<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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">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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>