<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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">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>