<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>You still do not grasp the idea that theory and therefore the
assumption of theory determine the interpretation and therfore
what we thing we are seeing.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2017 12:44 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf: <br>
</p>
<p>it may be good to have new ideas or new insights, but please do
not offer equations which are in clear conflict to safe
experiments. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.08.2017 um 07:45 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
The operation of accelerators show every day and every second that
the speed of particles has a limit at the speed of light c. And as
on the other hand the energy (or momentum) of a particle in an
accelerator is increased to above any limit, the mass of that
particles must increase. There is no other explanation, or do you
have one?<br>
</blockquote>
The operation of acceloators show 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">
which can be interpreted in two ways. I challenge you again to
show me why your interpretation of c remaining contant and m needs
to increase is the right one?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
Why do you not explain a physical process which is described by
your equation above: "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>
</blockquote>
I've explained this many times the speed of EM process in a particle
or coordinate frame built of particle is dependent upon the total
energy potential the particle experiences gravitational potentialis
one of the components the particle is in. The speed of light and all
processes including clock rates slow down when the clock is in a
lower gravity potential<br>
mc<sup>2 </sup>=~ m c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + 1/2 mv<sup>2</sup>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of
initial assumptions.</p>
</blockquote>
Which initial assumptions do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
That the speed of light is constant. instead of being dependent on
the energy potential it is in.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
This again assumes that the mass of an object is constant if put
to motion. This is clearly falsified by safe experiments.<br>
</blockquote>
You keep saying clearly falsified but you do not show me the safe
experiments I believe the experiments you refer to are based 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>)
and I keep saying it can be interpreted in two ways <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
My question again - not answered by you - is: which physical
process is described by this equation in your view? For me it is
just a collection of symbols without any message.<br>
</blockquote>
Ive again told you the physical process is to include the gravity
potential of the distant stars Machs principle<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
Which gravity, i.e. the gravity of which object is infinite in
your view?<br>
</blockquote>
I meant the speed of gravity, this is also a problem with your
rotating charges unless the interaction speed is infinite a
tangential component will arise which makes the orbit unstable <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation
classic i.e. infinite speed of gravity calculations</p>
</blockquote>
To my understanding the perihelion shift is caused by the fact
that the planet changes its mass during the orbit because the
speed changes.<br>
</blockquote>
That again is an interpretation but the prehelion shift is
calculated by assuming Newtons infinite gravity it again is false
reasoning. You can explain the shift by making new assumptions, but
if you apply those assumptions consistently you get a different
answer to the shift and one that is inconsistent wih Einsteins
calculations. We sent out the paper on this i can dig it up and send
itr again.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation</p>
</blockquote>
Shapiro's result for the speed of light is in full agreement with
Einstein and also in full agreement with my approach to gravity.<br>
</blockquote>
it proves the speed of light is dependent u[pon the
gravito-inertial field the light is in and is not constant. So why
are you so critical of my 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>)
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in
satellite orbits (not sure about this one) <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Where was gravitational shielding observed? And which anomalies in
satellite orbits do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
I cannot remember right now but maybe Candra sent some paper that
mentioned the anomalies and gravity effects measured during an
eclipse<br>
perhaps someone will remember the reference. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<br>
Einstein should have listened to Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
If Einstein would have listened to Mach he would have accepted the
existence of a fixed frame of reference (this kind of an ether). I
assume the same as Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
The why are you so critical? My on;y contribution is to realize that
the fixed frame of reference is the perceptive space attached to
each observer<br>
you must understand yourself in the picture or you have only half
the truth.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<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>
<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>
<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">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>