<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>when you say that acceleration of a charge is normally done by
the application of an electric field, then I find this an
interesting point. According to Maxwell's theory the radiation
should be independent of the type of acceleration. But that may be
questionable as Maxwell's equations are on the one hand a very
good and usable description of electric and magnetic phenomena but
on the other do not tell us anything about the physical causes of
the relation of electric and magnetic fields.</p>
<p>In the view of my particle model this radiation is caused by the
reaction between charges and fields. But I know that this is not
common understanding. But that would, if applicable, indeed mean
that acceleration e.g. in a gravitational field will not cause
radiation. <br>
</p>
<p>If we follow this view then the radiation at acceleration would
not be in conflict with the equivalence principle. But the other
aspect, dilation, is in conflict. There is very clearly dilation
in a gravitational field but clearly not with respect to
acceleration. Best proof for the letter was, as I have already
written, the muon storage ring at CERN. - This latter does not
help the observer in Einstein's cabin but is in general a
violation of the equivalence principle. <br>
</p>
<p>And so Einstein's logical basis for General Relativity does not
exist. - However, there is a version of General Relativity which
does not have these problems, that is the extension of the
Lorentzian interpretation of SRT towards GRT. You find this on my
web site: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity">www.ag-physics.org/gravity</a> .</p>
<p>Regarding your comment concerning the Van Allen Belt: What has
radiation in that case to do with magnetism?<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.09.2017 um 04:16 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5658039f-07a1-7ba6-add1-af8b8f471a1b@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>