<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>the point is that I have given some explanations hoping that you
answer to the arguments, not only state a different opinion. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:42:33 -0700
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de"><br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have asked you in the other mail what this last equation for c<sup>2</sup>
physically means, i.e. which physical situation you have in mind.
You did not answer this question. - Irrespective of what you mean by
it, it says that the speed of light increases to infinity if v>0
(whatever this may mean physically). This is in conflict with all
measurements because a speed > c<sub>0</sub> was never seen. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, m increases at motion up to infinity. This is a
clear measurement result and the measurements are very precise. So
your equation T = (1/2)* m* v<sup>2 </sup>is proven to be wrong. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is a simple exercise to measure the mass of a moving electron.
Also the speed of an electron in a synchrotron. In the synchrotron
the voltage at the cavities which accelerate the electron have to be
switched in time so that they always change their polarity in the
moment when an electron passes. They are switched in the assumption
that the electron moves at an increasing speed up to the speed of
light c<sub>0</sub>. If this assumption would not be extremely
correct then there would never be an acceleration. On the other hand
the bending magnets have to take into account the actual mass of the
electron (not the rest mass m<sub>0</sub>). Otherwise the electrons
would not follow the bended path inside the vacuum tube which has to
be precise by millimetres.<br>
<br>
No synchrotron, no cyclotron and no storage ring would ever have
worked even for a few meters of beam length if your equations would
be valid. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Besides looking at experiments (see further down) it is simpler and
clearer to look at the design of accelerators. They are built using
Einstein's equation and would never have guided one single particle
if this formalism would not be correct.<br>
<br>
And among those thousands of experiments performed in accelerators
you cannot find one single experiment which does not prove that
Einstein's equations are correct in that context. I have given you
examples that by use of your equations the results of the kinematic
calculations would be different by factors of 1000 or more.<br>
<br>
To find the papers describing these experiments you can use every
paper published by any accelerator. But you will not find this
statement (about the Lorentz transformation used) in the papers
because it is such a matter of course that everyone doing such
evaluations of experiments uses Einstein's equations. In the same
way as they all know how to multiply e.g. 124.6 by 657.33 without
mentioning it. It is all in the computer programs used for the
evaluation.<br>
<br>
But you may find examples of such calculations in the textbooks
about particle physics. No physicist in this field would ever use
different equations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have explained several times that this kind of comparison is wrong
as it overlooks the problem of synchronization. I have explained
earlier how it has to be done to be correct. I could repeat it here
but I am not willing to do this work until I can be sure that you
read it. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Before we talk about a world view we should perform simple
calculations in a correct way. And before talking about the
Lagrangian and about stars we should show the facts for elementary
particles using the conservation of energy and of momentum. - The
so called "Mach's principle" is not usable in so far as it does not
make any quantitative statements, but Mach has only presented very
rough and basic ideas about how it can be explained that a rotating
object "knows" that it is in rotation and not at rest. Such idea is
not able to allow for calculations, and that also was not the
intention of Mach at that time.<br>
<br>
And regarding relativity, we have a physical institute here in
Bremen (next to Hamburg) where since decades the laws of relativity
are investigated with increasing precision. To my knowledge they
have reached relative precisions of 10<sup>-10</sup> or even better
and confirmed the formalism to this degree. So, far better than your
v/c to the 4th power.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> wolf<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <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">Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e92ead86-7ec0-5fa4-a70d-b7e08a92efa9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I do not know how to keep answering when you insist that
somewhere in your past there is something I should answer
while I think I am answering all your objections. I can
duplicate what I believe are all experimentally verified
facts by simply</p>
<p>considering a classic Lagrangian L=T-V if I add to the
potential energy the energy of a mass inside a the
surrounding mass shell. This simple recognition avoids all
the strange relativistic effects introduced by Einstein or
his followers and is completely compatible with quantum
mechanics. I've given you all the standard time dilation
equations and show that the speed of light the also
varies. My formulation is completely compatible with
classic thinking to terms v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
because I believe that is the level I believe Einsteins
theory has be verified <br>
</p>
<p>Please stop telling me this is a low speed approximation
and therefore wrong because then all you are saying my
theory is not equal to Einsteins, which of corse is the
whole point.<br>
</p>
<p>you have no legitimate criticism until you give me the
reference to experiments that prove the opposite. I ask
this because I believe the accelerator experiments you
refer to are analyzed with the assumption that the speed
of light is constant and therefore are very likely not
proving anything more than their own assumption.</p>
<p>If I make Einsteins gamma =(mc<sup>2</sup>/(V-T)<sup>1/2</sup>
) i get complete agreement with Einstein's equations but
still do not have to buy into his world view. Given the
criticism that has been brought up in this group about all
the reasons Einstein so called experimental verification
is flawed including the perihelion rotation, and lately
the solar plasma correction, I see no reason to deviate
from the classic and understandable world view.</p>
<p>Please give me experiment reference <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Now to answer your comments to my coments
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/2017 4:19 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>we have now progress in so far as you have read about
30% of what I have written to you. 90% would be really
better, but this is maybe too much at this stage.<br>
</p>
Am 30.06.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I fully agree with your statement: " Should you have
a new theory which is complete and which is in
agreement with the experiments then you should present
it. But for now I did not see anything like that." I
am working on such a theory and so are many of us in
this group, I will send you sections of the book to
get your highly valued opinion when they are ready.</p>
<p>I also agree with: " first of all we have to agree on
valid physics."</p>
<p>So what is valid physics? <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should agree on what it is. It should at least be in
accordance with the experiments. And if it deviates from
the fundamental physics which we have learned at the
university, then these parts should be thoroughly
justified.<br>
</blockquote>
I believe I have an interpretation compatible with all
experiments that does not assume the speed of light is
constant, why is this not legitimate physics?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>You seem to insist that one cannot question Einstein
specifically on his assumption that the speed of light
is constant and his subsequent turning most of well
established classic physics principles on its head. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
As I have mentioned frequently in the preceding mails, I
for myself do NOT believe that c is always constant. How
often do I have to say this again until it reaches you?
But if we use a variation of c (which was always also the
conviction of Hendrik Lorentz) then we should use the
correct functions for its variation. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, if you use Einstein's equations then
you should use them correctly. <br>
<br>
I for myself refer to experiments when I deviate from
classical physics to understand relativistic phenomena.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes I have seen you criticizs Einstein and his speed of
light assumption so why do you insist it must be constant
now, since this assumption is what allows you to call my
equations incorrect.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>My understanding is that you object to my use of the
classic definition of Kinetic energy <br>
</p>
<p>m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) =~
m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
</blockquote>
The "higher order terms" may be a considerable portion if
we talk about speeds v > 0.1 c , i.e. relativistic
situations. <br>
</blockquote>
Show me the references<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Now if you insist, with Einstein that c is always
constant then dividing the above equation by c<sup>2</sup>
gives <br>
</p>
<p>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I do NOT insist in this, to say it once again and again
and ... ! But what does this have to do with your equation
above? The equation is correct and well known.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The equation is only correct IF YOU ASSUME THE SPEED OF
LIGHT IS CONSTANT otherwise m0=m0 as assumed in classical
physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
And of course you can divide such equation by c any time
irrespective of any constancy of c. Basic mathematics!<br>
<br>
For the variation of c I have given you the correct
dependency for the case of gravity. I did it several
times! Always overlooked??<br>
</blockquote>
I do not remember any conflict here I believe you agree that
c2 = Mu G / Ru <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Of course then mass must increase. This is simply an
example of one of the many classic physics principles
on its head.</p>
</blockquote>
The mass increases at motion is not only clear
experimental evidence but is determined with high
precision in accordance with the equation above.<br>
</blockquote>
The equation above is only true because everyone assumes the
speed of light is constant and therefore divides it out.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>I think there is a great deal of evidence that the
speed of light is NOT constant and if we simply
realize that the effective speed of light is effected
by gravity, which in the case of an electromagnetic
propagation in a sphere of distant masses gives by
Mach's Principle and the Scharzshild black hole limit
the relationship</p>
<p>c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
</blockquote>
What shall this equation tell us? Which physical situation
shall be described by this relation?<br>
</blockquote>
what it tells us is that the speed of light is proportional
the the gravitational energy the material in which
electro-magnetic waves propagate since the first term is
simply c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> which is the gravitational
potential in the mass shell and the second term is the
velocity energy which also raises the gravitational
potential of the particle in qurstion relative to the
observer.<br>
<br>
You see Albrecht what neither Einstein nor Lorentz has
understood is that each of us to first order generates a
space of awareness within which all things happen that we
can observe <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
If you follow the approach of relativity of Lorentz (or of
myself) then the relation is very simply: c = c<sub>0</sub>
+/- v . But if an observers moving with v measures c then
his result will always be: c = c<sub>0</sub> . You get
this by applying the Lorentz transformation to the
functioning of the measurement tools in motion. And that
again is in precise compliance with the experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
If v=0 in the equation above c = c<sub>0</sub> as well what.
I'm not sure c = c<sub>0</sub> +/- v is compaible with all
experiments unless one introduces othr assumptions to
classic physics I am reluctant o accept.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
It is correct that c changes in a gravitational field and
I have given you <i>several times </i>the formula for
this. It is easily visible that the variation in a
gravitational field is very small and in no way able to
explain the variations which we observe in the usual
experiments of relativity. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Furthermore if we realize that -mc<sup>2</sup> = V<sub>U</sub>
; the potential energy inside the mass shell of stars
then the total classic Lagrangian <br>
</p>
<p>L = T- V = (1/2)* m<sub>0</sub>* v<sup>2</sup> - m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
- m<sub>0</sub> * G* M<sub>L</sub>/R<sub>L</sub><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sub>You have again used here the wrong
equation for the kinetic energy T, again ignoring the
increase of mass at motion. So we cannot discuss
physics.</sub></font><br>
</blockquote>
<sub><font size="+1">You again have again dismissed my
equation because you think </font></sub>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) which
as I have said implies you believe c=constant. This is the
correct equation for the classic Lagrangian if the
gravitational potential of the star shell we appear to be
surrounded with is included in the gravitational potential.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>If we substitute the Lagrangian into the equation for
the speed of light I believe we would get all of the
special and general relativistic effects at least up
to the higher order terms , including the clock slow
down from SRT., which I believe is all that has been
verified. Your claim that higher order accuracy has
been experimentally proven is something I doubt and
have asked you for explicit experimental references
many times. WHy because most people who do these
experiments are so brow beat into believing Einsteins
assumptions as God given truth that they simply put
the correction factor on the wrong parameter and get
papers published.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I have explained the muon experiment at CERN. Overlooked
again??<br>
</blockquote>
please explain why the muon experiment makes any statement
about the mass. All I believe it does is makes a statement
about the energy of the mass which contains the c^2 term so
your assumption again rests on Einstein is right come hell
or high water.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
If the equation which you believe to be correct is used,
then the result would be wrong by a great factor. I have
given you numbers. No one can ignore such great
discrepancies only because he/she is biased by his/her
faith in Einstein. <br>
<br>
Or do you assume that there is a conspiracy of physicists
all over the world, in all nations and all political
systems, in order to save Einstein's theory? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?</p>
</blockquote>
Your presentation here is not legitimate, if you mean this
by your question. Again you use physical equations and
formulae in a completely wrong way. This is not able to
convince anyone. <br>
</blockquote>
I understand you do not like the idea that mass and charge
remain constant and classic physics is essentially correct,
because your theory depends on correcting an error in
current thinking. You want to make two errors make a right,
I want it eliminate the first error and simplify the whole
mess. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Are you now ready to discuss the metaphysical
assumptions underlying physics that I am questioning
and trying to help me and others work on possible
alternative physics formulations that might get us out
of the mess we are in?</p>
</blockquote>
I am working myself on alternative physics since > 20
years. But not with equations which are nothing else than
non-physical fantasies ignoring experiments. </blockquote>
we have had these discussions. You want to solve all
problems in he current framework and then address the
observer problem. I see the lack of observer inclusion as
the root to the problems you want to correct and therefore
the goal is to include the observer in the foundations of
physics as a first principle. Baer's first law of physics is
that the physicist made the law. <br>
Put yourself in the center of your own universe,
observations from this point of view it is all you have and
ever will have to build your theory..<br>
<br>
best wishes<br>
wolf<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">Best
wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Dr. Wolfgang Baer </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2017 1:58 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e230a22e-0de6-f584-86e2-8cd1197c72a5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>it is not the question here whether I grasp your
approach. Because first of all we have to agree on
valid physics. Your past statements and calculations
are in conflict with all physics we know. On this
basis nothing can be discussed.</p>
<p>Should you have a new theory which is complete and
which is in agreement with the experiments then you
should present it. But for now I did not see
anything like that. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.06.2017 um 08:12
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>I think i have clearly responded to all your
points previously but there is something you do
not grasp about my approach</p>
<p>however the list you provide is good since
perhaps I was answering parts you did not read</p>
<p>so see below.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/2017 6:56 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#000066">Wolf,</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">I think we should not
change the topics which we have discussed
during the last mails. And <b>as you again </b><b>did
</b><b>not react to my comments I summarize
the open points now in a list</b>:</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>o</b> You use for
the kinetic energy the erroneous equation T =
1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>(because we talk about
relativistic cases). So you necessarily have
a wrong result. Why do you not make your
deduction (using the Lagrangian) with the
correct equation which I have given you? Or
what is your consideration to use just this
equation even if it is erroneous? Please
answer this. This is physics, not philosophy.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">I am not using </font>T = 1/2
m*v<sup>2</sup> incorrectly in classic theory. I'm
suggesting Einsteins theory is wrong. I do not mean
it is inconsistent with its postulates but the
postulates do not correctly represent reality. I
suggest instead the the classic Lagrangian energy L=
T-V is adequate to calculate the action if the
potential energy V in inter galactic space is mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>
For an amount of time dS = L*dt , and then if an
event such as a running clock is viewed from two
different coordinate frames and the action
calculated in those frames is invariant then<br>
L*dt = L'*dt' <br>
so that the appearant rate of clocks differ for the
two observers. And when calculating this out my
theory, which is not only my theory, is consistent
with experimental evidence.<br>
<br>
I do not understand why you keep saying my use of T
= 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is incorrect? I'm using it
correctly in my theory. If you insist Einstein's SRT
is correct a-priory then of course any alternative
is wrong. But should not experimental evidence,
simplicity, and applicability to larger problems be
the judge of that? <br>
</blockquote>
It is experimental evidence that the mass of an object
increases at motion. In my experiment the mass of the
electrons was increased by a factor of 10'000. Your
equation ignores this increase. - It is by the way a
consequence of the limitation of the speed at c. If an
object like an electron has a speed close to c and
there is then a force applied to it which of course
means that energy is transferred to it, then the mass
increases. Anything else would mean a violation of the
conservation of energy. <br>
<br>
So, this increase of mass is not only a result of
Einstein's theory but it is unavoidable logic and also
confirmed by the experiments. <br>
<br>
Therefore, if you use for the kinetic energy T = 1/2
m*v<sup>2 </sup>, then you assume a constancy of m
which is clearly not the case. This relation can only
be used for speeds v<<c where the mass increase
is negligible. In our discussion we talk about
relativistic situations and for these your equation is
wrong. In the example of my experiment it is wrong by
a factor of 10'000. You ignore this and that cannot
give you correct results. You find the correct
equation for energy in my last mail. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
Your conflict about the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
in the Lorentz transformation is a result of
your use of a wrong equation for T (kinetic
energy). Why do you not repeat your deduction
using the correct equation?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Again I am not using the wrong
equation in my theory. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">I think that I have made it
obvious enough that you have used a wrong equation.
So your result will be wrong by a factor which at
the end is not limited. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
The equation 1/2*m*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
is not correct and not part of Einstein's
equations. Einstein has given this for
visualization as an <i>approximation</i>. Why
do you continue with it without a response to
my information that it is incorrect or why do
you not argue why you believe that is can be
used?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Yes yes yes I'm not using
Einsteins equation for kinetic energy. How many
times do I have to agree with you before you stop
disagreeing with my agreement?</font><br>
<font color="#000066">A long time ago you said that
cyclotron experiments proved time dilation as
Einstein described in SRT was proven to better
than </font><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
</font> and I've asked you for references </font><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
because I have not seen evidence for this claim
nor have I seen evidence for the space contraction
claim, but i have seen good paper's that dispute
both these claims.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">A good proof was the muon
storage ring at CERN in 1975. The muons have been
accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c. Their lifetime
was extended by a factor of 30 which is in agreement
with Einstein. In Einstein's equation the difference
of this value to 1 has to be built resulting in
0.0006. If you think that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
has to be added then you have to add 0.9994<sup>4</sup>
to this value of 0.0006 , so you change 0.0006 to
(0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do you really expect that
the physicists at CERN overlook it if they get
0.9982 for 0.0006 ? <br>
<br>
I think that this is a very clear evidence that the
term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is not missing. <br>
<br>
And this huge difference is the result of your use
of the equation T = 1/2m*v<sup>2</sup> in the wrong
context. <br>
<br>
So, what is your argument?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<p><font color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><b>o</b></font>
The equation for the speed of light which you
gave: c<sup>2</sup> = Mu*G/Ru is senseless
which is easily visible. I have explained
that. Why do you not respond to this point?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">How can you say it is
senseless? multiply both sides by -m you get the
well known solution of the Schwarzschild energy of
a particle inside the ring of distant masses when
the masses reach the size that makes a black hole
boundary. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">You have derived your equation
by equalizing kinetic and potential energy. What is
your argument that both energies are equal? If an
object is in free fall then both types of energy
change in a different direction so that the sum is
constant. The <i>sum </i>is the value conserved,
but both energies are not at all equal. <br>
<br>
In Einstein's world there is c=0 at the event
horizon. But you are saying that your equation above
is just valid at the event horizon, and that is at
least in disagreement with Einstein. <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">After we have clarified
these discrepancies about SRT we may talk
about the observer or other philosophical
aspects, <b>but not earlier</b>. </font><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>DE</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<br>
</blockquote>
Fine <br>
but are we not living inside a black hole? Is the
energy required to reach escape velocity from our
black hole not equal to mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>
twice the classic kinetic energy? <br>
I know you agree the speed of light depends
upon the gravitational potential, which from a local
mass is MG/R. For a local mass like the sun the
speed of light is<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R = c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>(1+
M*G/(R*c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>)<br>
If light speed depends upon the gravitational
potential if the sun to bend light, why would it not
depend upon the gravitational potential of the
surrounding star mass we are living in?<br>
</blockquote>
The speed of light depends indeed on the gravitational
potential and I have given you the equation for
that: c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the
light<br>
<br>
Your equations above are not usable as I have just
explained in my paragraph above. <br>
<br>
If we should live in a black hole then we need a
completely different physics. I do not have understood
that this is the situation we are discussing here. In
our real world there is nowhere c=0, but your
equation suggests this. If you are in free space where
no masses are present or masses are very far away then
according to your equation c has to be close to 0.
That has never been observed.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
maxwell's equations are correct, the Lorentz
transformations are correct, but the interpretation
Einstein gave these equations is what I disagree
with. And the resulting almost total revision of
classic mechanics is what I disagree with.<br>
<br>
can we get on with trying to find a simpler
connection between electricity and gravitation one
that has gravitation change the permiability and
susceptibility of the aether perhaps?<br>
</blockquote>
Why are you looking for a connection between
electricity and gravitation? I do not seen any
connection. And if there should be something like that
we should include the strong force which is much more
essential for our physical world than electricity or
gravitation. <br>
<br>
Summary: You may try a lot but please present here
equations which are either known or contain a minimum
of logic. You are permanently presenting equations
here which are your free inventions and are not given
by any existing theory and are not in agreement with
any existing experiments. This will not converge
towards a result.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.06.2017 um
07:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>I thought I had answered the last E-mail
pretty thoroughly, I'll try again however I
think you are not grasping my position</p>
<p>Einstein
Lorentz
Baer</p>
<p>make assumptions make
assumptions make
assumptions</p>
<p>and write a theory And write a
theory And am in the
process</p>
<p>That has conclusions That has
conclusions That has
preliminary conclusions <br>
</p>
<p>c=constant
c is dependent on gravity</p>
<p>change physics Em material
stretches emphasize invariant of
action</p>
<p>lots of non intuitive probably
Ok Needs to
understand the role of the observer</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So far Ive sent you a classic calculation
based upon the fact that Em penomena go at
rates determined by the classic Lagrangian and
I believe this very simple formulation
explains all experimentally verified effects
up to fourth order in v/c and in addition and
in fact the whole reason for my effort is to
include the observer and recognize that the
plenum within the theories of these eminent
physicist was their own imaginations which is
always a background space.</p>
<p>I think I am working on a new and better
theory. So far what I have is a calculation
using in-variance of action.Tell me why I am
wrong based on experimental evidence not that
I have a different theory then either Einstein
or Lorentz. I know our theories are different
but i think they are wrong because they are
Aristotelian realists and I'm using Platonic
logic.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">If you have a new theory
available which can be quantitatively checked by
experiments please present and explain it here.
Before you have done this, a discussion as it
was up to now does not make any sense but uses
up a lot of time. We should not waste time.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now I'll try to answer your coments<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2017 6:51
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,ghly</p>
<p>i see the same problem again: you did not
really read my last mail as you repeat most
of your earlier statements with no reference
to my comments. <br>
</p>
<p>Details in the text:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.06.2017 um
07:50 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Answers embedded below<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/21/2017
6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>here is the difference. I do not
simply say what I believe to be true,
but I give arguments for it if I do
not refer to standard physics. And I
do of course not expect that you agree
to what I say but I expect that you
object if you disagree, but please <i>with
arguments</i>. In the case of the
formula for kinetic energy for
instance you have just repeated your
formula which is in conflict with
basic physics, but there was no
argument at all. This will not help us
to proceed.</p>
</blockquote>
I have provided numerical arguments two or
three times perhaps you do not get all the
E-mails - here is a copy<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have received your calculations, and I
have written that they are wrong because they
are based on a wrong formula. I have written
this two times with no reaction from you. You
find my responses further down in the history
of mails, so you cannot say that you did not
receive them. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Two identical moving clock systems at
constant velocity in inter galactic space
perform the same activity between two
clock ticks in their own coordinate frames
. The amount of activity in an event is
measured by action. So if they are
identical and perform the same activities
the amount of action between ticks is the
same.
<p>An observer calculates the amount of
action from classical physics as dS =
(T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m v^2 and V =
-m*c^2 - MGm/R, here mc^2 is the
gravitational potential in the mass
shell of the universe and MGm/R any
local gravitational potential energy. <br>
</p>
<p>if Twin A is riding along with clock A
then T=0 for Clock A thus the
Lagrangian is (m*c^ + MGm/R), the
moving clock B Lagrangian calcuated by A
is (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)</p>
<p>since the action calculated for both
clocks is invariant we have the
equation,<br>
</p>
<p>
(m*c^2 +
MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m *v^2 + m*c^2 +
MGm/R)*dt'</p>
so the moving clock dt' slows down
compared with the stationary one which is
experimentally verified to accuracies of
v*v/c*c and differs from Einstein's
theory because Einstein's theory has
higher order c^4/c^4 terms.<br>
<br>
This is a perfectly quantitative argument.
What is your problem?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You find in our mail history (further down) my
answer. Why did you not respond to it? So once
again (I think it is the 3rd time now):<br>
Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup>
is wrong in the general case. It is only
usable for slow speeds, so v<<c . But
our discussion here is about relativistic
situations, so v close to c As a consequence
the result of your deduction is of course
wrong, and so particularly your term c^4/c^4
is a result of this confusion. Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a
square-root function of (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>).
And if you make a Taylor expansion from it,
there are many terms of higher order. But the
root formula is the correct solution.<br>
<br>
The correct formula for the kinetic energy is
as I have written here earlier: T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))-1)
.<br>
If you new make a Taylor expansion and stop it
after the second term then you end up with the
formula which you have used. But as iit is
easily visible here, only for speed v <<
c. </blockquote>
THe point is that you are assuming Einstein is
right 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is correct in my
theory
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
You could claim the principle of action
in-variance is false. But whether it is
false or not can be put to experimental
tests. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The principle of action is correct but
generally used for a different purpose. In
general I do not find it the best way to use
principles but better to use fundamental laws.
But this is a different topic. However, I
expect that you would come to a correct result
with this principle if you would use correct
physical equations.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes I know but I'm using it because independent
and isolated system have no external clocks to
measure progress and the amount of activity is
all that is available to measure the completion
of identical activities. You must understand I
assume evnets not objects are fundamental.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> You
have claimed Einsteins theory has been
verified to better than v^4/c^4 but I do
not believe it until I see the evidence.
Because the in-variance of action theory
is so simple and logical. As well as the
fact that if one drops m out of these
equations one get the gravitational speed
of light, which has been verified by
Sapiro's experiment, but if you read his
paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group
velocity) so why assume the speed of light
is constant. So if you have experimental
evidence please provide a reference. I
have seen many papers that claim only time
dilation has been verified to first
order approximation of his formulas and
length contraction has never been
verified. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is also
used for the calculation of energy and
momentum by taking into account the
corresponding conservation laws. In all
calculations which we have done here at the
accelerator DESY the relation v/c was in the
order of 0.9999 . So the gamma factor is
about <u>10'000</u>. If there would have been
a term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> necessary
but omitted then this factor would change to
something in the interval <u>1 to 10</u>.
This is a discrepancy by a factor of at least
1'000. Do you really believe that all the
scientists at DESY and at the other
accelerators worldwide would overlook a
discrepancy of this magnitude? <br>
</blockquote>
If this v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> term
accuracy has been measured by experiment I am
not aware of it I've asked you for a reference.
Yes I believe all the scientists are simply not
aware of their own fundamental assumptions
regarding the role of the conscious being, which
is why I and a few of us are working on these
issues.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<p>If someone does not agree to main
stream physics (what to a certain
extend we all want to do here,
otherwise we would not have these
discussions) then everyone who has a
basic objection against it, should
name that explicitly and give detailed
arguments. <br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
If this is <b>Not </b>a detailed
argument I do not know what is! <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately this is an erroneous calculation
what I have told you now <b><i>several times</i></b>.
You did not react and did not give a
justification but you merely repeated it again
and again. <br>
</blockquote>
IS it wrong or is it just based on assumptions
that you disagree with? <br>
<br>
I believe the question "what does it feel like
to be a piece of material" is quite legitimate
and if we can entertain the question why not ask
if feelings are not intrinsically part of
material and the perhaps space is a feeling,
the phase of an never ending event <br>
Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as ...."
quickly for a few minutes and you'll get the
experience of a subject object event that takes
on an existence of its own.<br>
<br>
Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you think
"that time dilations and FitzGerald contractions
are simply artifacts<br>
of the observation, and not induced
characteristics of the objects being observed
themselves."<br>
<br>
Well its hard to disagree with this statement
because the reason the transformations were
invented is to show that the Maxwell equations
which describe a physical fact will transform to
describe the same physical fact no mater what
body you are attached to.<br>
<br>
And yet AL I disagree with it because i believe
there is a reality and the appearances in any
observers coordinate frame i.e. body , represent
something real that is effected by gravity. And
simply recognizing that the rate of
electromagnetic activity is dependent on the
gravitational influence the system in which the
activity happens is under , is a simple provable
assumption that connects electricity with
gravity. Once this is established as an observer
independent fact. THen that fact also applies to
the body making the measurement and in that
sense and only that sense time dilations and
FitzGerald contractions are simply artifacts of
the observing body. <br>
<br>
I did like "It is, that each particle is
effectively an “observer”<br>
of all the others, necessitating the
incorporation of the<br>
attendant mathematical machinery into the
coupled equations<br>
of motion of the particles.' <br>
<br>
and am looking forward to Al' promised further
work in this coupling.<br>
<br>
so Albrecht have I answered your comments for
this go around?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">No, I do not see any answer
as I have listed it above! You always talk
about different things or you repeat your
erroneous statement / equation without an
argument.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<br>
best wishes ,<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I read your E-mails but I do not
agree because you simply say what
you believe to be true. I respect
that and you may be right but I am
not talking about what has been
discovered at CERN but rather what
Einstein published, the theory he
proposed and I have ordered and now
have <br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein,
A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies”, <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">The Principle of
Relativity</i>:<i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">; a
collection of original memoirs
on the special and general
theory of relativity</span></i>,
Edited by A Sommerfeld, Translated
by W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover
Publications, p35-65 ISBN486-60081-5</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is a collection of papers from
Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski and
Weyl , so on page 49 Einstein says "
If one of two synchronous clocks at
A is moved in a closed curve with
constant velocity until it returns
to A, the journey lasting t seconds,
then by the clock which has remained
st rest the travelled clock on its
arrival will be 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
slow. " ...."this is up to
magnitude of fourth and higher
order"<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is an unambiguous statement. It
follows directly from his derivation
of the Lorentz transformations and
immediately leads to the twin
paradox because from the point of
view of the moving clock the so
called "stationary" clock is moving
and the stationary clock when
returning to A would by SRT be the
traveled clock which is slow by
1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>No, the case cannot
be mirrored. Only one clock is at
rest, the other one is not as it
leaves the original frame. <br>
<br>
Again: The Lorentz transformation is
about the relation between <i>
inertial frames</i>. Otherwise not
applicable. If this is not really
clear, you will not have any
progress in your understanding.<br>
In this case of two clocks the
motion of the moving clock can be
split up into infinitesimal pieces
of straight motions and then the
pieces of tim</sup></font><font
size="+1"><sup>e can be summed up</sup></font><font
size="+1"><sup>. In that way the
Lorentz transformation could be
applied.<br>
<br>
And do you notice this: It is the
same problem you have again and
again. SRT is about relations of <i>inertial
frames</i>. Not in others than
these. And I must clearly say: as
long as this does not enter your
mind and strongly settles there, it
makes little sense to discuss more
complex cases in special relativity.<br>
<br>
The statement of Einstein which you
give above is correct, but only as
an approximation for v<<c. In
his original paper of 1905 Einstein
has earlier given the correct
equation and then given the
approximation for v<<c.
Unfortunately he has not said this
explicitly but it is said by his
remark which you have quoted:<br>
</sup>"</font>this is up to magnitude
of fourth and higher order" . Because if
it would be the correct equation it
would be valid up to infinite orders of
magnitude. - We should forgive Einstein
for this unclear statement as this was
the first paper which Einstein has ever
written. </blockquote>
NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz
transformations from some assumptions like
the speed of light is constant in all
coordinate frames and simultaneity is
defined by round trip light measurements.
He simply stated that the Lorentz
transformations have certain consequences.
One of them being that an observer viewing
a clock moving around a circle at constant
velocity would slow down and he gave the
numerical value of the slow down to first
order in v^2/c^2.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you read the whole paper of Einstein it has
a correct derivation of the Lorentz
transformation. And then he makes an
approximation for a slow speed without saying
this clearly. His text (translated to
English): <br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">"… so that this indication of
the clock (as observed in the system at
rest) is delayed per second by
(1-sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>) <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>seconds
or – except for magnitudes of forth or
higher order is delayed by 1/2(v/c)<sup>2</sup>
seconds."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">So, Einstein <i>excludes </i>here
the higher orders. That means clearly that
it is an approximation. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">But the conclusion of
Einstein is correct. If the moving clock
comes back it is delayed. Which is of
course in agreement with SRT. And also
with the observation.<br>
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
Nothing is proven until it is
experimentally proven. And what has been
experimentally proven is quite simple. A
clock slows down if it feels a force.<br>
That is it. Whether that force is called
gravity experienced when one is standing
on the earth or called inertia when one is
being accelerated in a rocket makes no
difference. And the simplest theory that
explains experimentally verified fact is
not Einstein's SRT or GRT but <br>
simple classic action in-variance with the
one new piece of physics that the speed of
all electromagnetic phenomena happen at a
speed determined by<br>
c^2 =
Mu*G/Ru<br>
and I believe this relationship was given
before Einstein and has something to do
with Mach's Principle, but maybe Einstein
should get credit.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again: According to all what we know, motion
means a slow down of clocks, NOT acceleration.
And nothing depends on force according to
relativity and according to experiments. Also
gravity slows down a clock, but very little.
Experimental proof was once the Hafele Keating
experiment for gravity and speed and the muon
accelerator for speed and the independence of
acceleration. <br>
<br>
If you see a dependence of the slow down of
clocks from a force applied this would be a
new theory. If you believe this, please
present it as a complete theoretical system
and refer to experiments which are in
agreement with this theory. <br>
<br>
For c you repeat your incorrect formula again.
Its lack of correctness is easily visible by
the following consideration. If it would be
true then a gravitational mass of M=0 would
mean c=0, which is clearly not the case. And
also for some gravitational mass but a
distance R=infinite there would also be c=0,
which does not make any sense. And I repeat
the correct one (perhaps you notice it <i>this
time</i>). <br>
c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction
of the light<br>
<br>
For the twin case I have given you numbers
that the acceleration phase is in no way able
to explain the time offset, but I am meanwhile
sure that you ignore that again. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1" color="#330033">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your statement
that Einstein was wrong. Up to now I did
not see any true arguments from you, but
you only presented your results of an
incorrect understanding of Einstein's
theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong with
SRT then please give us arguments. Step
by step. To say YES or NO as a summary
without any arguments is not science. I
also have some concerns about Einstein's
SRT myself, but with pure statements
without arguments like in your last
mails we do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your
request for YES or NO is: Einstein's SRT
is formally consistent; however I do not
like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle
at constant velocity slows down in his
1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is
simply did he or did he not say that the
moving clock slows down? The question is
not whether his theory is formally
consistent but whether his theory states
moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein
the moving clock slows down. Which is of
course not new. But notice that in his paper
of 1905 he has given the conditions at which
this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic space
is there a difference between an observer
A on clock A seeing clock B move at
constant velocity in a circle compared
with an observer B on clock B seeing clock
A move in a circle at constant velocity.
YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference, remembering
all that has been said is that both
observers see the other go in a circle at
constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no
contradiction to Einsteins Claim in
Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock /
observer move at constant speed and in a
circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer
positioned in the middle of both clocks at
rest. And they slow down by the same amount.
Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the
direct way as SRT is about the relation of
inertial frames, and here none of the clocks
is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand
this question must be answerable in a formal
way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen from
one clock the other clock moves for an
infinitesimal distance on a straight path. In
this infinitesimal moment the own clock also
moves on a straight path and both do not have
any speed in relation to the other one (i.e.
no change of the distance). Speed in the
Lorentz transformation is the temporal
derivative of the distance. This is 0 in this
case. So no effects according to SRT and both
observers see the speed of the other clock not
slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the other
one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about leaving
coordinate frames at this stage of our
discussion. If one observer sees the other
leave his coordinate frame behind why
does the other not see the same thing.
Einstein insisted there are no preferred
coordinate frames. That Einsteins theory,
as published in 1905, can be patched up by
adding interpretations and even new
physics, which Einstein tried to do
himself with GRT is not the issue We can
discuss whether or not the "leaving
coordinate frame" makes sense and is part
of the original SRT later, after you
answer question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate
frames but about inertial frames (the question
which coordinate frame is used is of no
physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only
see the other one permanently leaving his
inertial frame but also himself leaving
permanently his inertial frame. That is easily
noticeable as he will notice his
acceleration. - How this case can be solved
in accordance with SRT I have explained in the
preceding paragraph. That solution is
physically correct and in my understanding in
accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am
trying to lead you and anyone listening to
the logical conclusion that Einsteins
world view expressed by his assumptions is
wrong. I am not questioning that after
making his assumptions he can logically
derive the Lorentz transformations, nor
that such a derivation is inconsistent
with his assumptions. Ive gone through his
papers often enough to know his math is
correct. I'm simply trying to lead us all
to the realization that the speed of light
as a physical phenomena is NOT constant,
never was, never will be and warping
coordinate frames and all the changes in
physics required to make that assumption
consistent with experimental fact has been
a 100 year abomination. If you believe
that assumption, I've got a guy on a
cross who claims to be the son of god to
introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could prove
that the speed of light is not constant. I
would understand this as a step forward. But
you have to do it with appropriate arguments
which I found missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some of
the arguments which are my arguments to follow
the relativity of Lorentz rather Einstein. In
my view the Lorentzian relativity is more easy
to understand and has physical causes.
Einstein's principle is not physics but
spirituality in my view and his considerations
about time and space are as well not physics.
Also my view. But you have questioned the
compatibility of Einstein's theory with
reality by some examples, at last by the twin
case and argued that this is a violation of
Einstein's theory or in conflict with reality.
But both is not the case, and that was the
topic of the discussions during the last
dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really read
my mails as the questions below
are answered in my last mails,
most of them in the mail of
yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand your
continued gripe about my
referring to gravity. Something
is wrong let me ask some simple
yes and no questions to get to
the bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the equivalence
principle holds and acceleration
and gravity are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several times
in my last mails </i>that the
equivalence principle is violated at
the point that acceleration - in
contrast to gravity - does not cause
dilation. And, as I have also
written earlier, that you find this
in any textbook about special
relativity and that it was
experimentally proven at the muon
storage ring at CERN. - It seems to
me that you did not read my last
mails but write your answering text
independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on top
of a mountain runs faster than
one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed in
my last mail</i>. In addition I
have given you the numerical result
for the gravitational dilation on
the surface of the sun where the
slow down of a clock is the little
difference of about 1 / 100'000
compared to a zero-field situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the
typical examples for the twin case
about a dilation by a factor of 10
to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of
light is related to the gravity
potential by c*c = G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous mail
the equation for this, which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn
about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4
accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the
Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms
depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable
for time dilation and for every
kinematic or dynamic calculation
where special relativity applies.
And in the latter context it is used
by thousands of physicists all over
the world who work at accelerators.
One could find it in their computer
programs. To ask them whether they
have done it in this way would seem
to them like the doubt whether they
have calculated 5 * 5 = 25
correctly. This is daily work in
practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that gamma
is different only for the case of
time dilation then the answer is
that SRT would then be inconsistent
in the way that e.g. the speed of
light c could never be constant (or
measured as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at
entanglement since it is quite
likely the wave function is a
mental projection and therefore
its collapse is a collapse of
knowledge and the Aspect
experiments have been
incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been
repeated very carefully by others
(as also Zeilinger has presented
here in his last talk) and the new
experiments are said to have covered
all loop holes which have been left
by Aspect. And also all these
experiments are carefully observed
by an international community of
physicists. But of course this is
never a guaranty that anything is
correct. So it is good practice to
doubt that and I am willing follow
this way. However if you do not
accept these experiments or the
consequences drawn, then please
explain in detail where and why you
disagree. Otherwise critical
statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to
disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic
physical facts. Or we should present
arguments, which means at best:
quantitative calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to
gravity, I have to remind you
on the quantitative results if
something is referred to the
gravitational force. As much
as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to 40
orders of magnitude smaller
that we have them in fact in
physics. - If you disagree to
this statement please give us
your quantitative calculation
(for instance for the twin
case). Otherwise your repeated
arguments using gravity do not
help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for
physics which may be affected
by human understanding in a
bad way, I think that the case
of entanglement could be a
good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments
in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make
detailed arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing that
Einstein’s special
relativity claims that
the clocks of an
observer moving at
constant velocity with
respect to a second
observer will slow
down. This lead to the
twin paradox that is
often resolved by
citing the need for
acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity in general relativity. My
symmetric twin
experiment was
intended to show that
Einstein as I
understood him could
not explain the
paradox. I did so in
order to set the stage
for introducing a new
theory. You argued my
understanding of
Einstein was wrong. Ok
This is not worth
arguing about because
it is not second
guessing Einstein that
is important but that
but I am trying to
present a new way of
looking at reality
which is based on
Platonic thinking
rather than Aristotle.
</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world was
essentially the way
you see it. This is
called naive realism.
And science from
Newton up to quantum
theory is based upon
it. If you keep
repeating that my
ideas are not what
physicists believe I
fully agree. It is not
an argument to say the
mainstream of science
disagrees. I know
that. I'm proposing
something different. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that
there is no
independent physically
objective space time
continuum in which the
material universe
including you, I, and
the rest of the
particles and fields
exist. Instead I
believe a better world
view is that
(following Everett)
that all systems are
observers and
therefore create their
own space in which the
objects you see in
front of your face
appear. The situation
is shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part11.2CE7BB93.72D7CB21@a-giese.de"
alt="" class=""
height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts
You, I, and the rest
of the Universe “U” .
I do a symmetric twin
thought experiment in
which both twins do
exactly the same
thing. They accelerate
in opposite directions
turn around and come
back at rest to
compare clocks. You
does a though
experiment that is not
symmetric one twin is
at rest the other
accelerates and comes
back to rest and
compares clocks. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each
thought experiment is
done in the space
associated with You,I
and U. The speed of
light is constant in
each of these spaces
and so the special
relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and
Maxwell’s equations
apply. I have said
many times these are
self consistent
equations and I have
no problem with them
under the Aristotilian
assumption that each
of the three parts
believes what they see
is the independent
space.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they see
is in each parts
space. This space
provides the
background aether, in
it the speed of
electromagnetic
interactions is
constant BECAUSE this
speed is determined by
the Lagrangian energy
level largely if not
totally imposed by the
gravity interactions
the physical material
from which each part
is made experiences.
Each part you and your
space runs at a
different rate because
the constant Einstein
was looking for should
be called the speed of
NOW.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or disagree
with this view point.
But if you disagree
please do not tell me
that the mainstream
physicists do not take
this point of view. I
know that. Main stream
physicists are not
attempting to solve
the consciousness
problem , and have
basically eliminated
the mind and all
subjective experience
from physics. I’m
trying to fix this
rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you
may - have good arguments
that, what we see, is not
the true reality. So far so
good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a good
example to show this. It is
not a better example than to
cite Newton's law of motion
in order to proof that most
probably our human view is
questionable. For you it
seems to be tempting to use
relativity because you see
logical conflicts related to
different views of the
relativistic processes, to
show at this example that
the world cannot be as
simple as assumed by the
naive realism. But
relativity and particularly
the twin experiment is
completely in agreement with
this naive realism. The
frequently discussed
problems in the twin case
are in fact problems of
persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And
this is the fact for all
working versions of
relativity, where the
Einsteinian and the
Lorentzian version are the
ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes
Newtons law is a good
example specifically force
is a theoretical construct
and not see able , what we
see is acceleration and the
feeling of push or pull so
f=ma equates a theoretical
conjecture with an
experience but Newton
assumes both are objectively
real.<br>
You are right I'm using
relativity because I believe
it can be explained much
sipler and more accurately
if we realize material
generates its own space i.e.
there is something it feels
like to be material. I
believe integrating this
feeling into physics is the
next major advance we can
make.<br>
Further more one we accept
this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can
be more easily explained by
assuming the speed of light
is NOT constant in each
piece of material but
dependent on its energy
(gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is
most helpful in refining
these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One little
comment to this: Every piece
of material has its own
energy. Also objects which are
connected by a gravitational
field build a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But
it seems to me that you relate
every energy state to gravity.
Here I do not follow. If
pieces of material are bound
to each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a
state of energy, the energy in
it is dominated by the strong
force and by the electric
force. In comparison the
gravitational energy is so
many orders of magnitude
smaller (Where the order of
magnitude is > 35) that
this is an extremely small
side effect, too small to play
any role in most applications.
Or please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your
comments in detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel better
if our discussion
would use detailed
arguments and
counter-arguments
instead of pure
repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um 07:03
schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree clocks slow down, but
If I include the
observer then I
get an equation
for the slow
down that agrees
with eperimetn
but disagrees
with Einstein in
the higher
order, so it
should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I
show the deviation
in your calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have
your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian
Philosophy
everyone was
convinced Reality
consisted of an
external objective
universe
independent of
subjective living
beings.
Electricity and
Magnetism had
largely been
explored through
empirical
experiments which
lead to basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by Maxwell’s equations.
These equations
are valid in a
medium
characterized by
the permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free
space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These
equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>are valid
in a coordinate
frame x,y,z,t and
are identical in
form when
expressed in a
different
coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen a
substitution of
the Lorentz
formulas into
Maxwell’s
equations that
will then give the
same form only
using ∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get E’
and B’ but it must
exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been
done which is much
more exciting. W.G.V.
Rosser has shown that
the complete theory of
Maxwell can be deduced
from two things: 1.)
the Coulomb law; 2.)
the Lorentz
transformation. It is
interesting because it
shows that
electromagnetism is a
consequence of special
relativity. (Book:
W.G.V. Rosser,
Classical
Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York
Plenum Press).
Particularly magnetism
is not a separate
force but only a
certain perspective of
the electrical force.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im
familiaer with this viw
point of magnetics, but
all within the self
consistent Aristotelian
point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce
to the wave
equation and
Maxwell’s field
concept required
an aether as a
medium for them to
propagate. It was
postulated that
space was filled
with such a medium
and that the earth
was moving through
it. Therefore it
should be
detectable with a
Michelson –Morely
experiment. But
The Null result
showed this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of present
physics aether is
nothing more than the
fact of an absolute
frame. Nobody believes
these days that aether
is some kind of
material. And also
Maxwell's theory does
not need it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics
does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not
detected by the
Michelson-Morely
experiment which does
however not mean that
no aether existed. The
only result is that it
cannot be detected.
This latter conclusion
was also accepted by
Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because it is attached to
the observer doing the
experiment , see my
drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because we know from other
observations and facts that
objects contract at motion -
in the original version of
Heaviside, this happens when
electric fields move in
relation to an aether. So
the interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to show
a phase shift as the arms of
the interferometer have
changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I
understand and I believe
like you this is a better
explanation than Einsteins
but it still leaves the
aether as a property of an
independent space that exist
whether we live or die and
and assume we are objects in
that space it also
identifies that space with
what is in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show that
our bigger self ( not how we
see ourselves) is NOT in U's
space and what I see is not
equal to the universal
space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can
we expect to get this from
you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein came along and
derived the
Lorentz
Transformations
assuming the speed
of light is
constant,
synchronization
protocol of
clocks, and rods,
the invariance of
Maxwell’s
equations in all
inertial frames,
and the null
result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments.
Einstein went on
to eliminate any
absolute space and
instead proposed
that all frames
and observers
riding in them are
equivalent and
each such observer
would measure
another observers
clocks slowing
down when moving
with constant
relative velocity.
This
interpretation
lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since
each observer
according to
Einstein, being in
his own frame
would according to
his theory claim
the other
observer’s clocks
would slow down.
However both
cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be right
as I have explained
several times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are there
so many publications that
use general relativity,
gravity and the
equivalence principle as
the the way to explain the
twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a
static homogeneous
gravitational field URL
<a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my
preamble I do not want
to argue about what
Einstein really meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that
arxiv document. The authors
want to show that the twin
case can also be handled as
a process related to
gravity. So they define the
travel of the travelling
twin so that he is
permanently accelerated
until he reaches the turn
around point and then
accelerated back to the
starting point, where the
twin at rest resides. Then
they calculate the slow down
of time as a consequence of
the accelerations which they
relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to do
with our discussion by
several reasons. One reason
is the intent of the authors
to replace completely the
slow down of time by the
slow down by gravity /
acceleration. They do not
set up an experiment where
one clock is slowed down by
the motion and the other
twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or gravity
as it was your intention
according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume that
acceleration means clock
slow down. But that does not
happen. Any text book about
SRT says that acceleration
does not cause a slow down
of time / clocks. And there
are clear experiments
proofing exactly this. For
instance the muon storage
ring at CERN showed that the
lifetime of muons was
extended by their high speed
but in no way by the extreme
acceleration in the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells
incorrect physics. And I do
not know of any serious
physicist who tries to
explain the twin case by
gravity. I have given you by
the way some strong
arguments that such an
explanation is not possible.
- And independently, do
you have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You may
not like the details of this
paper but it is relevant
because it is only one of a
long list of papers that use
gravity and acceleration to
to explain the twin paradox.
I am not claiming they are
correct only that a large
community believes this is
the way to explain the twin
paradox. If you look at the
Wikipedia entry for Twin
Paradox they will say
explanations fall into two
categories <br>
Just because you disagree
with one of these categories
does not mean a community
supporting the gravity
explanation view point does
not exist. I've ordered
Sommerfelds book that has
Einstein and other notables
explanation and will see
what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where is,
please, that long list? Please
present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several times
now, gravity is many, many
orders of magnitude (maybe 20
or 30 orders) too small to
play any role here. And this
can be proven by quite simple
calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in
his invention of
general relativity
where clocks speed
up when in a
higher gravity
field i.e one that
feels less strong
like up on top of
a mountain.
Applied to the
twin paradox: a
stationary twin
sees the moving
twin at velocity
“v” and thinks the
moving twin’s
clock slows down.
The moving twin
does not move
relative to his
clock but must
accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>to make a
round trip (using
the equivalence
principle
calculated the
being equivalent
to a gravitational
force). Feeling
the acceleration
as gravity and
knowing that
gravity slows her
clocks she would
also calculate her
clocks would slow
down. The paradox
is resolved
because in one
case the
explanation is
velocity the other
it is gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong,
completely wrong!
General relativity has
nothing to do with the
twin situation, and so
gravity or any
equivalent to gravity
has nothing to do with
it. The twin situation
is not a paradox but
is clearly free of
conflicts if special
relativity, i.e. the
Lorentz
transformation, is
properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but again
most papers explain it
using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these
"most papers" are. I have
never heard about this and I
am caring about this twin
experiment since long time.
<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see last
comment. It is certainly how
I was taught but I have notr
looked up papers on the
subject for many years, will
try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to
propose a completely
different approach I do not
think which of two
explanations is more right
is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz Approach:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being
electromagnetic
structures slow
down and lengths
in the direction
of motion contract
in the absolute
aether of space
according to his
transformation and
therefore the
aether could not
be detected. In
other words
Lorentz maintained
the belief in an
absolute aether
filled space, but
that
electromagnetic
objects relative
to that space slow
down and contract.
Gravity and
acceleration had
nothing to do with
it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued
that the observer
subject to
acceleration would
know that he is no
longer in the same
inertial frame as
before and
therefore
calculate that his
clocks must be
slowing down, even
though he has no
way of measuring
such a slow down
because all the
clocks in his
reference frame.
Therefore does not
consider gravity
but only the
knowledge that due
to his
acceleration he
must be moving as
well and knowing
his clocks are
slowed by motion
he is not
surprised that his
clock has slowed
down when he gets
back to the
stationary
observer and
therefore no
paradox exists. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the moving
clocks slow down
but we have two
different reasons.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case the
absolute fixed
frame remains
which in the
completely
symmetric twin
paradox experiment
described above
implies that both
observers have to
calculate their
own clock rates
from the same
initial start
frame and
therefore both
calculate the same
slow down. This
introduces a
disembodied 3d
person observer
which is
reminiscent of a
god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third person
who moves with some
constant speed
somewhere can make
this calculation and
has the same result.
No specific frame like
the god-like one is
needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then
becomes an object in a 4th
person's space, you cannot
get rid of the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely
"mechanical" process and it
is in the same way as much
or as little depending on
the Mind as Newton's law of
motion. So to make things
better understandable please
explain your position by the
use of either Newton's law
or something comparable.
Relativity is not
appropriate as it allows for
too much speculation which
does not really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you are
right, but eventually I hope
to show the whole business
is a confusion introduced by
our habit of displaying time
in a space axis which
introduces artifacts. I hpe
you will critique my writeup
when it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which
confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not understand
the underlying physics. So,
this does not require any
action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the
simple statement is
not correct that
moving clocks slow
down. If we follow
Einstein, also the
synchronization of the
clocks in different
frames and different
positions is
essential. If this
synchronization is
omitted (as in most
arguments of this
discussion up to now)
we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but your
initial argument was that
the calculations by the
moving twin was to be done
in the inertial frame
before any acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that
frame is always the frame
in which the theory was
defined and it is the mind
of the observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the
calculation to the original
frame of the one moving twin
in order to be close to your
experiment and your
description. Any other frame
can be used as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have you
thought that the consequence
of having an observer who
feels a force like gravity
which according to the
equivalence principle and
any ones experience in a
centrifuge is
indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person
needs to transfer to the
initial start frame that
would mean we would all be
moving at the speed of light
and need to transfer back to
the big bang or the perhaps
the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our clocks
are running very fast but I
still get older - this
thinking leads to crazy
stuff - the whole basis does
not make common experience
sense, which is what I want
to base our physics on. We
have gotten our heads into
too much math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not
really understand what you
mean here. - Your are right
that we should never forget
that mathematics is a tool and
not an understanding of the
world. But regarding your
heavily discussed example of
relativity, it is
fundamentally understandable
without a lot of mathematics.
At least the version of
Hendrik Lorentz. That one is
accessible to imagination
without much mathematics and
without logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case
both observers
would see the
other moving at a
relative velocity
and calculate
their clocks to
run slower than
their own when
they calculate
their own
experience they
would also
calculate their
own clocks to run
slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not Einstein's
saying. But to be
compliant with
Einstein one has to
take into account the
synchronization state
of the clocks. Clocks
at different positions
cannot be compared in
a simple view. If
someone wants to
compare them he has
e.g. to carry a
"transport" clock from
one clock to the other
one. And the
"transport" clock will
also run differently
when carried. This -
again - is the problem
of synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are
complexities but this is
not the issue, its whether
the world view is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use
relativity you have to do it
in a correct way. You do it
in an incorrect way and then
you tell us that results are
logically conflicting. No,
they are not.<br>
The complexities which you
mention are fully and
correctly covered by the
Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat may
be, but Cynthia Whitney who
was at our Italy conference
has a nice explanation of
how Maxwells Equations are
invariant under Galilean
transforms "if you do it the
right way" check out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of
things if you do the proof
the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps
later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">But
because they know
the other twin is
also accelerating
these effects
cancel and all
that is left is
the velocity slow
down. In other
words the Einstein
explanation that
one twin explains
the slow down as a
velocity effect
and the other as a
gravity effect so
both come to the
same conclusion is
inadequate.
Einstein’s
explanation would
have to fall back
on Lorentz’s and
both twins
calculate both the
gravity effect and
the velocity
effect from a
disembodied 3d
person observer
which is
reminiscent of a
god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would explain
any slow down in this
process as a gravity
effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again
repeat a gravity
effect. There is none,
neither by Einstein
nor by anyone else
whom I know. Even if
the equivalence
between gravity and
acceleration would be
valid (which it is
not) there are two
problems. Even if the
time would stand still
during the whole
process of backward
acceleration so that
delta t' would be 0,
this would not at all
explain the time
difference experienced
by the twins. And on
the other hand the
gravitational field
would have, in order
to have the desired
effect here, to be
greater by a factor of
at least 20 orders of
magnitude (so >>
10<sup>20</sup>) of
the gravity field
around the sun etc to
achieve the time shift
needed. So this
approach has no
argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand where
you are coming from.
Gravity, the equivalence
principle is , and the
slow down of clocks and
the speed of light in a
lower ( closer to a mass)
field is the heart of
general relativity. why do
you keep insisting it is
not. GPs clocks are
corrected for gravty
potential and orbit speed,
I was a consultant for
Phase 1 GPS and you
yoursel made a calculation
that the bendng of light
around the sun is due to a
gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why tis
constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle is
not correct in so far as
gravity causes dilation but
acceleration does not. This
is given by theory and by
experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are you
saying clocks do not run
faster at higher altitude? I
was a consultant for GPS
phase 1 GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be as
accurate if it did not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes, they
run faster, and that is
gravity, not acceleration. And
even gravity has a small
influence. The gravitational
field on the surface of the
sun slows down clocks by the
small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the
factors of slow down which are
normally assumed in the
examples for the twin
travel. --> Absolutely
not usable, even if
equivalence would be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is
designed to run in free
space, there is no gravity
involved. Of course one may
put the concept of it into
the vicinity of the sun or
of a neutron star. But then
the question whether it is a
paradox or not is not
affected by this change. And
particularly gravity is not
a solution as it treats all
participants in the same way
And anyhow there is no
solution needed as it is in
fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are
flawed</b>
because both
require a
disembodied 3d
person observer
who is observing
that independent
Aristotilian
objective universe
that must exist
whether we look at
it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd person
is definitely</b><b>
</b><b>not required</b>.
The whole situation
can be completely
evaluated from the
view of one of the
twins or of the other
twin or from the view
of <i>any other
observer </i>in the
world who is in a
defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this in
my last mail, and if
you object here you
should give clear
arguments, not mere
repetitions of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was
derived in the context of
a 3d person, he clear
argument is that he clock
slow down is also
derivable form the
invariance of action
required to execute a
clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers
material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was
derived as the relation of
two frames of linear motion.
If you look at the Lorentz
transformation it always
presents the relation
between two frames, normally
called S and S'. Nothing
else shows up anywhere in
these formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes along
and says the
entire
Aristotelian
approach is wrong
and the Platonic
view must be
taken. Einstein is
right in claiming
there is no
independent of
ourselves space
however his
derivation of
Lorentz
Transformations
was conducted
under the
assumption that
his own
imagination
provided the 3d
person observer
god like observer
but he failed to
recognize the
significance of
this fact. And
therefore had to
invent additional
and incorrect
assumptions that
lead to false
equations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When the observer is
properly taken
into account each
observer generates
his own
observational
display in which
he creates the
appearance of
clocks. Those
appearance are
stationary
relative to the
observer’s
supplied
background space
or they might be
moving. But in
either case some
external
stimulation has
caused the two
appearances. If
two copies of the
same external
clock mechanism
are involved and
in both cases the
clock ticks
require a certain
amount of action
to complete a
cycle of activity
that is called a
second i.e. the
moving of the hand
from line 1 to
line 2 on the
dial. Therefore
the action
required to
complete the event
between clock
ticks is the
invariant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two
clocks do not slow
down because they
appear to be
moving relative to
each other their
rates are
determined by
their complete
Lagrangian Energy
L = T-V calculated
inside the fixed
mass underlying
each observer’s
universe. The
potential
gravitational
energy of a mass
inside the mass
shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and
radius of the mass
shell and also the
Schwarzchild
radius of the
black hole each of
us is in. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its
Lagrangian energy
is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its Lagrangian
energy is L= ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy is
T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the
non-relativistic case.
But we discuss
relativity here. So
the correct equation
has to be used which
is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I
believe relativity is
wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong
in the way that you use
equations (here for kinetic
energy) which are strictly
restricted to
non-relativistic situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock
rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming
the Action is an
invariant</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’ ∙
(1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation is
equal to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1
- v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order
approximation is not
usable as we are
discussing relativity
here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why
clock slow down is simply
derivable from action
invariance and sped of
light dependence on
gravitational potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an equation
of special relativity, it
has nothing to do with a
gravitational potential. In
special relativity the slow
down of clocks is formally
necessary to "explain" the
constancy of c in any frame.
In general relativity it was
necessary to explain that
the speed of light is also
constant in a gravitational
field. So, Einstein meant
the <i>independence </i>of
c from a gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a
position outside the field
or with the understanding of
Lorentz, this invariance is
in any case a measurement
result, not true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Since
the second order
terms are on the
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe
Einstein’s theory
has not been
tested to the
second term
accuracy. In both
theories the
moving clock
interval is
smaller when the
clock moves with
constant velocity
in the space of an
observer at rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using
an approximation here
which is a bit
different from
Einstein's solution.
And then you say that
Einstein's solution is
an approximation. Then
you ask that the
approximation in
Einstein's solution
should be
experimentally
checked. No, the
approximation is in
your solution as you
write it yourself
earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's
equation is different from
the simple lagrangian but
both are equal to v8v/c*c
order which is all that to
my knowledge has been
verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the
Lagrangian for the
derivation of this equation.
Please look into his paper
of 1905. His goal was to
keep c constant in any
frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I misunderstood
something but a moving
clock has longer time
periods and so
indicates a smaller
time for a given
process. And if you
follow Einstein the
equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It
ignores the question
of synchronization
which is essential for
all considerations
about dilation. I
repeat the correct
equation here: t' =
1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this
dependency on the
position the case ends
up with logical
conflicts. Just those
conflicts which you
have repeatedly
mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In
particle accelerators
Einstein's theory has
been tested with v
very close to c. Here
in Hamburg at DESY up
to v = 0.9999 c. So,
v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term to
be added to 0.9999 .
That is clearly
measurable and shows
that this order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You
have introduced it
here without any
argument and any need.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only important
point. Please provide the
Reference for this
experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses
particle interactions, so
also those which have been
performed here including my
own experiment, have used
the true Einstein relation
with consistent results for
energy and momentum. An
assumed term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results
which violate conservation
of energy and of momentum.
So, any experiment performed
here during many decades is
a proof that the equation of
Einstein is correct at this
point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no correction
of 4th order is necessary
the very simple almost
classical expression based
upon action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree
to Einstein's equation, i.e.
the Lorentz transformation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I
agree that clocks are slowed
when they are in a deeper
gravity well and my
calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the
same accuracy that has been
tested. You say Einsteins
formula has been tested to
the fourth order. This would
make my theory wrong. Please
give me a reference so I can
look at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge
neither length contraction
or time dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have
been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show
you what you want I would have
to present here the computer
programs which we have used to
calculate e.g. the kinematics
of my experiment. (I do not
have them any more 40 years
after the experiment.) And as
I wrote, there was no
experiment evaluated here at
DESY over 40 years and as
well no experiment at CERN and
as well no experiment at the
Standford accelerator without
using Einstein's Lorentz
transformation. None of all
these experiments would have
had results if Einstein would
be wrong at this point.
Because as I wrote, any
evaluation would have shown a
violation of the conservation
of energy and the conservation
of momentum. That means one
would have received chaotic
results for every measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether and
Einstein is right
that there is no
absolute frame and
everything is
relative. But Baer
resolve both these
“rights” by
identifying the
aether as the
personal
background memory
space of each
observer who feels
he is living in
his own universe.
We see and
experience our own
individual world
of objects and
incorrectly feel
what we are
looking at is an
independent
external universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is
right or Lorentz is
right if seen from an
epistemological
position. Only the
measurement results
are equal. Beyond that
I do not see any need
to resolve something.
<br>
Which are the
observers here? The
observers in the
different frames are
in fact the
measurement tools like
clocks and rulers. The
only human-related
problem is that a
human may read the
indication of a clock
in a wrong way. The
clock itself is in
this view independent
of observer related
facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point
both Einstein and Lorenz
tried to find a solution
within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe more
right in that he argued
the size of
electromagentic structures
shrink or stretch the same
as electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a wavelength
with a yard stick will
not show an effect. What
Lorentz did not understand
is that both the yard
stick and the EM wave are
appearances in an
observers space and runs
at an observers speed of
NOW. The observer must be
included in physics if we
are to make progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the
observer must be included.
But let's start then with
something like Newton's law
of motion which is in that
case also affected.
Relativity is bad for this
as it is mathematically more
complicated without
providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px
solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt=""
style="width:
46px; height:
29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color:
#4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>