<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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: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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
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.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Gentlemen<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Later in Einstein’s career he <b>reversed his opinion</b> about the “ether”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As Einstein pointed out, “<i>There Is an Important argument In favor of the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty space</i>”… and he said, “<i>the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies and on the propagation of light is conceived as independent of every kind of physical influence.</i>” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But the physics community was already so attached to the idea that space was empty that Einstein’s later comments on the subject have been principally ignored.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM<br><b>To:</b> Wolfgang Baer <wolf@nascentinc.com>; general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu><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>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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.<o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p><p>more comments added<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>... and some comments back.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>Wolf<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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p><p>my answers again in your text.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>OK</b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a different way.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>OK</b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>You are right, better wording would be "it does not exist as a NEW force".<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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!<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>True, there is a force. But only interpreted as something new or additional, which is not the case.<br><br>"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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>OK</b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the situation in a good and correct way.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>So we agree until we get to this point</b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<br><br>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>We know that our brain gives us wrong or biased information about this world. Because our brains have developed to help us to survive, not to have insights. But as a guide to help us to survive it can only function if our understanding of the world is not too far away from the way as the world in fact is. <br><br>As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand this world they (at least the scientists) know the problem that our brain and our senses are misleading us. So this general problem of understanding is in the mind of the people and was in their mind at least since the time of ancient Greece. The only question is how to start with an according investigation. One way to cope with this problem is and was to build measurement tools which give us results independent of our mood. These tools are continuously developed. And we are of course not at the end of this development. But we can only develop and correct our tools if there are results and hints which give us informations on errors. Without those informations we are playing with dice, and these dice do not have 6 numbers but many thousand numbers. Does this playing make any sense for us?<br><br>Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact that our understanding is related to our brain. This assumption that a physical process depends on the consciousness of the observer has a different origin. Heisenberg found himself completely unable and helpless to understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he once said that we have to go back to Plato and so he threw away all that progress which Newton has brought into our physical understanding. And on the other hand he neglected the proposal of Louis de Broglie about the particle-wave question because at that time he was already so much related to a mysterious view that he was no more able to leave that. - At this point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie that a mystification of physics will not give us progress.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>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.</b><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Ether is not compatible with Einstein's understanding of relativity. But also QM is not compatible with Einstein's relativity. So I do not see any specific connection of QM to the absence of an ether. QM simple does not to care.<br><br>Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not helpful. Lorentz told him situations which by Lorentz view are not understandable without ether. Einstein repeated his denial of an ether but he could not answer the questions of Lorentz. <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><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?</b><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything more than the existence of a fixed frame. And in the view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly my view, the photons of our light are giving us this reference. All photons move with the same - absolute - speed c, and this speed is related to something. I guess to the position and motion state of the Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a different red shift depending on the direction. And we can quite easily calculate which motion with respect to our earth we must have so that this red shift becomes isotropic. This tells us what the reference of the ether most probably is.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Can you please copy this essential part of your paper here? I do not have it at hand in this moment.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>SEE ATTACHED</b><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>This is where we should return to our SR discussion and properly add the observer to physics<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><b>I agree and this agreement is what gave us a common goal of finding a better explanation.</b><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Hopefully<br>Albrecht<b><br><br></b><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p>best wishes<o:p></o:p></p><p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Best wishes <br>Albrecht<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly the magnetic field is a non-existent field.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Regarding “<b>The relative velocity between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field.”</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force between two current segments is oin differential form<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> d<b>F12</b> = - I1*I2 (<b>dl1</b> ● <b>dl2</b>)*<b>X12</b> /(c<sup>2</sup> * |<b>X12</b>|<sup>3</sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>now the current is charge q1*<b>v1 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>and q2*<b>v2 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>substituting means the magnetic force between the two charges is dependent on the dot product between the two velocities (<b>v1</b> ● <b>v2</b>). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity dependent potentials p19<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Now your statement ‘<b>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>However I see both charges in <b>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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb field is passed upon the measured force between a test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So that the total force on the test charge is<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> F =~ SUM over all n ( Qt * Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>And it is possible to introduce a field <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> E = SUM over all n ( Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>As that F= Qt * E<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false interpretations of charge to charge interactions. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>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.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>that is for another discussion<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Which else discussion? <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>best wishes<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>wolf<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Best wishes<br>Albrecht<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p><p>my comments and explanations in the text below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><img border=0 width=208 height=95 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.gif@01D3B491.B171D000"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent reality. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>That may be the case but has nothing to do with our discussion here. </span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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 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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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. </span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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 <o:p></o:p></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=left><tr style='height:12.0pt'><td width=89 style='width:66.75pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;height:12.0pt'></td></tr><tr><td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'></td><td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-element:frame;mso-element-frame-hspace:2.25pt;mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-height-rule:exactly'><img border=0 width=258 height=115 id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image002.gif@01D3B491.B171D000"><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p><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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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:</span><br><img border=0 width=272 height=55 id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image003.png@01D3B491.B171D000"><br><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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.</span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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.</span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Anything still controversial? Then please explain.<br>Albrecht</span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Tell me why I’m wrong<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wolf <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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>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. </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><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'>However, let me pose a question to think.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'> </span><o:p></o:p></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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'> </span><o:p></o:p></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?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'>Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92'>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><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">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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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><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">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">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="cid:image004.gif@01D3B491.B171D000" o:title="part12.1C7DC3E8.CB9C6F2E@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=254 height=1 src="cid:image005.png@01D3B491.FEDD7420" align=left v:shapes="_x0000_s1026"><![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">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">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">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">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">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">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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>