<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>wel the first thin I would like to see is nano second pulses
reproducing a michelson Morely type experiment <br>
</p>
<p>But the simplest thing is to look at the theory of the synchroton
design you keep talking about are you talking about the energy
formula</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>)<font
size="-1"> </font> that we both agree on. If so then we are only
in disagreement about the interpretation and the assmptions inside
tha<font size="-1">t i</font>nterpretation<font size="-1">, observations
like this E-mail in front of your nose are facts I do not
dispute facts, I'm interested in <br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>by the way have you seen <br>
</p>
<div class="" style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><font class=""
face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E" class="">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E</a><br>
<br>
The truth is hard to come by.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<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 8/16/2017 7:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0dc5ad30-70e6-f9e5-256c-8f1ae27ed3e1@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>So, what is <i>your </i>way to measure the speed of light so
that you trust the result?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.08.2017 um 07:56 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:24371479-20f6-67e1-a010-f1bc44e5dd89@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" 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">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>