<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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 size="+1" color="#330033">I do not think it is necessary to go beyond this statement at this time.</font> <font size="+1">I believe SRT as Einstein originally
formulated it in 1905 was wrong/or incomplete. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
Please give arguments for your
statement that Einstein was wrong. Up
to now I did not see any true
arguments from you, but you only
presented your results of an incorrect
understanding of Einstein's theory.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">You either agree or do not agree. It is a simple Yes or No question.
Please answer this question so we can debug our difference opinions by going through the arguments
one step at a time. I am not going to read more, so do not write more. I just want to know if we
have agreement or disagreement on the starting point of SRT.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
If you think that Einstein is wrong
with SRT then please give us
arguments. Step by step. To say YES or
NO as a summary without any arguments
is not science. I also have some
concerns about Einstein's SRT myself,
but with pure statements without
arguments like in your last mails we
do not achieve anything.<br>
<br>
The best way for me to answer your
request for YES or NO is: Einstein's
SRT is formally consistent; however I
do not like it.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein said a clock moving in a circle
at constant velocity slows down in his
1905 paper. The YES or NO questions is
simply did he or did he not say that the
moving clock slows down? The question is
not whether his theory is formally
consistent but whether his theory states
moving clocks slow down. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, in the situation described by Einstein
the moving clock slows down. Which is of
course not new. But notice that in his paper
of 1905 he has given the conditions at which
this slow down happens. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
The next question: In inter-galactic
space is there a difference between an
observer A on clock A seeing clock B
move at constant velocity in a circle
compared with an observer B on clock B
seeing clock A move in a circle at
constant velocity. YES or NO<br>
If YES tell me the difference,
remembering all that has been said is
that both observers see the other go in
a circle at constant velocity. <br>
If NO tell me why there is no
contradiction to Einsteins Claim in
Question 1 above? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, both observers see the other clock /
observer move at constant speed and in a
circle. <br>
<br>
Both clocks slow down as seen by an observer
positioned in the middle of both clocks at
rest. And they slow down by the same amount.
Already given by symmetry. <br>
<br>
But this case cannot be solved by SRT in the
direct way as SRT is about the relation of
inertial frames, and here none of the clocks
is in an inertial frame. - On the other hand
this question must be answerable in a formal
way. <br>
<br>
The solution as I understand it: If seen
from one clock the other clock moves for an
infinitesimal distance on a straight path.
In this infinitesimal moment the own clock
also moves on a straight path and both do
not have any speed in relation to the other
one (i.e. no change of the distance). Speed
in the Lorentz transformation is the
temporal derivative of the distance. This is
0 in this case. So no effects according to
SRT and both observers see the speed of the
other clock not slowed down. <br>
So there is no dilation relative to the
other one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Please do not start talking about
leaving coordinate frames at this stage
of our discussion. If one observer sees
the other leave his coordinate frame
behind why does the other not see the
same thing. Einstein insisted there are
no preferred coordinate frames. That
Einsteins theory, as published in 1905,
can be patched up by adding
interpretations and even new physics,
which Einstein tried to do himself with
GRT is not the issue We can discuss
whether or not the "leaving coordinate
frame" makes sense and is part of the
original SRT later, after you answer
question 2 above. . <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
SRT is not particularly about coordinate
frames but about inertial frames (the
question which coordinate frame is used is
of no physical relevance).<br>
<br>
Each observer in this example will not only
see the other one permanently leaving his
inertial frame but also himself leaving
permanently his inertial frame. That is
easily noticeable as he will notice his
acceleration. - How this case can be solved
in accordance with SRT I have explained in
the preceding paragraph. That solution is
physically correct and in my understanding
in accordance with Einstein.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> I am
trying to lead you and anyone listening
to the logical conclusion that Einsteins
world view expressed by his assumptions
is wrong. I am not questioning that
after making his assumptions he can
logically derive the Lorentz
transformations, nor that such a
derivation is inconsistent with his
assumptions. Ive gone through his papers
often enough to know his math is
correct. I'm simply trying to lead us
all to the realization that the speed of
light as a physical phenomena is NOT
constant, never was, never will be and
warping coordinate frames and all the
changes in physics required to make
that assumption consistent with
experimental fact has been a 100 year
abomination. If you believe that
assumption, I've got a guy on a cross
who claims to be the son of god to
introduce you to.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You would have a good point if you could
prove that the speed of light is not
constant. I would understand this as a step
forward. But you have to do it with
appropriate arguments which I found missing.
<br>
<br>
Apart of this problem you have listed some
of the arguments which are my arguments to
follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
Einstein. In my view the Lorentzian
relativity is more easy to understand and
has physical causes. Einstein's principle is
not physics but spirituality in my view and
his considerations about time and space are
as well not physics. Also my view. But you
have questioned the compatibility of
Einstein's theory with reality by some
examples, at last by the twin case and
argued that this is a violation of
Einstein's theory or in conflict with
reality. But both is not the case, and that
was the topic of the discussions during the
last dozens of mails. <br>
<br>
Best Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best, Wolf <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
Best<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Best,
Wolf
</font>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/15/2017 4:57 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:717d36cf-a4c8-87a9-3613-19e08221711e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really
read my mails as the questions
below are answered in my last
mails, most of them in the mail
of yesterday.<br>
</p>
Am 15.06.2017 um 02:25 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I simply do not understand
your continued gripe about my
referring to gravity.
Something is wrong let me ask
some simple yes and no
questions to get to the bottom
of it</p>
<p>Do you believe the
equivalence principle holds
and acceleration and gravity
are related?</p>
</blockquote>
I have written now <i>several
times in my last mails </i>that
the equivalence principle is
violated at the point that
acceleration - in contrast to
gravity - does not cause dilation.
And, as I have also written
earlier, that you find this in any
textbook about special relativity
and that it was experimentally
proven at the muon storage ring at
CERN. - It seems to me that you
did not read my last mails but
write your answering text
independently. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe a clock on
top of a mountain runs faster
than one at sea level?</p>
</blockquote>
<i>Exactly this I have confirmed
in my last mail</i>. In addition
I have given you the numerical
result for the gravitational
dilation on the surface of the sun
where the slow down of a clock is
the little difference of about 1 /
100'000 compared to a zero-field
situation.<br>
In contrast to this we talk in the
typical examples for the twin case
about a dilation by a factor of 10
to 50.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Do you believe the speed of
light is related to the
gravity potential by c*c =
G*M/R?</p>
</blockquote>
I have also given in a previous
mail the equation for this, which
is c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on
the direction of the light.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>Also</p>
<p> I am very anxious to learn
about clock speed dilation
experiments at the v^4/v^4
accuracy level do you know any
references?</p>
</blockquote>
This is the general use of the
Lorentz factor: gamma =
sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))
which has no additional terms
depending on v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>.
This gamma is similarly applicable
for time dilation and for every
kinematic or dynamic calculation
where special relativity applies.
And in the latter context it is
used by thousands of physicists
all over the world who work at
accelerators. One could find it in
their computer programs. To ask
them whether they have done it in
this way would seem to them like
the doubt whether they have
calculated 5 * 5 = 25 correctly.
This is daily work in practice.<br>
<br>
And if you should assume that
gamma is different only for the
case of time dilation then the
answer is that SRT would then be
inconsistent in the way that e.g.
the speed of light c could never
be constant (or measured as
constant).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>and Yes I'm looking at
entanglement since it is quite
likely the wave function is a
mental projection and
therefore its collapse is a
collapse of knowledge and the
Aspect experiments have been
incorrectly interpreted</p>
</blockquote>
The Aspect experiments have been
repeated very carefully by others
(as also Zeilinger has presented
here in his last talk) and the new
experiments are said to have
covered all loop holes which have
been left by Aspect. And also all
these experiments are carefully
observed by an international
community of physicists. But of
course this is never a guaranty
that anything is correct. So it is
good practice to doubt that and I
am willing follow this way.
However if you do not accept these
experiments or the consequences
drawn, then please explain in
detail where and why you disagree.
Otherwise critical statements are
not helpful.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p>If we disagree lets agree to
disagree and go on.</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should not disagree on basic
physical facts. Or we should
present arguments, which means at
best: quantitative calculations as
proofs.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a02b8ee5-dd7e-b6eb-0dea-ec64dcae3274@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/14/2017 1:45 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:135fda33-2ee7-06e1-dbf2-0b1e7a619b68@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>as you again refer to
gravity, I have to remind
you on the quantitative
results if something is
referred to the
gravitational force. As much
as I know any use of
gravitational force yields a
result which is about 30 to
40 orders of magnitude
smaller that we have them in
fact in physics. - If you
disagree to this statement
please give us your
quantitative calculation
(for instance for the twin
case). Otherwise your
repeated arguments using
gravity do not help us in
any way.</p>
<p>If you are looking for
physics which may be
affected by human
understanding in a bad way,
I think that the case of
entanglement could be a good
example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.06.2017 um 06:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#3366ff">Comments
in Blue</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/12/2017 9:42 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
Am 12.06.2017 um 08:30
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
agree we should make
detailed arguments.
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
had been arguing
that Einstein’s
special relativity
claims that the
clocks of an
observer moving at
constant velocity
with respect to a
second observer will
slow down. This lead
to the twin paradox
that is often
resolved by citing
the need for
acceleration and<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>gravity in general relativity. My
symmetric twin
experiment was
intended to show
that Einstein as I
understood him could
not explain the
paradox. I did so in
order to set the
stage for
introducing a new
theory. You argued
my understanding of
Einstein was wrong.
Ok This is not worth
arguing about
because it is not
second guessing
Einstein that is
important but that
but I am trying to
present a new way of
looking at reality
which is based on
Platonic thinking
rather than
Aristotle. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Aristotle
believed the world
was essentially the
way you see it. This
is called naive
realism. And science
from Newton up to
quantum theory is
based upon it. If
you keep repeating
that my ideas are
not what physicists
believe I fully
agree. It is not an
argument to say the
mainstream of
science disagrees. I
know that. I'm
proposing something
different. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">So let me try again</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I
am suggesting that
there is no
independent
physically objective
space time continuum
in which the
material universe
including you, I,
and the rest of the
particles and fields
exist. Instead I
believe a better
world view is that
(following Everett)
that all systems are
observers and
therefore create
their own space in
which the objects
you see in front of
your face appear.
The situation is
shown below. </span></h1>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p><img
src="cid:part11.6B938E78.AF8A2D7A@a-giese.de"
alt="" class=""
height="440"
width="556"></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Here
we have three parts
You, I, and the rest
of the Universe “U”
. I do a symmetric
twin thought
experiment in which
both twins do
exactly the same
thing. They
accelerate in
opposite directions
turn around and come
back at rest to
compare clocks. You
does a though
experiment that is
not symmetric one
twin is at rest the
other accelerates
and comes back to
rest and compares
clocks. </span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The
point is that each
thought experiment
is done in the space
associated with
You,I and U. The
speed of light is
constant in each of
these spaces and so
the special
relativity , Lorentz
transforms, and
Maxwell’s equations
apply. I have said
many times these are
self consistent
equations and I have
no problem with them
under the
Aristotilian
assumption that each
of the three parts
believes what they
see is the
independent space.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">.
Instead what they
see is in each parts
space. This space
provides the
background aether,
in it the speed of
electromagnetic
interactions is
constant BECAUSE
this speed is
determined by the
Lagrangian energy
level largely if not
totally imposed by
the gravity
interactions the
physical material
from which each part
is made experiences.
Each part you and
your space runs at a
different rate
because the constant
Einstein was looking
for should be called
the speed of NOW.</span></h1>
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">You
may agree or
disagree with this
view point. But if
you disagree please
do not tell me that
the mainstream
physicists do not
take this point of
view. I know that.
Main stream
physicists are not
attempting to solve
the consciousness
problem , and have
basically eliminated
the mind and all
subjective
experience from
physics. I’m trying
to fix this rather
gross oversight.</span></h1>
</blockquote>
Of course one may- and you
may - have good arguments
that, what we see, is not
the true reality. So far
so good.<br>
<br>
But relativity is not a
good example to show this.
It is not a better example
than to cite Newton's law
of motion in order to
proof that most probably
our human view is
questionable. For you it
seems to be tempting to
use relativity because you
see logical conflicts
related to different views
of the relativistic
processes, to show at this
example that the world
cannot be as simple as
assumed by the naive
realism. But relativity
and particularly the twin
experiment is completely
in agreement with this
naive realism. The
frequently discussed
problems in the twin case
are in fact problems of
persons who did not truly
understand relativity. And
this is the fact for all
working versions of
relativity, where the
Einsteinian and the
Lorentzian version are the
ones which I know. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes
Newtons law is a good
example specifically force
is a theoretical construct
and not see able , what
we see is acceleration and
the feeling of push or
pull so f=ma equates a
theoretical conjecture
with an experience but
Newton assumes both are
objectively real.<br>
You are right I'm using
relativity because I
believe it can be
explained much sipler and
more accurately if we
realize material generates
its own space i.e. there
is something it feels like
to be material. I believe
integrating this feeling
into physics is the next
major advance we can make.<br>
Further more one we accept
this new premise I think
REletevistic phenomena can
be more easily explained
by assuming the speed of
light is NOT constant in
each piece of material but
dependent on its energy
(gravitatinal) state. <br>
I think our discussion is
most helpful in refining
these ideas, so thank you.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">One
little comment to this:
Every piece of material has
its own energy. Also objects
which are connected by a
gravitational field build a
system which has</font><font
color="#3366ff"> of course</font><font
color="#3366ff"> energy. But
it seems to me that you
relate every energy state to
gravity. Here I do not
follow. If pieces of
material are bound to each
other and are </font><font
color="#3366ff">so </font><font
color="#3366ff">building a
state of energy, the energy
in it is dominated by the
strong force and by the
electric force. In
comparison the gravitational
energy is so many orders of
magnitude smaller (Where
the order of magnitude is
> 35) that this is an
extremely small side effect,
too small to play any role
in most applications. Or
please present your
quantitative calculation.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<h1
style="text-indent:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now
to respond to your
comments in detail.
</span></h1>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/11/2017 6:49 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<meta
http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I would feel
better if our
discussion would
use detailed
arguments and
counter-arguments
instead of pure
repetitions of
statements.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.06.2017 um
07:03 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">WE all agree clocks slow down, but
If I include
the observer
then I get an
equation for
the slow down
that agrees
with eperimetn
but disagrees
with Einstein
in the higher
order, so it
should be
testable<br>
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>I disagree and I
show the deviation
in your
calculations
below. </b><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>Ok i'm happy to have
your comments</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lets look at this thing Historically</b>:</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the 19’th century the hey day of
Aristotelian
Philosophy
everyone was
convinced
Reality
consisted of an
external
objective
universe
independent of
subjective
living beings.
Electricity and
Magnetism had
largely been
explored through
empirical
experiments
which lead to
basic laws<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>summarized by Maxwell’s equations.
These equations
are valid in a
medium
characterized by
the permittivity
ε<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and permeability μ<sub>0</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>of free
space. URL: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_equations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations</a><br>
<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>These
equations<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>are valid
in a coordinate
frame x,y,z,t
and are
identical in
form when
expressed in a
different
coordinate frame
x’,y’,z’,t’.
Unfortunat4ely
I’ve never seen
a substitution
of the Lorentz
formulas into
Maxwell’s
equations that
will then give
the same form
only using
∂/∂x’, and
d/dt’, to get E’
and B’ but it
must exist. </p>
</blockquote>
One thing has been
done which is much
more exciting.
W.G.V. Rosser has
shown that the
complete theory of
Maxwell can be
deduced from two
things: 1.) the
Coulomb law; 2.) the
Lorentz
transformation. It
is interesting
because it shows
that
electromagnetism is
a consequence of
special relativity.
(Book: W.G.V.
Rosser, Classical
Electromagnetism via
Relativity, New York
Plenum Press).
Particularly
magnetism is not a
separate force but
only a certain
perspective of the
electrical force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Interesting yes im
familiaer with this viw
point of magnetics, but
all within the self
consistent Aristotelian
point of view <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In empty space Maxwell’s
equations reduce
to the wave
equation and
Maxwell’s field
concept required
an aether as a
medium for them
to propagate. It
was postulated
that space was
filled with such
a medium and
that the earth
was moving
through it.
Therefore it
should be
detectable with
a Michelson
–Morely
experiment. But
The Null result
showed this to
be wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
In the view of
present physics
aether is nothing
more than the fact
of an absolute
frame. Nobody
believes these days
that aether is some
kind of material.
And also Maxwell's
theory does not need
it. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
just an example physics
does not need mind. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
An aether was not
detected by the
Michelson-Morely
experiment which
does however not
mean that no aether
existed. The only
result is that it
cannot be detected.
This latter
conclusion was also
accepted by
Einstein.<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">
<br>
</b></div>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because it is attached
to the observer doing
the experiment , see my
drawing above.<br>
</blockquote>
It cannot be detected
because we know from other
observations and facts
that objects contract at
motion - in the original
version of Heaviside, this
happens when electric
fields move in relation to
an aether. So the
interferometer in the MM
experiment is unable to
show a phase shift as the
arms of the interferometer
have changed their
lengths. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes I
understand and I believe
like you this is a better
explanation than Einsteins
but it still leaves the
aether as a property of an
independent space that
exist whether we live or
die and and assume we are
objects in that space it
also identifies that space
with what is in front of
our nose<br>
. I believe I can show
that our bigger self ( not
how we see ourselves) is
NOT in U's space and what
I see is not equal to the
universal space.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">When can
we expect to get this from
you?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> </b>
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Einstein’s Approach:</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein came along and
derived the
Lorentz
Transformations
assuming the
speed of light
is constant,
synchronization
protocol of
clocks, and
rods, the
invariance of
Maxwell’s
equations in all
inertial frames,
and the null
result of
Michelson-Morely
experiments.
Einstein went on
to eliminate any
absolute space
and instead
proposed that
all frames and
observers riding
in them are
equivalent and
each such
observer would
measure another
observers clocks
slowing down
when moving with
constant
relative
velocity. This
interpretation
lead to the Twin
Paradox. Since
each observer
according to
Einstein, being
in his own frame
would according
to his theory
claim the other
observer’s
clocks would
slow down.
However both
cannot be right.</p>
</blockquote>
No! This can be
right as I have
explained several
times now. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
yes well the why are
there so many
publications that use
general relativity,
gravity and the
equivalence principle as
the the way to explain
the twin paradox.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ref:
The clock paradox in a
static homogeneous
gravitational field
URL <a
href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604025</b></a><br>
As mentioned in my
preamble I do not want
to argue about what
Einstein really meant.
<br>
</span></blockquote>
I have looked into that
arxiv document. The
authors want to show that
the twin case can also be
handled as a process
related to gravity. So
they define the travel of
the travelling twin so
that he is permanently
accelerated until he
reaches the turn around
point and then accelerated
back to the starting
point, where the twin at
rest resides. Then they
calculate the slow down of
time as a consequence of
the accelerations which
they relate to an fictive
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
This paper has nothing to
do with our discussion by
several reasons. One
reason is the intent of
the authors to replace
completely the slow down
of time by the slow down
by gravity / acceleration.
They do not set up an
experiment where one clock
is slowed down by the
motion and the other twin
slowed down by
acceleration and/or
gravity as it was your
intention according to my
understanding.<br>
<br>
Further on they assume
that acceleration means
clock slow down. But that
does not happen. Any text
book about SRT says that
acceleration does not
cause a slow down of time
/ clocks. And there are
clear experiments proofing
exactly this. For instance
the muon storage ring at
CERN showed that the
lifetime of muons was
extended by their high
speed but in no way by the
extreme acceleration in
the ring. <br>
<br>
So this paper tells
incorrect physics. And I
do not know of any serious
physicist who tries to
explain the twin case by
gravity. I have given you
by the way some strong
arguments that such an
explanation is not
possible. - And
independently, do you
have other sources?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">You
may not like the details
of this paper but it is
relevant because it is
only one of a long list of
papers that use gravity
and acceleration to to
explain the twin paradox.
I am not claiming they are
correct only that a large
community believes this is
the way to explain the
twin paradox. If you look
at the Wikipedia entry for
Twin Paradox they will say
explanations fall into two
categories <br>
Just because you disagree
with one of these
categories does not mean a
community supporting the
gravity explanation view
point does not exist. I've
ordered Sommerfelds book
that has Einstein and
other notables explanation
and will see what they
say. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Where
is, please, that long list?
Please present it here.<br>
<br>
As I have shown several
times now, gravity is many,
many orders of magnitude
(maybe 20 or 30 orders) too
small to play any role here.
And this can be proven by
quite simple calculations.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein found an answer to
this paradox in
his invention of
general
relativity where
clocks speed up
when in a higher
gravity field
i.e one that
feels less
strong like up
on top of a
mountain.
Applied to the
twin paradox: a
stationary twin
sees the moving
twin at velocity
“v” and thinks
the moving
twin’s clock
slows down. The
moving twin does
not move
relative to his
clock but must
accelerate<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>to make a round trip (using the
equivalence
principle
calculated the
being equivalent
to a
gravitational
force). Feeling
the acceleration
as gravity and
knowing that
gravity slows
her clocks she
would also
calculate her
clocks would
slow down. The
paradox is
resolved because
in one case the
explanation is
velocity the
other it is
gravity.</p>
</blockquote>
This is wrong,
completely wrong!
General relativity
has nothing to do
with the twin
situation, and so
gravity or any
equivalent to
gravity has nothing
to do with it. The
twin situation is
not a paradox but is
clearly free of
conflicts if special
relativity, i.e. the
Lorentz
transformation, is
properly applied. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You may be right but
again most papers
explain it using gravity<br>
</blockquote>
Please tell me which these
"most papers" are. I have
never heard about this and
I am caring about this
twin experiment since long
time. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">see
last comment. It is
certainly how I was taught
but I have notr looked up
papers on the subject for
many years, will try to
find some<br>
but since I'm trying to
propose a completely
different approach I do
not think which of two
explanations is more right
is a fruitful argument.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Lorentz Approach:</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz simply proposed that
clocks being
electromagnetic
structures slow
down and lengths
in the direction
of motion
contract in the
absolute aether
of space
according to his
transformation
and therefore
the aether could
not be detected.
In other words
Lorentz
maintained the
belief in an
absolute aether
filled space,
but that
electromagnetic
objects relative
to that space
slow down and
contract.
Gravity and
acceleration had
nothing to do
with it.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This approach pursued by Max
Van Laue argued
that the
observer subject
to acceleration
would know that
he is no longer
in the same
inertial frame
as before and
therefore
calculate that
his clocks must
be slowing down,
even though he
has no way of
measuring such a
slow down
because all the
clocks in his
reference frame.
Therefore does
not consider
gravity but only
the knowledge
that due to his
acceleration he
must be moving
as well and
knowing his
clocks are
slowed by motion
he is not
surprised that
his clock has
slowed down when
he gets back to
the stationary
observer and
therefore no
paradox exists.
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Everyone
agrees the
moving clocks
slow down but we
have two
different
reasons. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">In
Lorentz’s case
the absolute
fixed frame
remains which in
the completely
symmetric twin
paradox
experiment
described above
implies that
both observers
have to
calculate their
own clock rates
from the same
initial start
frame and
therefore both
calculate the
same slow down.
This introduces
a disembodied 3d
person observer
which is
reminiscent of a
god like .</p>
</blockquote>
Also any third
person who moves
with some constant
speed somewhere can
make this
calculation and has
the same result. No
specific frame like
the god-like one is
needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The third person then
becomes an object in a
4th person's space, you
cannot get rid of the
Mind.<br>
</blockquote>
Relativity is a purely
"mechanical" process and
it is in the same way as
much or as little
depending on the Mind as
Newton's law of motion. So
to make things better
understandable please
explain your position by
the use of either Newton's
law or something
comparable. Relativity is
not appropriate as it
allows for too much
speculation which does not
really help.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">you
are right, but eventually
I hope to show the whole
business is a confusion
introduced by our habit of
displaying time in a space
axis which introduces
artifacts. I hpe you will
critique my writeup when
it is finished./</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Which
confusion do you mean? The
confusion about this "twin
paradox" is solely caused by
persons who do not
understand the underlying
physics. So, this does not
require any action.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
And formally the
simple statement is
not correct that
moving clocks slow
down. If we follow
Einstein, also the
synchronization of
the clocks in
different frames and
different positions
is essential. If
this synchronization
is omitted (as in
most arguments of
this discussion up
to now) we will have
conflicting results.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That may be true, but
your initial argument
was that the
calculations by the
moving twin was to be
done in the inertial
frame before any
acceleration<br>
All i'm saying that that
frame is always the
frame in which the
theory was defined and
it is the mind of the
observer.<br>
</blockquote>
I have referred the
calculation to the
original frame of the one
moving twin in order to be
close to your experiment
and your description. Any
other frame can be used as
well.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Have
you thought that the
consequence of having an
observer who feels a force
like gravity which
according to the
equivalence principle and
any ones experience in a
centrifuge is
indistinguishable from
gravity, is such a person
needs to transfer to the
initial start frame that
would mean we would all be
moving at the speed of
light and need to transfer
back to the big bang or
the perhaps the CBR frame
<br>
perhaps non of our clocks
are running very fast but
I still get older - this
thinking leads to crazy
stuff - the whole basis
does not make common
experience sense, which is
what I want to base our
physics on. We have gotten
our heads into too much
math.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">I do not
really understand what you
mean here. - Your are right
that we should never forget
that mathematics is a tool
and not an understanding of
the world. But regarding
your heavily discussed
example of relativity, it is
fundamentally understandable
without a lot of
mathematics. At least the
version of Hendrik Lorentz.
That one is accessible to
imagination without much
mathematics and without
logical conflicts. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com"><font
color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">In
Einstein’s case
both observers
would see the
other moving at
a relative
velocity and
calculate their
clocks to run
slower than
their own when
they calculate
their own
experience they
would also
calculate their
own clocks to
run slow. </p>
</blockquote>
This is not
Einstein's saying.
But to be compliant
with Einstein one
has to take into
account the
synchronization
state of the clocks.
Clocks at different
positions cannot be
compared in a simple
view. If someone
wants to compare
them he has e.g. to
carry a "transport"
clock from one clock
to the other one.
And the "transport"
clock will also run
differently when
carried. This -
again - is the
problem of
synchronization.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok Ok there are
complexities but this is
not the issue, its
whether the world view
is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
The point is, if you use
relativity you have to do
it in a correct way. You
do it in an incorrect way
and then you tell us that
results are logically
conflicting. No, they are
not.<br>
The complexities which you
mention are fully and
correctly covered by the
Lorentz transformation.<br>
</blockquote>
T<font color="#3366ff">hat
may be, but Cynthia
Whitney who was at our
Italy conference has a
nice explanation of how
Maxwells Equations are
invariant under Galilean
transforms "if you do it
the right way" check out
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell%27s_Field_Equations_under"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255575258_On_the_Invariance_of_Maxwell's_Field_Equations_under</a><br>
You can prove a lot of
things if you do the proof
the right way</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Perhaps
later.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">But
because they
know the other
twin is also
accelerating
these effects
cancel and all
that is left is
the velocity
slow down. In
other words the
Einstein
explanation that
one twin
explains the
slow down as a
velocity effect
and the other as
a gravity effect
so both come to
the same
conclusion is
inadequate.
Einstein’s
explanation
would have to
fall back on
Lorentz’s and
both twins
calculate both
the gravity
effect and the
velocity effect
from a
disembodied 3d
person observer
which is
reminiscent of a
god like .</p>
</blockquote>
No twin would
explain any slow
down in this process
as a gravity effect.<br>
<br>
Why do you again
repeat a gravity
effect. There is
none, neither by
Einstein nor by
anyone else whom I
know. Even if the
equivalence between
gravity and
acceleration would
be valid (which it
is not) there are
two problems. Even
if the time would
stand still during
the whole process of
backward
acceleration so that
delta t' would be 0,
this would not at
all explain the time
difference
experienced by the
twins. And on the
other hand the
gravitational field
would have, in order
to have the desired
effect here, to be
greater by a factor
of at least 20
orders of magnitude
(so >> 10<sup>20</sup>)
of the gravity field
around the sun etc
to achieve the time
shift needed. So
this approach has no
argument at all. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not understand
where you are coming
from. Gravity, the
equivalence principle is
, and the slow down of
clocks and the speed of
light in a lower (
closer to a mass) field
is the heart of general
relativity. why do you
keep insisting it is
not. GPs clocks are
corrected for gravty
potential and orbit
speed, I was a
consultant for Phase 1
GPS and you yoursel made
a calculation that the
bendng of light around
the sun is due to a
gravity acing like a
refractive media. Why
tis constant denial.<br>
</blockquote>
The equivalence principle
is not correct in so far
as gravity causes dilation
but acceleration does not.
This is given by theory
and by experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Are
you saying clocks do not
run faster at higher
altitude? I was a
consultant for GPS phase 1
GPS correct for its
altitude it would not be
as accurate if it did not.
</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">Yes,
they run faster, and that is
gravity, not acceleration.
And even gravity has a small
influence. The gravitational
field on the surface of the
sun slows down clocks by the
small portion of 10<sup>-5</sup>.
Please compare this with the
factors of slow down which
are normally assumed in the
examples for the twin
travel. --> Absolutely
not usable, even if
equivalence would be
working.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<br>
The twin experiment is
designed to run in free
space, there is no gravity
involved. Of course one
may put the concept of it
into the vicinity of the
sun or of a neutron star.
But then the question
whether it is a paradox or
not is not affected by
this change. And
particularly gravity is
not a solution as it
treats all participants in
the same way And anyhow
there is no solution
needed as it is in fact
not a paradox. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">So both Lorentz’s and Einstein’s
approaches are
flawed</b>
because both
require a
disembodied 3d
person observer
who is observing
that independent
Aristotilian
objective
universe that
must exist
whether we look
at it or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<b>No, this 3rd
person is
definitely</b><b>
</b><b>not required</b>.
The whole situation
can be completely
evaluated from the
view of one of the
twins or of the
other twin or from
the view of <i>any
other observer </i>in
the world who is in
a defined frame. <br>
<br>
I have written this
in my last mail, and
if you object here
you should give
clear arguments, not
mere repetitions of
your statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
special relativity was
derived in the context
of a 3d person, he clear
argument is that he
clock slow down is also
derivable form the
invariance of action
required to execute a
clock tick of identical
clocks in any observers
material<br>
</blockquote>
Special relativity was
derived as the relation of
two frames of linear
motion. If you look at the
Lorentz transformation it
always presents the
relation between two
frames, normally called S
and S'. Nothing else shows
up anywhere in these
formulas. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Now
Baer comes along
and says the
entire
Aristotelian
approach is
wrong and the
Platonic view
must be taken.
Einstein is
right in
claiming there
is no
independent of
ourselves space
however his
derivation of
Lorentz
Transformations
was conducted
under the
assumption that
his own
imagination
provided the 3d
person observer
god like
observer but he
failed to
recognize the
significance of
this fact. And
therefore had to
invent
additional and
incorrect
assumptions that
lead to false
equations.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When the observer is
properly taken
into account
each observer
generates his
own
observational
display in which
he creates the
appearance of
clocks. Those
appearance are
stationary
relative to the
observer’s
supplied
background space
or they might be
moving. But in
either case some
external
stimulation has
caused the two
appearances. If
two copies of
the same
external clock
mechanism are
involved and in
both cases the
clock ticks
require a
certain amount
of action to
complete a cycle
of activity that
is called a
second i.e. the
moving of the
hand from line 1
to line 2 on the
dial. Therefore
the action
required to
complete the
event between
clock ticks is
the invariant.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>The two
clocks do not
slow down
because they
appear to be
moving relative
to each other
their rates are
determined by
their complete
Lagrangian
Energy L = T-V
calculated
inside the fixed
mass underlying
each observer’s
universe. The
potential
gravitational
energy of a mass
inside the mass
shell <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
1)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>V= -mc<sup>2</sup>
= -m∙M<sub>u</sub>∙G/R<sub>u</sub>.
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here M<sub>u</sub> and R<sub>u</sub>
are the mass and
radius of the
mass shell and
also the
Schwarzchild
radius of the
black hole each
of us is in. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A stationary clock interval
is Δt its
Lagrangian
energy is L= m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A moving clock interval is
Δt’ its
Lagrangian
energy is L=
½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
+m∙c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
The kinetic energy
is T = ½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup>
only in the
non-relativistic
case. But we discuss
relativity here. So
the correct equation
has to be used which
is T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)-1)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why I
believe relativity is
wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
You <i>make </i>it wrong
in the way that you use
equations (here for
kinetic energy) which are
strictly restricted to
non-relativistic
situations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Comparing
the two clock
rates and <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">assuming
the Action is
an invariant</b></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
2)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>(m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt = A = <sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></sub>(½∙m∙v<sup>2</sup> +m∙c<sup>2</sup>)
∙ Δt’</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Dividing
through by m∙c<sup>2</sup>
gives</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’
∙ (1 + ½∙v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Which
to first order
approximation is
equal to</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt =
Δt’/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
</p>
</blockquote>
First order
approximation is not
usable as we are
discussing
relativity here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
we are discussing why
clock slow down is
simply derivable from
action invariance and
sped of light dependence
on gravitational
potential<br>
</blockquote>
This equation is an
equation of special
relativity, it has nothing
to do with a gravitational
potential. In special
relativity the slow down
of clocks is formally
necessary to "explain" the
constancy of c in any
frame. In general
relativity it was
necessary to explain that
the speed of light is also
constant in a
gravitational field. So,
Einstein meant the <i>independence
</i>of c from a
gravitational field. <br>
<br>
If one looks at it from a
position outside the field
or with the understanding
of Lorentz, this
invariance is in any case
a measurement result, not
true physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Since
the second order
terms are on the
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
I believe
Einstein’s
theory has not
been tested to
the second term
accuracy. In
both theories
the moving clock
interval is
smaller when the
clock moves with
constant
velocity in the
space of an
observer at
rest.</p>
</blockquote>
Funny, you are using
an approximation
here which is a bit
different from
Einstein's solution.
And then you say
that Einstein's
solution is an
approximation. Then
you ask that the
approximation in
Einstein's solution
should be
experimentally
checked. No, the
approximation is in
your solution as you
write it yourself
earlier. -<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
semantics. einstein's
equation is different
from the simple
lagrangian but both are
equal to v8v/c*c order
which is all that to my
knowledge has been
verified.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein did not use the
Lagrangian for the
derivation of this
equation. Please look into
his paper of 1905. His
goal was to keep c
constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
Maybe I
misunderstood
something but a
moving clock has
longer time periods
and so indicates a
smaller time for a
given process. And
if you follow
Einstein the
equation <span
style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>Δt = Δt’/(1 -
v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>
is incomplete. It
ignores the question
of synchronization
which is essential
for all
considerations about
dilation. I repeat
the correct equation
here: t' = 1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>*(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)
. Without this
dependency on the
position the case
ends up with logical
conflicts. Just
those conflicts
which you have
repeatedly mentioned
here. <br>
<br>
And by the way: In
particle
accelerators
Einstein's theory
has been tested with
v very close to c.
Here in Hamburg at
DESY up to v =
0.9999 c. So, v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
is 0.9996 as a term
to be added to
0.9999 . That is
clearly measurable
and shows that this
order of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
does not exist. You
have introduced it
here without any
argument and any
need. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the only
important point. Please
provide the Reference
for this experiment <br>
</blockquote>
Any experiment which uses
particle interactions, so
also those which have been
performed here including
my own experiment, have
used the true Einstein
relation with consistent
results for energy and
momentum. An assumed term
of v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
would have caused results
which violate conservation
of energy and of momentum.
So, any experiment
performed here during many
decades is a proof that
the equation of Einstein
is correct at this point.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
I have said no
correction of 4th order
is necessary the very
simple almost classical
expression based upon
action invariance is
adequate.<br>
</blockquote>
Which means that you agree
to Einstein's equation,
i.e. the Lorentz
transformation. <br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">NO I
agree that clocks are
slowed when they are in a
deeper gravity well and my
calculations and theory
predicts this fact to the
same accuracy that has
been tested. You say
Einsteins formula has been
tested to the fourth
order. This would make my
theory wrong. Please give
me a reference so I can
look at the assumptions to
the best of my knowledge
neither length contraction
or time dilation beyond
the approximate solutions
to Einsteins equations
have been tested.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#3366ff">To show
you what you want I would
have to present here the
computer programs which we
have used to calculate e.g.
the kinematics of my
experiment. (I do not have
them any more 40 years after
the experiment.) And as I
wrote, there was no
experiment evaluated here at
DESY over 40 years and as
well no experiment at CERN
and as well no experiment at
the Standford accelerator
without using Einstein's
Lorentz transformation. None
of all these experiments
would have had results if
Einstein would be wrong at
this point. Because as I
wrote, any evaluation would
have shown a violation of
the conservation of energy
and the conservation of
momentum. That means one
would have received chaotic
results for every
measurement.</font><br>
<font color="#3366ff"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44b7453d-6cf2-a06c-f622-9932051012e9@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:77bf3492-1e60-82a8-07a6-c8bad0e4c218@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lorentz is right that there
is an aether and
Einstein is
right that there
is no absolute
frame and
everything is
relative. But
Baer resolve
both these
“rights” by
identifying the
aether as the
personal
background
memory space of
each observer
who feels he is
living in his
own universe. We
see and
experience our
own individual
world of objects
and incorrectly
feel what we are
looking at is an
independent
external
universe.</p>
</blockquote>
Either Einstein is
right or Lorentz is
right if seen from
an epistemological
position. Only the
measurement results
are equal. Beyond
that I do not see
any need to resolve
something. <br>
Which are the
observers here? The
observers in the
different frames are
in fact the
measurement tools
like clocks and
rulers. The only
human-related
problem is that a
human may read the
indication of a
clock in a wrong
way. The clock
itself is in this
view independent of
observer related
facts. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You again miss the point
both Einstein and Lorenz
tried to find a solution
within the Aristotelian
framework <br>
Lorentz was I believe
more right in that he
argued the size of
electromagentic
structures shrink or
stretch the same as
electromagnetic waves<br>
so measuring a
wavelength with a yard
stick will not show an
effect. What Lorentz
did not understand is
that both the yard stick
and the EM wave are
appearances in an
observers space and runs
at an observers speed of
NOW. The observer must
be included in physics
if we are to make
progress. <br>
</blockquote>
It maybe correct that the
observer must be included.
But let's start then with
something like Newton's
law of motion which is in
that case also affected.
Relativity is bad for this
as it is mathematically
more complicated without
providing additional
philosophical insights. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ba17c7a9-c331-58fb-ecf2-a632d96ba654@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c21394e-bf89-248d-3f7b-d9e334222ffb@a-giese.de">
<div
class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote
type="cite"
cite="mid:6c3fa96f-b840-7ca5-6b76-823f997c72b9@nascentinc.com">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
...................................<br>
<div
id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:
1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
55px; padding-top:
18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt=""
style="width:
46px; height:
29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true"
height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:
470px; padding-top:
17px; color:
#41424e; font-size:
13px; font-family:
Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"
style="color:
#4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>