[General] Answers to Some Objections

Mon Apr 20 09:21:13 PDT 2015

Hi John M

In trying to understand the super-fluidic concept of space, it occurs to me
that superfluids, by their nature, appear to require that they are composed
of constituent units which possess angular momentum. This is why the
superfluid can sustain vortices. This is in contrast to your spacetime
oscillating dipoles with no angular momentum. I am still studying your work,
and have not yet understood how the dipoles, with no angular momentum, can
be attributed with the properties of a superfluid.

The vortices formed in known superfluids, due to the inherent angular
momentum of the superfluid, are defined by, where k is the wavenumber. So
that if space acts as a superfluid, it is implied that angular momentum
would need to inherently exist in space for it to behave as a superfluid,
which can create vortices as we observe in the elementary particles
(especially the stable leptons). This in turn implies that there must be
spin 1 elements of space, of the proper mass-energy density ranges to form
such vortices as we see in particles, in the superfluid of space. This in
turn implies that the energy density of space is not Gaussian or continuous,
but only exists in several discrete values which correspond to the "sizes"
required for the vortices of existing particles.  This would dramatically
reduce the total energy density calculation for space.

Comments? Thoughts? 

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:56 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Answers to Some Objections

Andrew,

I do not understand your comment "I spent a lot of time trying to make the
electric dipole model of the photon work. I did not succeed."  There are
dipole waves in spacetime which modulate volume and the rate of time.  For
example a wave maximum might be defined as the portion of a dipole wave in
spacetime that expands volume and slows the rate of time, while the wave
minimum would do the reverse. This is not to be confused with an electrical
dipole. 

Groups of charged particles can have an "electrical dipole moment" which has
units of Coulomb-meter. Photons do not have an "electrical dipole moment".
Also, electromagnetic waves do not produce a modulation of the rate of time
or modulate total volume.  If they did, then EM radiation would produce an
oscillating rate of time gradient.  All rate of time gradients produce a
gravitational acceleration.  For example, a gravitational acceleration of 1
m/s2 corresponds to a gradient of 1.11x10-17 s/s/m (seconds per second per
meter).  Therefore, if EM radiation produced a modulation of the rate of
time, neutral particles such as neutrons would oscillate when EM radiation
passed their location.  In fact, waves that modulate the rate of time are
forbidden on the macroscopic scale because they would produce a violation of
the conservation of momentum.  Dipole waves in spacetime are permitted to
modulate the rate of time because even though they displace neutral
particles, I show in my book that the maximum displacement they can produce
is equal to Planck length.  This is allowed by quantum mechanics.  

If you have an analysis photons based on my ideas that is not working out, I
would like to see it.  

John M.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 12:41 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/20150420/644b2587/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 507 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150420/644b2587/attachment-0001.png>