<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>Please stay at the topic we are just discussing here. We should
first come to a result with those before extending our topics.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.08.2017 um 08:47 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I mentioned the Michelson Morley experiment because the URL I
sent is an interesting alternative that gives a completely
different answer which is probably wrong Watch <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc</a></p>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have seen both videos. But I suspect, for the first one, that
it is a property of his set up. If in the upright position the
elements of the apparatus move only by a micrometer by gravity, then
this effect is already understandable. Generally speaking, the
author did not present an error investigation; and that is essential
for every experiment.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p>However in general this experiment is extremely pertinent
because the inability to detect ether drift is one of the main
pillars of Einstein's approach and one of the main pillars of my
consciousness theory of why why we should not detect the
background space which is attached and generated by us. I am
working on my book fro ROutledge Press and would be happy to
start sending you parts of it for comments on this observer
oriented event theory. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
But my question was about the measurement of the speed of light c.
We should not jump but bring one question to an end before switching
to philosophy or similar. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>You are very right I should learn more about synchrotrons but
we re not discussing the standard text book approach and its
assumptions so I am hoping you will meet me half way and tell my
specifically why you think I'm wrong instead of generally asking
me to go look at a text book and hoping I would guess your
objection. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
In the following you see the accelerating pieces of a <i>linear </i>accelerator.
This is showing how the speed of a particle - like an electron -
determines the switching frequency<br>
<br>
<img id="uid_0"
src="cid:part2.6D9FD431.6BBB7EEF@a-giese.de" data-deferred="1"
class="_WCg"
title="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearbeschleuniger"
alt="Bildergebnis für linearbeschleuniger" height="301"
width="408"><br>
In a synchrotron this is built in a circular way. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now you've started to be mores specific and I greatly
appreciate that. The definition of momentum is <span
class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-14-Frame" tabindex="0"
style="text-align: center; position: relative;"
data-mathml="<math
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
display="block"><mrow
class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mover><mi>p</mi><mo
stretchy="false">→</mo></mover></mrow><mo>=</mo><mstyle
displaystyle="true"
scriptlevel="0"><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>m</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mrow
class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mover><mi>v</mi><mo
stretchy="false">→</mo></mover></mrow></mrow><msqrt><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mfrac><msup><mi>v</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><msup><mi>c</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mfrac></msqrt></mfrac></mstyle></math>"
role="presentation"><nobr><span class="math"
id="MathJax-Span-66" style="width: 6.485em; display:
inline-block;"><span style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width: 5.988em; height: 0px;
font-size: 108%;"><span style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(0.398em, 1005.99em, 4.14em, -1000em); top:
-2.16em; left: 0em;"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-67"><span class="texatom"
id="MathJax-Span-68"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-69"><span class="munderover"
id="MathJax-Span-70"><span style="display:
inline-block; position: relative; width:
0.556em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(3.385em, 1000.5em, 4.392em, -1000em);
top: -4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-71"
style="font-family: MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">p</span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; top: -4.093em;
left: 0.114em;"><span style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em; width: 0.471em;
display: inline-block; overflow:
hidden;"></span><span class="mo"
id="MathJax-Span-72" style="font-family:
MathJax_Main;"> <span style="height:
0em; vertical-align: 0em; margin-left:
-0.247em;"></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; overflow:
hidden; height: 1px; width: 0em;"></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-73"
style="font-family: MathJax_Main; padding-left:
0.278em;">=</span><span class="mstyle"
id="MathJax-Span-74" style="padding-left:
0.278em;"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-75"><span
class="mfrac" id="MathJax-Span-76"><span
style="display: inline-block; position:
relative; width: 3.873em; height: 0px;
margin-right: 0.12em; margin-left: 0.12em;"><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(3.032em, 1001.78em, 4.485em,
-1000em); top: -4.794em; left: 50%;
margin-left: -0.9em;"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-77"><span
class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-78"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width: 1.309em;
height: 0px;"><span style="position:
absolute; clip: rect(3.385em,
1000.86em, 4.209em, -1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-79"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Math; font-style:
italic;">m</span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; top:
-3.862em; left: 0.878em;"><span
class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-80"
style="font-size: 70.7%;
font-family: MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">p</span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-81"><span
class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-82"><span
class="munderover"
id="MathJax-Span-83"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width:
0.491em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(3.384em, 1000.47em,
4.209em, -1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-84"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Math; font-style:
italic;">v</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
top: -4.094em; left: 0.049em;"><span
style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em; width:
0.471em; display:
inline-block; overflow:
hidden;"></span><span
class="mo"
id="MathJax-Span-85"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main;"> <span
style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em;
margin-left: -0.247em;"></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; overflow:
hidden; height: 1px; width:
0em;"></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(2.675em, 1003.75em, 4.845em,
-1000em); top: -2.866em; left: 50%;
margin-left: -1.876em;"><span
class="msqrt" id="MathJax-Span-86"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width: 3.753em;
height: 0px;"><span style="position:
absolute; clip: rect(2.856em,
1002.73em, 4.668em, -1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 1em;"><span
class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-87"><span
class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-88"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main;">1</span><span
class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-89"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; padding-left:
0.222em;">−</span><span
class="mfrac"
id="MathJax-Span-90"
style="padding-left: 0.222em;"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width:
0.766em; height: 0px;
margin-right: 0.12em;
margin-left: 0.12em;"><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(3.29em,
1000.65em, 4.205em,
-1000em); top: -4.446em;
left: 50%; margin-left:
-0.323em;"><span
class="msubsup"
id="MathJax-Span-91"><span
style="display:
inline-block; position:
relative; width:
0.646em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.514em,
1000.33em, 4.205em,
-1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-92"
style="font-size:
70.7%; font-family:
MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">v</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height:
4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; top:
-4.217em; left:
0.343em;"><span
class="mn"
id="MathJax-Span-93"
style="font-size:
50%; font-family:
MathJax_Main;">2</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height:
4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(3.29em,
1000.61em, 4.205em,
-1000em); top: -3.549em;
left: 50%; margin-left:
-0.305em;"><span
class="msubsup"
id="MathJax-Span-94"><span
style="display:
inline-block; position:
relative; width:
0.609em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.515em,
1000.3em, 4.205em,
-1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-95"
style="font-size:
70.7%; font-family:
MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">c</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height:
4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; top:
-4.217em; left:
0.306em;"><span
class="mn"
id="MathJax-Span-96"
style="font-size:
50%; font-family:
MathJax_Main;">2</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height:
4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(0.787em,
1000.77em, 1.235em,
-1000em); top: -1.269em;
left: 0em;"><span
style="display:
inline-block; overflow:
hidden; vertical-align:
0em; border-top: 1.3px
solid; width: 0.766em;
height: 0px;"></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 1.049em;"></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(3.554em, 1002.75em, 3.97em,
-1000em); top: -4.891em; left: 1em;"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width:
2.753em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute;
font-family: MathJax_Main; top:
-4.012em; left: -0.084em;">−<span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
font-family: MathJax_Main; top:
-4.012em; left: 2.059em;">−<span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em; left:
0.433em;">−<span style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em; left:
0.975em;">−<span style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em; left:
1.517em;">−<span style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(2.677em, 1001.02em, 4.848em,
-1000em); top: -4.014em; left: 0em;"><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Size2;">√</span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(0.787em, 1003.87em, 1.235em,
-1000em); top: -1.269em; left: 0em;"><span
style="display: inline-block; overflow:
hidden; vertical-align: 0em; border-top:
1.3px solid; width: 3.873em; height:
0px;"></span><span style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px; height:
1.049em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; height:
2.16em;"></span></span></span><span style="display:
inline-block; overflow: hidden; vertical-align:
-2.005em; border-left: 0px solid; width: 0px; height:
3.774em;"></span></span></nobr></span></p>
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e">However the derivation of this equation
is not at all straight forward since we are talking about
three dimensions and the formula is different in the direction
of motion vs the cross direction terms. In the circular orbit
we are talking about a momentum in te radial direction vs one
in the angular direction and furthermore the particle is in an
accelerated frame. <br>
</span></p>
</blockquote>
The point is here that the momentum of the electron increases
permanently, but the speed is limited to c. And as there is p = m*v
, and at the end v = c, how can you explain the increase of p if
assuming m to be constant? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e"> </span></p>
You are saying particles are accelerated to near the speed of
light and easily measured, yes but this is a one way near speed of
light measurement and one needs to examine this carefully.<span
class="_Tgc _y9e">I've read in numerous places that the Large
Hadron Collider is capable of accelerating protons at
0.999999991 c,- At those speeds the circumference of "C" is the
stationary distance and the time is the time statinary period tp
measured at one point whenever the particle comes around. so its
velocity is C/tp, However the particle is stationary in its
own reference frame and only feels a radial gravitational pull
outward for which the factor under the integral depends upon the
log of the radius</span><br>
</blockquote>
When we say that an object has a certain speed we mean the speed
measured in our laboratory frame. For other frames (also the one of
the particle itself) it has to be determined by the Lorentz
transformation. But that is a different story than what we are
discussing here. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com"> <br>
Furthermore we must talk about the momentum of a charged particle
since presumably the momentum is measured by the curvature on a
charge induced by a magnetic field.<br>
</blockquote>
That is one way. The other - which relates to the energy of a
particle - is its conversion into other particles. So, an electron
and a positron accelerated in a storage ring can collide and in this
moment be converted into particles of a much higher mass (a mass of
more than 1000 times the mass of the electron). How is this possible
if the electron does not change its mass (and the positron as well)?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com"> <br>
This it gets very complex and your recommendation to understand
more is appropriate. However is the situation not similar to the
central force problem of a particle moving in an atom where the
gravitational and electric forces are balanced <br>
</blockquote>
The gravitational force is completely irrelevant for the processes
in an atom. I have many times given you numbers that for such
influence the gravitational force is too low by more than 30 orders
of magnitude. - Why do I write this again and again, and you never
react on it but repeat completely wrong numbers or assumption again
and again?? So we cannot go on.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com"> <br>
i will try to get you a calculation which shows that for an atom
the assumption that charge and mass are at a point is no longer
valid and in fact the two are separated. Thus the momentum of a
particle is dependent upon the separation distance. this allows me
to calculate the momentum and energy of a particle from contant
mass and force since the correction factors are used to explain an
internal geometry to matter rather than a change in the value of
mass.<br>
</blockquote>
So a particle without a charge does not have any momentum?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com"> <br>
please stand by<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please treat the questions we are discussing right now here. The
rest please later. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com"> <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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/18/2017 8:18 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:320ecd97-0387-c8ab-1de5-66e497cbdfae@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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" 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>