[General] gravitation

Sun Feb 22 00:30:12 PST 2015

Hi Chip,

I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it
fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that
there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that
matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether
they are ever absorbed?

IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see
the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction.

Regards
Stephen

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Hi All*
>
>
>
> Following John Duffield’s comments regarding photon’s relation to “time”
> and reading “The Other Meaning of Special Relativity”, still leaves a few
> questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory
> to experiment.
>
>
>
> My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the
> photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic
> properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure.
>
> There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an
> approach.
>
> Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the
> suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest
> frame in space. Close therefore remarks, *“**What has not been generally
> recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature
> of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute
> space and time.”*
>
>
>
> So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively
> pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such
> an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal
> approach.  But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John
> Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain
> issues remain (for me) unresolved.
>
>
>
> While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic
> interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought
> provoking.  In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire
> future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves.
> While the “one point in spacetime” approach, may in fact turn out to be the
> actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other
> explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before
> accepting any answer to best describe experiment.
>
>
>
> *Hi Stephen*
>
>
>
> Thank you for the analogy.
>
>
>
> Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of
> applications of the idea.
>
>
>
> I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a
> distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or
> a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the
> “background” noise floor.
>
> However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances.  In other
> words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are
> sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange.  Tony
> Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such
> an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this
> atom. “*Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the
> Hydrogen Atom*” Anthony Fleming 2005.
>
>
>
> However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon “exchange” is
> not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable
> even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not
> yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already “known”
> by the photon.
>
>
>
> *Hi John D.  *
>
>
>
> Thank you for the references to photon models.
>
>
>
> Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and
> Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model.  But it leaves
> questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered.   However I
> have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the
> possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing
> multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the
> emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration
> to the emitted photon wavelength.  Meanwhile, I will run some math to
> explore further.
>
>
>
> *Hi Chandra*
>
>
>
> I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest.
>
>
>
> And referring directly to…
>
> *“If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature;
> we will never find it!”*
>
>
>
> The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints,
> which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look
> more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and
> therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process.
>
>
>
> *All*
>
>
>
> It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying
> particles) from light.
>
> If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then
> it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes
> the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding
> of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Duffield
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation
>
>
>
> Andrew:
>
>
>
> It’s a mystery to me why people don’t know about this kind of stuff.
> Einstein said a field is a state of space
> <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html>. Susskind said the same
> in his video lecture. And there aren’t two states of space where an
> electron is.
>
>
>
> As for the strong force, it’s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself
> this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton
> annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that
> makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine
> you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel.
>
>
>
> [image: toroidalphotonsmall]
>
>
>
> Imagine it’s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will
> find that you cannot. You can’t pull this kiddie apart either:
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: trefoil]
>
>
>
> It’s made of three parts, three partons. See
> http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions
> knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left
> calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do
> eventually break this thing, you don’t see three things flying free.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Subject:* [General] gravitation
>
>
>
> Dear John D,
>
> I wonder why this concept has not been developed?
>
>
>
> "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don’t quite cancel. The rubber
> sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That
> represents the hydrogen atom’s gravitational field."
>
> I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the
> long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the
> net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking
> (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as
> distortions of space & how relativity affects them.
>
> I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in
> August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the
> interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic
> electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks.
>
> Andrew
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.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 sleary at vavi.co.uk
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>

-- 
Stephen Leary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150222/ab21cbb3/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150222/ab21cbb3/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150222/ab21cbb3/attachment-0003.png>