<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>You said "Your equation 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.' <br>
</p>
<p>I thought I had answered many times. Lets assume we both agree on
this 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>) is correct.</p>
<p>Now how do you interpret it?</p>
<p>If you believe in Einsteins postulate that c is constant then you
can logically divide c oyt of the equation and get m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
which you believe has been proven in accelerator designs.</p>
<p>I on the other hand recognize that Einstein's postulate is
precisely a postulate, an initial assumption that may or may not
be correct.</p>
<p>We are both and all of us in this discussion group exploring the
validity of initial assumptions. Therefor Allow me to assume
Eistein's assumption is one way of developing a theory but not the
only way. If we assume mass is the invariant instead of the speed
of light then the very same equation we both agree on could be
written as m*c<sup>2</sup> = m*c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>).
Now we can cancel the "m' and get 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>) <br>
</p>
<p>This may not have any meaning to you, but it that is the case you
do not understand how a community of scientists could be so brain
washed that they accept an assumption for gospel truth and do not
want to understand circular reasoning which will always prove the
initial assumption is true.</p>
<p>Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of
initial assumptions.</p>
<p>An further more if we rewrite the equation we both agree on as
m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub><sup>3/2</sup>*c<sup>3</sup>
*(1/(mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)we would
recognize the mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup> in the corrective
factor as the negative classic Lagrangian when the potential
energy of the a mass inside a universe mass shell is 1/2 mc<sup>2</sup>.
This means mc<sup>2</sup> is the escape energy to get outside our
Universe of mass surrounding us. In other words we live in a flat
space at the center od a ball of mass. Simple and consistent with
intuition. <br>
</p>
<p>Now I ask you to show me experiments that cannot be explained
with the assumptions leading to 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>) <br>
</p>
<p>since I or we have shown you arguments that Einsteins assumption
is inconsistent with</p>
<p>1) gravity must be infinite or there would be a tangential
component to increase our orbit</p>
<p>2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation
classic i.e. infinite speed of gravity calculations</p>
<p>3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation</p>
<p>4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in
satellite orbits (not sure about this one) <br>
</p>
<br>
Einstein should have listened to Mach.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes ,<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/11/2017 4:24 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f4248e86-0d35-7b10-d248-1876fcb99f4b@a-giese.de">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?</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>