[General] inertia

Sat Apr 2 09:57:43 PDT 2016

Dear Richard,

It was presumptuous of me to think that, even if you had read that email,
you would have remembered any details.

I don't know how to search the emails for a specific item and I don't think
that the thread involved had a label that would help. I'll quickly outline
the model that leads to inertia.

*The electron (positron):*

   1. is a bound 1/2 photon (I actually have come to accept your term of
   'charged' photon to describe the transitory EM wave existing between the
   'rectification' of a >1MwV photon by a nucleus and the condensation into an
   electron / positron pair).
   2. the 1/2 photon is self-trapped by total internal reflection (the high
   energy density of the compacted photon gives a higher refractive index (so
   that n > 1 and  v = c/n) that confines the photon.
   3. The photon 'wraps' about itself (maybe 1e4 - 1e8 times) as a long
   rubber band on a ball. The lowest energy state is that of uniform wrapping,
   not a planar wrap that would compress all of the field lines. The path
   circumference is lambda/2.
   4. During the traverse of the circumference, the photon twists 180
   degrees so that the E-field is always pointing outward (not necessarily
   normal to the surface of the 'ball'). This twist is automatic in the case
   of circularly polarized photons, but augmented by the Imbert–Fedorov
   effect.. It depends on the Goos–Hänchen effect for linearly-polarized
   photons. Both effects shift the photon out of the planar configuration.
   5. *The tricky part of the model comes from addressing the
   oppositely-directed E-Field always pointing inward. *There are 3
   distinct options to consider to counter the argument of the electrons'
   self-field:

   - because the EM field has been rectified, the inward-pointing reverse
   polarity has zero amplitude. There is no inward pointing field.
   - the inward pointing field concentration is intense enough to give an
   energy density great enough to give a gravitational gradient sufficient to
   balance the self-charge repulsion of each of the leptons.
   - the rectification process separates the photon potentials (giving the
   spatial potential gradients seen as charges). However, the separation
   process leaves a connection between the leptons (thru time?) to close the
   field lines. This connection is a wormhole.

The spherically 'wrapped' photon gives an angular momentum component in all
directions, so the designated spin axis for a stationary lepton in a
field-free region is entirely arbitrary.  The leptons equally share the
photon's ang mom of 1. Thus, there is a spin 1/2 in all directions (as far
as I know, there is no other model that can do this).

*Inertia:*

   1. Since the lepton has photon 'flow' in all directions at close to c (v
   = c/n), any motion will create a relativistic effect that seeks to reduce
   the added velocity of all the portions with components in the direction of
   motion. Since there is a net spin, the effect of velocity is unbalanced and
   results in a precession of the spin vectors about the velocity vector. The
   distance traveled during a single cycle of the precession is the deBroglie
   wavelength.
   2. Any acceleration to add velocity will create a torque from the
   relativistic effect that will result in a change in precession about the
   velocity vector.
   3. The net torque is composed of the effect on all the 'windings' of the
   photon, but moreso for those with velocity components in the direction of
   motion. Thus there is a 'flattening' of the lepton along the velocity
   vector.
   4. The flattening (thus concentration) of the leptons increases their
   total EM field energies.
   5. *Thus, the change of energies from the change in precession angular
   velocity and the distortion of the photon (EM field) distribution, gives
   the resistance to change in momentum and energy defined as inertia.*

Andrew
___________________________

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>    I hope all is well with the twins.
>    I don’t want to propose as a new idea about inertia something that I
> might have read of yours earlier but forgot. Can you point me to where you
> expressed your ideas on inertia in the forum, or at least very briefly
> summarize what you said about your inertia hypothesis in this forum? Thanks!
>      Richard
>
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> I think that the closest I've come to writing it up is earlier in this
> forum. The twins and other works (e.g., getting the anomalous solution of
> the Dirac equations accepted) have priority at the moment. Maybe by the end
> of the year.
>
> 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>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>      Is your own relativistic model of the electron’s inertia (electron
>> as a spherically bound photon) written up? You can put it on academia.edu or
>> another website if it’s not already. I’d like to compare it with mine at
>> https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model
>> .
>>       Richard
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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/20160402/6c48f28c/attachment.htm>