<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Just another coment on your reply you said of the vertical
Micelson Moreley Experiment "But I suspect, for the first one,
that it is a property of his set up."</p>
<p>So my point in sending it was to emphasize how easily we get
fooled when we project properties of our experimental setup int
onto the world.</p>
<p>I just got a lead paper published in the August issue of the
Journal of Consiousness studies ' entitled "The Rose tinted
Glasses Effect" I'm quie proud of the accomplishment First
because the Journal of Consiousness Studies is THE journal in this
field like getting published in Phys rev letters and second that
tey were willing to take a physics paper shows we
interdisciplinarians are making progress</p>
<p>The point I tried to make was first made by Sir Author Eddington
' that its easy to get fooled by projecting properties of the
measurement setup into the world' and since we do not take the
human into account in physics but he is always part of the
experimental setup we may very well be making some big mistakes.</p>
<p> I hope my Vigier X paper gets published soon because there I try
to show that it precisely the fact that Einstein did not account
for the fact that his own imagination was always an aether
background space that does have Em properties which transforms
according to Lorenz equations. The speed of light is of course
constant in each observers Now space , but since that observer is
also in a gravitational potential the speed of light will be
different in other observers Now spaces. A group of consensus
observers will never see anything but the constancy of their own
speed of light untill they look outside their own space. That is
why M&M can not detect aether flow buit the CBR does.</p>
<p>The proof however will be to find the explanation of the apearant
increasing momentum of a particle in a cyclotron. So please help
keeping me on target otherwise I will go into philosophy <br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/23/2017 12:17 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:part2.3424F32F.865C3132@nascentinc.com"
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" 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>