<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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>