[General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of thinking. I call it ergently needed "Evolution Process Congruent Thinking", which I sometimes express as, "Reverse System Engineering Thinking".
My papers can be downloaded from the web: phy.ucon.edu -- faculty -- research; the link is below my image.
Keep up the good spirit.
Chandra.



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Thanks John,

I'm more than ever convinced that unless we can get a better grasp of what 'space-time' actually IS - which fundamentally means a proper understanding of gravitation - then our species is at very serious risk of imploding and taking much (most?) of life on this planet with us.  For the past century or more we've been looking inward rather than outward; humankind is essentally an outward-looking race (the very word 'race' implies that!), and without somewhere to look outward TO we tend to flounder and bicker - just look around the planet today!  The world is so vastly overcrowded now, and set to be increasingly more so, with numerous environmental issues to compound the problem.  We need new horizons, new frontiers, more than we ever did in the time of Vasco de Gama and Columbus!

[As an aside, I hope we'd also be rather more considerate of any indigenous lifeforms that those who followed Columbus!]

That's a major reason why I've offered my proposal on gravitation for consideration.  If we don't crack this one, VERY soon, we may run out of time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with the pressure-cooker environment we've created for ourselves.  David Attenborough is proposing that we seriously limit population growth; the Chinese have tried that and it didn't work - and it never will; the 'prime directive' built into our makeup by evolution is procreation.  Our planet is like a dandelion head full of seeds ready to fly - we've even been exploring the heavens around us for places to fly TO!  What we need now is the way to do it; I earnestly believe that the way to do it is there in a greater understanding of matter, space-time and gravitation - but not as long as the established scientific community insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and doggedly refuses to even look at things from a new perspective.

Ok, off my soap-box now.  But I do really hope that a few of you out there will take a look at my paper posted with my last email; if there's something clearly wrong with it, please tell me - if not, please tell others! Thanks.

Grahame

----- Original Message -----
From: John Duffield<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Grahame:

I share your general sentiment. I’ll read through your paper and get back to you. Meanwhile I rather think the “shake the rug” waves are light waves. A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous, not curved. See what Percy Hammond says here<http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond.pdf>: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".

Regards
John D


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 20 August 2016 16:37
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert, Vladimir, Beverly et al.,

There appear to be very strong reasons to believe that gravitation is in fact an EM effect.  If one starts from the premise that elementary particles are themselves electromagnetic constructs then it's almost a foregone conclusion.  That premise was strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit & Wheeler later that same year and proved beyond all reasonable doubt at SLAC in 1997 by Burke et al. (Phys Rev Lett 79, pp1626-9).

It's at times somewhat paradoxical to me that physicists (present company excepted!) all too often go looking for complicated explanations when there's a simple one staring them in the face.  If one simply sees the force of attraction between unlike unit charges as being minutely greater than the force of repulsion between like charges - and there's no known reason why they should be identical (in fact it's likely that they won't) - then gravitation drops out totally naturally as the difference between those two effects.  This would seem to sit well with Occam's razor since it eliminates the need for one otherwise totally unexplained cosmic force at a stroke.  We know that every nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of opposing charge (quarks) to give an overall charge; it seems eminently likely that even those quarks are formed from energies that, taken separately, would give rise to either positive or negative charge elements to give the overall charge for a quark - this links the gravitational effect of a particle directly to its total energy content and so to its total mass.

I've attached a copy of my paper, published in 'Kybernetes' five years ago, that details this proposal for gravitation.  You'll see that it posits the notion that space(-time) has a 'texture' (also explaining its 'stiffness' and the 'curvature of spacetime') given by the summation of all time-varying EM field effects emanating from all of the material particles in the universe - this of course draws on the fact that electromagnetic fields are unlimited in their reach (and electromagnetic potential is unblockable - Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we experience as a localised particle is just the 'core', so to speak, of an electromagnetic field effect unlimited in its extent.  The (-time) in brackets above reflects the fact that this 'texture' of this 'neo-aether' is continually varying as celestial bodies (and groups of celestial bodies) are themselves in continuous motion, so also is their contribution to this 'textured' continuum.

I'd be most interested in any feedback on this proposal, including of course any clear reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be a feasible proposition.  You'll note that this concept includes a pretty thorough explanation for every aspect of the Equivalence Principle as included in GR.  There's also the strong implication that the gravity waves recently detected are themselves electromagnetic constructs (since the fabric of spacetime is itself EM in nature, and so susceptible to being 'shaken like a rug' by such waves); this may have something to say to Beverly's field of interest, since tidal forces are themselves in a sense a pale shadow of gravity waves.

Thanks all,
Grahame

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160821/ad59c132/attachment.htm>