[General] reply to Albrecht's email

Sun Apr 10 12:02:41 PDT 2016

John;

I just briefly looked at the paper. I have not yet followed the STOE 
theory and please excuse me for that
but my intuitive impression is that the experiments seem quite 
consistent with Young's interpretation of waves

You said:
"Young noticed in his diffraction experiment that the slit edges appear 
luminous (Jenkins and White 1957, p.379). Therefore, his model
consisted of the interference of the waves assumed to originate at the 
edges and of the direct wave."

I performed several double slit experiments as well as a dipole antenna 
experiment where I illuminated two razor blades spaced so that the edges 
of the two blades where an equivalent slit width apart. The diffraction 
patterns were the same and I could optically see illumination on the 
slit edges as Young reported.

This lead me to conclude, as Young, that the interference is simply 
explained by carefully taking into account the edge excitation and 
re-emission. The double slit is, I believe completely explained, by the 
four edges excited by the incoming wave and re-radiating. This gives 
both the single slit and the double slit  superimposed pattern, which is 
experimentally seen.

When I look at your photos fig 15 for example the result is simply 
explained by a mask effect. If the edge is located at a minimum then its 
edge is not excited and it simply masks the pattern from the first slit. 
Similarly the other figure 8, 11 look like a careful accounting of edge 
excitation and re-radiation looks (I'm intuiting here) looks consistent 
with edge excitation and re-emission..

Your conclusion simply suggests that the Huygens-Fresnel model is 
inconsistent with these results. Which I can understand.
I do not see justification for your conclusion "all wave models of light 
are falsified."

Does the STOE model (Newtonian Interpretation) simulation duplicate 
Young's edge re-radiation hypothesis or is there more?

My paper from the SPIE San Diego, Eric Reiters paper, and results from 
nano-technology resonance antenna all indicate that EM propagates as 
waves and are quantized by near-field resonant antenna effects and forms 
of loading theory (Sommerfeld) at the time of measurement and matter 
interaction. Thus Photons as traveling little baseballs is a false 
interpretation and quantum mechanics with its wave/particle duality is a 
needless complexity we need  to straighten out.

Although I agree with much of Albrecht's ideas on relativity and think 
he has much to offer. I am not sure first assuming photons exist and 
then explaining their behavior by further assuming extension effects is 
not just a further attempt to explain an initial error with further 
"fix-up" explanation complications.
Does STOE fall into this category of "fix-up" theories?
It appears your experimental results are consistent with the wave edge 
re-radiation interpretation of EM radiation and the photon introduction 
as an observer/measurement phenomena.

Along these line remember Bohr thought electrons and presumably photons 
are made up observer induced explanations.

best
Wolf

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

On 4/10/2016 1:50 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Albrecht:
> I like your emphasis on experiment.
> The STOE model suggests the extent characteristic is where the inertia 
> resides. The STOE posits the plenum (like “space” of GR) and hods. The 
> Hods are 2 dimensional and causes gravitational forces. The plenum has 
> the extent and inertia. A photon is a column of hods with plenum 
> between the hods. Hence, the extent is where the inertia is.
> Inertia according to the STOE 
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676
> Further the diffraction experiment is a new experiment that is easy to 
> do for yourself. The STOE photon model is the only model not rejected 
> by this experiment. I urge you to do the experiment.
> Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects 
> wave models of light http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
> I think this may be the experiment you are seeking. It rejects wave 
> models. Because light and electrons display diffraction effects, the 
> electron rather than a photon in the experiment should work the same. 
> I think your model will fail the experiment. But then it should be done.
> Papers referenced in this paper explain how the photon works. The 
> extent of the photon and its inertia and gravitational forces are 
> needed for the math to work. The math works and no other model is 
> consistent with this experiment result.
> When an electron and positron are collided, only photons result. This, 
> I think, supports the idea that electrons are composed of photons.
> Structure and spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1694
> Hodge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=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/20160410/037187e9/attachment.htm>