<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> Albrecht:</p>
<p>Just rereading some of your E-mail.</p>
<p>"Two arguments: (1) If an observer has a charged object with him,
this will radiate at acceleration but not at rest in a
gravitational field; (2) a gravitational field causes dilation of
time, but acceleration does not. - I have asked one of the leading
professors in Germany about this and he has answered: Yes, there
is a deficiency in Einstein's theory. "</p>
<p>Then you would say the equivalence principle is simply wrong or
does it depend upon the kind of acceleration? The acceleration in
free fall is different than the acceleration in a rocket ship. In
one case the push comes from electric forces in the other the
clock in freefall feels no electric force. Do charged particles in
the Van Alen belt radiate ie. produce a magnetic field due to
their motion.? <br>
</p>
<p>If the equivalence principle is wrong what is left of general
relativity?<br>
</p>
<p>I'm out of town till MOnday<br>
</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 9/9/2017 8:59 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bd7b3d30-97ee-70e1-4a22-87d03e893e1d@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.09.2017 um 05:44 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Yes lets get off SRT. I should have started a completely new
thread.</p>
<p>answers below</p>
<p>I should say I'm very anxious to work wth you on physics
problems but unless you understand that in order to logically
explain our 1st person experience we must build physics on new
principles and we cannot dismiss possibilities out of hand ,
we must examine the foundations</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Yes, we must examine the foundations, but we need something to
discuss about. Up to now most of us have started with the physics
as we know it. If there are new models we can also discuss those,
but we have to start with something. And this "something" has to
be validated by experiments, i.e. not pure fantasy. Those parts I
find missing in your contributions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.off
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 9/4/2017 9:56 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9a2b99-a603-79b4-b337-f340640e1518@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>comments in the text.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 02.09.2017 um 05:40 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a1d53c35-b877-2fe8-0115-86c73d5e07f7@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>Ok Then we both agree on the same formula for the same
experiment and is no other factors are taken into account
then there is a paradox and there is no doubt in my mind
that Einstein knew it and developed GRT to expand the
applicability of his theory. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
No, there is no paradox at all. And also in the view of
Einstein there is no paradox. He wrote once about the twin
experiment a letter to someone whom I know saying that the
travelling twin is changing his frame and so there is no
symmetry in the process. Therefore no paradox.<br>
<br>
And, of course, there was never a need to develop GRT to solve
this problem as it is no problem. Einstein developed GRT in
order to extend the independence from inertial frames to
non-inertial frames. That was his intention.<br>
<br>
I must say, as long as you insist that there is a paradox
about the twins because you do not understand it in a better
way, I do not see much use of continuing this discussion. You
have to get a better understanding of relativity, otherwise we
will both gain nothing but wast our time. Please come back
with a better understanding. There have been enough arguments
about SRT and the twin experiment in this forum to make an
understanding possible. And particularly you have ignored the
arguments which I used, not answering them but continuously
repeating your statements. It cannot go on this way. <br>
</blockquote>
again we've beaten this to death. You interpretation of SRT has
no paradox because there is a frame change. Fine. No problem.<br>
However do you or do you not believe in the equivalence
principle?<br>
</blockquote>
I assume that you mean the strong equivalence principle, true?<br>
<br>
I do not believe in the strong equivalence principle as I have
said it repeatedly, last time in my mails to Chip and Grahame.
That means that gravity and acceleration are not two words for the
same phenomenon as Einstein has assumed. Two arguments: (1) If an
observer has a charged object with him, this will radiate at
acceleration but not at rest in a gravitational field; (2) a
gravitational field causes dilation of time, but acceleration does
not. - I have asked one of the leading professors in Germany about
this and he has answered: Yes, there is a deficiency in Einstein's
theory. - But I think this is not a deficiency but it proofs
Einstein's GRT to be wrong.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9a2b99-a603-79b4-b337-f340640e1518@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a1d53c35-b877-2fe8-0115-86c73d5e07f7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>So we've beaten SRT and the twins to death. Lets go on I
just finished the draft for my book and sent it off to
Routledge. The first chapter gives a summary and is
attached. It is physics only to the extent that once we
realize that we are event creating objects not objects
observing events then the physics must also change. In
chapter 4 I get into event physics or action theory and
this may pass the editor but is not to my liking yet. So
this already is a long chapter and if you like it enough
to help with the physics we can go on. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
This is a lot of text and I will need some time to read it.
But when looking through it I do not find any quantitative
statements in it. How can we judge whether it conforms to the
observation? - During the last 20 years when I did alternative
physics and attend to conferences about it I have listened to
many elegant looking theories. But they cannot all be true as
they had very different solutions for our understanding of
physics. So we need criteria to judge. The best criterion we
have in physics is to compare the results of a theory
quantitatively with observations. This is needed to go on. And
I am waiting for it as I have repeatedly said. <br>
</blockquote>
The idea is to build a framework that contains a logical
explanation of our first person experience. To make progress we
need to take a deep look at who we are and how we process our
experiences. The first chapter is intended to give you an
overview of the kind of the event oriented view point one needs
to take when one realizes that we are events that create
objects not objects that create events. If you are not willing
to examine yourself and give up the idea that the 3D world and
moving objects making a 4D world is anything more than the
working reality based upon the processing and mental display our
species is designed to produce then the context of my physics
explorations will not make sense and you will simply always say
"your calculations do not agree with what I and my physics
colleagues already know to be the truth"<br>
</blockquote>
As I have already said several times: If we - or you - want to go
deeper, as you say, to have better insights, then please make a
quantitative proposal which can be discussed. -- But maybe that
this does not make much sense as long as there are errors in your
understanding about our present state of physics. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<br>
I this case I can only ask you to entertain only the physics
question of what holds charge and mass together? <br>
</blockquote>
I have a model for the cause of inertial mass. In this model your
question is easily explained - or is irrelevant, which way ever
one wants to formulate it.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9a2b99-a603-79b4-b337-f340640e1518@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a1d53c35-b877-2fe8-0115-86c73d5e07f7@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>In the mean time I'm thinking about relativistic inertia
and believe that just like simply introducing the speed of
light as Potential energy by being inside the distant mass
shell can explain most if not all of Einsteins clock and
light bending phenomena I think we must also remember that
inertia of a particle is also dependent upon the totality
of influence within which we live. I'm simply developing
Machs principle.</p>
</blockquote>
Just to remind you that Mach's position was that there has to
be some kind of ether so that we can have inertia. Einstein
called this requirement "Mach's Principle". It is a big word
for something which is in fact quite simple: The requirement
for an ether. - Also my model of inertia uses this type of
ether. In this respect I conform with Mach. But "principle" is
not a good word.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes and my position is that there is an aether but that it is
always attached to the observer's material and all systems are
observers.<br>
</blockquote>
The aether which Lorentz meant or which Mach meant is a universal
one, not dependent on an observer. Should it be not a universal
one, it would not give the help (or function) which we need here.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9a2b99-a603-79b4-b337-f340640e1518@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a1d53c35-b877-2fe8-0115-86c73d5e07f7@nascentinc.com">
<p>However I'm also introducing a restoration force between
charge and mass centers this gives me a topology of
cyclic influences also a cycle at the speed of light only
by adding mass your charge cycles can also radiate
gravitational influences.<br>
</p>
<p> <sub>|</sub>--<---<-----<----<----<---<sub>|</sub>
<br>
</p>
<p> |__> ch ->ch->.m->m-><sup>|</sup><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">I'm placing the ch->m and the m->ch center </font><font size="+1"><font size="+1">influence</font> as interior to matter in the quantum realm.
I know you want to explain mass wih your rotating charges but might the effect your charges produce not also be visualized as
mass influence centers and therefore mass chasrge chasing each other might work with your concept.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
Your relation between charge and mass is not very plausible
for me. I recommend that you give a quantitative description
on your concept about this. Otherwise I am afraid that I will
not understand your point.<br>
</blockquote>
If one can define a center of mass and a center of charge for a
ball on a table. Then the center of mass is pulled down toward
the earth by gravity, and the center of charge is pushed up by
coulomb forces , the cumulative effect is a slight distortion of
in which the charge and mass centers are separated. One might
call it a cumulative bulk effect where all the protons with a
heavier mass are shifted down relative to the charges. If there
were no force holding charge and mass together the mass would
instantly fall toward the center of the earth.<br>
</blockquote>
Why is the charge pushed up? Which field do you assume? Normally
we all live in a situation with no electric field. - And on the
other hand it is a strange model for me that there is not only a
centre of charge (which I can easily imagine) but also a centre of
mass. In the Higgs theory there is no centre of mass, in my model
there is also no centre of mass, but in both models mass is a
dynamical process which on the micro-scale is not situated in a
point. What is your model?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
The normal answer is not only that the behavior of material can
be approximated by assuming that all its charge and mass is
located at a point. However that is the point particle
assumption pervasive in physics. Let's assume mass and charge
are held together by a force that can be approximated as a
spring. Conventional physics assumes this constant is infinite
and no matter what forces are applied the mass and charge of a
particle such as an electron is always collocated. <br>
</blockquote>
No, conventional physics does not say this. Mass is a process not
a point as said above.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
Well lets look at this assumption in the case of the Bohr atom
or synchotron motion.<br>
</blockquote>
The Bohr atom is a quite extended thing build by electrons and by
quarks. We should look at these particles, electrons and quarks,
not at extended structures which are not particles. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<br>
best wishes<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9ff350a6-e78f-491f-e9d2-f57cceb49a6a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9a2b99-a603-79b4-b337-f340640e1518@a-giese.de"> <br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a1d53c35-b877-2fe8-0115-86c73d5e07f7@nascentinc.com">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">
Wolf</font>
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 9/1/2017 1:17 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ec9580bd-6a57-5584-f47d-9a12d060cf36@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>just a short answer to this mail.</p>
<p>Einstein's example is a simplified situation. It is
simplified in so far that the moving clock comes back to
the clock at rest. So in the equation which I have
given:</p>
<p>t' = (t-xv/c<sup>2</sup>)* (1-c<sup>2</sup>/v<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup></p>
<p>the distance x becomes 0 (zero). Then your equation can
be used. But if two moving clocks are compared in a
state where they are at different positions then the
full equation (above) has to be used.</p>
<p>The short version is also applicable for the twin
experiment because at the end both twins meet again at
the same position.</p>
<p>In which respect is there a paradox?</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 30.08.2017 um 07:54
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7ebc358f-41ce-7496-1862-edc6d5bea447@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>I've now looked up the reference from "on the
Electrodynamics of moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
translated from Annalen der Physik 17,1905 in The
Principle of Relativity by H.A. Lorentz, A Einstein,
H. , wit notes by A Sommerfeld p 49 in Section #4</p>
<p>" If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal
line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we
arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t
seconds, then by the the clock remained at rest the
traveled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 t v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>
seconds slow." <br>
</p>
<p>Am I wrong in interpreting these words as implying a
twin paradox.? I'm not claiming that there is a twin
paradox.</p>
<p>Only that the straight forward interpretation of
Einstein's words suggest there is a paradox <br>
</p>
<p>best</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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/29/2017 3:41 AM, Dr
Grahame Blackwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:85328F3496EE444CAE0459B5C85FD35F@vincent">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML
8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi
Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Regrettably,
you appear to have misread my text. If you read
it again more carefully, you will see that at NO
point do I propose, or even suggest, that
acceleration gives rise to time dilation. I am
well aware that, as you say, "gravity and
acceleration are different regarding [time]
dilation" - so your attempts to persuade me of
this are quite unnecessary.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">The
whole point of my text was, as I said at the
outset, to resolve the 'twins going opposite
directions around a circle' paradox, with
reference to classical SR (and GR, as it happens -
bear with me on this). For SR to be
self-consistent (which I believe it is - that's
not the same as it being correct!) there has to be
an explanation that fits the terms of Relativity
which explains how it can be that both A and B
would expect their clocks to coincide on
re-meeting - as they clearly would from the
perspective of a third observer, static with
respect to the circle centre, and so they must of
course coincide from everyone's perspective. If
it can be shown that they'd expect their clocks to
be different then Relativity is dead - but it is
most definitely not that simple! [That's why it's
survived for over a century; it's not just that
thousands of other physicists over that century
have been incapable of such analysis!]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Relativity
states that any scenario can validly be assessed
from the perspective of any individual, who may
consider themself to be static - and that their
assessment of that scenario is equally 'correct'
to any OTHER assessment from any other frame of
reference. SR restricts such assessment to
inertial frames, GR extends it to non-inertial
frames - but this same principle holds true.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">We
can add to this the fact that if such an observer
experiences what we might refer to as a 'G-force'
acting on them then they will know that they must
be in a non-inertial frame. The term 'G-force' is
convenient for our purposes as it is used to apply
both to forces due to gravitation and to
accelerating forces; it is implicit in GR (through
the Equivalence Principle) that the observer will
not know which of these two applies (Einstein's
'man in a box' thought experiment), but that if
(as he fully validly may, under Relativity) he
considers himself to be at rest then he must
necessarily attribute such forces to gravitational
effects (without having to ascertain where those
effects arise from - that could be tricky in our
example scenario!)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Please
not that I am NOT saying that these principles
actually apply in our physical reality - I am
simply stating the mantra of Relativity, both SR
and GR, since that's the mathematical framework in
which I'm seeking to show self-consistency.
Others in the group are proposing that Relativity
is disproved by this 'twins thought experiment',
I'm observing that it is not; the truth or
falsehood of Relativity as a model of true reality
is not what I'm about here - in fact I'm seeking
to show that Relativity CANNOT be disproved by
such a simple setup, it needs rather more thought
than that!</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Albrecht,
I think you misunderstand my purpose here. It's
not my intention EITHER to prove OR to disprove
Relativity; my sole intention is to show that this
'twins scenario' does NOT show an inconsistency in
Relativity - it is NOT a paradox. In this respect
the question of whether Relativity does or does
not match true objective reality is totally
irrelevant; the only question is whether or not
Relativity agrees with itself.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">The
importance if this exercise shouldn't be
underestimated: if we are to challenge the
fundamental premises of Relativity, it has to be
on FAR stronger ground than a proposed 'paradox'
that has been refuted time and time again over the
past 100 years - we do ourselves, and science, a
serious disservice if we convince fans of
Relativity that our view that it's wrong is based
on a simplistic misunderstanding of its basics!</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">So,
again: external observer sees A and B perform
mirror images of each others' manoeuvres - so of
course clocks will match on re-meeting. So A and
B will also see clocks coinciding - and fully
expect that to be the case. How come, given that
Relativity allows each to see their position in
the universe as static?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Simple:
since the external observer sees A (for example)
as experiencing acceleration towards the centre of
the circle, A him/herself will inevitably
experience a G-force acting outward from the
centre of that observer's circle. Considering
him/herself static in space, A will have no option
but to regard that as a gravitational effect from
some unknown source (note that physicists have no
trouble envisaging gravitation acting from unknown
sources - we're told that such sources make up the
vast majority of the mass-energy in our
universe!). Since A knows that gravitation causes
time dilation (NOTE THAT I AM <strong>NOT</strong>
PROPOSING, HERE OR ANYWHERE, THAT ACCELERATION
CAUSES SUCH DILATION), he/she will inevitably
expect their clock to have been slowed, as well as
knowing that B's motion will have also slowed B's
clock. So matching of clocks on re-meeting is to
be totally expected by A (and B) - no paradox.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">This
is all about perceptions from different
perspectives, and the assertion in Relativity that
all such perceptions are equally valid/true.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">With
regard to assessing time and distance of B, as
assessed by A: whilst not relevant to this
analysis, the question has arisen - so let's look
at it from A's perspective. A sends out a
broadcast radio signal in the general direction of
B; on receiving that signal, B sends a
time-stamped response (broadcast in A's general
direction); From the time between sending and
receipt, 'knowing' such signals to travel both
ways at c relative to him/herself (according to
SR), A can calculate the distance to B at the time
B responded - which will be halfway between send
and received, from A's perspective; A will also
have a record of B's clock-time at that point
halfway between A's send and receive - and so an
indication of how B's time is progressing compared
with A's [This is all according to SR 'rules', I'm
not proposing that A's assessments will in fact be
correct in absolute terms - though of course SR
considers them to be equally correct to any other
view].</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Having
glanced briefly at Wolf's latest response, I'd
just say that mass-energy considerations can also
be very misleading in a Relativistic scenario,
unless handled exceedingly carefully with full
regard for different perspectives. As a very
simple illustration: A single photon observed from
one reference frame may be red- or blue-shifted
when observed from a different frame, and so carry
different energy. Extension of this to massive
energetic particles, and applying mass-energy
equivalence, makes it clear that we can't simply
assess the mass-energy characteristics of an
object or system from one frame then simply carry
those measures across to another frame. I don't
know whether this has a bearing on Wolf's
comments, I didn't get to see much of what you
sent previously, Wolf, for some reason.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Best
regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>----- Original Message ----- </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4;
font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
title="phys@a-giese.de"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Monday,
August 28, 2017 4:21 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p><font size="-1" face="Arial">Hi Grahame,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Arial">sorry, but I find a
very fundamental error in your arguments: You
describe a pair of twins which observe each
other in a situation where they are permanently
accelerated. And then you argue with dilation
caused by gravity. But that does not fit the
physical reality.</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Arial">Gravity and
acceleration are different regarding dilation.
Gravity causes dilation, no question. But
acceleration does not cause dilation. How can
one know? 1) You find this in every textbook
about special relativity; 2) it was
experimentally proven in the Muon storage ring
at CERN. The extension of the life time of the
muons was only dependent on the actual speed of
the particles, not on the very strong
acceleration in the ring. If that would have
been an effect according to an equivalent
gravitational field, their lifetime would have
to be extended by an additional factor of
roughly 1000 compared to the results observed.<br>
</font></p>
<font size="-1" face="Arial"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1"
face="Arial">Am 27.08.2017 um 22:18 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML
8.00.6001.23588">
<style></style>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi
Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">I'm
afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple
of points.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">First,
I agree completely that gravitation doesn't
come under SR. However the concept of
gravitation is essential to explanation of the
'twins going in opposite directions around a
circle and meeting on the far side'
(non-)paradox. [It may be that in your view
this scenario cannot then be simply a
playing-out of SR, it must be a GR issue?]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Consider:
Twin A and twin B each view themselves as
being static, with the other twin tracing out
a path that takes them away and then brings
them back into proximity from a different
direction, having formed a loop of some kind;
however, from the point of view of an observer
static with respect to the centre of a large
circle, A and B have started together at some
point on the perimeter of that circle and have
each followed opposite halves of that circle
to meet again on its other side. I.e. from
the perspective of that observer the motions
of A and B are symmetric, so their clocks
(synchronised at the start) will still be
synchronised when they meet again. [We're
assuming here that this all takes place in
deep space, far from any gravitational
influences.]</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">None of the twins can view
himself as being static, because they are
accelerated all the time and they will notice
that. So the laws of SR are not applicable for
this process in a simple way.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">From
A's point of view, A has remained static and B
has performed a large loop in space, finally
coming back alongside A. According to SR,
therefore, A will observe a slowing-down of
B's clock and so will expect B's clock to have
lost time, in real terms as measured in A's
frame (if it were an inertial frame). <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">No, it is not an inertial frame.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">[We
can deal with the issue of A reading B's clock
whilst B is on the move by B digitally
emitting their clock-time at intervals, to be
received by A who will assess those
transmissions on the basis of their crossing
space at speed c across the distance that A
measures B to be from him at times of
transmission - this could be done fairly
easily by A keeping a record of B's distance
at all times as measured on A's clock.]</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">Also this is not possible. A can
receive signals from B, but he does not know
the distance. According to SR this distance is
not clearly defined because the assessment of
any distance depends on the motion state of
the observer. Which speed will A assume for
himself? He cannot assume to be static as he
notices to be accelerated.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">B
will have a corresponding mirror-image
experience of A's motion, and so will expect A
to have lost time in real (B-frame) terms.
This appears to suggest that both A and B
would each expect the other's clock to have
fallen behind their own - a paradox.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">Also regarding time a similar
problem like for distance is applicable. When
are signals in different frames synchronised
or when is time is running faster or slower?
For any observer in different frames the
result of this question may be different. </font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">However,
our external observer will have seen A
performing a circular course - so A will
inevitably have experienced a 'G-force' of
some kind (centripetal, from our observer's
persective). Since A considers him/herself to
be static, he/she MUST attribute this to some
gravitational influence - indeed, from the
SR/GR perspective there must indeed be a
gravitational influence in A's frame, from the
perspective of that frame; one just does not
get G-force without either acceleration or
gravitation. (Here, of course, Relativity
begins to become unravelled, as A is far from
any massive body that could give rise to a
gravitational field - maybe they'll need to
start inventing their own local 'dark
matter'). Note that the scenario being
considered - A and B traversing opposite sides
of a circle - involves NO gravitational fields
- BUT A and B would HAVE TO PRESUME the
existence of such a field in their reference
frame if they are to reconcile a force they're
experiencing with their assumption that they
are static (a totally valid assumption, in
Relativity terms).</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">As said above, even if both, A
and B, attribute the force of acceleration to
gravity, they are in error; and it does anyway
not help the situation. For your consideration
they need a gravitational field for dilation,
but this does not exist, and acceleration does
not replace it.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Resolution
of this (apparent) paradox, as I said before,
rests on A (and likewise B) considering
themselves to have been subject to a
gravitational field - and experiment shows us
that gravitational fields slow time - so their
own clock will have slowed as well as the
others. So they will both expect their clocks
to be synchronised on re-meeting.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">That is anyway true also in the
absence of dilation.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">As
I say, this is where Relativity begins to
become unravelled: A and B will either each
have to acknowledge that they are NOT in fact
static, or they will have to invent a
convincing explanation for a gravitational
effect in the absence of any 'ponderous mass'
(to use Einstein's term). But given that,
synchronisation of clocks is not an issue - as
long as we allow A and B to each presume
existence of a gravitational field in their
frame (which, as you say, takes it into the
sphere of GR).</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">Not applicable as mentioned
above.</font></font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Second
point: in your case of the travelling-twin
versus the stay-at-home twin, the traveller
would again experience G-force, which they
could if they wish regard as a gravitational
effect (since under Relativity they are free
to consider themselves as static). They would
therefore expect their clock (including
biological clock) to have slowed (Pound-Rebka
again), and so know that they have actually
been travelling more than one year in
'objective' terms - whatever that might mean
in this context.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">The twin travelling, B, cannot
assume that he is static because he has to
notice his acceleration. And that is different
from gravity. And even if it could be
identified with gravity this would not solve
the example which I have given.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">But
of course the reality is that slowing of time
is NOT symmetric, it's a consequence of motion
with respect to the unique objectively-static
universal reference frame. Only when serious
scientists start asking WHY Relativity does
(or appears to do) what it does will we make
any progress on this issue.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">Which progress to you expect?
There is no symmetry in the case where twin B
returns and so you cannot conclude anything
from symmetry.</font></font></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">I
think we're agreed on the key issues. Perhaps
it's time to stop discussing how a
self-consistent mathematical system (which
doesn't happen to match true reality) copes
with paradoxes of its own making!</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Best
regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial">As I have mentioned in the other
mail: It is in conflict with Einstein's
relativity to compare clocks residing in
different frames. The result of any comparison
depends on the motion state of the observer.
That is what Einstein says.<br>
<br>
But the other solution is to follow the
Lorentzian relativity. In that case the
imagination becomes easy (in contrast to
Einstein).<br>
<br>
Greetings back<br>
Albrecht.<br>
</font></font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0C943D193FFC4E568685FEB833FA0E59@vincent"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>----- Original Message ----- </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND:
#e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
title="phys@a-giese.de"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b>
Sunday, August 27, 2017 7:48 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Hi Grahame,</p>
<p>without going into details of this discussion
I only want to point to the following fact:</p>
<p>Whereas you are of course right that the twin
situation is not a paradox but logically
clean, what we all as I think have
sufficiently discussed here, the following is
not correct in my view:</p>
<p>The twin situation has absolutely NOTHING TO
DO with gravity.</p>
<p>Two arguments for this:</p>
<p>o The so called twin paradox is purely
Special Relativity. Gravity on the other hand,
is General Relativity. This is the formal
point.</p>
<p>o From practical numbers it is visible that
gravity cannot be an explanation. Take the
usual example saying that one twin stays at
home and the other one travels - as seen from
the twin at home - for twenty years away and
then twenty years back. From the view of the
twin at home, at the other ones return 40
years have gone. For the travelling twin only
one year has gone (This case is theoretically
possible if the proper speed is taken, about
0.9997c)). Then the travelling twin would have
saved 39 years of life time. Now look at the
possible influence of gravity: Assume it takes
the travelling twin a year to change his
speed from almost c to almost - c , then, even
if the speed of proper time would decrease to
zero, he would have saved only one year. But,
in this example, he has saved 39 years. How
could this work? No one in physics assumes
that proper time can run inversely. So this is
no possible explanation.</p>
<p>How is it explained? I do not want to repeat
again and again the correct (but a bit
lengthy) explanation, but I attempt to give a
short version: In Einstein's relativity the
run of time in different frames can logically
not be continuously compared, it can only be
compared at interaction points where two
clocks (or whatever) are at the same position.
And the determination of the situation at such
common position has to be done by the Lorentz
transformation. And this determination works,
as many times said here, without logical
conflicts.</p>
<p>If you solve this problem using the
Lorentzian SRT, then the result is the same
but the argument is different, more
physics-related, and also better for the
imagination. If wanted, I can of course
explain it.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.08.2017 um
01:13 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CCE2F4D7ECF5430E943629241B634443@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML
8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">I'm sorry Wolf, but it
seems that you're still not getting it.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">This situation can be
explained fully logically WITHOUT either
twin making any assumptions about SR or GR
- simply from their own observations and
from well-proven experimental findings.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">If we label the twins A
and B, then their situations are
effectively symmetric* - so we'll consider
the scenario from the viewpoint of twin A.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">A considers him/herself
static, and all motion to be attributable
to twin B. So - and this agrees with
experimental observation of clocks at high
speed (in planes and in GPS satellites) -
twin A will observe twin B's clock running
slow, if A's own clock is not upset by any
effect. HOWEVER, since A is actually
travelling in circular motion, (s)he will
experience a centripetal force; assuming
him/herself to be static, this will
necessarily be attributed to gravitational
effects - and it's well known from
experiment (Pound-Rebka and successors)
that gravitational fields cause time
dilation - so A will expect their own
clock to be running more slowly also due
to that 'gravitational' effect (note that
this is not any assumption of SR or GR,
simply inference from proven experimental
results) [and so also A's observation of
B's clock, measured against A's own clock,
will not fit the standard SR time-dilation
model, for reasons that A will fully
comprehend]. For A, the
cumulative time-dilation for B's perceived
relative speed and for A's own perceived
'gravitational' effect exactly balance -
so A will fully expect both clocks to
coincide when the twins meet again (as B
will also).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">No paradox.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">* It needs to be said that
further study of causation of
'relativistic time dilation' leads to the
understanding that this is an objective
effect due to travelling at speed relative
to the unique objectively-static universal
reference frame. So if the centre of the
circle traced out by A and B is itself in
motion relative to that reference frame
then it cannot be assumed that A's and B's
motions will be symmetric; in that case
their clocks may well not be precisely
synchronised on their meeting again. This
is an observation relating to physical
reality, which in no way contradicts the
self-consistency of SR (or GR) as a
mathematical system.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">Best regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"
color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1048"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1026" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:106.5pt;margin-top:8.5pt;width:156pt;height:163.5pt;z-index:1'
coordorigin="3910,3784" coordsize="3120,3270">
<v:oval id="_x0000_s1027" style='position:absolute;left:3910;top:3974;width:3120;
height:3080;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/>
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t202" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="202" path="m,l,21600r21600,l21600,xe">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1028" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:4910;top:3784;width:510;height:480;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1028'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>1</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1029" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:5430;top:3814;width:510;height:480;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1029'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>21</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:line id="_x0000_s1030" style='position:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="6010,3914"
to="6890,4404" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:line id="_x0000_s1031" style='position:absolute;flip:x;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="3910,3974"
to="4820,4584" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:shape id="_x0000_s1032" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:5020;top:5254;width:810;height:490;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mass</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1033" style='position:absolute;left:5040;top:5194;
width:750;height:650' filled="f"/>
</v:group><v:shape id="_x0000_s1034" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:166.5pt;margin-top:177.3pt;width:45pt;height:22pt;z-index:2;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:oval id="_x0000_s1035" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:61.5pt;margin-top:2.1pt;width:214pt;height:214pt;z-index:3;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><v:shape
id="_x0000_s1036" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;margin-left:155.5pt;
margin-top:-26.9pt;width:25.5pt;height:24pt;z-index:4;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute'>
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1036'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>m</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:line id="_x0000_s1037" style='position:absolute;z-index:5;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' from="184.5pt,-15.4pt"
to="235.5pt,-14.9pt" coordsize="21600,21600">
<v:stroke endarrow="block"/>
</v:line><v:shape id="_x0000_s1038" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:148pt;margin-top:122.7pt;width:40.5pt;height:24.5pt;z-index:6;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mass</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1039" style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.5pt;
margin-top:79.35pt;width:29pt;height:26pt;z-index:7;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"/><v:group id="_x0000_s1041"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.5pt;margin-top:11pt;width:33.5pt;
height:28.1pt;z-index:9' coordorigin="7340,2020" coordsize="670,562">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1042" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
left:7360;top:2032;width:650;height:550;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:textbox style='mso-next-textbox:#_x0000_s1042'>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>ch</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:oval id="_x0000_s1043" style='position:absolute;left:7340;top:2020;
width:590;height:500' filled="f"/>
</v:group><v:shape id="_x0000_s1044" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:150.5pt;margin-top:79.75pt;width:31pt;height:24pt;z-index:10;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ch</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1045" style='position:absolute;margin-left:152.85pt;
margin-top:-13pt;width:25.55pt;height:34.5pt;z-index:11;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' coordsize="511,690"
path="m293,v26,67,53,135,10,180c260,225,,257,33,270v33,13,462,-22,470,-10c511,272,95,325,83,340v-12,15,348,-7,350,10c435,367,93,427,93,440v,13,337,-22,340,-10c436,442,133,493,113,510v-20,17,163,-10,200,20c350,560,341,625,333,690e"
filled="f">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1046" style='position:absolute;margin-left:151.85pt;
margin-top:94.7pt;width:25.55pt;height:34.5pt;z-index:12;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' coordsize="511,690"
path="m293,v26,67,53,135,10,180c260,225,,257,33,270v33,13,462,-22,470,-10c511,272,95,325,83,340v-12,15,348,-7,350,10c435,367,93,427,93,440v,13,337,-22,340,-10c436,442,133,493,113,510v-20,17,163,-10,200,20c350,560,341,625,333,690e"
filled="f">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape><v:shape id="_x0000_s1047" type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;
margin-left:187.5pt;margin-top:-36pt;width:113pt;height:20pt;z-index:13;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-vertical:absolute' filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:textbox>
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>~c speed of light</p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_s1040" type="#_x0000_t202"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:140pt;margin-top:4.2pt;width:45pt;
height:22pt;z-index:8;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-vertical:absolute'/><![endif]--></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<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: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<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
style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px"
alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
COLOR: #41424e; FONT-SIZE: 13px;
PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei. <a
style="COLOR: #4453ea"
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">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p> </p>
<hr> _______________________________________________<br>
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:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</blockquote>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>