<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I answered to every one of your comments on your previous E-mails
, <br>
</p>
<p>it is you who continues to not provide references for experiments
that "prove" fourth order compliance with Einsteins formulatrion .
I believe I have duplicated mathematically all of Einsteins
experimentally proven results but using a different world view and
interpretation. Arguments that I am not using equations correctly
only imply I am not using them according to your world view. It is
the interpretation of Lorentz transformations not the consistency
of the math I am arguing.<br>
</p>
<p>I have said many times it is the SRT and GRT interpretation I
object to, an interpretation based upon his ability to derive
Lorentz transform equations form the assumption of constant light
speed plus a whole bunch of other modifications to classic
physics. <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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/3/2017 1:54 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
when you insist that (1/2)* m<sub>0</sub>* v<sup>2</sup> is wrong -
I'm trying to tell you that it is correct to fourth order and only
wrong if you assume c is constant because when the formula 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>)
is divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship for increasing
m, but if you let<br>
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>)
you get the same answers but charge and mass and most of classical
physics remain valid as well - <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
I did answered your E-mail on Sunday point by point just take a
look. Your previous E-mail I tried to answer by showing that your
10,000 forld increase in elecron mass is actually an increase in
energy involving the speed of light, which you assume is attributed
to mass because high energy people assume C is constant. Perhaps
you are not one of them, but I believe your criticism of me is based
on this perhaps unconscious assumption. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
relativity and quantum Theory were developed before particle
physics. I believe high energy physics makes false assumptions
because their analysis assumes SRT is correct and therefore
interpret everything in this light. That is why I am asking again
give me references to experiments that prove Einstein's equations
are correct beyond fourth order terms. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
It is compatible because quantum mechanics was initially and still
is based on Newtonian interpretation of space and time even though
some correction like fine structure was discovered by Sommerfeld
and made compatible with SRT those correction generally are
compatible with corrections using linear approximations to Einsteins
equations which my theory duplicates<br>
<br>
At the danger of sounding like a record: Assume there is a clock
sitting still interacting with nothing its activity between clock
ticks remains undisturbed and takes a constant amount of action A ,
However if those activities are calculated by two observers they
would calculate this constant action in their own point of view and
coordinate frames to get the invariant A as,<br>
dt1* L1 = A = dt2*L2<br>
were L1 and L2 are each observers Lagrangian of the undisturbed
clock in their own coordinate frame. The relationship between the
two observers observation is <br>
dt1* L1 = (L2/L1) *dt2<br>
or plugging in the Einsteinian like Lagrangians assuming including
the potential energy of the fixed stars gives<br>
dt1 = (m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> )<sup>1/2</sup>
*/(m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>-m<sub>0</sub>*v<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)}
*dt2<br>
Dividing through by m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup><br>
dt1 = dt2*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
The moving dt2 observer runs slower, however the clock which is the
subject of both runs the same , all I'm saying is that the Einstein
effects have nothing to do with the actual clock but are artifacts
of the observers . <br>
<br>
If we just used classical Lagrangians including the potential energy
of the fixed stars ( Mach's Principle) we would get all the same
effects to orders less than fourth power in v/c which I believe is
all that has been verified. outside high energy field, <br>
<br>
If we follow this reasoning we get to a much simpler physics and
those 10'000s of physicists will realize they have been suffering
under the wrong world view that has made their jobs and explanations
more and more complicated, not wrong just more complicated and not
relevant to our human situation.<br>
<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </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 color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement
that Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did not
see any true arguments from you, but you
only presented your results of an incorrect
understanding of Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with SRT
then please give us arguments. Step by step.
To say YES or NO as a summary without any
arguments is not science. I also have some
concerns about Einstein's SRT myself, but
with pure statements without arguments like
in your last mails we do not achieve
anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your request
for YES or NO is: Einstein's SRT is formally
consistent; however I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle at
constant velocity slows down in his 1905
paper. The YES or NO questions is simply did
he or did he not say that the moving clock
slows down? The question is not whether his
theory is formally consistent but whether his
theory states moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein the
moving clock slows down. Which is of course not
new. But notice that in his paper of 1905 he has
given the conditions at which this slow down
happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space is
there a difference between an observer A on
clock A seeing clock B move at constant
velocity in a circle compared with an observer
B on clock B seeing clock A move in a circle
at constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering all
that has been said is that both observers see
the other go in a circle at constant velocity.
<br>
If NO tell me why there is no contradiction to
Einsteins Claim in Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock / observer
move at constant speed and in a circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer
positioned in the middle of both clocks at rest.
And they slow down by the same amount. Already
given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the
direct way as SRT is about the relation of
inertial frames, and here none of the clocks is in
an inertial frame. - On the other hand this
question must be answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from one
clock the other clock moves for an infinitesimal
distance on a straight path. In this infinitesimal
moment the own clock also moves on a straight path
and both do not have any speed in relation to the
other one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed
in the Lorentz transformation is the temporal
derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this
case. So no effects according to SRT and both
observers see the speed of the other clock not
slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving
coordinate frames at this stage of our
discussion. If one observer sees the other
leave his coordinate frame behind why does
the other not see the same thing. Einstein
insisted there are no preferred coordinate
frames. That Einsteins theory, as published in
1905, can be patched up by adding
interpretations and even new physics, which
Einstein tried to do himself with GRT is not
the issue We can discuss whether or not the
"leaving coordinate frame" makes sense and is
part of the original SRT later, after you
answer question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate frames
but about inertial frames (the question which
coordinate frame is used is of no physical
relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only see
the other one permanently leaving his inertial
frame but also himself leaving permanently his
inertial frame. That is easily noticeable as he
will notice his acceleration. - How this case can
be solved in accordance with SRT I have explained
in the preceding paragraph. That solution is
physically correct and in my understanding in
accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am trying
to lead you and anyone listening to the
logical conclusion that Einsteins world view
expressed by his assumptions is wrong. I am
not questioning that after making his
assumptions he can logically derive the
Lorentz transformations, nor that such a
derivation is inconsistent with his
assumptions. Ive gone through his papers often
enough to know his math is correct. I'm
simply trying to lead us all to the
realization that the speed of light as a
physical phenomena is NOT constant, never was,
never will be and warping coordinate frames
and all the changes in physics required to
make that assumption consistent with
experimental fact has been a 100 year
abomination. If you believe that assumption,
I've got a guy on a cross who claims to be the
son of god to introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove
that the speed of light is not constant. I would
understand this as a step forward. But you have to
do it with appropriate arguments which I found
missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of the
arguments which are my arguments to follow the
relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In my view
the Lorentzian relativity is more easy to
understand and has physical causes. Einstein's
principle is not physics but spirituality in my
view and his considerations about time and space
are as well not physics. Also my view. But you
have questioned the compatibility of Einstein's
theory with reality by some examples, at last by
the twin case and argued that this is a violation
of Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality.
But both is not the case, and that was the topic
of the discussions during the last dozens of
mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/15/2017
4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read my
mails as the questions below are
answered in my last mails, most of
them in the mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your
continued gripe about my referring
to gravity. Something is wrong let
me ask some simple yes and no
questions to get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence
principle holds and acceleration and
gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times in
my last mails </i>that the
equivalence principle is violated at the
point that acceleration - in contrast to
gravity - does not cause dilation. And,
as I have also written earlier, that you
find this in any textbook about special
relativity and that it was
experimentally proven at the muon
storage ring at CERN. - It seems to me
that you did not read my last mails but
write your answering text independently.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top of a
mountain runs faster than one at sea
level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in my
last mail</i>. In addition I have
given you the numerical result for the
gravitational dilation on the surface of
the sun where the slow down of a clock
is the little difference of about 1 /
100'000 compared to a zero-field
situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the
typical examples for the twin case about
a dilation by a factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of light
is related to the gravity potential
by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail the
equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn about
clock speed dilation experiments at
the v^4/v^4 accuracy level do you
know any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the Lorentz
factor: gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms depending
on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>. This
gamma is similarly applicable for time
dilation and for every kinematic or
dynamic calculation where special
relativity applies. And in the latter
context it is used by thousands of
physicists all over the world who work
at accelerators. One could find it in
their computer programs. To ask them
whether they have done it in this way
would seem to them like the doubt
whether they have calculated 5 * 5 = 25
correctly. This is daily work in
practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma is
different only for the case of time
dilation then the answer is that SRT
would then be inconsistent in the way
that e.g. the speed of light c could
never be constant (or measured as
constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at entanglement
since it is quite likely the wave
function is a mental projection and
therefore its collapse is a collapse
of knowledge and the Aspect
experiments have been incorrectly
interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been
repeated very carefully by others (as
also Zeilinger has presented here in his
last talk) and the new experiments are
said to have covered all loop holes
which have been left by Aspect. And also
all these experiments are carefully
observed by an international community
of physicists. But of course this is
never a guaranty that anything is
correct. So it is good practice to doubt
that and I am willing follow this way.
However if you do not accept these
experiments or the consequences drawn,
then please explain in detail where and
why you disagree. Otherwise critical
statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to
disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic physical
facts. Or we should present arguments,
which means at best: quantitative
calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to gravity, I
have to remind you on the
quantitative results if something
is referred to the gravitational
force. As much as I know any use
of gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to 40
orders of magnitude smaller that
we have them in fact in physics. -
If you disagree to this statement
please give us your quantitative
calculation (for instance for the
twin case). Otherwise your
repeated arguments using gravity
do not help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for physics
which may be affected by human
understanding in a bad way, I
think that the case of
entanglement could be a good
example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments
in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing that
Einstein’s special
relativity claims that the
clocks of an observer
moving at constant
velocity with respect to a
second observer will slow
down. This lead to the
twin paradox that is often
resolved by citing the
need for acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>gravity in general
relativity. My symmetric
twin experiment was
intended to show that
Einstein as I understood
him could not explain the
paradox. I did so in order
to set the stage for
introducing a new theory.
You argued my
understanding of Einstein
was wrong. Ok This is not
worth arguing about
because it is not second
guessing Einstein that is
important but that but I
am trying to present a new
way of looking at reality
which is based on Platonic
thinking rather than
Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was
essentially the way you
see it. This is called
naive realism. And science
from Newton up to quantum
theory is based upon it.
If you keep repeating that
my ideas are not what
physicists believe I fully
agree. It is not an
argument to say the
mainstream of science
disagrees. I know that.
I'm proposing something
different. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So
let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that there
is no independent
physically objective space
time continuum in which
the material universe
including you, I, and the
rest of the particles and
fields exist. Instead I
believe a better world
view is that (following
Everett) that all systems
are observers and
therefore create their own
space in which the objects
you see in front of your
face appear. The situation
is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part9.C5736B22.EE8AE2B5@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class=""
height="440" width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts You,
I, and the rest of the
Universe “U” . I do a
symmetric twin thought
experiment in which both
twins do exactly the same
thing. They accelerate in
opposite directions turn
around and come back at
rest to compare clocks.
You does a though
experiment that is not
symmetric one twin is at
rest the other accelerates
and comes back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each thought
experiment is done in the
space associated with
You,I and U. The speed of
light is constant in each
of these spaces and so the
special relativity ,
Lorentz transforms, and
Maxwell’s equations apply.
I have said many times
these are self consistent
equations and I have no
problem with them under
the Aristotilian
assumption that each of
the three parts believes
what they see is the
independent space.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see is
in each parts space. This
space provides the
background aether, in it
the speed of
electromagnetic
interactions is constant
BECAUSE this speed is
determined by the
Lagrangian energy level
largely if not totally
imposed by the gravity
interactions the physical
material from which each
part is made experiences.
Each part you and your
space runs at a different
rate because the constant
Einstein was looking for
should be called the speed
of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or disagree with
this view point. But if
you disagree please do not
tell me that the
mainstream physicists do
not take this point of
view. I know that. Main
stream physicists are not
attempting to solve the
consciousness problem ,
and have basically
eliminated the mind and
all subjective experience
from physics. I’m trying
to fix this rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you may -
have good arguments that, what
we see, is not the true reality.
So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good
example to show this. It is not
a better example than to cite
Newton's law of motion in order
to proof that most probably our
human view is questionable. For
you it seems to be tempting to
use relativity because you see
logical conflicts related to
different views of the
relativistic processes, to show
at this example that the world
cannot be as simple as assumed
by the naive realism. But
relativity and particularly the
twin experiment is completely in
agreement with this naive
realism. The frequently
discussed problems in the twin
case are in fact problems of
persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And this
is the fact for all working
versions of relativity, where
the Einsteinian and the
Lorentzian version are the ones
which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes Newtons
law is a good example
specifically force is a
theoretical construct and not
see able , what we see is
acceleration and the feeling of
push or pull so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture with an
experience but Newton assumes
both are objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using
relativity because I believe it
can be explained much sipler and
more accurately if we realize
material generates its own space
i.e. there is something it feels
like to be material. I believe
integrating this feeling into
physics is the next major
advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept this
new premise I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more easily
explained by assuming the speed
of light is NOT constant in each
piece of material but dependent
on its energy (gravitatinal)
state. <br>
I think our discussion is most
helpful in refining these ideas,
so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little
comment to this: Every piece of
material has its own energy. Also
objects which are connected by a
gravitational field build a system
which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But it
seems to me that you relate every
energy state to gravity. Here I do
not follow. If pieces of material
are bound to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a state
of energy, the energy in it is
dominated by the strong force and
by the electric force. In
comparison the gravitational
energy is so many orders of
magnitude smaller (Where the
order of magnitude is > 35)
that this is an extremely small
side effect, too small to play any
role in most applications. Or
please present your quantitative
calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1 style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better if
our discussion would use
detailed arguments and
counter-arguments
instead of pure
repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree clocks slow down, but
If I include the
observer then I get
an equation for the
slow down that
agrees with
eperimetn but
disagrees with
Einstein in the
higher order, so it
should be testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I show
the deviation in your
calculations below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have your
comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian
Philosophy everyone
was convinced Reality
consisted of an
external objective
universe independent
of subjective living
beings. Electricity
and Magnetism had
largely been explored
through empirical
experiments which lead
to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>summarized by
Maxwell’s equations.
These equations are
valid in a medium
characterized by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free space.
URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are valid in a coordinate frame
x,y,z,t and are
identical in form when
expressed in a
different coordinate
frame x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely I’ve
never seen a
substitution of the
Lorentz formulas into
Maxwell’s equations
that will then give
the same form only
using ∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get E’ and
B’ but it must exist.
</p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been done
which is much more
exciting. W.G.V. Rosser
has shown that the
complete theory of Maxwell
can be deduced from two
things: 1.) the Coulomb
law; 2.) the Lorentz
transformation. It is
interesting because it
shows that
electromagnetism is a
consequence of special
relativity. (Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York
Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism is
not a separate force but
only a certain perspective
of the electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im familiaer
with this viw point of
magnetics, but all within the
self consistent Aristotelian
point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce to
the wave equation and
Maxwell’s field
concept required an
aether as a medium for
them to propagate. It
was postulated that
space was filled with
such a medium and that
the earth was moving
through it. Therefore
it should be
detectable with a
Michelson –Morely
experiment. But The
Null result showed
this to be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present
physics aether is nothing
more than the fact of an
absolute frame. Nobody
believes these days that
aether is some kind of
material. And also
Maxwell's theory does not
need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics does
not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not detected
by the Michelson-Morely
experiment which does
however not mean that no
aether existed. The only
result is that it cannot
be detected. This latter
conclusion was also
accepted by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because
it is attached to the observer
doing the experiment , see my
drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected because we
know from other observations and
facts that objects contract at
motion - in the original version
of Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in relation
to an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to show a
phase shift as the arms of the
interferometer have changed
their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I
understand and I believe like
you this is a better explanation
than Einsteins but it still
leaves the aether as a property
of an independent space that
exist whether we live or die and
and assume we are objects in
that space it also identifies
that space with what is in front
of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that our
bigger self ( not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's space
and what I see is not equal to
the universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can we
expect to get this from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein came along and
derived the Lorentz
Transformations
assuming the speed of
light is constant,
synchronization
protocol of clocks,
and rods, the
invariance of
Maxwell’s equations in
all inertial frames,
and the null result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments. Einstein
went on to eliminate
any absolute space and
instead proposed that
all frames and
observers riding in
them are equivalent
and each such observer
would measure another
observers clocks
slowing down when
moving with constant
relative velocity.
This interpretation
lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since each
observer according to
Einstein, being in his
own frame would
according to his
theory claim the other
observer’s clocks
would slow down.
However both cannot be
right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right as I
have explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there so
many publications that use
general relativity, gravity
and the equivalence principle
as the the way to explain the
twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a
static homogeneous
gravitational field URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025" moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my preamble
I do not want to argue about
what Einstein really meant.
<br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that arxiv
document. The authors want to
show that the twin case can also
be handled as a process related
to gravity. So they define the
travel of the travelling twin so
that he is permanently
accelerated until he reaches the
turn around point and then
accelerated back to the
starting point, where the twin
at rest resides. Then they
calculate the slow down of time
as a consequence of the
accelerations which they relate
to an fictive gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do
with our discussion by several
reasons. One reason is the
intent of the authors to replace
completely the slow down of time
by the slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not set up
an experiment where one clock is
slowed down by the motion and
the other twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity as
it was your intention according
to my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that
acceleration means clock slow
down. But that does not happen.
Any text book about SRT says
that acceleration does not cause
a slow down of time / clocks.
And there are clear experiments
proofing exactly this. For
instance the muon storage ring
at CERN showed that the lifetime
of muons was extended by their
high speed but in no way by the
extreme acceleration in the
ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells incorrect
physics. And I do not know of
any serious physicist who tries
to explain the twin case by
gravity. I have given you by the
way some strong arguments that
such an explanation is not
possible. - And independently,
do you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may not
like the details of this paper
but it is relevant because it is
only one of a long list of
papers that use gravity and
acceleration to to explain the
twin paradox. I am not claiming
they are correct only that a
large community believes this is
the way to explain the twin
paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin Paradox
they will say explanations fall
into two categories <br>
Just because you disagree with
one of these categories does not
mean a community supporting the
gravity explanation view point
does not exist. I've ordered
Sommerfelds book that has
Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see what
they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is,
please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times now,
gravity is many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30 orders)
too small to play any role here.
And this can be proven by quite
simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in his
invention of general
relativity where
clocks speed up when
in a higher gravity
field i.e one that
feels less strong like
up on top of a
mountain. Applied to
the twin paradox: a
stationary twin sees
the moving twin at
velocity “v” and
thinks the moving
twin’s clock slows
down. The moving twin
does not move relative
to his clock but must
accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>to make a round
trip (using the
equivalence principle
calculated the being
equivalent to a
gravitational force).
Feeling the
acceleration as
gravity and knowing
that gravity slows her
clocks she would also
calculate her clocks
would slow down. The
paradox is resolved
because in one case
the explanation is
velocity the other it
is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong, completely
wrong! General relativity
has nothing to do with the
twin situation, and so
gravity or any equivalent
to gravity has nothing to
do with it. The twin
situation is not a paradox
but is clearly free of
conflicts if special
relativity, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation, is
properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again
most papers explain it using
gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these "most
papers" are. I have never heard
about this and I am caring about
this twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last
comment. It is certainly how I
was taught but I have notr
looked up papers on the subject
for many years, will try to find
some<br>
but since I'm trying to propose
a completely different approach
I do not think which of two
explanations is more right is a
fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being
electromagnetic
structures slow down
and lengths in the
direction of motion
contract in the
absolute aether of
space according to his
transformation and
therefore the aether
could not be detected.
In other words Lorentz
maintained the belief
in an absolute aether
filled space, but that
electromagnetic
objects relative to
that space slow down
and contract. Gravity
and acceleration had
nothing to do with it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued that
the observer subject
to acceleration would
know that he is no
longer in the same
inertial frame as
before and therefore
calculate that his
clocks must be slowing
down, even though he
has no way of
measuring such a slow
down because all the
clocks in his
reference frame.
Therefore does not
consider gravity but
only the knowledge
that due to his
acceleration he must
be moving as well and
knowing his clocks are
slowed by motion he is
not surprised that his
clock has slowed down
when he gets back to
the stationary
observer and therefore
no paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving
clocks slow down but
we have two different
reasons. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed frame
remains which in the
completely symmetric
twin paradox
experiment described
above implies that
both observers have to
calculate their own
clock rates from the
same initial start
frame and therefore
both calculate the
same slow down. This
introduces a
disembodied 3d person
observer which is
reminiscent of a god
like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person who
moves with some constant
speed somewhere can make
this calculation and has
the same result. No
specific frame like the
god-like one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then becomes
an object in a 4th person's
space, you cannot get rid of
the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely
"mechanical" process and it is
in the same way as much or as
little depending on the Mind as
Newton's law of motion. So to
make things better
understandable please explain
your position by the use of
either Newton's law or something
comparable. Relativity is not
appropriate as it allows for too
much speculation which does not
really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are
right, but eventually I hope to
show the whole business is a
confusion introduced by our
habit of displaying time in a
space axis which introduces
artifacts. I hpe you will
critique my writeup when it is
finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which
confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not understand the
underlying physics. So, this does
not require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the simple
statement is not correct
that moving clocks slow
down. If we follow
Einstein, also the
synchronization of the
clocks in different frames
and different positions is
essential. If this
synchronization is omitted
(as in most arguments of
this discussion up to now)
we will have conflicting
results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your
initial argument was that the
calculations by the moving
twin was to be done in the
inertial frame before any
acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that frame
is always the frame in which
the theory was defined and it
is the mind of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the calculation
to the original frame of the one
moving twin in order to be close
to your experiment and your
description. Any other frame can
be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you
thought that the consequence of
having an observer who feels a
force like gravity which
according to the equivalence
principle and any ones
experience in a centrifuge is
indistinguishable from gravity,
is such a person needs to
transfer to the initial start
frame that would mean we would
all be moving at the speed of
light and need to transfer back
to the big bang or the perhaps
the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks are
running very fast but I still
get older - this thinking leads
to crazy stuff - the whole basis
does not make common experience
sense, which is what I want to
base our physics on. We have
gotten our heads into too much
math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not
really understand what you mean
here. - Your are right that we
should never forget that
mathematics is a tool and not an
understanding of the world. But
regarding your heavily discussed
example of relativity, it is
fundamentally understandable
without a lot of mathematics. At
least the version of Hendrik
Lorentz. That one is accessible to
imagination without much
mathematics and without logical
conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case both
observers would see
the other moving at a
relative velocity and
calculate their clocks
to run slower than
their own when they
calculate their own
experience they would
also calculate their
own clocks to run
slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's
saying. But to be
compliant with Einstein
one has to take into
account the
synchronization state of
the clocks. Clocks at
different positions cannot
be compared in a simple
view. If someone wants to
compare them he has e.g.
to carry a "transport"
clock from one clock to
the other one. And the
"transport" clock will
also run differently when
carried. This - again - is
the problem of
synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are complexities
but this is not the issue, its
whether the world view is
correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use
relativity you have to do it in
a correct way. You do it in an
incorrect way and then you tell
us that results are logically
conflicting. No, they are not.<br>
The complexities which you
mention are fully and correctly
covered by the Lorentz
transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may be,
but Cynthia Whitney who was at
our Italy conference has a nice
explanation of how Maxwells
Equations are invariant under
Galilean transforms "if you do
it the right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of things if
you do the proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But
because they know the
other twin is also
accelerating these
effects cancel and all
that is left is the
velocity slow down. In
other words the
Einstein explanation
that one twin explains
the slow down as a
velocity effect and
the other as a gravity
effect so both come to
the same conclusion is
inadequate. Einstein’s
explanation would have
to fall back on
Lorentz’s and both
twins calculate both
the gravity effect and
the velocity effect
from a disembodied 3d
person observer which
is reminiscent of a
god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain any
slow down in this process
as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again repeat a
gravity effect. There is
none, neither by Einstein
nor by anyone else whom I
know. Even if the
equivalence between
gravity and acceleration
would be valid (which it
is not) there are two
problems. Even if the time
would stand still during
the whole process of
backward acceleration so
that delta t' would be 0,
this would not at all
explain the time
difference experienced by
the twins. And on the
other hand the
gravitational field would
have, in order to have the
desired effect here, to be
greater by a factor of at
least 20 orders of
magnitude (so >> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity field
around the sun etc to
achieve the time shift
needed. So this approach
has no argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where you
are coming from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is , and
the slow down of clocks and
the speed of light in a lower
( closer to a mass) field is
the heart of general
relativity. why do you keep
insisting it is not. GPs
clocks are corrected for
gravty potential and orbit
speed, I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you yoursel
made a calculation that the
bendng of light around the sun
is due to a gravity acing like
a refractive media. Why tis
constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is not
correct in so far as gravity
causes dilation but acceleration
does not. This is given by
theory and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you
saying clocks do not run faster
at higher altitude? I was a
consultant for GPS phase 1 GPS
correct for its altitude it
would not be as accurate if it
did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they run
faster, and that is gravity, not
acceleration. And even gravity has
a small influence. The
gravitational field on the surface
of the sun slows down clocks by
the small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the
factors of slow down which are
normally assumed in the examples
for the twin travel. -->
Absolutely not usable, even if
equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is designed
to run in free space, there is
no gravity involved. Of course
one may put the concept of it
into the vicinity of the sun or
of a neutron star. But then the
question whether it is a paradox
or not is not affected by this
change. And particularly gravity
is not a solution as it treats
all participants in the same way
And anyhow there is no solution
needed as it is in fact not a
paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are
flawed</b> because
both require a
disembodied 3d person
observer who is
observing that
independent
Aristotilian objective
universe that must
exist whether we look
at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person is
definitely</b><b> </b><b>not
required</b>. The whole
situation can be
completely evaluated from
the view of one of the
twins or of the other twin
or from the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in
the world who is in a
defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in my
last mail, and if you
object here you should
give clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was derived
in the context of a 3d person,
he clear argument is that he
clock slow down is also
derivable form the invariance
of action required to execute
a clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers
material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was derived
as the relation of two frames of
linear motion. If you look at
the Lorentz transformation it
always presents the relation
between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing else
shows up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes along and
says the entire
Aristotelian approach
is wrong and the
Platonic view must be
taken. Einstein is
right in claiming
there is no
independent of
ourselves space
however his derivation
of Lorentz
Transformations was
conducted under the
assumption that his
own imagination
provided the 3d person
observer god like
observer but he failed
to recognize the
significance of this
fact. And therefore
had to invent
additional and
incorrect assumptions
that lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When the observer is
properly taken into
account each observer
generates his own
observational display
in which he creates
the appearance of
clocks. Those
appearance are
stationary relative to
the observer’s
supplied background
space or they might be
moving. But in either
case some external
stimulation has caused
the two appearances.
If two copies of the
same external clock
mechanism are involved
and in both cases the
clock ticks require a
certain amount of
action to complete a
cycle of activity that
is called a second
i.e. the moving of the
hand from line 1 to
line 2 on the dial.
Therefore the action
required to complete
the event between
clock ticks is the
invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two clocks
do not slow down
because they appear to
be moving relative to
each other their rates
are determined by
their complete
Lagrangian Energy L =
T-V calculated inside
the fixed mass
underlying each
observer’s universe.
The potential
gravitational energy
of a mass inside the
mass shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and
radius of the mass
shell and also the
Schwarzchild radius of
the black hole each of
us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its Lagrangian
energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its Lagrangian
energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is T =
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> only in
the non-relativistic case.
But we discuss relativity
here. So the correct
equation has to be used
which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I
believe relativity is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong in
the way that you use equations
(here for kinetic energy) which
are strictly restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock rates
and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming the
Action is an
invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙ (1 +
½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation is equal
to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order approximation
is not usable as we are
discussing relativity
here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why clock
slow down is simply derivable
from action invariance and
sped of light dependence on
gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation of
special relativity, it has
nothing to do with a
gravitational potential. In
special relativity the slow down
of clocks is formally necessary
to "explain" the constancy of c
in any frame. In general
relativity it was necessary to
explain that the speed of light
is also constant in a
gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a
position outside the field or
with the understanding of
Lorentz, this invariance is in
any case a measurement result,
not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since
the second order terms
are on the order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe Einstein’s
theory has not been
tested to the second
term accuracy. In both
theories the moving
clock interval is
smaller when the clock
moves with constant
velocity in the space
of an observer at
rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using an
approximation here which
is a bit different from
Einstein's solution. And
then you say that
Einstein's solution is an
approximation. Then you
ask that the approximation
in Einstein's solution
should be experimentally
checked. No, the
approximation is in your
solution as you write it
yourself earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's equation
is different from the simple
lagrangian but both are equal
to v8v/c*c order which is all
that to my knowledge has been
verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the
Lagrangian for the derivation of
this equation. Please look into
his paper of 1905. His goal was
to keep c constant in any frame.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood
something but a moving
clock has longer time
periods and so indicates a
smaller time for a given
process. And if you follow
Einstein the equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It ignores
the question of
synchronization which is
essential for all
considerations about
dilation. I repeat the
correct equation here: t'
= 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this dependency
on the position the case
ends up with logical
conflicts. Just those
conflicts which you have
repeatedly mentioned
here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In
particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has been
tested with v very close
to c. Here in Hamburg at
DESY up to v = 0.9999 c.
So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to be
added to 0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable and
shows that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You have
introduced it here without
any argument and any need.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important
point. Please provide the
Reference for this experiment
<br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses
particle interactions, so also
those which have been performed
here including my own
experiment, have used the true
Einstein relation with
consistent results for energy
and momentum. An assumed term of
v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results which
violate conservation of energy
and of momentum. So, any
experiment performed here during
many decades is a proof that the
equation of Einstein is correct
at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction of
4th order is necessary the
very simple almost classical
expression based upon action
invariance is adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree to
Einstein's equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I agree
that clocks are slowed when they
are in a deeper gravity well and
my calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the same
accuracy that has been tested.
You say Einsteins formula has
been tested to the fourth order.
This would make my theory wrong.
Please give me a reference so I
can look at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge neither
length contraction or time
dilation beyond the approximate
solutions to Einsteins equations
have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show you
what you want I would have to
present here the computer programs
which we have used to calculate
e.g. the kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have them
any more 40 years after the
experiment.) And as I wrote, there
was no experiment evaluated here
at DESY over 40 years and as well
no experiment at CERN and as well
no experiment at the Standford
accelerator without using
Einstein's Lorentz transformation.
None of all these experiments
would have had results if Einstein
would be wrong at this point.
Because as I wrote, any evaluation
would have shown a violation of
the conservation of energy and the
conservation of momentum. That
means one would have received
chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether and
Einstein is right that
there is no absolute
frame and everything
is relative. But Baer
resolve both these
“rights” by
identifying the aether
as the personal
background memory
space of each observer
who feels he is living
in his own universe.
We see and experience
our own individual
world of objects and
incorrectly feel what
we are looking at is
an independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is right
or Lorentz is right if
seen from an
epistemological position.
Only the measurement
results are equal. Beyond
that I do not see any need
to resolve something. <br>
Which are the observers
here? The observers in the
different frames are in
fact the measurement tools
like clocks and rulers.
The only human-related
problem is that a human
may read the indication of
a clock in a wrong way.
The clock itself is in
this view independent of
observer related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point both
Einstein and Lorenz tried to
find a solution within the
Aristotelian framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more
right in that he argued the
size of electromagentic
structures shrink or stretch
the same as electromagnetic
waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength
with a yard stick will not
show an effect. What Lorentz
did not understand is that
both the yard stick and the EM
wave are appearances in an
observers space and runs at an
observers speed of NOW. The
observer must be included in
physics if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the
observer must be included. But
let's start then with something
like Newton's law of motion
which is in that case also
affected. Relativity is bad for
this as it is mathematically
more complicated without
providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px
solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width:
46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>