<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>I think that there is a simple answer to your concern regarding
magnetism. If you accept that magnetism is not a real physical
entity but a seeming effect then there should not exist the
logical conflicts which you see.</p>
<p>I think that the Coriolis force is a good example to understand
the situation: Assume that you are sitting in a cabin without a
view to the outside. Now assume that this cabin is rotating very
silently so that you do not notice the rotation. You are sitting
in a chair in the middle on the rotational axis. Now you throw a
ball from your position away from you. You will expect that the
ball flies on a straight path off. But you will observe that the
ball flies on a curved path. And what will be your explanation?
You will think that there must be a force which moves the ball to
the side. - This is the Coriolis force.</p>
<p>But this force does not in fact exist. If there is an observer on
top of the cabin and can look into the cabin, in his view the ball
moves on a straight line. And there is no reason for a force. <br>
</p>
<p>The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly the
magnetic field is a non-existent field.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><!--[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]--></p>
<p><!--[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]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a tremendous aversion to believing
that the observer (unless we are talking quantum effects where
measurement interferes with the object measured ) can have any
effect on the independent “whatever it is” out there. But
physicists often confuse measurement results with physical
realities. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding “<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">The relative velocity
between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field.”</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states
the force between two current segments is oin differential form</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>d<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">F12</b><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>= - I1*I2 (<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">dl1</b> ● <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">dl2</b>)*<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">X12</b> /(c<sup>2</sup> *
|<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">X12</b>|<sup>3</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">now the current is charge q1*<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">v1 = </b>I1*<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">dl1 </b>and q2*<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">v2 = </b>I1*<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">dl1 </b>substituting
means the magnetic force between the two charges is dependent on
the dot product between the two velocities (<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">v1</b> ● <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">v2</b>). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics
talks about velocity dependent potentials p19</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1
x B12 while the magnetic field is dependent on v! , so the force
is dependent on two velocities.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now your statement ‘<b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">But the magnetic field
depends on the relative velocity between the observer and the
one charge and the observer and the other charge. Where
"observer" means the measuring tool.” </b>Is certainly true
because one can always define one coordinate frame that moves
with velocity of the first charge and a second coordinate frame
that moves with the velocity of the second charge. So in these
two coordinate frames each one would say there is no B field.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However I see both charges in <b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">one coordinate frame</b>
and that is how the experiments leading to the force equations
were conducted. So I question whether your assumption that there
are two coordinate frames and I assume you would like to
connected by the Lorenz transforms reflects physical reality. </p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I have asked you in the
previous mail NOT to argue with coordinate frames because we
should discuss physics and not mathematics. Now you cite me with
statements about coordinate frames. How can I understand that?<br>
<br>
However if you really insist to talk about frames: The saying that
two charges are in different coordinate frames means that these
charges are <u>at rest</u> in different coordinate frames. They
can of course be investigated by an observer (or a tool) which
resides in <u>one </u>frame.<br>
<br>
The equation from Jackson which you have cited above is
essentially the same as the one that I gave you in the previous
mail. And it says also that the magnetic field depends on the <u>product
</u>of both charges involved, not on their difference.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I reiterate the concept of fields even the
coulomb field<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is passed
upon the measured force between a test charge <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Qt and another charge Qn. So
that the total force on the test charge is</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>F =~<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>SUM over all
n (<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Qt * Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And it is possible to introduce a field </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>E = SUM over all n (<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Qn
/ Rtn<sup>2</sup>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As that <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>F=
Qt * E</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume
that physically E is a property of space rather than simply the
sum of charge to charge interactions that would happen if a test
charge were at that space is a counter factual. And not
consistent with the quantum photon theory.</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Why do you assume that a
field is a property of space? If you assume that space is nothing
else than emptiness then you will have all necessary results. Why
making things unnecessarily complicated?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Which by the way I think is also wrong.
Photons are false interpretations of charge to charge
interactions. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I do not remember that we
talk here about quantum theory. For this discussion at least it is
not needed. And regarding photons, I have explained very detailed
that photons - as I have measured them in my thesis work - are
particles with specific properties; but clearly particles. You did
not object to my arguments but you repeat your statement that a
photon as a particle is a false interpretation. It would be good
to hear argument than only statements.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that is for another discussion</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Which else discussion? </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">best wishes</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Best wishes<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05978305-1a73-2dd2-8d86-5749260bfb5c@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:11f8cb71-1ee7-4a25-5a83-45a9eb68aa49@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>my comments and explanations in the text below.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am 25.02.2018 um
05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
</p>
<p>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think I understand your arguments since
this is what is generally taught, however I have always been
uncomfortable with the statements involving “observer”.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I question your statement “<span
style="font-size:13.5pt">The different amount seen by the
observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related
Lorentz transformation - from the frame of the electrons
to the frame of the observer.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now ancient experiments discovered that
there are two reciprocal forces between charges. The
relative distance R gives the Coulomb force F<sub>E</sub>
and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force F<sub>B </sub></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore:vglayout;
position:absolute;z-index:1;margin-left:161px;margin-top:17px;width:208px;
height:95px"><img
src="cid:part2.004C039E.B0751A07@a-giese.de" class=""
height="95" width="208"></span><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now if these are independent entities
whose existence does not depend upon any observation made by
the observer (until we get to quantum measurements) . <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">This means the physics
is fixed </i>and so are the parameters. Any measurement
made by any coordinate frame when properly processed for its
own distortions will result in the same parameters, so R,V,
F<sub>B</sub>, F<sub>E</sub><sup> </sup>and yes the speed
of light must be constant. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>If the measurement results differ either we do not
have objective measurement independent reality or else there
is an unaccounted artifact in the measurement process.</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">There is an error in your above arguments. The
relative velocity between charges does NOT determine the
magnetic field. But the magnetic field depends on the relative
velocity between the observer and the one charge and the
observer and the other charge. Where "observer" means the
measuring tool.<br>
<br>
The entities are not independent in so far as any observer
will see them in a different way. That is not a consequence of
quantum mechanics but very simply the consequence of the fact
that in a moving system the tools change (like rulers contract
and clocks are slowed down) and so their measurement results
differ from a tool measuring while being at rest. This is the
reason that we need a Lorentz transformation to compare
physical entities in one moving frame to entities in another
moving frame.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I and QM claims there is no objective
measurement independent reality. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">That may be the case but has nothing to do with
our discussion here. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame
dilates and shrinks so that when raw measurements are made
and no correction is applied we may not<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>observe a magnetic
field but instead a different Coulomb field so that the
actual result on the object measured remains the same only
the names of the causes have been changed. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">You are permanently referring to coordinate
frames. But we are treating here physical facts and not
mathematical ones. So coordinates should be omitted as an
argument as I have proposed it earlier. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now consider looking at the same two
charges from an arbitrary coordinate frame. then in that
frame the two charges will have wo velocities V1 and V2 but
there will always be a difference V </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore:vglayout"> </span></p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="16" width="89"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><img src="cid:part3.E39F59CC.138B92DC@a-giese.de"
class="" height="115" width="258"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL">
<p class="MsoNormal">I contend that it does not matter what
frame you chose cannot get rid of the relative velocity. The
only way you can get rid of the magnetic field is if there
was no relative velocity in the first palace. And there
never was a magnetic field in the physics. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">As soon as the observer moves in the same frame,
i.e. with the same speed vector as one of the charges, he does
not see a magnetic field. In the deduction of the magnetic
field which I have attached (from a talk at a conference last
year) the magnetic force is defined by the equation:</font><br>
<img src="cid:part4.F6858224.0B3D8538@a-giese.de" alt=""
class=""><br>
<font size="-1">where v and u are the speeds of two charges, q1
and q2, , with respect to the observer. y is the distance and
gamma the Lorentz factor in the set up shown.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore your further conclusion “<span
style="font-size: 13.5pt">As soon as an observer moves
with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the
frame of one of the charges, then there is no magnetic
field for him.” </span>Is only true if there was no
magnetic field in the first place, a very special case.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We must be very careful not to confuse
the actual physics in a situation with the way we look at
it. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">I guess that you know the Coriolis force. This
force is somewhat similar to magnetism. It is in effect for
one observer but not for another one depending on the
observer's motion. And there is nothing mysterious about it,
and also quantum mechanics is not needed for an explanation.<br>
<br>
In your logic you would have to say: If there is no Coriolis
force then there is no inertial mass. But that is clearly not
the case.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we apply the same analysis to the
Michelson Morley experiment I think we will also find that
there never was a fringe shift in the physics. The physics
states charges interact with other charges, basta.
Introducing fields and then attributing what has always been
a summation of many charge effects on one test charge onto a
property of empty space is simply a convenient mathematical
trick that hides the physical reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">The MM experiment is easily explained by the
fact that there is contraction in the direction of motion.
Nothing more is needed to explain the null-result. In the view
of Einstein space contracts and in the view of Lorentz the
apparatus contracts as the internal fields contract. And the
latter is a known phenomenon in physics.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com"><font
size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I further submit this as an argument that
mass and charge are fundamental physics and if there is to
be a CTF it is the tension that holds mass and charge
together when electro-magentic forces operating on charge
densities and gravito-inertial forces operating on mass
densities are not balanced and pulls mass and charge apart.
I further submit the the resulting fluctuations in the
mass-charge densities leads to CTF propagating patterns that
are an ontologically defensible interpretation of
Schroedingers Wave function.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">An indication that mass is not fundamental is
the fact that mass can be converted into energy. On the other
hand charge cannot be converted into energy; this can be taken
as an argument that it is fundamental.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">Anything still controversial? Then please
explain.<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why I’m wrong</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf </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 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cd0035cb-000b-d53c-4add-68bf5acc2f0d@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font size="+1">Chandra:</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">If two electrons move side by side, the
main force between them is of course the electrostatic
one. But there is an additional contribution to the
force which is measured in the frame of an observer at
rest (like the one of Millikan). In the frame of the
moving electrons (maybe they belong to the same frame)
there is only the electrostatic force, true. The
different amount seen by the observer can be calculated
by the use of the force-related Lorentz transformation -
from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the
observer.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">If the oil-drop chamber is in steady
motion this has primarily no influence. Important is the
motion state of the observer. If the observer is at rest
with respect to the moving oil-drops (and so of the
electrons), he will notice a contribution of magnetism.
Any motion of the chamber does not matter for this fact.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">In general magnetism is visible for an
observer who is in motion with respect to both charges
under consideration. As soon as an observer moves with
one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame
of one of the charges, then there is no magnetic field
for him. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Your example of two compass needles is a
more complex one even if it does not look so. To treat
this case correctly we have to take into account the
cause of the magnetism of the needle, that means of the
circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do
this then - seen from our own frame - both groups of
charges are moving, the charges in the conductor and
also the charges in the needle's atoms. So as both are
moving with respect to the observer, this is the cause
for a magnetic field between both objects. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Albrecht<br>
</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32346522A179CDFD4D1D280F93CD0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:210265128;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1952207248 397949086 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Albrecht:
Your point is well taken. Not being expert in
magnetism, I need to spend more time on this issue.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">However, let
me pose a question to think.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">If two
electrons are trapped in two side by side but
separate Millikan oil drops, the two electrons feel
each other’s static E-field, but no magnetic field.
If the oil-drop chamber was given a steady velocity,
could Millikan have measured the presence of a
magnetic field due to the moving electrons
(“current”), which would have been dying out as the
chamber moved further away? This experiment can be
conceived in many different ways and can be
executed. Hence, this is not a pure “Gedanken”
experiment. I am sure, some equivalent experiment
has been done by somebody. Send me the reference, if
you can find one. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Are two
parallel current carrying conductors deflecting
magnetic needles (undergraduate experiment)
different from two independent electrons moving
parallel to each other?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">I have just
re-phrased Einstein’s example that you have given
below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational
questions Tension field stable particles<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I like very much what
you have written here. Particularly what you say
about "time" which physically means oscillations.
That is what one should keep in mind when thinking
about relativity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However in one point I
have to object. That is your judgement of the
parameter</span> <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ</span>.
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> I think that it is a
result from the historical fact that magnetism was
detected long time earlier than electricity. So
magnetism plays a great role in our view of physics
which does not reflect its role there. We know since
about 100 years that magnetism is not a primary
phenomenon but an apparent effect, a side effect of
the electric field which is caused by the finiteness
of c. If c would be infinite there would not be any
magnetism. This is given by the equation </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">c<sup>2</sup>
= (1/ϵµ)</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> which
you have mentioned. This equation should be better
written as </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ = (1/c<sup>2</sup>ϵ) </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> to reflect this physical
fact, the dependency of the magnetism on c. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The symmetry between
electricity and magnetism is suggested by Maxwell's
equation. These equations are mathematically very
elegant and well usable in practice. But they do not
reflect the physical reality. Easiest visible is the
fact that we have electrical monopoles but no
magnetic monopoles. Einstein has described this fact
by saying: Whenever an observer is in a magnetic
field, he can find a motion state so that the
magnetic field disappears. - This is as we know not
possible for an electric field.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that we have
discussed this earlier. Do you remember?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“We nee</i><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">d a geometry in which
both space and time are curved back on
themselves to provide a donut in which the
forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained
eigen states at each action quanta. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Does
any of this suggest a tension field you might be
thinking about??”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Yes,
Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists
and turns” of different intrinsic potential
gradients embedded in CTF (Complex Tension Field)
to create stationary self-looped oscillations (<b><i>field-particles</i></b>).
Maxwell achieved that for the propagating linear
excitations using his brilliant observations of
using the double differentiation – giving us the
EM wave equation. We need to find non-propagating
(stationary – Newton’s first law) self-looped
oscillations – the in-phase ones will be stable,
others will “break apart” with different
life-times depending upon how far they are from
the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The successes
of the mathematical oscillatory dynamic model
could be judged by the number of predicted
properties the theory can find for the <b><i>field-particles,</i></b>
which we have measured so far. The physical CTF
must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic
energy. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> However,
I would not attempt to keep the primacy of
Relativity by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D
concept intact. If we want to capture the
ontological reality; we must imagine and visualize
the potential <b><i>foundational</i></b> physical
process and represent that with a set of algebraic
symbols and call them the primary parameters of
“different grades”. During constructing
mathematical theories, it is of prime importance
to introduce consciously this concept of
“primary”, vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
physical parameters related to any observable
physical phenomenon. The physical parameter that
dictates the core existence of an entity in nature
should be considered as primary. However, it is
not going to be easy because of the complexities
in the different interaction processes – different
parameters take key role in transferring the
energy in different interactions. Besides, our
ignorance is still significantly broad compared to
the “validated” knowledge we have gathered about
our universe. Here is a glaring example. νλ = c =
(1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic physics, ν is of
primary importance because of the quantum
resonance with ν and the QM energy exchange rule
is “hν”. “λ” changes from medium to medium. If I
am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are
of primary significance; even though people tend
to use “c”, while missing out the fundamental
roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core building
blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ
and µ of free space were recognized well before
Maxwell synthesized Electromagnetism.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> With
this background, I want underscore that the
“running time, “t” is of critical importance in
our formulation of the dynamic universe. And, yet
“t’ is not a directly measurable physical
parameter of any object in this universe. What we
measure is really the frequency, or its inverse,
the oscillation periods of different physical
oscillators in this universe. So, frequency can be
dilated or contracted by controlling the ambient
physical parameter of the environment that
surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator. The
running time cannot be dilated or contracted; even
though Minkowsky introduced this “dilation”
concept. This is the reason why I have been
pushing for the introduction in physics thinking
the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology
(IPM-E). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational
questions Tension field stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Candra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Let’s
consider your tension filed is a medium underlying
the experience of space composed of charge and mass
density spread out in the cross-section of a time
loop.. Coordinate frame cells of <i>small enough</i>
sizes can be described by constant enough mass and
charge densities in each cell. For small enough
cells the mass and charge values concentrated at
their centers may be used in stead of the densities.
The resulting field of center values can take any
pattern that satisfies the extended dAlambert
principle. Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem
and gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate forces
tat hold charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc. This
condition assures mass charge centers in each cell
appear at locations of balanced forces. Each
pattern which satisfies this condition represents a
static state of the loop in which the patterns are
fixed for the lifetime of the loop.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The Charge-Mass Separation
Vector and Equilibrium States</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">The
physical size of the space is its volume. The
volume (Vol) of space is the sum of the
infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the cells
composing that space “Vol = ∫<sub>all space</sub>
dVol”. These infinitesimal volumes are calculated
from the mass-charge density extensions in each cell
when viewed externally as shown in figure 4.3-3a .
The physical volume depends upon the mass charge
separation pattern of the equilibrium state the
system being modeled exists in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In CAT the extension
of a cell can be calculated as follows. In each cell
the distance between the center of charge and mass
is a vector d<b>ζ.</b> The projection of this vector
onto the degrees of freedom directions available for
the charge and mass to move in the generalized
coordinate space allows us to expansion this vector
as, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4.3-1 <b>dζ
=</b> dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙u<sub>t</sub></b> + dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙u<sub>x</sub>
</b>+ dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙u<sub>y</sub> </b>+ dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙u<sub>z</sub>
+…</b> dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙u<sub>f</sub> +…,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b>where the <b>u<sub>f</sub></b>’s
are the unit vectors. A space limited to Cartesian
3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions,
but CAT models a generalized space that encompasses
all sensor modalities not only the optical ones. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The volume of a cell
calculated from the diagonal expansion vector “<b>dζ”</b>
by multiplying all non zero coefficients,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq. 4.3-2
dVol = dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙…∙</b>dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙…
.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The shape of this
volume is determined by the direction of the
expansion vector which in turn is determined by the
direction and strength of forces pulling the charge
and mass apart. The direction of pull depends upon
the number of dimensions available in the
generalized coordinates of the media. The forces
must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium pattern
depends upon which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ”
the event being modeled is in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In the simplest
equilibrium state the masses and charges are
collocated. This implies the internal forward
propagating in time forces F<sub>cm</sub>,F<sub>mc</sub>,
and backward propagating in time force F<sub>mc</sub>*,F<sub>cm</sub>*
are zero, and if there are no internal force pulling
the charges and masses together then sum of the
remaining exterior gravito-electric forces pulling
the charge and mass apart must separately be zero
precisely at the collocation point. A trivial
condition that satisfies these equations is when all
forces are zero. In this case there is no action in
the media and no action for expanding the coordinate
frame defining a volume of space. We are back to a
formless blob of zero volume, where all charges and
masses are at the same point. This is the absolute
ground state of material, one level of something
above nothing. The big bang before the energy of
action flow is added. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:190.5pt;height:187.5pt;z-index:251658240;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6035&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif" o:title="part1.89B7AF17.E7420CB4@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
style="width:2.6458in;height:2.6041in"
src="cid:part10.2F36D251.BD453E19@a-giese.de"
v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" class="" align="left"
height="250" width="254"><!--[endif]-->To
exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium
state of a single isolated cell whose only degree of
freedom is the time direction. This means the volume
in all space directions are infinitesimally small
and the volume can be considered a single line of
extension “ΔVol = ΔT<sub>w</sub> = ∫dζ<sub><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">t</span></sub><span
style="font-size:14.0pt"> “ </span>along the time
direction as shown in the god’s eye perspective of
figure 4.3-6. In this situation we can consider
charges and masses to be point particles. Forces as
well as action can only propagate along the material
length of the line time line represented in space as
“Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can
propagate through around the equilibrium positions
indicated by numbers in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(1)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position
(filled icon) forward along the time line<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(2)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->It
exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it
forward while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that
retards it back to its equilibrium position<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(3)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts
an internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while
feeling a reaction force “Fcm*” which returns it to
equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(4)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts
a force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a
reaction force “Fgi*” which returns it to
equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(5)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a
reaction force “Fmc*” which returns it to
equilibrium. We are now back to (1).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">If the
system is isolated there is no dissipation into
other degrees of freedom and the oscillation
continues to move as a compression wave around the
“Qw” time line circumference forever. The graph
however is static and shows a fixed amount of action
indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line.
Motion in “block” models is produced by the velocity
of the observer or model operator as he moves around
the time line. From our god’s eye perspective an
action density is permanently painted on the clock
dial and thereby describes an total event. The last
degree of freedom events are rather trivial <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We need a geometry in
which both space and time are curved back on
themselves to provide a donut in which the forces
Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at
each action quanta. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does any of this suggest a
tension field you might be thinking about??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Yes, I have submitted an
essay. FQXi has not sent the approval link yet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Replacement of our SPIE
conf. Without a supporting infrastructure to
replace SPIE-like support, it is very difficult
to manage. I will try NSF during the last week
of May. Do you want to start negotiating with
some out-of-box European groups? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Re-starting afresh from
the bottom up is the only way to start
re-building a unified field theory. It is futile
to force-fit whole bunch of different theories
that were structured differently at different
states of human cultural epoch.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
<<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of
evolution..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I love the sentiment " This is a good time
to start iteratively re-evaluating and
restructuring all the foundational
postulates behind all the working theories"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Did you write a paper for FQXi?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I sent one in <a
href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE conference, one that would expand the questions </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">beyond the nature of light?</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto: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>
</body>
</html>