor: gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable for time
dilation and for every kinematic or dynamic
calculation where special relativity
applies. And in the latter context it is
used by thousands of physicists all over the
world who work at accelerators. One could
find it in their computer programs. To ask
them whether they have done it in this way
would seem to them like the doubt whether
they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly.
This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is
different only for the case of time dilation
then the answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that e.g. the speed
of light c could never be constant (or
measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement
since it is quite likely the wave
function is a mental projection and
therefore its collapse is a collapse of
knowledge and the Aspect experiments
have been incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated
very carefully by others (as also Zeilinger
has presented here in his last talk) and the
new experiments are said to have covered all
loop holes which have been left by Aspect.
And also all these experiments are carefully
observed by an international community of
physicists. But of course this is never a
guaranty that anything is correct. So it is
good practice to doubt that and I am willing
follow this way. However if you do not
accept these experiments or the consequences
drawn, then please explain in detail where
and why you disagree. Otherwise critical
statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree
and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical
facts. Or we should present arguments, which
means at best: quantitative calculations as
proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2017
1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I have
to remind you on the quantitative
results if something is referred to
the gravitational force. As much as I
know any use of gravitational force
yields a result which is about 30 to
40 orders of magnitude smaller that we
have them in fact in physics. - If you
disagree to this statement please give
us your quantitative calculation (for
instance for the twin case). Otherwise
your repeated arguments using gravity
do not help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics which
may be affected by human understanding
in a bad way, I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in
Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make detailed
arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing that
Einstein’s special relativity
claims that the clocks of an
observer moving at constant
velocity with respect to a
second observer will slow
down. This lead to the twin
paradox that is often resolved
by citing the need for
acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity
in general relativity. My
symmetric twin experiment was
intended to show that Einstein
as I understood him could not
explain the paradox. I did so
in order to set the stage for
introducing a new theory. You
argued my understanding of
Einstein was wrong. Ok This is
not worth arguing about
because it is not second
guessing Einstein that is
important but that but I am
trying to present a new way of
looking at reality which is
based on Platonic thinking
rather than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was
essentially the way you see
it. This is called naive
realism. And science from
Newton up to quantum theory is
based upon it. If you keep
repeating that my ideas are
not what physicists believe I
fully agree. It is not an
argument to say the mainstream
of science disagrees. I know
that. I'm proposing something
different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So
let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that there is no
independent physically
objective space time continuum
in which the material universe
including you, I, and the rest
of the particles and fields
exist. Instead I believe a
better world view is that
(following Everett) that all
systems are observers and
therefore create their own
space in which the objects you
see in front of your face
appear. The situation is shown
below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part8.938538EE.2A7802FF@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class="" height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts You, I,
and the rest of the Universe
“U” . I do a symmetric twin
thought experiment in which
both twins do exactly the same
thing. They accelerate in
opposite directions turn
around and come back at rest
to compare clocks. You does a
though experiment that is not
symmetric one twin is at rest
the other accelerates and
comes back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each thought
experiment is done in the
space associated with You,I
and U. The speed of light is
constant in each of these
spaces and so the special
relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said
many times these are self
consistent equations and I
have no problem with them
under the Aristotilian
assumption that each of the
three parts believes what they
see is the independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see is in
each parts space. This space
provides the background
aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic interactions
is constant BECAUSE this speed
is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level
largely if not totally imposed
by the gravity interactions
the physical material from
which each part is made
experiences. Each part you and
your space runs at a different
rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for
should be called the speed of
NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or disagree with
this view point. But if you
disagree please do not tell me
that the mainstream physicists
do not take this point of
view. I know that. Main stream
physicists are not attempting
to solve the consciousness
problem , and have basically
eliminated the mind and all
subjective experience from
physics. I’m trying to fix
this rather gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may -
have good arguments that, what we
see, is not the true reality. So far
so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good example
to show this. It is not a better
example than to cite Newton's law of
motion in order to proof that most
probably our human view is
questionable. For you it seems to be
tempting to use relativity because
you see logical conflicts related to
different views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example
that the world cannot be as simple
as assumed by the naive realism. But
relativity and particularly the twin
experiment is completely in
agreement with this naive realism.
The frequently discussed problems in
the twin case are in fact problems
of persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And this is
the fact for all working versions of
relativity, where the Einsteinian
and the Lorentzian version are the
ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons law
is a good example specifically force
is a theoretical construct and not
see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of push
or pull so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes both
are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity
because I believe it can be
explained much sipler and more
accurately if we realize material
generates its own space i.e. there
is something it feels like to be
material. I believe integrating this
feeling into physics is the next
major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this new
premise I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more easily
explained by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in each piece
of material but dependent on its
energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most
helpful in refining these ideas, so
thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little comment
to this: Every piece of material has
its own energy. Also objects which are
connected by a gravitational field
build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it seems
to me that you relate every energy
state to gravity. Here I do not
follow. If pieces of material are
bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of
energy, the energy in it is dominated
by the strong force and by the
electric force. In comparison the
gravitational energy is so many orders
of magnitude smaller (Where the order
of magnitude is > 35) that this is
an extremely small side effect, too
small to play any role in most
applications. Or please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your comments in
detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if our
discussion would use
detailed arguments and
counter-arguments instead of
pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow
down, but If I include
the observer then I get
an equation for the slow
down that agrees with
eperimetn but disagrees
with Einstein in the
higher order, so it
should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the
deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your
comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing
Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In
the 19’th century the hey
day of Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone was
convinced Reality
consisted of an external
objective universe
independent of subjective
living beings. Electricity
and Magnetism had largely
been explored through
empirical experiments
which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>summarized by
Maxwell’s equations. These
equations are valid in a
medium characterized by
the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free space. URL:
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>are valid in a
coordinate frame x,y,z,t
and are identical in form
when expressed in a
different coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve never
seen a substitution of the
Lorentz formulas into
Maxwell’s equations that
will then give the same
form only using ∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get E’ and B’
but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done which
is much more exciting. W.G.V.
Rosser has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell can
be deduced from two things:
1.) the Coulomb law; 2.) the
Lorentz transformation. It is
interesting because it shows
that electromagnetism is a
consequence of special
relativity. (Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York Plenum
Press). Particularly magnetism
is not a separate force but
only a certain perspective of
the electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer with
this viw point of magnetics, but
all within the self consistent
Aristotelian point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>In empty space
Maxwell’s equations reduce
to the wave equation and
Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a
medium for them to
propagate. It was
postulated that space was
filled with such a medium
and that the earth was
moving through it.
Therefore it should be
detectable with a
Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null
result showed this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present physics
aether is nothing more than
the fact of an absolute frame.
Nobody believes these days
that aether is some kind of
material. And also Maxwell's
theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not
need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not detected by
the Michelson-Morely
experiment which does however
not mean that no aether
existed. The only result is
that it cannot be detected.
This latter conclusion was
also accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it
is attached to the observer doing
the experiment , see my drawing
above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we
know from other observations and
facts that objects contract at
motion - in the original version of
Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation to
an aether. So the interferometer in
the MM experiment is unable to show
a phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed their
lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I understand
and I believe like you this is a
better explanation than Einsteins
but it still leaves the aether as a
property of an independent space
that exist whether we live or die
and and assume we are objects in
that space it also identifies that
space with what is in front of our
nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our
bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space and
what I see is not equal to the
universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we expect
to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein came along
and derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming
the speed of light is
constant, synchronization
protocol of clocks, and
rods, the invariance of
Maxwell’s equations in all
inertial frames, and the
null result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein went
on to eliminate any
absolute space and instead
proposed that all frames
and observers riding in
them are equivalent and
each such observer would
measure another observers
clocks slowing down when
moving with constant
relative velocity. This
interpretation lead to the
Twin Paradox. Since each
observer according to
Einstein, being in his own
frame would according to
his theory claim the other
observer’s clocks would
slow down. However both
cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I
have explained several times
now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so many
publications that use general
relativity, gravity and the
equivalence principle as the the
way to explain the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static
homogeneous gravitational field
URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I do
not want to argue about what
Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv
document. The authors want to show
that the twin case can also be
handled as a process related to
gravity. So they define the travel
of the travelling twin so that he is
permanently accelerated until he
reaches the turn around point and
then accelerated back to the
starting point, where the twin at
rest resides. Then they calculate
the slow down of time as a
consequence of the accelerations
which they relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with
our discussion by several reasons.
One reason is the intent of the
authors to replace completely the
slow down of time by the slow down
by gravity / acceleration. They do
not set up an experiment where one
clock is slowed down by the motion
and the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as it
was your intention according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that
acceleration means clock slow down.
But that does not happen. Any text
book about SRT says that
acceleration does not cause a slow
down of time / clocks. And there are
clear experiments proofing exactly
this. For instance the muon storage
ring at CERN showed that the
lifetime of muons was extended by
their high speed but in no way by
the extreme acceleration in the
ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect
physics. And I do not know of any
serious physicist who tries to
explain the twin case by gravity. I
have given you by the way some
strong arguments that such an
explanation is not possible. - And
independently, do you have other
sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not like
the details of this paper but it is
relevant because it is only one of a
long list of papers that use gravity
and acceleration to to explain the
twin paradox. I am not claiming they
are correct only that a large
community believes this is the way
to explain the twin paradox. If you
look at the Wikipedia entry for Twin
Paradox they will say explanations
fall into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one
of these categories does not mean a
community supporting the gravity
explanation view point does not
exist. I've ordered Sommerfelds
book that has Einstein and other
notables explanation and will see
what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is, please,
that long list? Please present it
here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now,
gravity is many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders) too
small to play any role here. And this
can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Einstein found an
answer to this paradox in
his invention of general
relativity where clocks
speed up when in a higher
gravity field i.e one that
feels less strong like up
on top of a mountain.
Applied to the twin
paradox: a stationary twin
sees the moving twin at
velocity “v” and thinks
the moving twin’s clock
slows down. The moving
twin does not move
relative to his clock but
must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>to make a round
trip (using the
equivalence principle
calculated the being
equivalent to a
gravitational force).
Feeling the acceleration
as gravity and knowing
that gravity slows her
clocks she would also
calculate her clocks would
slow down. The paradox is
resolved because in one
case the explanation is
velocity the other it is
gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely
wrong! General relativity has
nothing to do with the twin
situation, and so gravity or
any equivalent to gravity has
nothing to do with it. The
twin situation is not a
paradox but is clearly free of
conflicts if special
relativity, i.e. the Lorentz
transformation, is properly
applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most
papers explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most
papers" are. I have never heard
about this and I am caring about
this twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last
comment. It is certainly how I was
taught but I have notr looked up
papers on the subject for many
years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a
completely different approach I do
not think which of two explanations
is more right is a fruitful
argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz simply
proposed that clocks being
electromagnetic structures
slow down and lengths in
the direction of motion
contract in the absolute
aether of space according
to his transformation and
therefore the aether could
not be detected. In other
words Lorentz maintained
the belief in an absolute
aether filled space, but
that electromagnetic
objects relative to that
space slow down and
contract. Gravity and
acceleration had nothing
to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>This approach
pursued by Max Van Laue
argued that the observer
subject to acceleration
would know that he is no
longer in the same
inertial frame as before
and therefore calculate
that his clocks must be
slowing down, even though
he has no way of measuring
such a slow down because
all the clocks in his
reference frame. Therefore
does not consider gravity
but only the knowledge
that due to his
acceleration he must be
moving as well and knowing
his clocks are slowed by
motion he is not surprised
that his clock has slowed
down when he gets back to
the stationary observer
and therefore no paradox
exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving clocks
slow down but we have two
different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame
remains which in the
completely symmetric twin
paradox experiment
described above implies
that both observers have
to calculate their own
clock rates from the same
initial start frame and
therefore both calculate
the same slow down. This
introduces a disembodied
3d person observer which
is reminiscent of a god
like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who
moves with some constant speed
somewhere can make this
calculation and has the same
result. No specific frame like
the god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an
object in a 4th person's space,
you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely "mechanical"
process and it is in the same way as
much or as little depending on the
Mind as Newton's law of motion. So
to make things better understandable
please explain your position by the
use of either Newton's law or
something comparable. Relativity is
not appropriate as it allows for too
much speculation which does not
really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right,
but eventually I hope to show the
whole business is a confusion
introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis
which introduces artifacts. I hpe
you will critique my writeup when it
is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion do
you mean? The confusion about this
"twin paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not understand the
underlying physics. So, this does not
require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the simple
statement is not correct that
moving clocks slow down. If we
follow Einstein, also the
synchronization of the clocks
in different frames and
different positions is
essential. If this
synchronization is omitted (as
in most arguments of this
discussion up to now) we will
have conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your initial
argument was that the calculations
by the moving twin was to be done
in the inertial frame before any
acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame is
always the frame in which the
theory was defined and it is the
mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to
the original frame of the one moving
twin in order to be close to your
experiment and your description. Any
other frame can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you thought
that the consequence of having an
observer who feels a force like
gravity which according to the
equivalence principle and any ones
experience in a centrifuge is
indistinguishable from gravity, is
such a person needs to transfer to
the initial start frame that would
mean we would all be moving at the
speed of light and need to transfer
back to the big bang or the perhaps
the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are
running very fast but I still get
older - this thinking leads to crazy
stuff - the whole basis does not
make common experience sense, which
is what I want to base our physics
on. We have gotten our heads into
too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really
understand what you mean here. - Your
are right that we should never forget
that mathematics is a tool and not an
understanding of the world. But
regarding your heavily discussed
example of relativity, it is
fundamentally understandable without a
lot of mathematics. At least the
version of Hendrik Lorentz. That one
is accessible to imagination without
much mathematics and without logical
conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case both
observers would see the
other moving at a relative
velocity and calculate
their clocks to run slower
than their own when they
calculate their own
experience they would also
calculate their own clocks
to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's saying.
But to be compliant with
Einstein one has to take into
account the synchronization
state of the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot be
compared in a simple view. If
someone wants to compare them
he has e.g. to carry a
"transport" clock from one
clock to the other one. And
the "transport" clock will
also run differently when
carried. This - again - is the
problem of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but
this is not the issue, its whether
the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use relativity
you have to do it in a correct way.
You do it in an incorrect way and
then you tell us that results are
logically conflicting. No, they are
not.<br>
The complexities which you mention
are fully and correctly covered by
the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be, but
Cynthia Whitney who was at our Italy
conference has a nice explanation of
how Maxwells Equations are invariant
under Galilean transforms "if you do
it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if you
do the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But
because they know the
other twin is also
accelerating these effects
cancel and all that is
left is the velocity slow
down. In other words the
Einstein explanation that
one twin explains the slow
down as a velocity effect
and the other as a gravity
effect so both come to the
same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have to
fall back on Lorentz’s and
both twins calculate both
the gravity effect and the
velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god like
.</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any slow
down in this process as a
gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a
gravity effect. There is none,
neither by Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I know. Even
if the equivalence between
gravity and acceleration would
be valid (which it is not)
there are two problems. Even
if the time would stand still
during the whole process of
backward acceleration so that
delta t' would be 0, this
would not at all explain the
time difference experienced by
the twins. And on the other
hand the gravitational field
would have, in order to have
the desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at
least 20 orders of magnitude
(so >> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity field around
the sun etc to achieve the
time shift needed. So this
approach has no argument at
all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you are
coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and the
slow down of clocks and the speed
of light in a lower ( closer to a
mass) field is the heart of
general relativity. why do you
keep insisting it is not. GPs
clocks are corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1 GPS and you
yoursel made a calculation that
the bendng of light around the sun
is due to a gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis constant
denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not
correct in so far as gravity causes
dilation but acceleration does not.
This is given by theory and by
experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying
clocks do not run faster at higher
altitude? I was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its altitude
it would not be as accurate if it
did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run
faster, and that is gravity, not
acceleration. And even gravity has a
small influence. The gravitational
field on the surface of the sun slows
down clocks by the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the factors
of slow down which are normally
assumed in the examples for the twin
travel. --> Absolutely not
usable, even if equivalence would be
working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to
run in free space, there is no
gravity involved. Of course one may
put the concept of it into the
vicinity of the sun or of a neutron
star. But then the question whether
it is a paradox or not is not
affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not a
solution as it treats all
participants in the same way And
anyhow there is no solution needed
as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and
Einstein’s approaches
are flawed</b> because
both require a disembodied
3d person observer who is
observing that independent
Aristotilian objective
universe that must exist
whether we look at it or
not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is
definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of one
of the twins or of the other
twin or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in the
world who is in a defined
frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my last
mail, and if you object here
you should give clear
arguments, not mere
repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived in
the context of a 3d person, he
clear argument is that he clock
slow down is also derivable form
the invariance of action required
to execute a clock tick of
identical clocks in any observers
material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as
the relation of two frames of linear
motion. If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always presents
the relation between two frames,
normally called S and S'. Nothing
else shows up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes along and says
the entire Aristotelian
approach is wrong and the
Platonic view must be
taken. Einstein is right
in claiming there is no
independent of ourselves
space however his
derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was
conducted under the
assumption that his own
imagination provided the
3d person observer god
like observer but he
failed to recognize the
significance of this fact.
And therefore had to
invent additional and
incorrect assumptions that
lead to false equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>When the observer
is properly taken into
account each observer
generates his own
observational display in
which he creates the
appearance of clocks.
Those appearance are
stationary relative to the
observer’s supplied
background space or they
might be moving. But in
either case some external
stimulation has caused the
two appearances. If two
copies of the same
external clock mechanism
are involved and in both
cases the clock ticks
require a certain amount
of action to complete a
cycle of activity that is
called a second i.e. the
moving of the hand from
line 1 to line 2 on the
dial. Therefore the action
required to complete the
event between clock ticks
is the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks do
not slow down because they
appear to be moving
relative to each other
their rates are determined
by their complete
Lagrangian Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the
fixed mass underlying each
observer’s universe. The
potential gravitational
energy of a mass inside
the mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Here M<sub>u</sub>
and R<sub>u</sub> are the
mass and radius of the
mass shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of the
black hole each of us is
in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A stationary clock
interval is Δt its
Lagrangian energy is L=
m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>A moving clock
interval is Δt’ its
Lagrangian energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T =
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in the
non-relativistic case. But we
discuss relativity here. So
the correct equation has to be
used which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe
relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the
way that you use equations (here for
kinetic energy) which are strictly
restricted to non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙
Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation is equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is
not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow
down is simply derivable from
action invariance and sped of
light dependence on gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of
special relativity, it has nothing
to do with a gravitational
potential. In special relativity the
slow down of clocks is formally
necessary to "explain" the constancy
of c in any frame. In general
relativity it was necessary to
explain that the speed of light is
also constant in a gravitational
field. So, Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational field.
<br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position
outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a
measurement result, not true
physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since
the second order terms are
on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s
theory has not been tested
to the second term
accuracy. In both theories
the moving clock interval
is smaller when the clock
moves with constant
velocity in the space of
an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an
approximation here which is a
bit different from Einstein's
solution. And then you say
that Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you ask
that the approximation in
Einstein's solution should be
experimentally checked. No,
the approximation is in your
solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation is
different from the simple
lagrangian but both are equal to
v8v/c*c order which is all that to
my knowledge has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the Lagrangian
for the derivation of this equation.
Please look into his paper of 1905.
His goal was to keep c constant in
any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood
something but a moving clock
has longer time periods and so
indicates a smaller time for a
given process. And if you
follow Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores the
question of synchronization
which is essential for all
considerations about dilation.
I repeat the correct equation
here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on
the position the case ends up
with logical conflicts. Just
those conflicts which you have
repeatedly mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle
accelerators Einstein's theory
has been tested with v very
close to c. Here in Hamburg at
DESY up to v = 0.9999 c. So,
v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is
0.9996 as a term to be added
to 0.9999 . That is clearly
measurable and shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have
introduced it here without any
argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important point.
Please provide the Reference for
this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle
interactions, so also those which
have been performed here including
my own experiment, have used the
true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and
momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which
violate conservation of energy and
of momentum. So, any experiment
performed here during many decades
is a proof that the equation of
Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th
order is necessary the very simple
almost classical expression based
upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to
Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree that
clocks are slowed when they are in a
deeper gravity well and my
calculations and theory predicts
this fact to the same accuracy that
has been tested. You say Einsteins
formula has been tested to the
fourth order. This would make my
theory wrong. Please give me a
reference so I can look at the
assumptions to the best of my
knowledge neither length contraction
or time dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to Einsteins
equations have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what
you want I would have to present here
the computer programs which we have
used to calculate e.g. the kinematics
of my experiment. (I do not have them
any more 40 years after the
experiment.) And as I wrote, there was
no experiment evaluated here at DESY
over 40 years and as well no
experiment at CERN and as well no
experiment at the Standford
accelerator without using Einstein's
Lorentz transformation. None of all
these experiments would have had
results if Einstein would be wrong at
this point. Because as I wrote, any
evaluation would have shown a
violation of the conservation of
energy and the conservation of
momentum. That means one would have
received chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>Lorentz is right
that there is an aether
and Einstein is right that
there is no absolute frame
and everything is
relative. But Baer resolve
both these “rights” by
identifying the aether as
the personal background
memory space of each
observer who feels he is
living in his own
universe. We see and
experience our own
individual world of
objects and incorrectly
feel what we are looking
at is an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or
Lorentz is right if seen from
an epistemological position.
Only the measurement results
are equal. Beyond that I do
not see any need to resolve
something. <br>
Which are the observers here?
The observers in the different
frames are in fact the
measurement tools like clocks
and rulers. The only
human-related problem is that
a human may read the
indication of a clock in a
wrong way. The clock itself is
in this view independent of
observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both
Einstein and Lorenz tried to find
a solution within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right
in that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures shrink
or stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with a
yard stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz did not
understand is that both the yard
stick and the EM wave are
appearances in an observers space
and runs at an observers speed of
NOW. The observer must be included
in physics if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer
must be included. But let's start
then with something like Newton's
law of motion which is in that case
also affected. Relativity is bad for
this as it is mathematically more
complicated without providing
additional philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid
#D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px;
height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height:
18px;">Virenfrei. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>