[General] inertia

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Albrecht,

You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives (with very
precise results). E.g.,

Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:

1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
otherwise non-existent in present physics)

I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not
seen any.

I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have very precise results to
support them may be up for debate.

My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the electron being, in its
ground (restmass) state, a spherically bound photon. Until that concept is
accepted, it makes little sense to go further in a description. However, if
accepted, it then also leads to understanding the inertia of a photon.

Your two-particle model faces the same challenge. Unless you are able to
shape that premise into an acceptable form, it is unlikely that anything
that follows will matter. Can you (re)define your particles to be
acceptable to an audience and still fulfill your assumptions and derived
results?

Andrew

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160401/03f938bd/attachment.htm>