<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>my answers again in your text.<br>
</p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">That is indeed correct.
It is a real force. If we have a hurricane on earth it is a result
of the Coriolis force and that is a real force. The point is,
however, that it is not a NEW force but the well known Newtonian
inertial force; just interpreted in a different way.<br>
<br>
The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real force. And
that force is the electric force, but also in this case
interpreted in a different way.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes, it is real, but
interpreted in a different way.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You are right, better
wording would be "it does not exist as a NEW force".</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">True, there is a force.
But only interpreted as something new or additional, which is not
the case.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"To make magnetism
disappear" does not mean that every force disappears. It means
that you can explain all what you observe as Coulomb force.<br>
<br>
And one should be cautious in the practical case. In daily
physical practise we measure magnetism by use of a magnetic
dipole. But that is not the correct way. Correct is to use an
electric charge, measure the force and compare it to the Coulomb
force as visible from the actual state of motion.<br>
<br>
I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the
situation in a good and correct way.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">All this has nothing to
do with quantum theory. It is one of the sources of QM that
physicists misinterpret classical physical processes, lack an
explanation and then divert to QM seeking for an explanation,
which is in those cases not needed. But misleading.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I personally do not see
the space as being created by anything. I keep my naive view that
space is nothing than emptiness and has no extra properties,
Euclidean geometry applies and is sufficient.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Should I ever encounter
an argument that this is not sufficient, I am prepared to change
my mind. But up to now it was not necessary.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Here my position is
completely opposite. We do have an independent ether as Lorentz
has assumed it. And it is an ether in the sense that the speed of
light is related to a fixed frame, and this does not cause any
logical conflicts in my understanding.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Can you please copy this
essential part of your paper here? I do not have it at hand in
this moment.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p>This is where we should return to our SR discussion and
properly add the observer to physics</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Special relativity gives
us in my view not any reason to turn to an observer dependent
physics. For Einstein's view it is correct, but for the Lorentzian
it is not necessary.<br>
<br>
Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written a book
about "Einstein and the ether". And he has - among other sources -
reprinted a letter exchange between Einstein and Lorentz about the
necessity of an ether. Lorentz described a (Gedanken) experiment
which in his view is not explainable without ether. Einstein
refused to except an ether, but he did not present any arguments
how this experiment can be understood without it.<br>
<br>
I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the physical
world in a tremendous way. There are in fact relativistic
phenomena, but Einstein's way to treat them was really bad.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
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>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Best wishes <br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:479b0594-4122-b085-7ac3-4d03ca9512c0@nascentinc.com">
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 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:part3.7674DB21.FC13C1E4@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:part4.006280D4.8BA1B872@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:part5.0F575BE3.FB5EFB60@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:part11.AB295B84.07D0776E@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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>