[General] gravitation

Mon Feb 23 02:16:26 PST 2015

Hi  Chip,

There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is
dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a
requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and
eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You
seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that
supports your beliefs. That is not science.

Regards
Stephen

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen
>
>
>
> Thank you for the insight.
>
>
>
> What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be
> dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the
> local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific
> direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be
> defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers
> are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter.
>
>
>
> Since we do not yet know if there is an “edge” to the universe (meaning an
> “edge” of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an “edge” should
> it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate
> the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that,
> if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to
> an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no
> condition for emission would be presented.
>
>
>
> What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of
> distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to
> photon “exchange”.  I understand the concept, but the implications do not
> seem to be a description of our universe.
>
>
>
> For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its
> specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all
> absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact
> fate, was known and established billions of years ago.
>
>
>
> Is there another way to look at long distance photon “exchange” which does
> not present this problem?
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen
> Leary
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150223/3e730c04/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/20150223/3e730c04/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/20150223/3e730c04/attachment-0003.png>