<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic force is a
good example that shows we are talking about ttwo different
things. I was taught exactly what you repeated below in Mr. Bray's
physics class and did not believe it then because when I take a
ride on a Merry-go-Round I feel a force that is real. Period.</p>
<p>I do not care what you call it You can look at me from many
different angles and in many different ways but the force I feel
is real, <br>
</p>
<p>What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of is that in
the sentence "The Coriolis force is a non-existent force." it is
the name of the force that may be the wrong name for the force I
experience, but the force is real.</p>
<p>All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz Force F=
E*q + B xV , where V my velocity.You think I am arguing but I am
not arguing that by moving at some velocity you can make B
disappear in your equation and by moving at another velocity you
can make V equal to zero in your equation. I am arguing that you
cannot make the phenomena disappear. No matter how many theories
you invent and how many different names you invent. The phenomena,
the force I feel does not depend on your theory. I and the
situation I am in is an independent reality. All you can do with
Lorenz transformations is shift the name of the force from
magnatic to and additional Coulonb component. Exactly the same way
moving from astationary observer at the center of the
Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the force from acceleration to
Coreolis. Its the same force!<br>
</p>
<p>Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to go) one begins
to believe and evoke the principles of quantum theory or its
marcro-scopic extension which I am trying to develop.</p>
<p>In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian phenomena are
true in the coordinate frame of the observer BECAUSE the
coordinate frame supplies the space , now called Hilbert space in
which those phenomena are displayed to the observer. The observer
IS the coordinate frame and his observable phenomena occur within
the space defined by that coordinate frame. Everything you see is
seen in a space you create within the material from which you are
built. <br>
</p>
<p>All the physics before Einstein was developed with the assumption
that there is an independent objective 3D reality space ( and it
should be a stationary ether) in which all these objects appear.
Einstein almost got it right. There is no independent ether and it
all depends upon the coordinate frame. He did not take the next
step. We observers are the coordinate frame each of us supplies
the ether. <br>
</p>
<p>Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the first part
where I'm trying to show why SR is wrong - you argued a lot with
that. The real reason SR is wrong is because Einstein developed it
without recognizing that his imagination supplied the background
ether and his rail car and .embankment observer where "RIDING
ALONG" with their coordinate frames observing Einsteins imaginary
space. They were not IN their own space.</p>
<p>This is where we should return to our SR discussion and properly
add the observer to physics</p>
CHANDRA- there may be an abstract independent CTF but my suggestion
is that it may be the ether each of us is made of and therefor may
be thought to be stationary.<br>
<p> </p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8571c3bc-9778-2d91-5f23-767fe78e5a2e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:part2.71B9275E.723DB411@nascentinc.com"
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.F4EA5267.FC3F400D@nascentinc.com"
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.EF87BEB6.85CEF7E4@nascentinc.com" 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:part10.62072B03.83C837DA@nascentinc.com"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>