<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>sorry, you are missing the point regarding our discussion. I have
said in almost every mail that I do NOT believe that c is a
universal constant, and you write to me in turn that you have a
problem with me because I insist in the constancy of c. Then I
have to ask myself why we continue this dialogue. <br>
</p>
<p>You generally do not answer my arguments but repeat your
statements like a gramophone disk. That does not mean a
discussion. So, please answer my last mail of Sunday point by
point, else we should stop this.</p>
<p>Just one point here with respect to your mail below: You cannot
refer to classical mechanics if you want to discuss particle
physics. The investigation of particles was the reason to deviate
from classical physics because for the reactions of particles the
classical physics yielded nonsense. This was the stringent reason
to develop relativity and quantum mechanics. <br>
</p>
<p>And, by the way, what you assume by use of your truncated
equations is not at all compatible with quantum mechanics. If
particles could be treated by classical physics then the
development of relativity and QM during the last 100 years would
have been superfluous activity, and those 10'000s of physicists
who have worked in particle physics would have done a tremendous
wast of time and resources. Do you think that they all were that
stupid?<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.07.2017 um 05:57 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e92ead86-7ec0-5fa4-a70d-b7e08a92efa9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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 size="+1" color="#330033">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement that
Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did not see
any true arguments from you, but you only
presented your results of an incorrect
understanding of Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT
then please give us arguments. Step by step.
To say YES or NO as a summary without any
arguments is not science. I also have some
concerns about Einstein's SRT myself, but with
pure statements without arguments like in your
last mails we do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request for
YES or NO is: Einstein's SRT is formally
consistent; however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at
constant velocity slows down in his 1905 paper.
The YES or NO questions is simply did he or did
he not say that the moving clock slows down? The
question is not whether his theory is formally
consistent but whether his theory states moving
clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the
moving clock slows down. Which is of course not new.
But notice that in his paper of 1905 he has given
the conditions at which this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is
there a difference between an observer A on
clock A seeing clock B move at constant velocity
in a circle compared with an observer B on clock
B seeing clock A move in a circle at constant
velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all
that has been said is that both observers see
the other go in a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to
Einsteins Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer
move at constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer
positioned in the middle of both clocks at rest. And
they slow down by the same amount. Already given by
symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the direct
way as SRT is about the relation of inertial frames,
and here none of the clocks is in an inertial frame.
- On the other hand this question must be answerable
in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one
clock the other clock moves for an infinitesimal
distance on a straight path. In this infinitesimal
moment the own clock also moves on a straight path
and both do not have any speed in relation to the
other one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed in
the Lorentz transformation is the temporal
derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this case.
So no effects according to SRT and both observers
see the speed of the other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving
coordinate frames at this stage of our
discussion. If one observer sees the other leave
his coordinate frame behind why does the other
not see the same thing. Einstein insisted there
are no preferred coordinate frames. That
Einsteins theory, as published in 1905, can be
patched up by adding interpretations and even
new physics, which Einstein tried to do himself
with GRT is not the issue We can discuss
whether or not the "leaving coordinate frame"
makes sense and is part of the original SRT
later, after you answer question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames but
about inertial frames (the question which coordinate
frame is used is of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see the
other one permanently leaving his inertial frame but
also himself leaving permanently his inertial frame.
That is easily noticeable as he will notice his
acceleration. - How this case can be solved in
accordance with SRT I have explained in the
preceding paragraph. That solution is physically
correct and in my understanding in accordance with
Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying
to lead you and anyone listening to the logical
conclusion that Einsteins world view expressed
by his assumptions is wrong. I am not
questioning that after making his assumptions he
can logically derive the Lorentz
transformations, nor that such a derivation is
inconsistent with his assumptions. Ive gone
through his papers often enough to know his math
is correct. I'm simply trying to lead us all to
the realization that the speed of light as a
physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was,
never will be and warping coordinate frames and
all the changes in physics required to make
that assumption consistent with experimental
fact has been a 100 year abomination. If you
believe that assumption, I've got a guy on a
cross who claims to be the son of god to
introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove that
the speed of light is not constant. I would
understand this as a step forward. But you have to
do it with appropriate arguments which I found
missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the
arguments which are my arguments to follow the
relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my view
the Lorentzian relativity is more easy to understand
and has physical causes. Einstein's principle is not
physics but spirituality in my view and his
considerations about time and space are as well not
physics. Also my view. But you have questioned the
compatibility of Einstein's theory with reality by
some examples, at last by the twin case and argued
that this is a violation of Einstein's theory or in
conflict with reality. But both is not the case, and
that was the topic of the discussions during the
last dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017
4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my
mails as the questions below are
answered in my last mails, most of them
in the mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your
continued gripe about my referring to
gravity. Something is wrong let me ask
some simple yes and no questions to
get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence
principle holds and acceleration and
gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in my
last mails </i>that the equivalence
principle is violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to gravity -
does not cause dilation. And, as I have
also written earlier, that you find this
in any textbook about special relativity
and that it was experimentally proven at
the muon storage ring at CERN. - It seems
to me that you did not read my last mails
but write your answering text
independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a
mountain runs faster than one at sea
level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my
last mail</i>. In addition I have given
you the numerical result for the
gravitational dilation on the surface of
the sun where the slow down of a clock is
the little difference of about 1 / 100'000
compared to a zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the typical
examples for the twin case about a
dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light is
related to the gravity potential by
c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the
equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about
clock speed dilation experiments at
the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you know
any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz
factor: gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms depending on
v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>. This gamma is
similarly applicable for time dilation and
for every kinematic or dynamic calculation
where special relativity applies. And in
the latter context it is used by thousands
of physicists all over the world who work
at accelerators. One could find it in
their computer programs. To ask them
whether they have done it in this way
would seem to them like the doubt whether
they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly.
This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is
different only for the case of time
dilation then the answer is that SRT would
then be inconsistent in the way that e.g.
the speed of light c could never be
constant (or measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement
since it is quite likely the wave
function is a mental projection and
therefore its collapse is a collapse
of knowledge and the Aspect
experiments have been incorrectly
interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been repeated
very carefully by others (as also
Zeilinger has presented here in his last
talk) and the new experiments are said to
have covered all loop holes which have
been left by Aspect. And also all these
experiments are carefully observed by an
international community of physicists. But
of course this is never a guaranty that
anything is correct. So it is good
practice to doubt that and I am willing
follow this way. However if you do not
accept these experiments or the
consequences drawn, then please explain in
detail where and why you disagree.
Otherwise critical statements are not
helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to disagree
and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical
facts. Or we should present arguments,
which means at best: quantitative
calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I
have to remind you on the
quantitative results if something is
referred to the gravitational force.
As much as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a result
which is about 30 to 40 orders of
magnitude smaller that we have them
in fact in physics. - If you
disagree to this statement please
give us your quantitative
calculation (for instance for the
twin case). Otherwise your repeated
arguments using gravity do not help
us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics
which may be affected by human
understanding in a bad way, I think
that the case of entanglement could
be a good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments in
Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing that
Einstein’s special
relativity claims that the
clocks of an observer moving
at constant velocity with
respect to a second observer
will slow down. This lead to
the twin paradox that is
often resolved by citing the
need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>gravity in general
relativity. My symmetric
twin experiment was intended
to show that Einstein as I
understood him could not
explain the paradox. I did
so in order to set the stage
for introducing a new
theory. You argued my
understanding of Einstein
was wrong. Ok This is not
worth arguing about because
it is not second guessing
Einstein that is important
but that but I am trying to
present a new way of looking
at reality which is based on
Platonic thinking rather
than Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was
essentially the way you see
it. This is called naive
realism. And science from
Newton up to quantum theory
is based upon it. If you
keep repeating that my ideas
are not what physicists
believe I fully agree. It is
not an argument to say the
mainstream of science
disagrees. I know that. I'm
proposing something
different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So
let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that there is
no independent physically
objective space time
continuum in which the
material universe including
you, I, and the rest of the
particles and fields exist.
Instead I believe a better
world view is that
(following Everett) that all
systems are observers and
therefore create their own
space in which the objects
you see in front of your
face appear. The situation
is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part9.3091F9E6.0AECE017@a-giese.de"
alt="" class="" height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts You, I,
and the rest of the Universe
“U” . I do a symmetric twin
thought experiment in which
both twins do exactly the
same thing. They accelerate
in opposite directions turn
around and come back at rest
to compare clocks. You does
a though experiment that is
not symmetric one twin is at
rest the other accelerates
and comes back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each thought
experiment is done in the
space associated with You,I
and U. The speed of light is
constant in each of these
spaces and so the special
relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and Maxwell’s
equations apply. I have said
many times these are self
consistent equations and I
have no problem with them
under the Aristotilian
assumption that each of the
three parts believes what
they see is the independent
space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see is in
each parts space. This space
provides the background
aether, in it the speed of
electromagnetic interactions
is constant BECAUSE this
speed is determined by the
Lagrangian energy level
largely if not totally
imposed by the gravity
interactions the physical
material from which each
part is made experiences.
Each part you and your space
runs at a different rate
because the constant
Einstein was looking for
should be called the speed
of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or disagree with
this view point. But if you
disagree please do not tell
me that the mainstream
physicists do not take this
point of view. I know that.
Main stream physicists are
not attempting to solve the
consciousness problem , and
have basically eliminated
the mind and all subjective
experience from physics. I’m
trying to fix this rather
gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may -
have good arguments that, what we
see, is not the true reality. So
far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good
example to show this. It is not a
better example than to cite
Newton's law of motion in order to
proof that most probably our human
view is questionable. For you it
seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see logical
conflicts related to different
views of the relativistic
processes, to show at this example
that the world cannot be as simple
as assumed by the naive realism.
But relativity and particularly
the twin experiment is completely
in agreement with this naive
realism. The frequently discussed
problems in the twin case are in
fact problems of persons who did
not truly understand relativity.
And this is the fact for all
working versions of relativity,
where the Einsteinian and the
Lorentzian version are the ones
which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons
law is a good example specifically
force is a theoretical construct
and not see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of
push or pull so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes both
are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using relativity
because I believe it can be
explained much sipler and more
accurately if we realize material
generates its own space i.e. there
is something it feels like to be
material. I believe integrating
this feeling into physics is the
next major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this
new premise I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more easily
explained by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in each
piece of material but dependent on
its energy (gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is most
helpful in refining these ideas,
so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little
comment to this: Every piece of
material has its own energy. Also
objects which are connected by a
gravitational field build a system
which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it
seems to me that you relate every
energy state to gravity. Here I do
not follow. If pieces of material
are bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state of
energy, the energy in it is
dominated by the strong force and by
the electric force. In comparison
the gravitational energy is so many
orders of magnitude smaller (Where
the order of magnitude is > 35)
that this is an extremely small side
effect, too small to play any role
in most applications. Or please
present your quantitative
calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your comments
in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if
our discussion would use
detailed arguments and
counter-arguments instead
of pure repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE
all agree clocks slow
down, but If I include
the observer then I
get an equation for
the slow down that
agrees with eperimetn
but disagrees with
Einstein in the higher
order, so it should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show the
deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your
comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets
look at this thing
Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian Philosophy
everyone was convinced
Reality consisted of an
external objective
universe independent of
subjective living
beings. Electricity and
Magnetism had largely
been explored through
empirical experiments
which lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by Maxwell’s equations.
These equations are
valid in a medium
characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free space.
URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are valid in a coordinate frame
x,y,z,t and are
identical in form when
expressed in a different
coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve
never seen a
substitution of the
Lorentz formulas into
Maxwell’s equations that
will then give the same
form only using ∂/∂x’,
and d/dt’, to get E’ and
B’ but it must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done
which is much more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has shown that
the complete theory of
Maxwell can be deduced from
two things: 1.) the Coulomb
law; 2.) the Lorentz
transformation. It is
interesting because it shows
that electromagnetism is a
consequence of special
relativity. (Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York Plenum
Press). Particularly
magnetism is not a separate
force but only a certain
perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer
with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the
self consistent Aristotelian
point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce to the
wave equation and
Maxwell’s field concept
required an aether as a
medium for them to
propagate. It was
postulated that space
was filled with such a
medium and that the
earth was moving through
it. Therefore it should
be detectable with a
Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The Null
result showed this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present
physics aether is nothing
more than the fact of an
absolute frame. Nobody
believes these days that
aether is some kind of
material. And also Maxwell's
theory does not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does not
need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not detected
by the Michelson-Morely
experiment which does
however not mean that no
aether existed. The only
result is that it cannot be
detected. This latter
conclusion was also accepted
by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because it
is attached to the observer
doing the experiment , see my
drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we
know from other observations and
facts that objects contract at
motion - in the original version
of Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation
to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to show a
phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed their
lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I
understand and I believe like you
this is a better explanation than
Einsteins but it still leaves the
aether as a property of an
independent space that exist
whether we live or die and and
assume we are objects in that
space it also identifies that
space with what is in front of our
nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our
bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space and
what I see is not equal to the
universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we
expect to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein came along and
derived the Lorentz
Transformations assuming
the speed of light is
constant,
synchronization protocol
of clocks, and rods, the
invariance of Maxwell’s
equations in all
inertial frames, and the
null result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein
went on to eliminate any
absolute space and
instead proposed that
all frames and observers
riding in them are
equivalent and each such
observer would measure
another observers clocks
slowing down when moving
with constant relative
velocity. This
interpretation lead to
the Twin Paradox. Since
each observer according
to Einstein, being in
his own frame would
according to his theory
claim the other
observer’s clocks would
slow down. However both
cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I
have explained several times
now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so
many publications that use
general relativity, gravity and
the equivalence principle as the
the way to explain the twin
paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a static
homogeneous gravitational
field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble I
do not want to argue about
what Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv
document. The authors want to show
that the twin case can also be
handled as a process related to
gravity. So they define the travel
of the travelling twin so that he
is permanently accelerated until
he reaches the turn around point
and then accelerated back to the
starting point, where the twin at
rest resides. Then they calculate
the slow down of time as a
consequence of the accelerations
which they relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do with
our discussion by several reasons.
One reason is the intent of the
authors to replace completely the
slow down of time by the slow down
by gravity / acceleration. They do
not set up an experiment where one
clock is slowed down by the motion
and the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as it
was your intention according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that
acceleration means clock slow
down. But that does not happen.
Any text book about SRT says that
acceleration does not cause a slow
down of time / clocks. And there
are clear experiments proofing
exactly this. For instance the
muon storage ring at CERN showed
that the lifetime of muons was
extended by their high speed but
in no way by the extreme
acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect
physics. And I do not know of any
serious physicist who tries to
explain the twin case by gravity.
I have given you by the way some
strong arguments that such an
explanation is not possible. -
And independently, do you have
other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not
like the details of this paper but
it is relevant because it is only
one of a long list of papers that
use gravity and acceleration to to
explain the twin paradox. I am not
claiming they are correct only
that a large community believes
this is the way to explain the
twin paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox
they will say explanations fall
into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with one
of these categories does not mean
a community supporting the
gravity explanation view point
does not exist. I've ordered
Sommerfelds book that has Einstein
and other notables explanation and
will see what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is,
please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now,
gravity is many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders)
too small to play any role here. And
this can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in his
invention of general
relativity where clocks
speed up when in a
higher gravity field i.e
one that feels less
strong like up on top of
a mountain. Applied to
the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees the
moving twin at velocity
“v” and thinks the
moving twin’s clock
slows down. The moving
twin does not move
relative to his clock
but must accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a round trip (using the
equivalence principle
calculated the being
equivalent to a
gravitational force).
Feeling the acceleration
as gravity and knowing
that gravity slows her
clocks she would also
calculate her clocks
would slow down. The
paradox is resolved
because in one case the
explanation is velocity
the other it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely
wrong! General relativity
has nothing to do with the
twin situation, and so
gravity or any equivalent to
gravity has nothing to do
with it. The twin situation
is not a paradox but is
clearly free of conflicts if
special relativity, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation, is
properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again most
papers explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most
papers" are. I have never heard
about this and I am caring about
this twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last
comment. It is certainly how I was
taught but I have notr looked up
papers on the subject for many
years, will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose a
completely different approach I do
not think which of two
explanations is more right is a
fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz
Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being
electromagnetic
structures slow down and
lengths in the direction
of motion contract in
the absolute aether of
space according to his
transformation and
therefore the aether
could not be detected.
In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief in
an absolute aether
filled space, but that
electromagnetic objects
relative to that space
slow down and contract.
Gravity and acceleration
had nothing to do with
it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued that the
observer subject to
acceleration would know
that he is no longer in
the same inertial frame
as before and therefore
calculate that his
clocks must be slowing
down, even though he has
no way of measuring such
a slow down because all
the clocks in his
reference frame.
Therefore does not
consider gravity but
only the knowledge that
due to his acceleration
he must be moving as
well and knowing his
clocks are slowed by
motion he is not
surprised that his clock
has slowed down when he
gets back to the
stationary observer and
therefore no paradox
exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving clocks
slow down but we have
two different reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame
remains which in the
completely symmetric
twin paradox experiment
described above implies
that both observers have
to calculate their own
clock rates from the
same initial start frame
and therefore both
calculate the same slow
down. This introduces a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god
like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who
moves with some constant
speed somewhere can make
this calculation and has the
same result. No specific
frame like the god-like one
is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes an
object in a 4th person's space,
you cannot get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely
"mechanical" process and it is in
the same way as much or as little
depending on the Mind as Newton's
law of motion. So to make things
better understandable please
explain your position by the use
of either Newton's law or
something comparable. Relativity
is not appropriate as it allows
for too much speculation which
does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are right,
but eventually I hope to show the
whole business is a confusion
introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space axis
which introduces artifacts. I hpe
you will critique my writeup when
it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which confusion
do you mean? The confusion about
this "twin paradox" is solely caused
by persons who do not understand the
underlying physics. So, this does
not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the simple
statement is not correct
that moving clocks slow
down. If we follow Einstein,
also the synchronization of
the clocks in different
frames and different
positions is essential. If
this synchronization is
omitted (as in most
arguments of this discussion
up to now) we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your
initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving twin
was to be done in the inertial
frame before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame
is always the frame in which the
theory was defined and it is the
mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation to
the original frame of the one
moving twin in order to be close
to your experiment and your
description. Any other frame can
be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you
thought that the consequence of
having an observer who feels a
force like gravity which according
to the equivalence principle and
any ones experience in a
centrifuge is indistinguishable
from gravity, is such a person
needs to transfer to the initial
start frame that would mean we
would all be moving at the speed
of light and need to transfer back
to the big bang or the perhaps the
CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are
running very fast but I still get
older - this thinking leads to
crazy stuff - the whole basis does
not make common experience sense,
which is what I want to base our
physics on. We have gotten our
heads into too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not really
understand what you mean here. -
Your are right that we should never
forget that mathematics is a tool
and not an understanding of the
world. But regarding your heavily
discussed example of relativity, it
is fundamentally understandable
without a lot of mathematics. At
least the version of Hendrik
Lorentz. That one is accessible to
imagination without much mathematics
and without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case both
observers would see the
other moving at a
relative velocity and
calculate their clocks
to run slower than their
own when they calculate
their own experience
they would also
calculate their own
clocks to run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's
saying. But to be compliant
with Einstein one has to
take into account the
synchronization state of the
clocks. Clocks at different
positions cannot be compared
in a simple view. If someone
wants to compare them he has
e.g. to carry a "transport"
clock from one clock to the
other one. And the
"transport" clock will also
run differently when
carried. This - again - is
the problem of
synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities but
this is not the issue, its
whether the world view is
correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use
relativity you have to do it in a
correct way. You do it in an
incorrect way and then you tell us
that results are logically
conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you mention
are fully and correctly covered by
the Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be,
but Cynthia Whitney who was at our
Italy conference has a nice
explanation of how Maxwells
Equations are invariant under
Galilean transforms "if you do it
the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if
you do the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But
because they know the
other twin is also
accelerating these
effects cancel and all
that is left is the
velocity slow down. In
other words the Einstein
explanation that one
twin explains the slow
down as a velocity
effect and the other as
a gravity effect so both
come to the same
conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have
to fall back on
Lorentz’s and both twins
calculate both the
gravity effect and the
velocity effect from a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god
like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any
slow down in this process as
a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a
gravity effect. There is
none, neither by Einstein
nor by anyone else whom I
know. Even if the
equivalence between gravity
and acceleration would be
valid (which it is not)
there are two problems. Even
if the time would stand
still during the whole
process of backward
acceleration so that delta
t' would be 0, this would
not at all explain the time
difference experienced by
the twins. And on the other
hand the gravitational field
would have, in order to have
the desired effect here, to
be greater by a factor of at
least 20 orders of magnitude
(so >> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity field around
the sun etc to achieve the
time shift needed. So this
approach has no argument at
all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you
are coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and
the slow down of clocks and the
speed of light in a lower (
closer to a mass) field is the
heart of general relativity. why
do you keep insisting it is not.
GPs clocks are corrected for
gravty potential and orbit
speed, I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel made
a calculation that the bendng of
light around the sun is due to a
gravity acing like a refractive
media. Why tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not
correct in so far as gravity
causes dilation but acceleration
does not. This is given by theory
and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you saying
clocks do not run faster at higher
altitude? I was a consultant for
GPS phase 1 GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be as
accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run
faster, and that is gravity, not
acceleration. And even gravity has a
small influence. The gravitational
field on the surface of the sun
slows down clocks by the small
portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>. Please
compare this with the factors of
slow down which are normally assumed
in the examples for the twin
travel. --> Absolutely not
usable, even if equivalence would be
working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed to
run in free space, there is no
gravity involved. Of course one
may put the concept of it into the
vicinity of the sun or of a
neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox
or not is not affected by this
change. And particularly gravity
is not a solution as it treats all
participants in the same way And
anyhow there is no solution needed
as it is in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So
both Lorentz’s and
Einstein’s approaches
are flawed</b> because
both require a
disembodied 3d person
observer who is
observing that
independent Aristotilian
objective universe that
must exist whether we
look at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is
definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole
situation can be completely
evaluated from the view of
one of the twins or of the
other twin or from the view
of <i>any other observer </i>in
the world who is in a
defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my
last mail, and if you object
here you should give clear
arguments, not mere
repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived
in the context of a 3d person,
he clear argument is that he
clock slow down is also
derivable form the invariance of
action required to execute a
clock tick of identical clocks
in any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived as
the relation of two frames of
linear motion. If you look at the
Lorentz transformation it always
presents the relation between two
frames, normally called S and S'.
Nothing else shows up anywhere in
these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes along and
says the entire
Aristotelian approach is
wrong and the Platonic
view must be taken.
Einstein is right in
claiming there is no
independent of ourselves
space however his
derivation of Lorentz
Transformations was
conducted under the
assumption that his own
imagination provided the
3d person observer god
like observer but he
failed to recognize the
significance of this
fact. And therefore had
to invent additional and
incorrect assumptions
that lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When the observer is
properly taken into
account each observer
generates his own
observational display in
which he creates the
appearance of clocks.
Those appearance are
stationary relative to
the observer’s supplied
background space or they
might be moving. But in
either case some
external stimulation has
caused the two
appearances. If two
copies of the same
external clock mechanism
are involved and in both
cases the clock ticks
require a certain amount
of action to complete a
cycle of activity that
is called a second i.e.
the moving of the hand
from line 1 to line 2 on
the dial. Therefore the
action required to
complete the event
between clock ticks is
the invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks do
not slow down because
they appear to be moving
relative to each other
their rates are
determined by their
complete Lagrangian
Energy L = T-V
calculated inside the
fixed mass underlying
each observer’s
universe. The potential
gravitational energy of
a mass inside the mass
shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and radius
of the mass shell and
also the Schwarzchild
radius of the black hole
each of us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its Lagrangian
energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its Lagrangian
energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T =
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in
the non-relativistic case.
But we discuss relativity
here. So the correct
equation has to be used
which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I believe
relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in the
way that you use equations (here
for kinetic energy) which are
strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock rates and
<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the
Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup>) ∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 +
½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation is equal
to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation is
not usable as we are
discussing relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock slow
down is simply derivable from
action invariance and sped of
light dependence on
gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of
special relativity, it has nothing
to do with a gravitational
potential. In special relativity
the slow down of clocks is
formally necessary to "explain"
the constancy of c in any frame.
In general relativity it was
necessary to explain that the
speed of light is also constant in
a gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a position
outside the field or with the
understanding of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case a
measurement result, not true
physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since
the second order terms
are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s
theory has not been
tested to the second
term accuracy. In both
theories the moving
clock interval is
smaller when the clock
moves with constant
velocity in the space of
an observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an
approximation here which is
a bit different from
Einstein's solution. And
then you say that Einstein's
solution is an
approximation. Then you ask
that the approximation in
Einstein's solution should
be experimentally checked.
No, the approximation is in
your solution as you write
it yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation
is different from the simple
lagrangian but both are equal to
v8v/c*c order which is all that
to my knowledge has been
verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the
Lagrangian for the derivation of
this equation. Please look into
his paper of 1905. His goal was to
keep c constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood
something but a moving clock
has longer time periods and
so indicates a smaller time
for a given process. And if
you follow Einstein the
equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span>Δt
= Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores
the question of
synchronization which is
essential for all
considerations about
dilation. I repeat the
correct equation here: t' =
1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency on
the position the case ends
up with logical conflicts.
Just those conflicts which
you have repeatedly
mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In particle
accelerators Einstein's
theory has been tested with
v very close to c. Here in
Hamburg at DESY up to v =
0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be
added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and shows
that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have
introduced it here without
any argument and any need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important
point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses particle
interactions, so also those which
have been performed here including
my own experiment, have used the
true Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy and
momentum. An assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which
violate conservation of energy and
of momentum. So, any experiment
performed here during many decades
is a proof that the equation of
Einstein is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of 4th
order is necessary the very
simple almost classical
expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to
Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree
that clocks are slowed when they
are in a deeper gravity well and
my calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the same
accuracy that has been tested. You
say Einsteins formula has been
tested to the fourth order. This
would make my theory wrong. Please
give me a reference so I can look
at the assumptions to the best of
my knowledge neither length
contraction or time dilation
beyond the approximate solutions
to Einsteins equations have been
tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you what
you want I would have to present
here the computer programs which we
have used to calculate e.g. the
kinematics of my experiment. (I do
not have them any more 40 years
after the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no experiment
evaluated here at DESY over 40
years and as well no experiment at
CERN and as well no experiment at
the Standford accelerator without
using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all these
experiments would have had results
if Einstein would be wrong at this
point. Because as I wrote, any
evaluation would have shown a
violation of the conservation of
energy and the conservation of
momentum. That means one would have
received chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether and
Einstein is right that
there is no absolute
frame and everything is
relative. But Baer
resolve both these
“rights” by identifying
the aether as the
personal background
memory space of each
observer who feels he is
living in his own
universe. We see and
experience our own
individual world of
objects and incorrectly
feel what we are looking
at is an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right or
Lorentz is right if seen
from an epistemological
position. Only the
measurement results are
equal. Beyond that I do not
see any need to resolve
something. <br>
Which are the observers
here? The observers in the
different frames are in fact
the measurement tools like
clocks and rulers. The only
human-related problem is
that a human may read the
indication of a clock in a
wrong way. The clock itself
is in this view independent
of observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both
Einstein and Lorenz tried to
find a solution within the
Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more right
in that he argued the size of
electromagentic structures
shrink or stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength with
a yard stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz did not
understand is that both the yard
stick and the EM wave are
appearances in an observers
space and runs at an observers
speed of NOW. The observer must
be included in physics if we are
to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the observer
must be included. But let's start
then with something like Newton's
law of motion which is in that
case also affected. Relativity is
bad for this as it is
mathematically more complicated
without providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid
#D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width:
46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>