<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf:<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
... and some comments back.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
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>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com">
<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.</font></b></blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font><b><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><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>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com"><b><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </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>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thank you.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com">
<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>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hopefully<br>
Albrecht<b><br>
</b></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e79b401-86c6-47d1-8067-5c202598d5d0@nascentinc.com">
<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:part4.62A43779.994C936E@a-giese.de"
class="" height="95" width="208"></span><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now if these are independent
entities whose existence does not depend upon any
observation made by the observer (until we get to
quantum measurements) . <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">This means the
physics is fixed </i>and so are the parameters.
Any measurement made by any coordinate frame when
properly processed for its own distortions will
result in the same parameters, so R,V, F<sub>B</sub>,
F<sub>E</sub><sup> </sup>and yes the speed of light
must be constant. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span>If the measurement results differ either we
do not have objective measurement independent
reality or else there is an unaccounted artifact in
the measurement process.</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">There is an error in your above
arguments. The relative velocity between charges does
NOT determine the magnetic field. But the magnetic
field depends on the relative velocity between the
observer and the one charge and the observer and the
other charge. Where "observer" means the measuring
tool.<br>
<br>
The entities are not independent in so far as any
observer will see them in a different way. That is not
a consequence of quantum mechanics but very simply the
consequence of the fact that in a moving system the
tools change (like rulers contract and clocks are
slowed down) and so their measurement results differ
from a tool measuring while being at rest. This is the
reason that we need a Lorentz transformation to
compare physical entities in one moving frame to
entities in another moving frame.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I and QM claims there is no
objective measurement independent reality. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">That may be the case but has nothing to
do with our discussion here. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorenz assumed the coordinate
frame dilates and shrinks so that when raw
measurements are made and no correction is applied
we may not<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>observe
a magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb
field so that the actual result on the object
measured remains the same only the names of the
causes have been changed. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">You are permanently referring to
coordinate frames. But we are treating here physical
facts and not mathematical ones. So coordinates should
be omitted as an argument as I have proposed it
earlier. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now consider looking at the same
two charges from an arbitrary coordinate frame. then
in that frame the two charges will have wo
velocities V1 and V2 but there will always be a
difference V </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore:vglayout">
</span></p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="16" width="89"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><img
src="cid:part5.82019B0E.F8AA4B0A@a-giese.de"
class="" height="115" width="258"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup></p>
<br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL">
<p class="MsoNormal">I contend that it does not matter
what frame you chose cannot get rid of the relative
velocity. The only way you can get rid of the
magnetic field is if there was no relative velocity
in the first palace. And there never was a magnetic
field in the physics. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">As soon as the observer moves in the
same frame, i.e. with the same speed vector as one of
the charges, he does not see a magnetic field. In the
deduction of the magnetic field which I have attached
(from a talk at a conference last year) the magnetic
force is defined by the equation:</font><br>
<img src="cid:part6.021A2552.DE864011@a-giese.de" alt=""
class=""><br>
<font size="-1">where v and u are the speeds of two
charges, q1 and q2, , with respect to the observer. y
is the distance and gamma the Lorentz factor in the
set up shown.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore your further conclusion
“<span style="font-size: 13.5pt">As soon as an
observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is at rest
with respect to the frame of one of the charges,
then there is no magnetic field for him.” </span>Is
only true if there was no magnetic field in the
first place, a very special case.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We must be very careful not to
confuse the actual physics in a situation with the
way we look at it. </p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">I guess that you know the Coriolis
force. This force is somewhat similar to magnetism. It
is in effect for one observer but not for another one
depending on the observer's motion. And there is
nothing mysterious about it, and also quantum
mechanics is not needed for an explanation.<br>
<br>
In your logic you would have to say: If there is no
Coriolis force then there is no inertial mass. But
that is clearly not the case.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we apply the same analysis to
the Michelson Morley experiment I think we will also
find that there never was a fringe shift in the
physics. The physics states charges interact with
other charges, basta. Introducing fields and then
attributing what has always been a summation of many
charge effects on one test charge onto a property of
empty space is simply a convenient mathematical
trick that hides the physical reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">The MM experiment is easily explained by
the fact that there is contraction in the direction of
motion. Nothing more is needed to explain the
null-result. In the view of Einstein space contracts
and in the view of Lorentz the apparatus contracts as
the internal fields contract. And the latter is a
known phenomenon in physics.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com"><font
size="-1"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I further submit this as an
argument that mass and charge are fundamental
physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the
tension that holds mass and charge together when
electro-magentic forces operating on charge
densities and gravito-inertial forces operating on
mass densities are not balanced and pulls mass and
charge apart. I further submit the the resulting
fluctuations in the mass-charge densities leads to
CTF propagating patterns that are an ontologically
defensible interpretation of Schroedingers Wave
function.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">An indication that mass is not
fundamental is the fact that mass can be converted
into energy. On the other hand charge cannot be
converted into energy; this can be taken as an
argument that it is fundamental.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"> </font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">Anything still controversial? Then
please explain.<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:52dd11be-779d-5b60-586c-75d49b237ba3@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why I’m wrong</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf </p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cd0035cb-000b-d53c-4add-68bf5acc2f0d@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font size="+1">Chandra:</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">If two electrons move side by
side, the main force between them is of course
the electrostatic one. But there is an
additional contribution to the force which is
measured in the frame of an observer at rest
(like the one of Millikan). In the frame of the
moving electrons (maybe they belong to the same
frame) there is only the electrostatic force,
true. The different amount seen by the observer
can be calculated by the use of the
force-related Lorentz transformation - from the
frame of the electrons to the frame of the
observer.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">If the oil-drop chamber is in
steady motion this has primarily no influence.
Important is the motion state of the observer.
If the observer is at rest with respect to the
moving oil-drops (and so of the electrons), he
will notice a contribution of magnetism. Any
motion of the chamber does not matter for this
fact.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">In general magnetism is visible
for an observer who is in motion with respect to
both charges under consideration. As soon as an
observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is at
rest with respect to the frame of one of the
charges, then there is no magnetic field for
him. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Your example of two compass
needles is a more complex one even if it does
not look so. To treat this case correctly we
have to take into account the cause of the
magnetism of the needle, that means of the
circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we
would do this then - seen from our own frame -
both groups of charges are moving, the charges
in the conductor and also the charges in the
needle's atoms. So as both are moving with
respect to the observer, this is the cause for a
magnetic field between both objects. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Albrecht<br>
</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32346522A179CDFD4D1D280F93CD0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:210265128;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1952207248 397949086 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Albrecht:
Your point is well taken. Not being expert
in magnetism, I need to spend more time on
this issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">However,
let me pose a question to think.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">If
two electrons are trapped in two side by
side but separate Millikan oil drops, the
two electrons feel each other’s static
E-field, but no magnetic field. If the
oil-drop chamber was given a steady
velocity, could Millikan have measured the
presence of a magnetic field due to the
moving electrons (“current”), which would
have been dying out as the chamber moved
further away? This experiment can be
conceived in many different ways and can be
executed. Hence, this is not a pure
“Gedanken” experiment. I am sure, some
equivalent experiment has been done by
somebody. Send me the reference, if you can
find one. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Are
two parallel current carrying conductors
deflecting magnetic needles (undergraduate
experiment) different from two independent
electrons moving parallel to each other?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">I
have just re-phrased Einstein’s example that
you have given below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 22, 2018
2:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension field
stable particles<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I like very
much what you have written here.
Particularly what you say about "time" which
physically means oscillations. That is what
one should keep in mind when thinking about
relativity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However in one
point I have to object. That is your
judgement of the parameter</span> <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ</span>.
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> I think that
it is a result from the historical fact that
magnetism was detected long time earlier
than electricity. So magnetism plays a great
role in our view of physics which does not
reflect its role there. We know since about
100 years that magnetism is not a primary
phenomenon but an apparent effect, a side
effect of the electric field which is caused
by the finiteness of c. If c would be
infinite there would not be any magnetism.
This is given by the equation </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">c<sup>2</sup>
= (1/ϵµ)</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> which you have
mentioned. This equation should be better
written as </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ
= (1/c<sup>2</sup>ϵ) </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> to reflect this
physical fact, the dependency of the
magnetism on c. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The symmetry
between electricity and magnetism is
suggested by Maxwell's equation. These
equations are mathematically very elegant
and well usable in practice. But they do not
reflect the physical reality. Easiest
visible is the fact that we have electrical
monopoles but no magnetic monopoles.
Einstein has described this fact by saying:
Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field,
he can find a motion state so that the
magnetic field disappears. - This is as we
know not possible for an electric field.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that
we have discussed this earlier. Do you
remember?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“We nee</i><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">d a geometry in
which both space and time are curved
back on themselves to provide a donut in
which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are
self contained eigen states at each
action quanta. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">Does any of
this suggest a tension field you might
be thinking about??”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Yes,
Wolf, we need to model mathematically the
“twists and turns” of different intrinsic
potential gradients embedded in CTF
(Complex Tension Field) to create
stationary self-looped oscillations (<b><i>field-particles</i></b>).
Maxwell achieved that for the propagating
linear excitations using his brilliant
observations of using the double
differentiation – giving us the EM wave
equation. We need to find non-propagating
(stationary – Newton’s first law)
self-looped oscillations – the in-phase
ones will be stable, others will “break
apart” with different life-times depending
upon how far they are from the in-phase
closed-loop conditions. The successes of
the mathematical oscillatory dynamic model
could be judged by the number of predicted
properties the theory can find for the <b><i>field-particles,</i></b>
which we have measured so far. The
physical CTF must remain stationary
holding 100% of the cosmic energy. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> However,
I would not attempt to keep the primacy of
Relativity by trying to keep the
Space-Time 4-D concept intact. If we want
to capture the ontological reality; we
must imagine and visualize the potential <b><i>foundational</i></b>
physical process and represent that with a
set of algebraic symbols and call them the
primary parameters of “different grades”.
During constructing mathematical theories,
it is of prime importance to introduce
consciously this concept of “primary”, vs.
“secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
physical parameters related to any
observable physical phenomenon. The
physical parameter that dictates the core
existence of an entity in nature should be
considered as primary. However, it is not
going to be easy because of the
complexities in the different interaction
processes – different parameters take key
role in transferring the energy in
different interactions. Besides, our
ignorance is still significantly broad
compared to the “validated” knowledge we
have gathered about our universe. Here is
a glaring example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I
am doing atomic physics, ν is of primary
importance because of the quantum
resonance with ν and the QM energy
exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes from
medium to medium. If I am doing
Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are
of primary significance; even though
people tend to use “c”, while missing out
the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some
of the core building blocks of the
universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and µ
of free space were recognized well before
Maxwell synthesized Electromagnetism.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">
With this background, I want underscore
that the “running time, “t” is of critical
importance in our formulation of the
dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is not a
directly measurable physical parameter of
any object in this universe. What we
measure is really the frequency, or its
inverse, the oscillation periods of
different physical oscillators in this
universe. So, frequency can be dilated or
contracted by controlling the ambient
physical parameter of the environment that
surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator.
The running time cannot be dilated or
contracted; even though Minkowsky
introduced this “dilation” concept. This
is the reason why I have been pushing for
the introduction in physics thinking the
Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology
(IPM-E). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 19, 2018
10:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension field
stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Candra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Let’s
consider your tension filed is a medium
underlying the experience of space composed
of charge and mass density spread out in the
cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate
frame cells of <i>small enough</i> sizes
can be described by constant enough mass and
charge densities in each cell. For small
enough cells the mass and charge values
concentrated at their centers may be used in
stead of the densities. The resulting field
of center values can take any pattern that
satisfies the extended dAlambert principle.
Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem and
gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate
forces tat hold charge and mass together
Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass charge
centers in each cell appear at locations of
balanced forces. Each pattern which
satisfies this condition represents a static
state of the loop in which the patterns are
fixed for the lifetime of the loop.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The Charge-Mass
Separation Vector and Equilibrium States</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">The
physical size of the space is its volume.
The volume (Vol) of space is the sum of the
infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the
cells composing that space “Vol = ∫<sub>all
space</sub> dVol”. These infinitesimal
volumes are calculated from the mass-charge
density extensions in each cell when viewed
externally as shown in figure 4.3-3a . The
physical volume depends upon the mass charge
separation pattern of the equilibrium state
the system being modeled exists in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In CAT the
extension of a cell can be calculated as
follows. In each cell the distance between
the center of charge and mass is a vector d<b>ζ.</b>
The projection of this vector onto the
degrees of freedom directions available for
the charge and mass to move in the
generalized coordinate space allows us to
expansion this vector as, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-1 <b>dζ =</b> dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙u<sub>t</sub></b>
+ dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙u<sub>x</sub> </b>+ dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙u<sub>y</sub>
</b>+ dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙u<sub>z</sub> +…</b>
dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙u<sub>f</sub> +…,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b>where
the <b>u<sub>f</sub></b>’s are the unit
vectors. A space limited to Cartesian
3-space is characterized by three x,y,z
directions, but CAT models a generalized
space that encompasses all sensor modalities
not only the optical ones. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The volume of
a cell calculated from the diagonal
expansion vector “<b>dζ”</b> by multiplying
all non zero coefficients,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-2 dVol = dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙…∙</b>dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙…
.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The shape of
this volume is determined by the direction
of the expansion vector which in turn is
determined by the direction and strength of
forces pulling the charge and mass apart.
The direction of pull depends upon the
number of dimensions available in the
generalized coordinates of the media. The
forces must be in equilibrium but exact
equilibrium pattern depends upon which
global loop equilibrium state “Ζ” the event
being modeled is in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In the
simplest equilibrium state the masses and
charges are collocated. This implies the
internal forward propagating in time forces
F<sub>cm</sub>,F<sub>mc</sub>, and backward
propagating in time force F<sub>mc</sub>*,F<sub>cm</sub>*
are zero, and if there are no internal force
pulling the charges and masses together then
sum of the remaining exterior
gravito-electric forces pulling the charge
and mass apart must separately be zero
precisely at the collocation point. A
trivial condition that satisfies these
equations is when all forces are zero. In
this case there is no action in the media
and no action for expanding the coordinate
frame defining a volume of space. We are
back to a formless blob of zero volume,
where all charges and masses are at the same
point. This is the absolute ground state of
material, one level of something above
nothing. The big bang before the energy of
action flow is added. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:190.5pt;height:187.5pt;z-index:251658240;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6035&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif" o:title="part1.89B7AF17.E7420CB4@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
style="width:2.6458in;height:2.6041in"
src="cid:part12.1C7DC3E8.CB9C6F2E@a-giese.de"
v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" class=""
align="left" height="250" width="254"><!--[endif]-->To
exemplify the methods we consider an
equilibrium state of a single isolated cell
whose only degree of freedom is the time
direction. This means the volume in all
space directions are infinitesimally small
and the volume can be considered a single
line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT<sub>w</sub> =
∫dζ<sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt">t</span></sub><span
style="font-size:14.0pt"> “ </span>along
the time direction as shown in the god’s eye
perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this
situation we can consider charges and masses
to be point particles. Forces as well as
action can only propagate along the material
length of the line time line represented in
space as “Qw”. We now list the sequence of
changes that can propagate through around
the equilibrium positions indicated by
numbers in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(1)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium
position (filled icon) forward along the
time line<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(2)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->It
exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge
pushing it forward while feeling a reaction
force “Fem*” that retards it back to its
equilibrium position<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(3)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the left charge is moved from equilibrium it
exerts an internal “Fcm” force on the bottom
mass while feeling a reaction force “Fcm*”
which returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(4)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it
exerts a force “Fgi” on the right mass while
feeling a reaction force “Fgi*” which
returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(5)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the right mass is moved from equilibrium it
exerts a force “Fmc” on the upper charge
while feeling a reaction force “Fmc*” which
returns it to equilibrium. We are now back
to (1).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">If
the system is isolated there is no
dissipation into other degrees of freedom
and the oscillation continues to move as a
compression wave around the “Qw” time line
circumference forever. The graph however is
static and shows a fixed amount of action
indicated by the shaded arrows around the
time line. Motion in “block” models is
produced by the velocity of the observer or
model operator as he moves around the time
line. From our god’s eye perspective an
action density is permanently painted on the
clock dial and thereby describes an total
event. The last degree of freedom events are
rather trivial <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We need a
geometry in which both space and time are
curved back on themselves to provide a donut
in which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are
self contained eigen states at each action
quanta. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does any of this suggest
a tension field you might be thinking
about??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Yes, I have
submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the
approval link yet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Replacement of our
SPIE conf. Without a supporting
infrastructure to replace SPIE-like
support, it is very difficult to manage.
I will try NSF during the last week of
May. Do you want to start negotiating
with some out-of-box European groups? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Re-starting afresh
from the bottom up is the only way to
start re-building a unified field
theory. It is futile to force-fit whole
bunch of different theories that were
structured differently at different
states of human cultural epoch.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang
Baer <<a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just rereading your 2015 paper
"Urgency of evolution..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I love the sentiment " This is a
good time to start iteratively
re-evaluating and restructuring all
the foundational postulates behind
all the working theories"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Did you write a paper for FQXi?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I sent one in <a
href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE conference, one that would expand the questions </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">beyond the nature of light?</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>