[General] Answers to Some Objections

Sat Apr 18 07:23:20 PDT 2015

Dear Chip,

 Look in your spam (or trash) folder. For some reason David's emails end up
in my spam folder. Even when I move them back to the main folder, they
still appear there. However, they now also appear in the main folder. It
may be that at some point his email had been hijacked or used as a robot.

Andrew

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
> = ρc*a where *c*a 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 Z
> s = 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 (*c*a) has some frequency
> dependence (*Za = ρc*a).  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 10
> 40.  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
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=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/a0094d55/attachment-0001.htm>