[General] relativistic mass

Sun Oct 11 09:43:24 PDT 2015

Albrecht:

Oddly enough, Einstein never really talked about curved spacetime. Search the Einstein digital papers for curved spacetime <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/~searchResults?searchMode=advanced&context=-2&searchParam-SearchGroup=&lang=EN&searchText=%22curved+spacetime%22>  and what you get is no results found. Search on curved space-time <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/~searchResults?searchMode=advanced&context=-2&searchParam-SearchGroup=&lang=EN&searchText=%22curved+space-time%22>  and there’s only one hit.  This paper is worth a read: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 . Note this in the abstract: 

“The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with”.  

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese
Sent: 11 October 2015 12:37
To: Michael Mercury <michael.b.mercury at gmail.com>; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] relativistic mass

Dear Michael,

yes, of course. In the following I show you how the deduction of gravity from refraction works. 

The reduction of the speed of light in a gravitational field is given by the equation  credu(r) = c * (1-2(GM/(r*c2))**p 
where the exponent is p = 1 for the radial speed component of the light-like particle and p = 1/2 for the tangential speed. (You find this equation in text books about GR.) If you now calculate the refraction in the classical way, the full deflection alpha (e.g. at the sun) turns out to be

alpha = 4*GM/(c2*d)

where d is the distance of the vertex to the sun.   

This is also the known result of Einstein using curved spacetime. 

Now you can in addition calculate the acceleration towards the sun at the vertex of the path. This turns out to be avertx = GM/r2 .  This is an expression which we know from Newton's law of gravity.

If we now assume that an elementary particle is built by a sub-structure which orbits at c in an horizontal orientation (which I mean when I say "zitterbewegung"), then this orbital motion and so the motion of the elementary particle as a whole will have an acceleration downwards according to the equation given above. And so it will reproduce the Newtonian acceleration for this special case. If now the orientation of the elementary particle is not horizontal but it has an arbitrary orientation, it needs additional calculations but has the same result. So, this is a deduction of Newton's law of gravity from the assumption of a refraction of light-like particles.

You have made the assumption of a wave front. Of course with a wave front it will work, however it also works with any object which has some extensions, as we should assume it for elementary particles.

You may find the above calculation on my web site in detail. Also the way to a full deduction of GR in this way with the complete avoidance of a curved spacetime.

www.ag-physics.org/gravity <http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity> 

If you have further questions, you will be welcome with them. 

Albrecht

Am 10.10.2015 um 19:26 schrieb Michael Mercury:

Dear Albrecht,

Can you provide additional insight or references to the application of a refraction calculation to the zitterbewegung? I had been thinking of gravitational lensing as refraction of a wavefront and am curious to learn how it can be applied to zitter to get GR!

Regards,

Michael

On Oct 9, 2015 3:56 AM, "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:

Hi Al, and All,

the greatest counter-evidence to the position of Ed Dowdy which I know is the result of Lebach et al.. They have measured the light deflection at the sun, and the result conforms to the theory (of Einstein or equivalent ones, see further down) with an accuracy of 10^-4. This excludes in my understanding any influence of a plasma layer around the sun, because even if there would be plasma having this influence, there could not be exactly the same result as from conventional theory by this precision, and plasma could not even provide this reproducibility. Dowdy normally refers to measurements of NASA but has never given a reference to such measurements.

The deflection is, according to Einstein, caused by the curvature of space-time around the sun. It can also be deduced in an alternative way. The speed of light is reduced in the vicinity of an object. This causes classical refraction. An according calculation has the same analytical(!) result as the approach of Einstein. And it makes the assumption plausible that the mass of the deflected object does not influence this deflection/refraction. 

One can go a step further and apply this refraction process to the internal motion in elementary particles, the "Zitterbewegung". This immediately results in Newton's law of gravity. And it also reproduces the results of Einstein's General Relativity. And further it explains the (weak) equivalence principle, the fact that any object has the same gravitational acceleration independent of its mass. (In present main stream physics this equivalence is called a mystery.) 

The next question in this row: what is the cause of the reduction of the speed of light. A plausible assumption is that the light like particles affected here are influence by the exchange particles of other forces. With this assumption gravity is not the force no. 4 but no force at all. It is simply refraction.

Albrecht

Am 09.10.2015 um 09:40 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> :

Gentlemen:

Is there counterevidence to Ed Dowdy's observation that there is NO light defection about the Sun for rays not passing through the corona where they must be diverted as plasma waves?

Gesendet: Freitag, 09. Oktober 2015 um 06:24 Uhr
Von: "Wolfgang Baer"  <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com> <wolf at nascentinc.com>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Betreff: Re: [General] relativistic mass

Has anyone ever measured the gravitational weight of light in a bottle?
Does a hot hollow ball weigh more than a cold one?

WOlf 

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120 <tel:831-659-3120> /0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <http://wolf@NascentInc.com> 

On 10/8/2015 3:51 PM, Adam K wrote:

Hi Martin, 

Yes, general relativity. That link references the book I keep quoting in this discussion list, which is all about general relativity. Schrodinger introduces the basic idea and its consequences very lucidly. 

The origin of mass was always the sticking point of this theory, and was where Einstein focused his efforts for many decades. He called the representation of mass in the theory an asylum ignorantiae. 

Adam

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> > wrote: 

Dear Adam K,

Thank you for the quote, and isn't it a puzzling one? "The deflection is due to gravitation AND mass!!" Well that is one mass too many, in my opinion, but i think this should be interpreted as if not just Newtonion gravitation is working but, instead, general relativity (which includes corrections to the former).

John D, i have not recently responded to your comments, but thank you very much indeed for the useful explanations combined with your great sense of humor! The helicopter one with not finding the hard bits actually made it physically impossible for me to hit the small keys on my phone for a while.

Cheers!

Very best regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 8 okt. 2015 om 23:23 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> " <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > het volgende geschreven:

Adam

For the light rays near the sun, wouldn't one need  not just E & M fields. To identify the gravitational component,one would have to rigorous eliminate effects from the weak and strong forces as well. 

Also, there may be some value in considering Dirac's symmetric version of the Maxwell equations. In doing so, magnetism should be considered as a separate force, a fifth force if you will.

David

  _____  

From: Adam K <afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [General] relativistic mass

With the danger of producing the impression that I have only read one book, Martin I thought you would enjoy this quote: 

The deflection of light rays that pass near the sun is not a purely gravitational phenomenon, it is due to the fact that an electromagnetic field possesses energy and momentum, hence also mass. 

>From page 1, here: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-st-struc.pdf 

Adam

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> > wrote: 

Dear Andrew,
The paper "light is heavy" is no more, and no less, than a supposedly didactic and the only consistent explanation of special relativity and its consequences. Most important points are that there are some confusions:
1) mass is not matter
2) energy is equivalent, exactly the same as, mass: E=mc^2
3) light is massive, both in the inertial and gravitational sense, as is obvious from experiment
4) the greatest confusion is about light being massless, which indeed it would be if it couldn't/didn't move. The whole point is that light is always moving at the speed of light, so it is a non-existing limit.

Weighing a box with a molecular gas, or that of a "photon" gas give the same kind of result: the gravitational mass of the gas plus the weight of the box. Light is gravitationally deflected by large masses, experimentally. Light carries momentum and energy.

There is nothing new in what i say, it is consistent with Einsteinian relativity an represents the vision of Herman weyl too, and many others

Best, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone 

> Op 8 okt. 2015 om 19:52 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> In your "Light is Heavy" you state:
>
> "In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
>
> Do you have any reference for my contention that the relativistic mass of particles is bound EM-radiation?
>
> In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is converted to relativistic mass & then to radiation. However, I do not know of any text or paper that identifies relativistic mass as bound EM-radiation. Your statement is close to that.
>
> Andrew

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

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 afokay at gmail.com <http://afokay@gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 Wolf at nascentinc.com <http://Wolf@nascentinc.com> 
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>  Click here to unsubscribe  <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 

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

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at michael.b.mercury at gmail.com <mailto:michael.b.mercury at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/michael.b.mercury%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/michael.b.mercury%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/20151011/42980ae8/attachment.htm>