[General] Answers to Some Objections

Sat Apr 18 05:15:49 PDT 2015

For some reason I am not getting comments from some of the participants in
the group. I never receive comments from David Mathes unless they are part
of someone else's discussion.  I do consistently get comments from John W,
John M, John D, Richard, Andrew, etc.

Just want you to be aware that this issue still exists.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Answers to Some Objections

Dear John M,

I spent a lot of time trying to make the electric dipole model of the photon
work. I did not succeed. However, in studying the nature of interference
effects, I found that the variations in electric potential were in time, not
in space. Thus, I believe that a slight change in concept might make a big
difference in your results.

We normally think of current as dq/dt = (dq/dx)(dx/dt) because "charge is
indivisible." The recognition that charge is only a resonant condition of
E-field (e.g., the photon) allows us to talk of electric potentials
independent of unique charges. They can be variable in time or space. This
is part of the 'structure' of photons that Hudgins and I have been working
on with a study of the interference effects in standing waves.

Can your spacetime model incorporate the dipoles with variable charges
stationary in space but oscillating in time (i.e., reversing charge-type
sinusoidally)?

Some other comments below:

Andrew

_ _ _ 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:31 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com
<mailto:john at macken.com> > wrote:

Hello Everyone,

Over the last week I have generated a lot of criticism which until now I
have ignored.  It is not possible to answer every objection in a short post
because a one line objection can take several paragraphs to rebut.
Therefore, I have selected some of the most critical comments from David M.,
Chip and John D to attempt to set the record straight.  

David Mathes says: "Impedance is frequency dependent. There are other
dependencies as well but frequency plays a prominent role."  This is correct
for acoustics, but not for waves in spacetime. There are several important
differences between waves in spacetime and acoustics.  For example, the
amplitude of acoustic waves is usually given as the displacement of
particles which has units of length (L).  For unit compatibility, it is
necessary to express acoustic impedance with units of M/TL2 (mass/time
length2).  Therefore, one type of acoustic impedance is Za = ρca where ca is
acoustic speed of sound.  This has the correct units.  The amplitude of
gravitational waves is often given as ΔL/L, but the more accurate expression
is ΔL/λ which is dimensionless and expresses the maximum strain (maximum
slope).  In this case the impedance term must have units of M/T for
compatibility.  The impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G has the correct units
to be paired with a dimensionless amplitude term. 

With this as background, it is now possible to answer the criticism that
impedance is frequency dependent. Acoustic impedance is somewhat frequency
dependent because the acoustic speed of sound (ca) has some frequency
dependence (Za = ρca).  However, waves in spacetime have no frequency
dependence because the speed of light is the same for all frequencies (Zs =
c3/G).  

To support your argument here: I believe that frequency dependence always is
a result of an absorption (resonance). Space has none. However, the singular
limit of light velocity to c might introduce something worth studying in
that context.

John D. says: "Waves move through space, not spacetime.".  It is true that
gravitational waves distort only the spatial dimensions, not the time
dimension.  If a gravitational wave propagates past a spherical volume of
spacetime, the spherical volume will be distorted to becoming a vibrating
ellipsoid.  The ellipsoid has no change on volume compared to the original
spherical volume because an elongation of one dimension is accompanied by an
offsetting contraction of another dimension.  There is no change in volume
and the gravitational wave does not modulate the rate of time.  There is a
slight effect on the rate of time due to the fact that the gravitational
wave has energy density, but there is no modulation of the rate of time at
the frequency of the gravitational wave. 

If you read my 'foundation" article you will see that I am building the
entire universe using "dipole waves in spacetime", not gravitational waves.
I explain in this article that dipole waves in spacetime are forbidden on
the macroscopic scale described by general relativity, but they are
permitted by quantum mechanics on the sub-microscopic scale governed by
quantum mechanics.  The article explains that dipole waves modulate both the
rate of time and the space dimensions. These are actually the most
fundamental type of wave that could exist in spacetime.  The modulation of
both space and the rate of time makes it possible for my model to generate
the curvature of spacetime produced by a fundamental particle. For a
fundamental particle, this equation is accurate to better than 1 part in
1040.  Furthermore, there are other nonlinear terms and other considerations
that I believe will eventually result in generating the complete equations
of general relativity.  Therefore, dipole waves in spacetime modulate both
space and the rate of time.

Chip says: "I find that using gravitational waves, . (has a) problem. That
is it seems to be building on a still undefined and unknown foundation. . If
gravity waves travel faster than c for example, it completely changes the
"stiffness" of space, impedance of space, and the whole foundation."  

Gravitational waves do exist even if they are very hard to detect.
Gravitational waves transfer energy and angular momentum. In 1993 the Nobel
Prize was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor for the proof that a
binary neutron star system was slowing down its rotation because it was
emitting gravitational waves. The amount of slowing was exactly the amount
predicted by general relativity. The emission of gravitational waves
produces a retarding force on the rotating binary stars, thus producing an
observable slowing of the rotation (loss of energy and angular momentum). If
it was possible to reverse the direction of these gravitational waves, the
gravitational waves would return energy and angular momentum to the binary
neutron star system.

 Could you, or anyone else clarify this issue for me. A 1/r potential
provides stable orbits with kinetic energy, KE, equal to 1/2 the absolute
value of potential energy, PE. Thus, KE = |PE|/2. To radiate waves and drop
to a lower stable orbit, the orbiting body must both lose PE and gain KE.
The change in angular momentum can go either way. Nevertheless, the increase
in KE and the reduction in orbital radius requires that the orbital
frequency increase. If rotation slowing is a fact, then something else must
be happening. Is the reference to rotation frequency the rotation of the
stars and not of the orbital frequency?

Gravitational waves also propagate at the speed of light.  If they
propagated faster than c, the universe would have many different laws than
it actually has.  You are welcome to doubt that gravitational waves
propagate at c, but you will be forced to doubting many aspects of physics.

I obviously have skipped many questions.  For example, John D. has 9
objections.  I believe that I can answer any objection that I have seen, but
it is necessary to be selective since the answer is much longer than the
objection.  Therefore, if there is a particularly important objection that I
have not addressed, please state it in the next email.

John M.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150418/68accf93/attachment.htm>