<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism and
coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can be created or
not by the way we look at phenomena.</p>
<p>WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look at the
physics of the observer as an integral and necessary part of how
phenomena are perceived. And this is where we should be focusing
our discussion. What assumptions are valid and what physics would
we develop if we change our assumptions?<br>
</p>
<p>more comments added</p>
<p>Wolf<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 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">OK</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">OK</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<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>
</font></blockquote>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">OK</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">So we agree until we
get to this point</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<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>
<b>Does the fact that you simply are not recognizing that it is your
first person perspective in which "empty" space appears that is
your fundamental experience and any assumption that such
experience is due to a real space is Theory. Do you not ask how is
it that I am able to create the sensations I have. Are you and
your experiences not part of the reality and therefore must be
explained as part of your if you are to have a comprehensive
theory. AND there is no explanation in classic or relativistic
physics for the consciousness of the observer. One must begin to
think in Quantum terms</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">OK so you make the
assumption that we do have an independent ether. That is the old
"naive reality" assumption and classic mechanics and EM theory
is built on this assumption. But quantum theory is no longer
built on this assumption. <br>
<br>
So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether is
attached to my fixed frame? Are they different ethers? Or is
there one ether, and we are all material objects moving in that
ether who just happen to be able to interpret some
configurations of material as space with objects moving in them.
why should our mental display of our experience be anything but
one possible way of building a mental display along a very very
long path of evolution. Do you really believe you are the
pinnacle or end of that process?<br>
</font></b>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">SEE ATTACHED</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de">
<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>
<b><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I agree and this
agreement is what gave us a common goal of finding a better
explanation.</font></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4f1a5d39-faa6-7053-cc36-1090bfcc6347@a-giese.de"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </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.CE2DE9AC.E2537BC6@nascentinc.com"
class="" width="208" height="95"></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 width="89" height="16"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><img
src="cid:part4.AE89EA77.C0058DF0@nascentinc.com"
class="" width="258" height="115"></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.CD06DC88.A34F180E@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:part11.4C5BB0BA.39DEB398@nascentinc.com"
v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" class=""
align="left" width="254" height="250"><!--[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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>