<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>I looked through the E-mails and could only pick out the
following Paragraphs , these are statements I give you formulas. <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 class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">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.</font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">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.</font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">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.</font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="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 ?</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="+1">We will not get anywhere
unill you write down the formulas you believe proves the
point. I always have to guess, and when I do you write I'm
wrong b uit do not give me the formula you think is right. So
here again I think you are talking about 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>)
when it is divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship
for increasing m, but if you let 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 -</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="+1">Is this not the formula your
argument is based on? If not then what is? Because unless we
can talk mathematics I can not tell when you are truly proving
something or simply using an assumption in a circular
argument.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<font size="+1"></font><font size="-1"><span
style="color:#000066"></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 1:50 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5968709-0236-0e57-f565-8ed113575cf4@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>this again is my mail of July 6 which you did not find. I am
explaining further down that the operation of a synchrotron is a
permanent test of the validity of the Lorentz transformation
regarding the behaviour of objects, which move at a speed close
to c. So, your suspicion that the according Lorentz
transformation is only verified up to an accuracy of (v/c)<sup>4</sup>
is clearly falsified by the operation of a synchrotron (as well
as of all other particle accelerators).</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.07.2017 um 14:13 schrieb
Albrecht Giese:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:adb74d03-e3c5-0b22-4b8b-1167ee3adc1c@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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 color="#330033" size="+1">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your
statement that Einstein was wrong.
Up to now I did not see any true
arguments from you, but you only
presented your results of an
incorrect understanding of
Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong
with SRT then please give us
arguments. Step by step. To say YES
or NO as a summary without any
arguments is not science. I also
have some concerns about Einstein's
SRT myself, but with pure statements
without arguments like in your last
mails we do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your
request for YES or NO is: Einstein's
SRT is formally consistent; however
I do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a
circle at constant velocity slows down
in his 1905 paper. The YES or NO
questions is simply did he or did he
not say that the moving clock slows
down? The question is not whether his
theory is formally consistent but
whether his theory states moving
clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by
Einstein the moving clock slows down.
Which is of course not new. But notice
that in his paper of 1905 he has given the
conditions at which this slow down
happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic
space is there a difference between an
observer A on clock A seeing clock B
move at constant velocity in a circle
compared with an observer B on clock B
seeing clock A move in a circle at
constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference,
remembering all that has been said is
that both observers see the other go
in a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no
contradiction to Einsteins Claim in
Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock /
observer move at constant speed and in a
circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an
observer positioned in the middle of both
clocks at rest. And they slow down by the
same amount. Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in
the direct way as SRT is about the
relation of inertial frames, and here none
of the clocks is in an inertial frame. -
On the other hand this question must be
answerable in a formal way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen
from one clock the other clock moves for
an infinitesimal distance on a straight
path. In this infinitesimal moment the own
clock also moves on a straight path and
both do not have any speed in relation to
the other one (i.e. no change of the
distance). Speed in the Lorentz
transformation is the temporal derivative
of the distance. This is 0 in this case.
So no effects according to SRT and both
observers see the speed of the other clock
not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the
other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about
leaving coordinate frames at this
stage of our discussion. If one
observer sees the other leave his
coordinate frame behind why does the
other not see the same thing. Einstein
insisted there are no preferred
coordinate frames. That Einsteins
theory, as published in 1905, can be
patched up by adding interpretations
and even new physics, which Einstein
tried to do himself with GRT is not
the issue We can discuss whether or
not the "leaving coordinate frame"
makes sense and is part of the
original SRT later, after you answer
question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate
frames but about inertial frames (the
question which coordinate frame is used is
of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not
only see the other one permanently leaving
his inertial frame but also himself
leaving permanently his inertial frame.
That is easily noticeable as he will
notice his acceleration. - How this case
can be solved in accordance with SRT I
have explained in the preceding paragraph.
That solution is physically correct and in
my understanding in accordance with
Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I
am trying to lead you and anyone
listening to the logical conclusion
that Einsteins world view expressed by
his assumptions is wrong. I am not
questioning that after making his
assumptions he can logically derive
the Lorentz transformations, nor that
such a derivation is inconsistent with
his assumptions. Ive gone through his
papers often enough to know his math
is correct. I'm simply trying to lead
us all to the realization that the
speed of light as a physical phenomena
is NOT constant, never was, never will
be and warping coordinate frames and
all the changes in physics required
to make that assumption consistent
with experimental fact has been a 100
year abomination. If you believe that
assumption, I've got a guy on a cross
who claims to be the son of god to
introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could
prove that the speed of light is not
constant. I would understand this as a
step forward. But you have to do it with
appropriate arguments which I found
missing. <br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some
of the arguments which are my arguments to
follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian
relativity is more easy to understand and
has physical causes. Einstein's principle
is not physics but spirituality in my view
and his considerations about time and
space are as well not physics. Also my
view. But you have questioned the
compatibility of Einstein's theory with
reality by some examples, at last by the
twin case and argued that this is a
violation of Einstein's theory or in
conflict with reality. But both is not the
case, and that was the topic of the
discussions during the last dozens of
mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really
read my mails as the questions
below are answered in my last
mails, most of them in the
mail of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand
your continued gripe about
my referring to gravity.
Something is wrong let me
ask some simple yes and no
questions to get to the
bottom of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the
equivalence principle holds
and acceleration and gravity
are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several
times in my last mails </i>that
the equivalence principle is
violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to
gravity - does not cause
dilation. And, as I have also
written earlier, that you find
this in any textbook about
special relativity and that it
was experimentally proven at the
muon storage ring at CERN. - It
seems to me that you did not
read my last mails but write
your answering text
independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on
top of a mountain runs
faster than one at sea
level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed
in my last mail</i>. In
addition I have given you the
numerical result for the
gravitational dilation on the
surface of the sun where the
slow down of a clock is the
little difference of about 1 /
100'000 compared to a zero-field
situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in
the typical examples for the
twin case about a dilation by a
factor of 10 to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of
light is related to the
gravity potential by c*c =
G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous
mail the equation for this,
which is c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on
the direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn
about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4
accuracy level do you know
any references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the
Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms
depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly
applicable for time dilation and
for every kinematic or dynamic
calculation where special
relativity applies. And in the
latter context it is used by
thousands of physicists all over
the world who work at
accelerators. One could find it
in their computer programs. To
ask them whether they have done
it in this way would seem to
them like the doubt whether they
have calculated 5 * 5 = 25
correctly. This is daily work in
practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that
gamma is different only for the
case of time dilation then the
answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that
e.g. the speed of light c could
never be constant (or measured
as constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at
entanglement since it is
quite likely the wave
function is a mental
projection and therefore its
collapse is a collapse of
knowledge and the Aspect
experiments have been
incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been
repeated very carefully by
others (as also Zeilinger has
presented here in his last talk)
and the new experiments are said
to have covered all loop holes
which have been left by Aspect.
And also all these experiments
are carefully observed by an
international community of
physicists. But of course this
is never a guaranty that
anything is correct. So it is
good practice to doubt that and
I am willing follow this way.
However if you do not accept
these experiments or the
consequences drawn, then please
explain in detail where and why
you disagree. Otherwise critical
statements are not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree
to disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic
physical facts. Or we should
present arguments, which means
at best: quantitative
calculations as proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to
gravity, I have to remind
you on the quantitative
results if something is
referred to the
gravitational force. As
much as I know any use of
gravitational force yields
a result which is about 30
to 40 orders of magnitude
smaller that we have them
in fact in physics. - If
you disagree to this
statement please give us
your quantitative
calculation (for instance
for the twin case).
Otherwise your repeated
arguments using gravity do
not help us in any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for
physics which may be
affected by human
understanding in a bad
way, I think that the case
of entanglement could be a
good example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments
in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should
make detailed
arguments. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing
that Einstein’s
special relativity
claims that the
clocks of an
observer moving at
constant velocity
with respect to a
second observer
will slow down.
This lead to the
twin paradox that
is often resolved
by citing the need
for acceleration
and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>gravity in
general
relativity. My
symmetric twin
experiment was
intended to show
that Einstein as I
understood him
could not explain
the paradox. I did
so in order to set
the stage for
introducing a new
theory. You argued
my understanding
of Einstein was
wrong. Ok This is
not worth arguing
about because it
is not second
guessing Einstein
that is important
but that but I am
trying to present
a new way of
looking at reality
which is based on
Platonic thinking
rather than
Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world
was essentially
the way you see
it. This is called
naive realism. And
science from
Newton up to
quantum theory is
based upon it. If
you keep repeating
that my ideas are
not what
physicists believe
I fully agree. It
is not an argument
to say the
mainstream of
science disagrees.
I know that. I'm
proposing
something
different. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that
there is no
independent
physically
objective space
time continuum in
which the material
universe including
you, I, and the
rest of the
particles and
fields exist.
Instead I believe
a better world
view is that
(following
Everett) that all
systems are
observers and
therefore create
their own space in
which the objects
you see in front
of your face
appear. The
situation is shown
below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part11.4BFF4B14.0BAA630C@nascentinc.com"
alt="" class=""
height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three
parts You, I, and
the rest of the
Universe “U” . I
do a symmetric
twin thought
experiment in
which both twins
do exactly the
same thing. They
accelerate in
opposite
directions turn
around and come
back at rest to
compare clocks.
You does a though
experiment that is
not symmetric one
twin is at rest
the other
accelerates and
comes back to rest
and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each
thought experiment
is done in the
space associated
with You,I and U.
The speed of light
is constant in
each of these
spaces and so the
special relativity
, Lorentz
transforms, and
Maxwell’s
equations apply. I
have said many
times these are
self consistent
equations and I
have no problem
with them under
the Aristotilian
assumption that
each of the three
parts believes
what they see is
the independent
space.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they
see is in each
parts space. This
space provides the
background aether,
in it the speed of
electromagnetic
interactions is
constant BECAUSE
this speed is
determined by the
Lagrangian energy
level largely if
not totally
imposed by the
gravity
interactions the
physical material
from which each
part is made
experiences. Each
part you and your
space runs at a
different rate
because the
constant Einstein
was looking for
should be called
the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or
disagree with this
view point. But if
you disagree
please do not tell
me that the
mainstream
physicists do not
take this point of
view. I know that.
Main stream
physicists are not
attempting to
solve the
consciousness
problem , and have
basically
eliminated the
mind and all
subjective
experience from
physics. I’m
trying to fix this
rather gross
oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and
you may - have good
arguments that, what we
see, is not the true
reality. So far so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a
good example to show
this. It is not a better
example than to cite
Newton's law of motion
in order to proof that
most probably our human
view is questionable.
For you it seems to be
tempting to use
relativity because you
see logical conflicts
related to different
views of the
relativistic processes,
to show at this example
that the world cannot be
as simple as assumed by
the naive realism. But
relativity and
particularly the twin
experiment is completely
in agreement with this
naive realism. The
frequently discussed
problems in the twin
case are in fact
problems of persons who
did not truly understand
relativity. And this is
the fact for all working
versions of relativity,
where the Einsteinian
and the Lorentzian
version are the ones
which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes
Newtons law is a good
example specifically
force is a theoretical
construct and not see
able , what we see is
acceleration and the
feeling of push or pull
so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture
with an experience but
Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using
relativity because I
believe it can be
explained much sipler
and more accurately if
we realize material
generates its own space
i.e. there is something
it feels like to be
material. I believe
integrating this feeling
into physics is the next
major advance we can
make.<br>
Further more one we
accept this new premise
I think REletevistic
phenomena can be more
easily explained by
assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in
each piece of material
but dependent on its
energy (gravitatinal)
state. <br>
I think our discussion
is most helpful in
refining these ideas, so
thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One
little comment to this:
Every piece of material
has its own energy. Also
objects which are
connected by a
gravitational field build
a system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy.
But it seems to me that
you relate every energy
state to gravity. Here I
do not follow. If pieces
of material are bound to
each other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a
state of energy, the
energy in it is dominated
by the strong force and by
the electric force. In
comparison the
gravitational energy is so
many orders of magnitude
smaller (Where the order
of magnitude is > 35)
that this is an extremely
small side effect, too
small to play any role in
most applications. Or
please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your
comments in
detail. </span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel
better if our
discussion would
use detailed
arguments and
counter-arguments
instead of pure
repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um
07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree clocks slow down, but
If I include
the observer
then I get an
equation for
the slow down
that agrees
with eperimetn
but disagrees
with Einstein
in the higher
order, so it
should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and
I show the
deviation in
your
calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to
have your comments</b><br>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian
Philosophy
everyone was
convinced
Reality
consisted of
an external
objective
universe
independent of
subjective
living beings.
Electricity
and Magnetism
had largely
been explored
through
empirical
experiments
which lead to
basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by Maxwell’s equations.
These
equations are
valid in a
medium
characterized
by the
permittivity ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free
space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These
equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are valid in a coordinate frame
x,y,z,t and
are identical
in form when
expressed in a
different
coordinate
frame
x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never
seen a
substitution
of the Lorentz
formulas into
Maxwell’s
equations that
will then give
the same form
only using
∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get
E’ and B’ but
it must exist.
</p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been
done which is much
more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has
shown that the
complete theory of
Maxwell can be
deduced from two
things: 1.) the
Coulomb law; 2.)
the Lorentz
transformation. It
is interesting
because it shows
that
electromagnetism
is a consequence
of special
relativity. (Book:
W.G.V. Rosser,
Classical
Electromagnetism
via Relativity,
New York Plenum
Press).
Particularly
magnetism is not a
separate force but
only a certain
perspective of the
electrical force.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im
familiaer with this
viw point of
magnetics, but all
within the self
consistent
Aristotelian point of
view <br>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations
reduce to the
wave equation
and Maxwell’s
field concept
required an
aether as a
medium for
them to
propagate. It
was postulated
that space was
filled with
such a medium
and that the
earth was
moving through
it. Therefore
it should be
detectable
with a
Michelson
–Morely
experiment.
But The Null
result showed
this to be
wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of
present physics
aether is nothing
more than the fact
of an absolute
frame. Nobody
believes these
days that aether
is some kind of
material. And also
Maxwell's theory
does not need it.
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example
physics does not need
mind. <br>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not
detected by the
Michelson-Morely
experiment which
does however not
mean that no
aether existed.
The only result is
that it cannot be
detected. This
latter conclusion
was also accepted
by Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because it is attached
to the observer doing
the experiment , see
my drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because we know from
other observations and
facts that objects
contract at motion - in
the original version of
Heaviside, this happens
when electric fields
move in relation to an
aether. So the
interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to
show a phase shift as
the arms of the
interferometer have
changed their lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes
I understand and I
believe like you this is
a better explanation
than Einsteins but it
still leaves the aether
as a property of an
independent space that
exist whether we live or
die and and assume we
are objects in that
space it also identifies
that space with what is
in front of our nose<br>
. I believe I can show
that our bigger self (
not how we see
ourselves) is NOT in U's
space and what I see is
not equal to the
universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When
can we expect to get this
from you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s Approach:</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein came along and
derived the
Lorentz
Transformations
assuming the
speed of light
is constant,
synchronization
protocol of
clocks, and
rods, the
invariance of
Maxwell’s
equations in
all inertial
frames, and
the null
result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments.
Einstein went
on to
eliminate any
absolute space
and instead
proposed that
all frames and
observers
riding in them
are equivalent
and each such
observer would
measure
another
observers
clocks slowing
down when
moving with
constant
relative
velocity. This
interpretation
lead to the
Twin Paradox.
Since each
observer
according to
Einstein,
being in his
own frame
would
according to
his theory
claim the
other
observer’s
clocks would
slow down.
However both
cannot be
right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be
right as I have
explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are
there so many
publications that use
general relativity,
gravity and the
equivalence principle
as the the way to
explain the twin
paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in
a static homogeneous
gravitational field
URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my
preamble I do not
want to argue about
what Einstein really
meant. <br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that
arxiv document. The
authors want to show
that the twin case can
also be handled as a
process related to
gravity. So they define
the travel of the
travelling twin so that
he is permanently
accelerated until he
reaches the turn around
point and then
accelerated back to the
starting point, where
the twin at rest
resides. Then they
calculate the slow down
of time as a consequence
of the accelerations
which they relate to an
fictive gravitational
field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing
to do with our
discussion by several
reasons. One reason is
the intent of the
authors to replace
completely the slow down
of time by the slow down
by gravity /
acceleration. They do
not set up an experiment
where one clock is
slowed down by the
motion and the other
twin slowed down by
acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your
intention according to
my understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume
that acceleration means
clock slow down. But
that does not happen.
Any text book about SRT
says that acceleration
does not cause a slow
down of time / clocks.
And there are clear
experiments proofing
exactly this. For
instance the muon
storage ring at CERN
showed that the lifetime
of muons was extended by
their high speed but in
no way by the extreme
acceleration in the
ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells
incorrect physics. And I
do not know of any
serious physicist who
tries to explain the
twin case by gravity. I
have given you by the
way some strong
arguments that such an
explanation is not
possible. - And
independently, do you
have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You
may not like the details
of this paper but it is
relevant because it is
only one of a long list
of papers that use
gravity and acceleration
to to explain the twin
paradox. I am not
claiming they are
correct only that a
large community believes
this is the way to
explain the twin
paradox. If you look at
the Wikipedia entry for
Twin Paradox they will
say explanations fall
into two categories <br>
Just because you
disagree with one of
these categories does
not mean a community
supporting the gravity
explanation view point
does not exist. I've
ordered Sommerfelds
book that has Einstein
and other notables
explanation and will see
what they say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where
is, please, that long
list? Please present it
here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several
times now, gravity is
many, many orders of
magnitude (maybe 20 or 30
orders) too small to play
any role here. And this
can be proven by quite
simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox
in his
invention of
general
relativity
where clocks
speed up when
in a higher
gravity field
i.e one that
feels less
strong like up
on top of a
mountain.
Applied to the
twin paradox:
a stationary
twin sees the
moving twin at
velocity “v”
and thinks the
moving twin’s
clock slows
down. The
moving twin
does not move
relative to
his clock but
must
accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a round trip (using the
equivalence
principle
calculated the
being
equivalent to
a
gravitational
force).
Feeling the
acceleration
as gravity and
knowing that
gravity slows
her clocks she
would also
calculate her
clocks would
slow down. The
paradox is
resolved
because in one
case the
explanation is
velocity the
other it is
gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong,
completely wrong!
General relativity
has nothing to do
with the twin
situation, and so
gravity or any
equivalent to
gravity has
nothing to do with
it. The twin
situation is not a
paradox but is
clearly free of
conflicts if
special
relativity, i.e.
the Lorentz
transformation, is
properly applied.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but
again most papers
explain it using
gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which
these "most papers" are.
I have never heard about
this and I am caring
about this twin
experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see
last comment. It is
certainly how I was
taught but I have notr
looked up papers on the
subject for many years,
will try to find some<br>
but since I'm trying to
propose a completely
different approach I do
not think which of two
explanations is more
right is a fruitful
argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz Approach:</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being
electromagnetic
structures
slow down and
lengths in the
direction of
motion
contract in
the absolute
aether of
space
according to
his
transformation
and therefore
the aether
could not be
detected. In
other words
Lorentz
maintained the
belief in an
absolute
aether filled
space, but
that
electromagnetic
objects
relative to
that space
slow down and
contract.
Gravity and
acceleration
had nothing to
do with it.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue
argued that
the observer
subject to
acceleration
would know
that he is no
longer in the
same inertial
frame as
before and
therefore
calculate that
his clocks
must be
slowing down,
even though he
has no way of
measuring such
a slow down
because all
the clocks in
his reference
frame.
Therefore does
not consider
gravity but
only the
knowledge that
due to his
acceleration
he must be
moving as well
and knowing
his clocks are
slowed by
motion he is
not surprised
that his clock
has slowed
down when he
gets back to
the stationary
observer and
therefore no
paradox
exists. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the
moving clocks
slow down but
we have two
different
reasons. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case
the absolute
fixed frame
remains which
in the
completely
symmetric twin
paradox
experiment
described
above implies
that both
observers have
to calculate
their own
clock rates
from the same
initial start
frame and
therefore both
calculate the
same slow
down. This
introduces a
disembodied 3d
person
observer which
is reminiscent
of a god like
.</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third
person who moves
with some constant
speed somewhere
can make this
calculation and
has the same
result. No
specific frame
like the god-like
one is needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then
becomes an object in a
4th person's space,
you cannot get rid of
the Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely
"mechanical" process and
it is in the same way as
much or as little
depending on the Mind as
Newton's law of motion.
So to make things better
understandable please
explain your position by
the use of either
Newton's law or
something comparable.
Relativity is not
appropriate as it allows
for too much speculation
which does not really
help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you
are right, but
eventually I hope to
show the whole business
is a confusion
introduced by our habit
of displaying time in a
space axis which
introduces artifacts. I
hpe you will critique my
writeup when it is
finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which
confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused
by persons who do not
understand the underlying
physics. So, this does not
require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the
simple statement
is not correct
that moving clocks
slow down. If we
follow Einstein,
also the
synchronization of
the clocks in
different frames
and different
positions is
essential. If this
synchronization is
omitted (as in
most arguments of
this discussion up
to now) we will
have conflicting
results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but
your initial argument
was that the
calculations by the
moving twin was to be
done in the inertial
frame before any
acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that
that frame is always
the frame in which the
theory was defined and
it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the
calculation to the
original frame of the
one moving twin in order
to be close to your
experiment and your
description. Any other
frame can be used as
well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have
you thought that the
consequence of having an
observer who feels a
force like gravity which
according to the
equivalence principle
and any ones experience
in a centrifuge is
indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a
person needs to transfer
to the initial start
frame that would mean we
would all be moving at
the speed of light and
need to transfer back to
the big bang or the
perhaps the CBR frame <br>
perhaps non of our
clocks are running very
fast but I still get
older - this thinking
leads to crazy stuff -
the whole basis does not
make common experience
sense, which is what I
want to base our physics
on. We have gotten our
heads into too much
math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do
not really understand what
you mean here. - Your are
right that we should never
forget that mathematics is
a tool and not an
understanding of the
world. But regarding your
heavily discussed example
of relativity, it is
fundamentally
understandable without a
lot of mathematics. At
least the version of
Hendrik Lorentz. That one
is accessible to
imagination without much
mathematics and without
logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s
case both
observers
would see the
other moving
at a relative
velocity and
calculate
their clocks
to run slower
than their own
when they
calculate
their own
experience
they would
also calculate
their own
clocks to run
slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not
Einstein's saying.
But to be
compliant with
Einstein one has
to take into
account the
synchronization
state of the
clocks. Clocks at
different
positions cannot
be compared in a
simple view. If
someone wants to
compare them he
has e.g. to carry
a "transport"
clock from one
clock to the other
one. And the
"transport" clock
will also run
differently when
carried. This -
again - is the
problem of
synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are
complexities but this
is not the issue, its
whether the world view
is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use
relativity you have to
do it in a correct way.
You do it in an
incorrect way and then
you tell us that results
are logically
conflicting. No, they
are not.<br>
The complexities which
you mention are fully
and correctly covered by
the Lorentz
transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat
may be, but Cynthia
Whitney who was at our
Italy conference has a
nice explanation of how
Maxwells Equations are
invariant under Galilean
transforms "if you do it
the right way" check
out <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of
things if you do the
proof the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps
later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">But
because they
know the other
twin is also
accelerating
these effects
cancel and all
that is left
is the
velocity slow
down. In other
words the
Einstein
explanation
that one twin
explains the
slow down as a
velocity
effect and the
other as a
gravity effect
so both come
to the same
conclusion is
inadequate.
Einstein’s
explanation
would have to
fall back on
Lorentz’s and
both twins
calculate both
the gravity
effect and the
velocity
effect from a
disembodied 3d
person
observer which
is reminiscent
of a god like
.</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would
explain any slow
down in this
process as a
gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again
repeat a gravity
effect. There is
none, neither by
Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I
know. Even if the
equivalence
between gravity
and acceleration
would be valid
(which it is not)
there are two
problems. Even if
the time would
stand still during
the whole process
of backward
acceleration so
that delta t'
would be 0, this
would not at all
explain the time
difference
experienced by the
twins. And on the
other hand the
gravitational
field would have,
in order to have
the desired effect
here, to be
greater by a
factor of at least
20 orders of
magnitude (so
>> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity
field around the
sun etc to achieve
the time shift
needed. So this
approach has no
argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand
where you are coming
from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle
is , and the slow down
of clocks and the
speed of light in a
lower ( closer to a
mass) field is the
heart of general
relativity. why do you
keep insisting it is
not. GPs clocks are
corrected for gravty
potential and orbit
speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1
GPS and you yoursel
made a calculation
that the bendng of
light around the sun
is due to a gravity
acing like a
refractive media. Why
tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence
principle is not correct
in so far as gravity
causes dilation but
acceleration does not.
This is given by theory
and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are
you saying clocks do not
run faster at higher
altitude? I was a
consultant for GPS phase
1 GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be
as accurate if it did
not. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes,
they run faster, and that
is gravity, not
acceleration. And even
gravity has a small
influence. The
gravitational field on the
surface of the sun slows
down clocks by the small
portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with
the factors of slow down
which are normally assumed
in the examples for the
twin travel. -->
Absolutely not usable,
even if equivalence would
be working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is
designed to run in free
space, there is no
gravity involved. Of
course one may put the
concept of it into the
vicinity of the sun or
of a neutron star. But
then the question
whether it is a paradox
or not is not affected
by this change. And
particularly gravity is
not a solution as it
treats all participants
in the same way And
anyhow there is no
solution needed as it is
in fact not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are
flawed</b>
because both
require a
disembodied 3d
person
observer who
is observing
that
independent
Aristotilian
objective
universe that
must exist
whether we
look at it or
not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd
person is
definitely</b><b>
</b><b>not
required</b>.
The whole
situation can be
completely
evaluated from the
view of one of the
twins or of the
other twin or from
the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in
the world who is
in a defined
frame. <br>
<br>
I have written
this in my last
mail, and if you
object here you
should give clear
arguments, not
mere repetitions
of your
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was
derived in the context
of a 3d person, he
clear argument is that
he clock slow down is
also derivable form
the invariance of
action required to
execute a clock tick
of identical clocks in
any observers material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was
derived as the relation
of two frames of linear
motion. If you look at
the Lorentz
transformation it always
presents the relation
between two frames,
normally called S and
S'. Nothing else shows
up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes
along and says
the entire
Aristotelian
approach is
wrong and the
Platonic view
must be taken.
Einstein is
right in
claiming there
is no
independent of
ourselves
space however
his derivation
of Lorentz
Transformations
was conducted
under the
assumption
that his own
imagination
provided the
3d person
observer god
like observer
but he failed
to recognize
the
significance
of this fact.
And therefore
had to invent
additional and
incorrect
assumptions
that lead to
false
equations.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When the observer is
properly taken
into account
each observer
generates his
own
observational
display in
which he
creates the
appearance of
clocks. Those
appearance are
stationary
relative to
the observer’s
supplied
background
space or they
might be
moving. But in
either case
some external
stimulation
has caused the
two
appearances.
If two copies
of the same
external clock
mechanism are
involved and
in both cases
the clock
ticks require
a certain
amount of
action to
complete a
cycle of
activity that
is called a
second i.e.
the moving of
the hand from
line 1 to line
2 on the dial.
Therefore the
action
required to
complete the
event between
clock ticks is
the invariant.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two
clocks do not
slow down
because they
appear to be
moving
relative to
each other
their rates
are determined
by their
complete
Lagrangian
Energy L = T-V
calculated
inside the
fixed mass
underlying
each
observer’s
universe. The
potential
gravitational
energy of a
mass inside
the mass shell
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass
and radius of
the mass shell
and also the
Schwarzchild
radius of the
black hole
each of us is
in. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its
Lagrangian
energy is L=
m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its
Lagrangian
energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy
is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the
non-relativistic
case. But we
discuss relativity
here. So the
correct equation
has to be used
which is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why
I believe relativity
is wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it
wrong in the way that
you use equations (here
for kinetic energy)
which are strictly
restricted to
non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock
rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">assuming the Action is an invariant</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt’</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt =
Δt’ ∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation
is equal to</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt =
Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order
approximation is
not usable as we
are discussing
relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why
clock slow down is
simply derivable from
action invariance and
sped of light
dependence on
gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an
equation of special
relativity, it has
nothing to do with a
gravitational potential.
In special relativity
the slow down of clocks
is formally necessary to
"explain" the constancy
of c in any frame. In
general relativity it
was necessary to explain
that the speed of light
is also constant in a
gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from
a position outside the
field or with the
understanding of
Lorentz, this invariance
is in any case a
measurement result, not
true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Since
the second
order terms
are on the
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe
Einstein’s
theory has not
been tested to
the second
term accuracy.
In both
theories the
moving clock
interval is
smaller when
the clock
moves with
constant
velocity in
the space of
an observer at
rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are
using an
approximation here
which is a bit
different from
Einstein's
solution. And then
you say that
Einstein's
solution is an
approximation.
Then you ask that
the approximation
in Einstein's
solution should be
experimentally
checked. No, the
approximation is
in your solution
as you write it
yourself earlier.
-<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's
equation is different
from the simple
lagrangian but both
are equal to v8v/c*c
order which is all
that to my knowledge
has been verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the
Lagrangian for the
derivation of this
equation. Please look
into his paper of 1905.
His goal was to keep c
constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I
misunderstood
something but a
moving clock has
longer time
periods and so
indicates a
smaller time for a
given process. And
if you follow
Einstein the
equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1
- v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It
ignores the
question of
synchronization
which is essential
for all
considerations
about dilation. I
repeat the correct
equation here: t'
= 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this
dependency on the
position the case
ends up with
logical conflicts.
Just those
conflicts which
you have
repeatedly
mentioned here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In
particle
accelerators
Einstein's theory
has been tested
with v very close
to c. Here in
Hamburg at DESY up
to v = 0.9999 c.
So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a
term to be added
to 0.9999 . That
is clearly
measurable and
shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist.
You have
introduced it here
without any
argument and any
need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only
important point.
Please provide the
Reference for this
experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which
uses particle
interactions, so also
those which have been
performed here including
my own experiment, have
used the true Einstein
relation with consistent
results for energy and
momentum. An assumed
term of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused
results which violate
conservation of energy
and of momentum. So, any
experiment performed
here during many decades
is a proof that the
equation of Einstein is
correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com"> I have
said no correction of
4th order is necessary
the very simple almost
classical expression
based upon action
invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you
agree to Einstein's
equation, i.e. the
Lorentz transformation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I
agree that clocks are
slowed when they are in
a deeper gravity well
and my calculations and
theory predicts this
fact to the same
accuracy that has been
tested. You say
Einsteins formula has
been tested to the
fourth order. This would
make my theory wrong.
Please give me a
reference so I can look
at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge
neither length
contraction or time
dilation beyond the
approximate solutions to
Einsteins equations have
been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To
show you what you want I
would have to present here
the computer programs
which we have used to
calculate e.g. the
kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have
them any more 40 years
after the experiment.) And
as I wrote, there was no
experiment evaluated here
at DESY over 40 years and
as well no experiment at
CERN and as well no
experiment at the
Standford accelerator
without using Einstein's
Lorentz transformation.
None of all these
experiments would have had
results if Einstein would
be wrong at this point.
Because as I wrote, any
evaluation would have
shown a violation of the
conservation of energy and
the conservation of
momentum. That means one
would have received
chaotic results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether
and Einstein
is right that
there is no
absolute frame
and everything
is relative.
But Baer
resolve both
these “rights”
by identifying
the aether as
the personal
background
memory space
of each
observer who
feels he is
living in his
own universe.
We see and
experience our
own individual
world of
objects and
incorrectly
feel what we
are looking at
is an
independent
external
universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is
right or Lorentz
is right if seen
from an
epistemological
position. Only the
measurement
results are equal.
Beyond that I do
not see any need
to resolve
something. <br>
Which are the
observers here?
The observers in
the different
frames are in fact
the measurement
tools like clocks
and rulers. The
only human-related
problem is that a
human may read the
indication of a
clock in a wrong
way. The clock
itself is in this
view independent
of observer
related facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the
point both Einstein
and Lorenz tried to
find a solution within
the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe
more right in that he
argued the size of
electromagentic
structures shrink or
stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a
wavelength with a yard
stick will not show
an effect. What
Lorentz did not
understand is that
both the yard stick
and the EM wave are
appearances in an
observers space and
runs at an observers
speed of NOW. The
observer must be
included in physics if
we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that
the observer must be
included. But let's
start then with
something like Newton's
law of motion which is
in that case also
affected. Relativity is
bad for this as it is
mathematically more
complicated without
providing additional
philosophical insights.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:
1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
55px; padding-top:
18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt=""
style="width:
46px; height:
29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:
470px;
padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px;
font-family:
Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;
line-height:
18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color:
#4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true">
</a></div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>