<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf, <br>
</p>
<p>I shall go to the end where your equations are.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.08.2017 um 08:24 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b97b121-3fa8-4c71-40ee-87b458124552@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>I looked through the E-mails and could only pick out the
following Paragraphs , these are statements I give you formulas.
<br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">It is a simple exercise to
measure the mass of a moving electron. Also the speed of an
electron in a synchrotron. In the synchrotron the voltage at
the cavities which accelerate the electron have to be switched
in time so that they always change their polarity in the
moment when an electron passes. They are switched in the
assumption that the electron moves at an increasing speed up
to the speed of light c<sub>0</sub>. If this assumption would
not be extremely correct then there would never be an
acceleration. On the other hand the bending magnets have to
take into account the actual mass of the electron (not the
rest mass m<sub>0</sub>). Otherwise the electrons would not
follow the bended path inside the vacuum tube which has to be
precise by millimetres.</font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">And regarding relativity, we
have a physical institute here in Bremen (next to Hamburg)
where since decades the laws of relativity are investigated
with increasing precision. To my knowledge they have reached
relative precisions of 10<sup>-10</sup> or even better and
confirmed the formalism to this degree. So, far better than
your v/c to the 4th power.</font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1">It is experimental evidence
that the mass of an object increases at motion. In my
experiment the mass of the electrons was increased by a factor
of 10'000. Your equation ignores this increase. - It is by the
way a consequence of the limitation of the speed at c. If an
object like an electron has a speed close to c and there is
then a force applied to it which of course means that energy
is transferred to it, then the mass increases. Anything else
would mean a violation of the conservation of energy.</font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
<font size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066">A
good proof was the muon storage ring at CERN in 1975. The
muons have been accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c. Their
lifetime was extended by a factor of 30 which is in
agreement with Einstein. In Einstein's equation the
difference of this value to 1 has to be built resulting in
0.0006. If you think that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
has to be added then you have to add 0.9994<sup>4</sup> to
this value of 0.0006 , so you change 0.0006 to
(0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do you really expect that the
physicists at CERN overlook it if they get 0.9982 for 0.0006
?</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="+1">We will not get anywhere
unill you write down the formulas you believe proves the
point. I always have to guess, and when I do you write I'm
wrong b uit do not give me the formula you think is right. So
here again I think you are talking about the formula m*c<sup>2</sup>
= m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
when it is divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship
for increasing m, but if you let c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
you get the same answers but charge and mass and most of
classical physics remain valid as well -</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="+1">Is this not the formula your
argument is based on? If not then what is? Because unless we
can talk mathematics I can not tell when you are truly proving
something or simply using an assumption in a circular
argument.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Your equation 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>)<font size="-1">
</font>is correct. It describes the increase of mass at motion. But
your equation <font size="+1"> </font>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>)
does not have any meaning for me. And I do not understand how you
have deduced it. I have asked you the other day what this equation
means in your view, but you did not answer this. Because why should
the speed of light change if something (what??) moves at some speed
v?<br>
<br>
Your original question was whether or where the Lorentz
transformation was checked with an accuracy of better than (v/c)<sup>4</sup>.
My answer was: In every running synchrotron.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: You wrote that you have been hit by a lightning. How did that
happen? Directly to your body or how close to it?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b97b121-3fa8-4c71-40ee-87b458124552@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span style="color:#000066"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p><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 8/9/2017 1:50 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5968709-0236-0e57-f565-8ed113575cf4@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>this again is my mail of July 6 which you did not find. I am
explaining further down that the operation of a synchrotron is
a permanent test of the validity of the Lorentz transformation
regarding the behaviour of objects, which move at a speed
close to c. So, your suspicion that the according Lorentz
transformation is only verified up to an accuracy of (v/c)<sup>4</sup>
is clearly falsified by the operation of a synchrotron (as
well as of all other particle accelerators).</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.07.2017 um 14:13 schrieb
Albrecht Giese:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:adb74d03-e3c5-0b22-4b8b-1167ee3adc1c@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>the point is that I have given some explanations hoping
that you answer to the arguments, not only state a different
opinion. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:42:33 -0700
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de"><br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I answered to every one of your comments on your
previous E-mails , <br>
</p>
<p>it is you who continues to not provide references for
experiments that "prove" fourth order compliance with
Einsteins formulatrion . I believe I have duplicated
mathematically all of Einsteins experimentally proven
results but using a different world view and
interpretation. Arguments that I am not using equations
correctly only imply I am not using them according to
your world view. It is the interpretation of Lorentz
transformations not the consistency of the math I am
arguing.<br>
</p>
<p>I have said many times it is the SRT and GRT
interpretation I object to, an interpretation based upon
his ability to derive Lorentz transform equations form
the assumption of constant light speed plus a whole
bunch of other modifications to classic physics. <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/3/2017 1:54 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>sorry, you are missing the point regarding our
discussion. I have said in almost every mail that I do
NOT believe that c is a universal constant, and you
write to me in turn that you have a problem with me
because I insist in the constancy of c. Then I have to
ask myself why we continue this dialogue. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
when you insist that (1/2)* m<sub>0</sub>* v<sup>2</sup>
is wrong - I'm trying to tell you that it is correct to
fourth order and only wrong if you assume c is constant
because when the formula m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) is
divided by A CONSTANT c you get your relationship for
increasing m, but if you let<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
you get the same answers but charge and mass and most of
classical physics remain valid as well - <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have asked you in the other mail what this last equation for
c<sup>2</sup> physically means, i.e. which physical situation
you have in mind. You did not answer this question. -
Irrespective of what you mean by it, it says that the speed of
light increases to infinity if v>0 (whatever this may mean
physically). This is in conflict with all measurements because
a speed > c<sub>0</sub> was never seen. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, m increases at motion up to infinity. This
is a clear measurement result and the measurements are very
precise. So your equation T = (1/2)* m* v<sup>2 </sup>is
proven to be wrong. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </p>
<p>You generally do not answer my arguments but repeat
your statements like a gramophone disk. That does not
mean a discussion. So, please answer my last mail of
Sunday point by point, else we should stop this.</p>
</blockquote>
I did answered your E-mail on Sunday point by point just
take a look. Your previous E-mail I tried to answer by
showing that your 10,000 forld increase in elecron mass is
actually an increase in energy involving the speed of
light, which you assume is attributed to mass because high
energy people assume C is constant. Perhaps you are not
one of them, but I believe your criticism of me is based
on this perhaps unconscious assumption. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is a simple exercise to measure the mass of a moving
electron. Also the speed of an electron in a synchrotron. In
the synchrotron the voltage at the cavities which accelerate
the electron have to be switched in time so that they always
change their polarity in the moment when an electron passes.
They are switched in the assumption that the electron moves at
an increasing speed up to the speed of light c<sub>0</sub>. If
this assumption would not be extremely correct then there
would never be an acceleration. On the other hand the bending
magnets have to take into account the actual mass of the
electron (not the rest mass m<sub>0</sub>). Otherwise the
electrons would not follow the bended path inside the vacuum
tube which has to be precise by millimetres.<br>
<br>
No synchrotron, no cyclotron and no storage ring would ever
have worked even for a few meters of beam length if your
equations would be valid. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p>Just one point here with respect to your mail below:
You cannot refer to classical mechanics if you want to
discuss particle physics. The investigation of
particles was the reason to deviate from classical
physics because for the reactions of particles the
classical physics yielded nonsense. This was the
stringent reason to develop relativity and quantum
mechanics. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
relativity and quantum Theory were developed before
particle physics. I believe high energy physics makes
false assumptions because their analysis assumes SRT is
correct and therefore interpret everything in this light.
That is why I am asking again give me references to
experiments that prove Einstein's equations are correct
beyond fourth order terms. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Besides looking at experiments (see further down) it is
simpler and clearer to look at the design of accelerators.
They are built using Einstein's equation and would never have
guided one single particle if this formalism would not be
correct.<br>
<br>
And among those thousands of experiments performed in
accelerators you cannot find one single experiment which does
not prove that Einstein's equations are correct in that
context. I have given you examples that by use of your
equations the results of the kinematic calculations would be
different by factors of 1000 or more.<br>
<br>
To find the papers describing these experiments you can use
every paper published by any accelerator. But you will not
find this statement (about the Lorentz transformation used) in
the papers because it is such a matter of course that everyone
doing such evaluations of experiments uses Einstein's
equations. In the same way as they all know how to multiply
e.g. 124.6 by 657.33 without mentioning it. It is all in the
computer programs used for the evaluation.<br>
<br>
But you may find examples of such calculations in the
textbooks about particle physics. No physicist in this field
would ever use different equations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </p>
<p>And, by the way, what you assume by use of your
truncated equations is not at all compatible with
quantum mechanics. If particles could be treated by
classical physics then the development of relativity
and QM during the last 100 years would have been
superfluous activity, and those 10'000s of physicists
who have worked in particle physics would have done a
tremendous wast of time and resources. Do you think
that they all were that stupid?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
It is compatible because quantum mechanics was initially
and still is based on Newtonian interpretation of space
and time even though some correction like fine structure
was discovered by Sommerfeld and made compatible with SRT
those correction generally are compatible with corrections
using linear approximations to Einsteins equations which
my theory duplicates<br>
<br>
At the danger of sounding like a record: Assume there is
a clock sitting still interacting with nothing its
activity between clock ticks remains undisturbed and takes
a constant amount of action A , However if those
activities are calculated by two observers they would
calculate this constant action in their own point of view
and coordinate frames to get the invariant A as,<br>
dt1* L1 = A = dt2*L2<br>
were L1 and L2 are each observers Lagrangian of the
undisturbed clock in their own coordinate frame. The
relationship between the two observers observation is <br>
dt1* L1 = (L2/L1) *dt2<br>
or plugging in the Einsteinian like Lagrangians assuming
including the potential energy of the fixed stars gives<br>
dt1 = (m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> )<sup>1/2</sup>
*/(m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>-m<sub>0</sub>*v<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)}
*dt2<br>
Dividing through by m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup><br>
dt1 = dt2*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
The moving dt2 observer runs slower, however the clock
which is the subject of both runs the same , all I'm
saying is that the Einstein effects have nothing to do
with the actual clock but are artifacts of the observers .
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have explained several times that this kind of comparison is
wrong as it overlooks the problem of synchronization. I have
explained earlier how it has to be done to be correct. I could
repeat it here but I am not willing to do this work until I
can be sure that you read it. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
If we just used classical Lagrangians including the
potential energy of the fixed stars ( Mach's Principle) we
would get all the same effects to orders less than fourth
power in v/c which I believe is all that has been
verified. outside high energy field, <br>
<br>
If we follow this reasoning we get to a much simpler
physics and those 10'000s of physicists will realize they
have been suffering under the wrong world view that has
made their jobs and explanations more and more
complicated, not wrong just more complicated and not
relevant to our human situation.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Before we talk about a world view we should perform simple
calculations in a correct way. And before talking about the
Lagrangian and about stars we should show the facts for
elementary particles using the conservation of energy and of
momentum. - The so called "Mach's principle" is not usable in
so far as it does not make any quantitative statements, but
Mach has only presented very rough and basic ideas about how
it can be explained that a rotating object "knows" that it is
in rotation and not at rest. Such idea is not able to allow
for calculations, and that also was not the intention of Mach
at that time.<br>
<br>
And regarding relativity, we have a physical institute here in
Bremen (next to Hamburg) where since decades the laws of
relativity are investigated with increasing precision. To my
knowledge they have reached relative precisions of 10<sup>-10</sup>
or even better and confirmed the formalism to this degree. So,
far better than your v/c to the 4th power.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> wolf<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:117ce5cc-9d7b-bbe6-3ee8-901ff55cfceb@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b78d99d4-8efb-1596-1fa2-59f39fe78c3a@a-giese.de">
<p> </p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e92ead86-7ec0-5fa4-a70d-b7e08a92efa9@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I do not know how to keep answering when you insist
that somewhere in your past there is something I
should answer while I think I am answering all your
objections. I can duplicate what I believe are all
experimentally verified facts by simply</p>
<p>considering a classic Lagrangian L=T-V if I add to
the potential energy the energy of a mass inside a
the surrounding mass shell. This simple recognition
avoids all the strange relativistic effects
introduced by Einstein or his followers and is
completely compatible with quantum mechanics. I've
given you all the standard time dilation equations
and show that the speed of light the also varies. My
formulation is completely compatible with classic
thinking to terms v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
because I believe that is the level I believe
Einsteins theory has be verified <br>
</p>
<p>Please stop telling me this is a low speed
approximation and therefore wrong because then all
you are saying my theory is not equal to Einsteins,
which of corse is the whole point.<br>
</p>
<p>you have no legitimate criticism until you give me
the reference to experiments that prove the
opposite. I ask this because I believe the
accelerator experiments you refer to are analyzed
with the assumption that the speed of light is
constant and therefore are very likely not proving
anything more than their own assumption.</p>
<p>If I make Einsteins gamma =(mc<sup>2</sup>/(V-T)<sup>1/2</sup>
) i get complete agreement with Einstein's equations
but still do not have to buy into his world view.
Given the criticism that has been brought up in this
group about all the reasons Einstein so called
experimental verification is flawed including the
perihelion rotation, and lately the solar plasma
correction, I see no reason to deviate from the
classic and understandable world view.</p>
<p>Please give me experiment reference <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Now to answer your comments to my coments
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/2017 4:19 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>we have now progress in so far as you have read
about 30% of what I have written to you. 90%
would be really better, but this is maybe too much
at this stage.<br>
</p>
Am 30.06.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I fully agree with your statement: " Should you
have a new theory which is complete and which is
in agreement with the experiments then you
should present it. But for now I did not see
anything like that." I am working on such a
theory and so are many of us in this group, I
will send you sections of the book to get your
highly valued opinion when they are ready.</p>
<p>I also agree with: " first of all we have to
agree on valid physics."</p>
<p>So what is valid physics? <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
We should agree on what it is. It should at least be
in accordance with the experiments. And if it
deviates from the fundamental physics which we have
learned at the university, then these parts should
be thoroughly justified.<br>
</blockquote>
I believe I have an interpretation compatible with all
experiments that does not assume the speed of light is
constant, why is this not legitimate physics?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>You seem to insist that one cannot question
Einstein specifically on his assumption that the
speed of light is constant and his subsequent
turning most of well established classic physics
principles on its head. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
As I have mentioned frequently in the preceding
mails, I for myself do NOT believe that c is always
constant. How often do I have to say this again
until it reaches you? But if we use a variation of c
(which was always also the conviction of Hendrik
Lorentz) then we should use the correct functions
for its variation. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, if you use Einstein's equations
then you should use them correctly. <br>
<br>
I for myself refer to experiments when I deviate
from classical physics to understand relativistic
phenomena.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes I have seen you criticizs Einstein and his speed
of light assumption so why do you insist it must be
constant now, since this assumption is what allows you
to call my equations incorrect.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>My understanding is that you object to my use
of the classic definition of Kinetic energy <br>
</p>
<p>m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~ m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
</blockquote>
The "higher order terms" may be a considerable
portion if we talk about speeds v > 0.1 c , i.e.
relativistic situations. <br>
</blockquote>
Show me the references<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Now if you insist, with Einstein that c is
always constant then dividing the above equation
by c<sup>2</sup> gives <br>
</p>
<p>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I do NOT insist in this, to say it once again and
again and ... ! But what does this have to do with
your equation above? The equation is correct and
well known.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The equation is only correct IF YOU ASSUME THE SPEED
OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT otherwise m0=m0 as assumed in
classical physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
And of course you can divide such equation by c any
time irrespective of any constancy of c. Basic
mathematics!<br>
<br>
For the variation of c I have given you the correct
dependency for the case of gravity. I did it several
times! Always overlooked??<br>
</blockquote>
I do not remember any conflict here I believe you
agree that c2 = Mu G / Ru <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Of course then mass must increase. This is
simply an example of one of the many classic
physics principles on its head.</p>
</blockquote>
The mass increases at motion is not only clear
experimental evidence but is determined with high
precision in accordance with the equation above.<br>
</blockquote>
The equation above is only true because everyone
assumes the speed of light is constant and therefore
divides it out.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>I think there is a great deal of evidence that
the speed of light is NOT constant and if we
simply realize that the effective speed of light
is effected by gravity, which in the case of an
electromagnetic propagation in a sphere of
distant masses gives by Mach's Principle and the
Scharzshild black hole limit the relationship</p>
<p>c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> ( 1 + (1/2)* v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
+ higher order terms )</p>
</blockquote>
What shall this equation tell us? Which physical
situation shall be described by this relation?<br>
</blockquote>
what it tells us is that the speed of light is
proportional the the gravitational energy the material
in which electro-magnetic waves propagate since the
first term is simply c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> which
is the gravitational potential in the mass shell and
the second term is the velocity energy which also
raises the gravitational potential of the particle in
qurstion relative to the observer.<br>
<br>
You see Albrecht what neither Einstein nor Lorentz has
understood is that each of us to first order generates
a space of awareness within which all things happen
that we can observe <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
If you follow the approach of relativity of Lorentz
(or of myself) then the relation is very simply: c
= c<sub>0</sub> +/- v . But if an observers moving
with v measures c then his result will always be: c
= c<sub>0</sub> . You get this by applying the
Lorentz transformation to the functioning of the
measurement tools in motion. And that again is in
precise compliance with the experiment. <br>
</blockquote>
If v=0 in the equation above c = c<sub>0</sub> as well
what. I'm not sure c = c<sub>0</sub> +/- v is
compaible with all experiments unless one introduces
othr assumptions to classic physics I am reluctant o
accept.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
It is correct that c changes in a gravitational
field and I have given you <i>several times </i>the
formula for this. It is easily visible that the
variation in a gravitational field is very small and
in no way able to explain the variations which we
observe in the usual experiments of relativity. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Furthermore if we realize that -mc<sup>2</sup>
= V<sub>U</sub> ; the potential energy inside
the mass shell of stars then the total classic
Lagrangian <br>
</p>
<p>L = T- V = (1/2)* m<sub>0</sub>* v<sup>2</sup>
- m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> - m<sub>0</sub> *
G* M<sub>L</sub>/R<sub>L</sub><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sub>You have again used here the
wrong equation for the kinetic energy T, again
ignoring the increase of mass at motion. So we
cannot discuss physics.</sub></font><br>
</blockquote>
<sub><font size="+1">You again have again dismissed my
equation because you think </font></sub>m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) which
as I have said implies you believe c=constant. This is
the correct equation for the classic Lagrangian if the
gravitational potential of the star shell we appear to
be surrounded with is included in the gravitational
potential. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>If we substitute the Lagrangian into the
equation for the speed of light I believe we
would get all of the special and general
relativistic effects at least up to the higher
order terms , including the clock slow down from
SRT., which I believe is all that has been
verified. Your claim that higher order accuracy
has been experimentally proven is something I
doubt and have asked you for explicit
experimental references many times. WHy because
most people who do these experiments are so brow
beat into believing Einsteins assumptions as God
given truth that they simply put the correction
factor on the wrong parameter and get papers
published.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I have explained the muon experiment at CERN.
Overlooked again??<br>
</blockquote>
please explain why the muon experiment makes any
statement about the mass. All I believe it does is
makes a statement about the energy of the mass which
contains the c^2 term so your assumption again rests
on Einstein is right come hell or high water.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<br>
If the equation which you believe to be correct is
used, then the result would be wrong by a great
factor. I have given you numbers. No one can ignore
such great discrepancies only because he/she is
biased by his/her faith in Einstein. <br>
<br>
Or do you assume that there is a conspiracy of
physicists all over the world, in all nations and
all political systems, in order to save Einstein's
theory? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now is this or is this not legitimate physics?</p>
</blockquote>
Your presentation here is not legitimate, if you
mean this by your question. Again you use physical
equations and formulae in a completely wrong way.
This is not able to convince anyone. <br>
</blockquote>
I understand you do not like the idea that mass and
charge remain constant and classic physics is
essentially correct, because your theory depends on
correcting an error in current thinking. You want to
make two errors make a right, I want it eliminate the
first error and simplify the whole mess. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p>Are you now ready to discuss the metaphysical
assumptions underlying physics that I am
questioning and trying to help me and others
work on possible alternative physics
formulations that might get us out of the mess
we are in?</p>
</blockquote>
I am working myself on alternative physics since
> 20 years. But not with equations which are
nothing else than non-physical fantasies ignoring
experiments. </blockquote>
we have had these discussions. You want to solve all
problems in he current framework and then address the
observer problem. I see the lack of observer inclusion
as the root to the problems you want to correct and
therefore the goal is to include the observer in the
foundations of physics as a first principle. Baer's
first law of physics is that the physicist made the
law. <br>
Put yourself in the center of your own universe,
observations from this point of view it is all you
have and ever will have to build your theory..<br>
<br>
best wishes<br>
wolf<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fa2eb5bb-18a6-b172-940a-c64aca7b3ac5@a-giese.de">Best
wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf3228d-7f0d-eced-6f69-d7a67fd188b7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Dr. Wolfgang Baer </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2017 1:58 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e230a22e-0de6-f584-86e2-8cd1197c72a5@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>it is not the question here whether I grasp
your approach. Because first of all we have to
agree on valid physics. Your past statements
and calculations are in conflict with all
physics we know. On this basis nothing can be
discussed.</p>
<p>Should you have a new theory which is
complete and which is in agreement with the
experiments then you should present it. But
for now I did not see anything like that. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.06.2017 um
08:12 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>I think i have clearly responded to all
your points previously but there is
something you do not grasp about my approach</p>
<p>however the list you provide is good since
perhaps I was answering parts you did not
read</p>
<p>so see below.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/2017 6:56
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font color="#000066">Wolf,</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">I think we should
not change the topics which we have
discussed during the last mails. And <b>as
you again </b><b>did </b><b>not
react to my comments I summarize the
open points now in a list</b>:</font></p>
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>o</b> You use
for the kinetic energy the erroneous
equation T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>(because
we talk about relativistic cases). So
you necessarily have a wrong result. Why
do you not make your deduction (using
the Lagrangian) with the correct
equation which I have given you? Or what
is your consideration to use just this
equation even if it is erroneous? Please
answer this. This is physics, not
philosophy.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">I am not using </font>T
= 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> incorrectly in classic
theory. I'm suggesting Einsteins theory is
wrong. I do not mean it is inconsistent with
its postulates but the postulates do not
correctly represent reality. I suggest instead
the the classic Lagrangian energy L= T-V is
adequate to calculate the action if the
potential energy V in inter galactic space is
mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup> For an amount of
time dS = L*dt , and then if an event such as
a running clock is viewed from two different
coordinate frames and the action calculated in
those frames is invariant then<br>
L*dt =
L'*dt' <br>
so that the appearant rate of clocks differ
for the two observers. And when calculating
this out my theory, which is not only my
theory, is consistent with experimental
evidence.<br>
<br>
I do not understand why you keep saying my use
of T = 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is incorrect? I'm
using it correctly in my theory. If you insist
Einstein's SRT is correct a-priory then of
course any alternative is wrong. But should
not experimental evidence, simplicity, and
applicability to larger problems be the judge
of that? <br>
</blockquote>
It is experimental evidence that the mass of an
object increases at motion. In my experiment the
mass of the electrons was increased by a factor
of 10'000. Your equation ignores this increase.
- It is by the way a consequence of the
limitation of the speed at c. If an object like
an electron has a speed close to c and there is
then a force applied to it which of course means
that energy is transferred to it, then the mass
increases. Anything else would mean a violation
of the conservation of energy. <br>
<br>
So, this increase of mass is not only a result
of Einstein's theory but it is unavoidable logic
and also confirmed by the experiments. <br>
<br>
Therefore, if you use for the kinetic energy T
= 1/2 m*v<sup>2 </sup>, then you assume a
constancy of m which is clearly not the case.
This relation can only be used for speeds
v<<c where the mass increase is
negligible. In our discussion we talk about
relativistic situations and for these your
equation is wrong. In the example of my
experiment it is wrong by a factor of 10'000.
You ignore this and that cannot give you correct
results. You find the correct equation for
energy in my last mail. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"><b>o</b></font> Your
conflict about the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
in the Lorentz transformation is a
result of your use of a wrong equation
for T (kinetic energy). Why do you not
repeat your deduction using the correct
equation?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Again I am not using the
wrong equation in my theory. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">I think that I have made
it obvious enough that you have used a wrong
equation. So your result will be wrong by a
factor which at the end is not limited. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"><b>o</b></font> The
equation 1/2*m*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
is not correct and not part of
Einstein's equations. Einstein has given
this for visualization as an <i>approximation</i>.
Why do you continue with it without a
response to my information that it is
incorrect or why do you not argue why
you believe that is can be used?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">Yes yes yes I'm not
using Einsteins equation for kinetic energy.
How many times do I have to agree with you
before you stop disagreeing with my
agreement?</font><br>
<font color="#000066">A long time ago you said
that cyclotron experiments proved time
dilation as Einstein described in SRT was
proven to better than </font><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
</font> and I've asked you for references </font><font
color="#000066"><font color="#000066"> v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> </font>
because I have not seen evidence for this
claim nor have I seen evidence for the space
contraction claim, but i have seen good
paper's that dispute both these claims.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">A good proof was the muon
storage ring at CERN in 1975. The muons have
been accelerated to a speed of 0.9994 c. Their
lifetime was extended by a factor of 30 which
is in agreement with Einstein. In Einstein's
equation the difference of this value to 1 has
to be built resulting in 0.0006. If you
think that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
has to be added then you have to add 0.9994<sup>4</sup>
to this value of 0.0006 , so you change 0.0006
to (0.0006+0.9976) = 0.9982 . Do you really
expect that the physicists at CERN overlook it
if they get 0.9982 for 0.0006 ? <br>
<br>
I think that this is a very clear evidence
that the term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> is
not missing. <br>
<br>
And this huge difference is the result of your
use of the equation T = 1/2m*v<sup>2</sup> in
the wrong context. <br>
<br>
So, what is your argument?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<p><font color="#000066"><font
color="#000066"><b>o</b></font> The
equation for the speed of light which
you gave: c<sup>2</sup> = Mu*G/Ru is
senseless which is easily visible. I
have explained that. Why do you not
respond to this point?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">How can you say it is
senseless? multiply both sides by -m you get
the well known solution of the Schwarzschild
energy of a particle inside the ring of
distant masses when the masses reach the
size that makes a black hole boundary. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">You have derived your
equation by equalizing kinetic and potential
energy. What is your argument that both
energies are equal? If an object is in free
fall then both types of energy change in a
different direction so that the sum is
constant. The <i>sum </i>is the value
conserved, but both energies are not at all
equal. <br>
<br>
In Einstein's world there is c=0 at the event
horizon. But you are saying that your equation
above is just valid at the event horizon, and
that is at least in disagreement with
Einstein. <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<font color="#000066"> </font>
<p><font color="#000066">After we have
clarified these discrepancies about SRT
we may talk about the observer or other
philosophical aspects, <b>but not
earlier</b>. </font><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>DE</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<br>
</blockquote>
Fine <br>
but are we not living inside a black hole? Is
the energy required to reach escape velocity
from our black hole not equal to mc<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>
twice the classic kinetic energy? <br>
I know you agree the speed of light
depends upon the gravitational potential,
which from a local mass is MG/R. For a local
mass like the sun the speed of light is<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = Mu*G/Ru + M*G/R
= c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>(1+ M*G/(R*c<sub>u</sub><sup>2</sup>)<br>
If light speed depends upon the
gravitational potential if the sun to bend
light, why would it not depend upon the
gravitational potential of the surrounding
star mass we are living in?<br>
</blockquote>
The speed of light depends indeed on the
gravitational potential and I have given you the
equation for that: c =c<sub>0</sub>
*(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup> where
p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the direction of the
light<br>
<br>
Your equations above are not usable as I have
just explained in my paragraph above. <br>
<br>
If we should live in a black hole then we need a
completely different physics. I do not have
understood that this is the situation we are
discussing here. In our real world there is
nowhere c=0, but your equation suggests this.
If you are in free space where no masses are
present or masses are very far away then
according to your equation c has to be close to
0. That has never been observed.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
maxwell's equations are correct, the
Lorentz transformations are correct, but the
interpretation Einstein gave these equations
is what I disagree with. And the resulting
almost total revision of classic mechanics is
what I disagree with.<br>
<br>
can we get on with trying to find a simpler
connection between electricity and gravitation
one that has gravitation change the
permiability and susceptibility of the aether
perhaps?<br>
</blockquote>
Why are you looking for a connection between
electricity and gravitation? I do not seen any
connection. And if there should be something
like that we should include the strong force
which is much more essential for our physical
world than electricity or gravitation. <br>
<br>
Summary: You may try a lot but please present
here equations which are either known or contain
a minimum of logic. You are permanently
presenting equations here which are your free
inventions and are not given by any existing
theory and are not in agreement with any
existing experiments. This will not converge
towards a result.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88ea61c6-02e8-44d7-4ffd-a8745b8a47ba@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d6526806-0c6d-f21e-0a65-2cdd24b47d26@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.06.2017
um 07:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>I thought I had answered the last
E-mail pretty thoroughly, I'll try again
however I think you are not grasping my
position</p>
<p>Einstein
Lorentz
Baer</p>
<p>make assumptions make
assumptions make
assumptions</p>
<p>and write a theory And write
a theory And am in
the process</p>
<p>That has conclusions That has
conclusions That has
preliminary conclusions <br>
</p>
<p>c=constant
c is dependent on gravity</p>
<p>change physics Em
material stretches
emphasize invariant of action</p>
<p>lots of non intuitive
probably Ok
Needs to understand the role of the
observer</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So far Ive sent you a classic
calculation based upon the fact that Em
penomena go at rates determined by the
classic Lagrangian and I believe this
very simple formulation explains all
experimentally verified effects up to
fourth order in v/c and in addition and
in fact the whole reason for my effort
is to include the observer and recognize
that the plenum within the theories of
these eminent physicist was their own
imaginations which is always a
background space.</p>
<p>I think I am working on a new and
better theory. So far what I have is a
calculation using in-variance of
action.Tell me why I am wrong based on
experimental evidence not that I have a
different theory then either Einstein or
Lorentz. I know our theories are
different but i think they are wrong
because they are Aristotelian realists
and I'm using Platonic logic.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">If you have a new
theory available which can be
quantitatively checked by experiments
please present and explain it here. Before
you have done this, a discussion as it
was up to now does not make any sense but
uses up a lot of time. We should not waste
time.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now I'll try to answer your coments<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2017
6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,ghly</p>
<p>i see the same problem again: you did
not really read my last mail as you
repeat most of your earlier statements
with no reference to my comments. <br>
</p>
<p>Details in the text:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
22.06.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Answers embedded below<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
6/21/2017 6:07 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>here is the difference. I do
not simply say what I believe to
be true, but I give arguments
for it if I do not refer to
standard physics. And I do of
course not expect that you agree
to what I say but I expect that
you object if you disagree, but
please <i>with arguments</i>.
In the case of the formula for
kinetic energy for instance you
have just repeated your formula
which is in conflict with basic
physics, but there was no
argument at all. This will not
help us to proceed.</p>
</blockquote>
I have provided numerical arguments
two or three times perhaps you do
not get all the E-mails - here is a
copy<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have received your calculations,
and I have written that they are wrong
because they are based on a wrong
formula. I have written this two times
with no reaction from you. You find my
responses further down in the history of
mails, so you cannot say that you did
not receive them. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Two identical moving clock systems
at constant velocity in inter
galactic space perform the same
activity between two clock ticks in
their own coordinate frames . The
amount of activity in an event is
measured by action. So if they are
identical and perform the same
activities the amount of action
between ticks is the same.
<p>An observer calculates the amount
of action from classical physics
as dS = (T-V)*dt , where T= 1/2 m
v^2 and V = -m*c^2 - MGm/R, here
mc^2 is the gravitational
potential in the mass shell of the
universe and MGm/R any local
gravitational potential energy. <br>
</p>
<p>if Twin A is riding along with
clock A then T=0 for Clock A thus
the Lagrangian is (m*c^ +
MGm/R), the moving clock B
Lagrangian calcuated by A
is (1/2 m v^2 + m*c^2 +
MGm/R)</p>
<p>since the action calculated for
both clocks is invariant we have
the equation,<br>
</p>
<p>
(m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt = S = (1/2* m
*v^2 + m*c^2 + MGm/R)*dt'</p>
so the moving clock dt' slows down
compared with the stationary one
which is experimentally verified to
accuracies of v*v/c*c and differs
from Einstein's theory because
Einstein's theory has higher order
c^4/c^4 terms.<br>
<br>
This is a perfectly quantitative
argument. What is your problem?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
You find in our mail history (further
down) my answer. Why did you not respond
to it? So once again (I think it is the
3rd time now):<br>
Your formula for the kinetic energy 1/2
m*v<sup>2</sup> is wrong in the general
case. It is only usable for slow speeds,
so v<<c . But our discussion here
is about relativistic situations, so v
close to c As a consequence the result
of your deduction is of course wrong,
and so particularly your term c^4/c^4 is
a result of this confusion. Einstein's
equation, i.e. the Lorentz factor, is a
square-root function of (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>).
And if you make a Taylor expansion from
it, there are many terms of higher
order. But the root formula is the
correct solution.<br>
<br>
The correct formula for the kinetic
energy is as I have written here
earlier: T = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>
*( sqrt(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>))-1)
.<br>
If you new make a Taylor expansion and
stop it after the second term then you
end up with the formula which you have
used. But as iit is easily visible here,
only for speed v << c. </blockquote>
THe point is that you are assuming
Einstein is right 1/2 m*v<sup>2</sup> is
correct in my theory
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
You could claim the principle of
action in-variance is false. But
whether it is false or not can be
put to experimental tests. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The principle of action is correct but
generally used for a different purpose.
In general I do not find it the best way
to use principles but better to use
fundamental laws. But this is a
different topic. However, I expect that
you would come to a correct result with
this principle if you would use correct
physical equations.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes I know but I'm using it because
independent and isolated system have no
external clocks to measure progress and
the amount of activity is all that is
available to measure the completion of
identical activities. You must understand
I assume evnets not objects are
fundamental.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
You have claimed Einsteins theory
has been verified to better than
v^4/c^4 but I do not believe it
until I see the evidence. Because
the in-variance of action theory is
so simple and logical. As well as
the fact that if one drops m out of
these equations one get the
gravitational speed of light, which
has been verified by Sapiro's
experiment, but if you read his
paper, it uses chip rate (i.e. group
velocity) so why assume the speed of
light is constant. So if you have
experimental evidence please provide
a reference. I have seen many papers
that claim only time dilation has
been verified to first order
approximation of his formulas and
length contraction has never been
verified. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I wrote before, the Lorentz factor is
also used for the calculation of energy
and momentum by taking into account the
corresponding conservation laws. In all
calculations which we have done here at
the accelerator DESY the relation v/c
was in the order of 0.9999 . So the
gamma factor is about <u>10'000</u>. If
there would have been a term v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
necessary but omitted then this factor
would change to something in the
interval <u>1 to 10</u>. This is a
discrepancy by a factor of at least
1'000. Do you really believe that all
the scientists at DESY and at the other
accelerators worldwide would overlook a
discrepancy of this magnitude? <br>
</blockquote>
If this v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> term
accuracy has been measured by experiment I
am not aware of it I've asked you for a
reference. Yes I believe all the
scientists are simply not aware of their
own fundamental assumptions regarding the
role of the conscious being, which is why
I and a few of us are working on these
issues.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<p>If someone does not agree to
main stream physics (what to a
certain extend we all want to do
here, otherwise we would not
have these discussions) then
everyone who has a basic
objection against it, should
name that explicitly and give
detailed arguments. <br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
If this is <b>Not </b>a detailed
argument I do not know what is! <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately this is an erroneous
calculation what I have told you now <b><i>several
times</i></b>. You did not react and
did not give a justification but you
merely repeated it again and again. <br>
</blockquote>
IS it wrong or is it just based on
assumptions that you disagree with? <br>
<br>
I believe the question "what does it feel
like to be a piece of material" is quite
legitimate and if we can entertain the
question why not ask if feelings are not
intrinsically part of material and the
perhaps space is a feeling, the phase of
an never ending event <br>
Just repeat the phrase "I see myself as
...." quickly for a few minutes and you'll
get the experience of a subject object
event that takes on an existence of its
own.<br>
<br>
Did you read kracklauer's paper ? do you
think "that time dilations and FitzGerald
contractions are simply artifacts<br>
of the observation, and not induced
characteristics of the objects being
observed themselves."<br>
<br>
Well its hard to disagree with this
statement because the reason the
transformations were invented is to show
that the Maxwell equations which describe
a physical fact will transform to describe
the same physical fact no mater what body
you are attached to.<br>
<br>
And yet AL I disagree with it because i
believe there is a reality and the
appearances in any observers coordinate
frame i.e. body , represent something real
that is effected by gravity. And simply
recognizing that the rate of
electromagnetic activity is dependent on
the gravitational influence the system in
which the activity happens is under , is a
simple provable assumption that connects
electricity with gravity. Once this is
established as an observer independent
fact. THen that fact also applies to the
body making the measurement and in that
sense and only that sense time dilations
and FitzGerald contractions are simply
artifacts of the observing body. <br>
<br>
I did like "It is, that each particle is
effectively an “observer”<br>
of all the others, necessitating the
incorporation of the<br>
attendant mathematical machinery into the
coupled equations<br>
of motion of the particles.' <br>
<br>
and am looking forward to Al' promised
further work in this coupling.<br>
<br>
so Albrecht have I answered your comments
for this go around?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000066">No, I do not see any
answer as I have listed it above! You
always talk about different things or you
repeat your erroneous statement / equation
without an argument.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49c6a5e2-6d21-a245-90ed-cde0951dcfad@nascentinc.com">
<br>
best wishes ,<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:df902fea-21c0-e385-0aaf-e4e0b4f3025a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
20.06.2017 um 08:09 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I read your E-mails but I do
not agree because you simply
say what you believe to be
true. I respect that and you
may be right but I am not
talking about what has been
discovered at CERN but rather
what Einstein published, the
theory he proposed and I have
ordered and now have <br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">Einstein,
A. (1905) “On the
Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies”, <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">The Principle of
Relativity</i>:<i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">;
a collection of original
memoirs on the special and
general theory of
relativity</span></i>,
Edited by A Sommerfeld,
Translated by W. Perrett and
G. Jeffery, Dover
Publications, p35-65
ISBN486-60081-5</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is a collection of papers from
Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowski
and Weyl , so on page 49
Einstein says " If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is
moved in a closed curve with
constant velocity until it
returns to A, the journey
lasting t seconds, then by the
clock which has remained st
rest the travelled clock on
its arrival will be 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
slow. " ...."this is up to
magnitude of fourth and higher
order"<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in">This
is an unambiguous statement.
It follows directly from his
derivation of the Lorentz
transformations and
immediately leads to the twin
paradox because from the point
of view of the moving clock
the so called "stationary"
clock is moving and the
stationary clock when
returning to A would by SRT be
the traveled clock which is
slow by 1/2*t*v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>No, the case
cannot be mirrored. Only one
clock is at rest, the other
one is not as it leaves the
original frame. <br>
<br>
Again: The Lorentz
transformation is about the
relation between <i> inertial
frames</i>. Otherwise not
applicable. If this is not
really clear, you will not
have any progress in your
understanding.<br>
In this case of two clocks the
motion of the moving clock can
be split up into infinitesimal
pieces of straight motions and
then the pieces of tim</sup></font><font
size="+1"><sup>e can be summed
up</sup></font><font size="+1"><sup>.
In that way the Lorentz
transformation could be
applied.<br>
<br>
And do you notice this: It is
the same problem you have
again and again. SRT is about
relations of <i>inertial
frames</i>. Not in others
than these. And I must clearly
say: as long as this does not
enter your mind and strongly
settles there, it makes little
sense to discuss more complex
cases in special relativity.<br>
<br>
The statement of Einstein
which you give above is
correct, but only as an
approximation for v<<c.
In his original paper of 1905
Einstein has earlier given the
correct equation and then
given the approximation for
v<<c. Unfortunately he
has not said this explicitly
but it is said by his remark
which you have quoted:<br>
</sup>"</font>this is up to
magnitude of fourth and higher
order" . Because if it would be
the correct equation it would be
valid up to infinite orders of
magnitude. - We should forgive
Einstein for this unclear
statement as this was the first
paper which Einstein has ever
written. </blockquote>
NO! Einstein derived the Lorentz
transformations from some
assumptions like the speed of light
is constant in all coordinate frames
and simultaneity is defined by round
trip light measurements. He simply
stated that the Lorentz
transformations have certain
consequences. One of them being that
an observer viewing a clock moving
around a circle at constant velocity
would slow down and he gave the
numerical value of the slow down to
first order in v^2/c^2.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you read the whole paper of Einstein
it has a correct derivation of the
Lorentz transformation. And then he
makes an approximation for a slow speed
without saying this clearly. His text
(translated to English): <br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">"… so that this
indication of the clock (as observed
in the system at rest) is delayed
per second by (1-sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>)
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>seconds
or – except for magnitudes of forth
or higher order is delayed by
1/2(v/c)<sup>2</sup> seconds."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">So, Einstein <i>excludes
</i>here the higher orders. That
means clearly that it is an
approximation. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">But the conclusion of
Einstein is correct. If the moving
clock comes back it is delayed.
Which is of course in agreement with
SRT. And also with the observation.<br>
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
Nothing is proven until it is
experimentally proven. And what has
been experimentally proven is quite
simple. A clock slows down if it
feels a force.<br>
That is it. Whether that force is
called gravity experienced when one
is standing on the earth or called
inertia when one is being
accelerated in a rocket makes no
difference. And the simplest theory
that explains experimentally
verified fact is not Einstein's SRT
or GRT but <br>
simple classic action in-variance
with the one new piece of physics
that the speed of all
electromagnetic phenomena happen at
a speed determined by<br>
c^2 = Mu*G/Ru<br>
and I believe this relationship was
given before Einstein and has
something to do with Mach's
Principle, but maybe Einstein should
get credit.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again: According to all what we know,
motion means a slow down of clocks, NOT
acceleration. And nothing depends on
force according to relativity and
according to experiments. Also gravity
slows down a clock, but very little.
Experimental proof was once the Hafele
Keating experiment for gravity and speed
and the muon accelerator for speed and
the independence of acceleration. <br>
<br>
If you see a dependence of the slow down
of clocks from a force applied this
would be a new theory. If you believe
this, please present it as a complete
theoretical system and refer to
experiments which are in agreement with
this theory. <br>
<br>
For c you repeat your incorrect formula
again. Its lack of correctness is easily
visible by the following consideration.
If it would be true then a gravitational
mass of M=0 would mean c=0, which is
clearly not the case. And also for some
gravitational mass but a distance
R=infinite there would also be c=0,
which does not make any sense. And I
repeat the correct one (perhaps you
notice it <i>this time</i>). <br>
c =c<sub>0</sub> *(1-2*G*M/(c<sup>2</sup>*R))<sup>p</sup>
where p = 1/2 or 1 depending on the
direction of the light<br>
<br>
For the twin case I have given you
numbers that the acceleration phase is
in no way able to explain the time
offset, but I am meanwhile sure that you
ignore that again. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94bea299-9b61-7ac8-06a8-4bb658e9e58c@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6600e1fc-8300-ae8c-a8e5-45927dd5d8d6@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d5c955d9-d80e-d3d3-6fe5-52f62549d8d1@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font 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:part12.FD7C9FB5.7B6CBD70@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" 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">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>