<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>why do you mention the Michelson Morley experiment? It was not
the purpose of it to determine the speed of light. And it is in
no way suitable to do this determination. It was designed to
measure the ether drift. <br>
</p>
<p>A particle accelerator is, on the other hand, a very good way to
determine the behaviour of c. Because when the particle flies
along the chain of acceleration sections, the fields of these
sections have to be switched in a properly synchronized way so
that an acceleration can happen. Therefore the speed of the
particle is very simple logic. At which point do you doubt this
process?</p>
<p>If it is now visible that this speed has an upper bound (more is
not necessary), but the momentum of the particle increases
permanently, then the increase of mass is the only explanation. Or
do you have another one? - The increase of momentum is easily
measured in a magnetic field.</p>
<p>From these facts together the increase of mass has to be
concluded. I do not know any other explanation. Do you have one?</p>
<p>Your doubt of this is in my view a consequence of the fact that
you have never looked into the design of a synchrotron. You should
do that urgently before presenting unchained statements about
relativistic facts. <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.08.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddc8528c-fc3f-9bd8-3920-4ec33bba8607@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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=""
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" 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>