<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1">Chandra,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">I agree with most of what you write in your mail.
But I have some comments to specific parts. See below.</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="+1">Am 03.04.2018 um 17:50
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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:windowtext">Wolf, Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I like very much
the discussion between two of you as it is evolving.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">It is especially
important to question the evolution of the definitions of
diverse parameters in Physics, which we tend take/accept as
they were defined centuries earlier using the then limited
observations compared to today’s accumulated observations.
In fact, the definitions of all physical parameters must be
debated afresh and re-defined based on our new accumulated
observations. The core idea behind re-structuring the
definitions should be driven by our intellectual and
objective desire to unify all theories of physics, which was
the dream of Einstein. Unfortunately, Einstein did not spend
enough of his intellectual energy to merge the theories of
physics from the bottom-up. He tried from top-down. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Newton’s mass “m”
is an obvious case-example, as Albrecht has given. Today,
from [m=E/c2], and observations from a wide range of fields
of science, we know that “mass” is just “inertia”; “mass” is
not an immutable PRIMARY physical property of particles or
material bodies. The inertial behavior of particles
increases with the velocity; however, the core energy that
is behind the foundation of a particle does not change. SR
calls it the “rest mass”. But, I would rather define it as
the amount of energy engaged in maintaining the localized
self-looped oscillation of the CTF (the universal Complex
Tension Field), which is the origin of particles as various
excited states of the CTF.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1">Two questions regarding the CTF: It is really
embarrassing that I do not have a full understanding of CTF even
though you have spoken so often</font><font size="+1"> about it</font><font
size="+1">. So, a question if I may ask it here: why complex? We
use (imaginary or) complex numbers to make some mathematical
descriptions easier, but I do not see that anything in nature is
"complex" in this sense.<br>
</font><br>
<font size="+1">"Energy" is a convenient notion since we have
detected that this physical quantity is conserved in most cases
(however not in all): We have the uncertainty of energy in QM; but
even worse: the exchange particles which mediate the forces in
physics carry energy away because they can transfer energy to a
distant object; so they may later transfer this energy to another
object, but do not transfer it to another object in every cases as
</font><font size="+1">in many cases</font><font size="+1"> they do
not meet another object. And what ever happens here in detail, the
object / charge which emits these particles permanently does not
lose energy in this way. - This is BTW also reflected in my
particle model as the conservation of energy can be deduced as a
consequence of this particle model, but here the cases are
basically not covered where this conservation is violated.<br>
<br>
So, energy is in my view not as fundamental as it is </font><font
size="+1">generally </font><font size="+1">assumed in physics.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">It is the
CTF-platform that allows the “easy” conversion of one
particle into others sets of self-looped oscillations. This
is why we have found that energy can be converted from one
form to another; but we cannot create or destroy energy <b>[the
postulate of conservation of energy]</b>. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1">We have this postulate of conservation of energy.
But better than to refer to a postulate is generally (in my mind)
to deduce the according rule from other lower lever rules (which
means: following reductionism). </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Hundred percent of
the energy of the universe is always contained by the CTF.
All self-looped oscillations (particles) of the universal
CTF must naturally behave identically, no matter in which
galaxy they are located. We do not need a separate ad hoc
postulate
<b>(the 2<sup>nd</sup> postulate of SR).</b></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1">Like above: I find it better to have a deduction
than a postulate, also for the speed of light. Why is it constant?
Why does it decrease in the course of the time (during
year-billions). I have a model for it which explains all
properties (it has to do with the particle model).</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> The velocity of
EM waves must naturally be the same, no matter which corner
of the universe you are in. EM wave packets are the linear
excited states of the same CTF, everywhere in the universe
<b>(the 1<sup>st</sup> postulate of SR)..</b> Thus, the
single basic CTF-postulate allows the logical emergence of a
large number of separate ad hoc postulates used by different
“current working” theories.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1">As said above, I find it </font><font size="+1">generally
</font><font size="+1">better to deduce physical rules from a lower
level than to refer to a postulate. In the beginning of a new
detection / observation / theory it may be acceptable to use
postulates, but only as a temporary step. At the end there should
be a deduction from lower level rules. <br>
<br>
This is true on the one hand for the principle of relativity. This
can be deduced from 1) contraction (a property of fields); 2)
dilation (a property of the internal oscillations of particles).
And the other postulate, the constancy of c, needs a separate
deduction and understanding. This is meant for the basic
universality and constancy of c. The fact that a measurement of c
yields the same value in <i>every inertial system</i> is then
easily deduced by the application of contraction and dilation to
the measurement tool.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1">Sincerely<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN3PR05MB2449B04AEB6E562EA876388293A50@BN3PR05MB2449.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 01, 2018 12:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>happy Easter to you and to all!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>You have added as appendix a quite nice overview about the
difference between a mathematical and a physics motivated
formalism. In general I agree with your view, however with
some exceptions.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1.) The relation between the radius and the circumference of
a circuit is a number without dimensions. What should be the
dimension? - Because which ever dimension for length you may
chose, the result “π” is always the same.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.) Speed is normally defined by the definitions of length
and time. But one can also go the other way to define speed
independently. In that case either length or time is
adependent unit. To define the speed of light as "1" is one
possibility. I do not find this practical, but logically it
works.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>3.) About “F=m∙a” : It was observed by Newton that the
relation of F and a is constant for a given object. Newton has
used this observed relation to call the quotient a "mass". It
is logically possible to introduce a new physical parameter
(here mass) in this way. Any problem with it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Further answers in the text below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Answers below<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my
cognitive Action Theory Book for Routledge press. I think a
good case can be made for considering ourselves to be living
inside a black hole of a universe consisting of our own
material. Our own material is the physical phase of a self
explanatory/measurement activity cycle (A la Wheeler) and
thereby generates its own space. In such a space all the EM
effects of Maxwell and Lorentz would be valid by self
consistency, since such a Universe runs at its own time rate
and contains its own 1st person observer , which is YOU. I'm
looking for readers and comments from interested parties.
Its not trivial. Chapter 4 and appendices are about 100
pages since this is new action based physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I am sending appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes
the case that the applicability of Calculus to physical
reality is limited and the failure to understand these
limits leads to conceptual errors such as the concept of a
space time continuum. I think I am following the kind of
reassessment of our scientific methods Chandra is
advocating.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>let me know what you think<o:p></o:p></p>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/8/2018 10:50 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:10.0pt">Wolf,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I am going to also answer
your other mail. But this one first.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><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>As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always
the frame defined by the observer , which is always the
1st person you, you cannot get out of yourself and in
that sense makes this frame a fixed frame. Each of us
lives in our own space and refers all our experiences
and experimental results back to that space<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Following
Einstein it is true that every observer, which means
every measuring tool, refers to his/its own space. But
following Lorentz the space is universal. The
measurement tools are cheating the observer by hiding
the difference between the different motion states.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">By
universal do you mean every observer has his own space
experience or do you mean there is an independent observer
independent space out there ?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I follow
here the original assumption that there is a reality which
is independent of the observer. Space is part of this
reality. This may be incorrect of course, but I do not feel
it practical to make specific assumptions on this, until we
get into logical conflicts which are so specific that we can
draw conclusions from it.</span><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>WE must discuss my contention that we are always
looking through the coordinate frame which is the
Hilbert space defined by our detector arrays - the error
in SR pictures is that they show the observer riding
along with a coordinate frame and than assume the
observer can see what is out there including clock dials
and rod lengths as though he were god outside the
material looking in. But the observer must be
restricted to look at a TV monitor inside the coordinate
frame that displays the result of detector interactions<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Please do not overlook that the
so called "Hilbert space" is not a physical space but a
mathematical tool to describe vectors in a convenient
way.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Albrecht I
keep trying to make progress by suggesting new ways to
look at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong because i
am not conforming to the old way of looking at things.
Hilbert space is describe as a mathematical tool in every
text book on Quantum Mechanics I'm fully aware of that but
I also believe this is a limited and restrictive
interpretation. If you actually examine actual experiments
from simple photon polarzation measurements involving two
state to comlex position measurements involving a spectrum
of detectors in a bubble chaber you will notice that the
mathematical Hilbert space is always the the detector cell
"through which we look" -by that I mean into which we
project the interpretation of the measurement interactions
recorded on our side of the detector cells.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">There are
mathematical methods which help us to describe specific
situations. For instance is it practical to us imaginary or
complex numbers to describe a circular motion. But I would
find it misleading if someone concludes that nature is an
imaginary or complex system in this sense. It is just a
help. And in my understanding the Hilbert space is such
mathematical tool which helps to describe QM processes. But
that does not mean that nature does have these properties.<br>
<br>
If we suspect that detector cells are giving us results
which do not represent the physical nature but only specific
properties of the detector, then we should think to find
detectors which avoid these disadvantages. But I do not
think that it helps to conclude that we get regularly
misinformations from detectors of tools of very kind. <br>
<br>
</span><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 class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">If we
follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all measures
like clocks and rods change as soon as we move with
relation to the basic fixed frame. But we know the
changes (which is Lorentzian RT) and can compensate for
them to a certain degree. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I agree
wth that as long as you realize that this basic fixed
frame is defined by the material from which the observer -
in the end always YOU is built.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I also think
that a fixed frame is physically transported through the
world in some material way. In my view (or model) the speed
of light is the carrier of this fixed frame. Here I refer to
the assumption that the basic objects in our world (so my
Basic Particles, the constituents of e.g. the electron and
additionally the exchange particles) move at the speed of
light and interact in a way that the speed is never changed
(a certain type of an elastic interaction).
</span><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>Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic
field. If there are more than two charges moving in say
three independent directions I think there is no Lorenz
transform that eliminates the magnetic field for all the
particles , Am I right on this?
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">This is
a good question, and I have an idea for this. But I did
not make a quantitative calculation.<br>
<br>
I think that also in this case a motion state can be
found where a magnetic field disappears. And I base this
on the following consideration:<br>
Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be
caused by one electric charge like in the standard case
which has the appropriate motion state. Because also for
magnetic fields a superposition is possible. How can the
state of this related single electric charge be
determined? Assume you have such field then you take an
(electric) test charge. And then you measure the force
on this test charge if it is at rest with respect to
your frame. Then you move this charge in arbitrary
directions and determine the Lorentz force depending on
the three possible directions in space. So you have at
least 4 measurements, which is the force at rest and at
the three dimensions of the magnetic field. Now you can
determine the value and the motion state of the single
electric charge which will cause the same measurement.
And with respect to this single charge you have the
situation which we have discussed before, which means
you can find an own motion state for which the magnetism
disappears.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I think
what you are saying is that the magnetic field of all the
charges can be vector summed into one composite field, and
this field can duplicated by a substitute average source
charge moving in the
<br>
appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two
charge problem to which a Lorenz transformation is
applied. I have not done the calculation but my guess is
such a scheme only works under the point particle
assumption since but the local magnetic field environment
around a test charge would not be duplicated. However in
any case it seems one wuld go through the use of magnetic
forces in order to make them disappear. Why bother wy not
simply accept the fact that bith gravity and electric forc
categories have a range and a velocity dependence , and in
fact possibly acceleration and all the derivatives - it
just seems easier.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">The great
difference between the electric field and the magnetic field
is the following: The origin of an electric field is a point
charge. Its field follows the 1/r<sup>2</sup> rule. In
contrast the magnetic field is not caused by a charge but
appears as an independent force for someone who does not
know relativity. This is in a way similar (as I have already
written) with the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is not
another force than Newtonian inertia, but it is seen as
another force by an observer who resides on a rotating
system without realizing that he is on a rotating system.
<br>
<br>
Albrecht<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"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><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> <o:p></o:p></p>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Einstein used indeed later in his life the word
"ether", but in a different sense. He did not change
his mind in the way that he permanently and finally
refused the understanding that there exists a fixed
frame in the world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>But in his view space has properties. One property is
the known assumption that space and space-time are
curved. And Einstein tried for the rest of his life to
find and to define more properties of the space in the
expectation that the existence of fields can be
deduced from those properties. Up to the end of his
life he tried to find in this way a / the "Theory of
Everything". He was, as we know, not successful with
it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>But he never gave up his denial of the possibility
that there is a fixed frame. (I refer here
particularly to the book of Ludwik Kostro, "Einstein
and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly
investigated everything what Einstein has said and
published up to the end of his life.) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb
Chip Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wolfgang Baer <a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>;
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>;
Roychoudhuri, Chandra
<a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></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>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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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
style="width:2.1666in;height:.993in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part10.0B95F978.0D7025B6@a-giese.de"
class="" height="95" width="208"
border="0"> <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>
<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>
<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>
<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"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
align="left" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:12.0pt">
<td
style="width:66.75pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 0in;height:12.0pt"
width="89"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in
0in"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in
0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-element:frame;mso-element-frame-hspace:1.5pt;mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-height-rule:exactly"><img
style="width:2.6875in;height:1.2013in" id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part11.B3514E4B.EF74A3A1@a-giese.de"
class="" height="115"
width="258" border="0"><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</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
style="width:2.8333in;height:.5763in"
id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:part12.3B07762F.51B77E7D@a-giese.de"
class="" height="55" width="272"
border="0"><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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
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
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><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:.75pt;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/AI/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=3439&header=quotebody&part=1.1.5&filename=image004.png" o:title="part18.B91FD2BD.D072137D@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
style="width:2.6458in;height:.0069in"
src="cid:part18.4C5A9211.F86244CB@a-giese.de" v:shapes="_x0000_s1026"
class="" align="left"
height="1" 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>
<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>
<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>
<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" 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"><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" 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>
</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>
<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"><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"><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" 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"><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"><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" 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 id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="57">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in"
id="_x0000_i1028"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="415">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</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">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">"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>
</body>
</html>