[General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Mon Aug 22 11:44:42 PDT 2016

Thank you all for the responses there is lots to think about.

I agree Blackwell 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.

The elementary particle explanations of gravity are also interesting but like Albrecht Geise's revolving particles
I tend to resist trying to extend our knowledge of Elementary particles to explain more and more. It seems to me a simle
understanding of how the two great forcecategories  we do see Electricity and GravityInertia play with each other is a more fruitful approach.

Burinski's comment that gravty is not so weak and is compensated by spin. I do not understand unless you are talking about
inertial forces

I should remind people my SPIE paper suggested long range inertial forces due to relatively random motions of distant masses
  may explain the random single particle phenmena that cause the postulated intrinsic uncertaintu in Quantum Theory.

Any emperical connection or experiment you know about would be appreciated.

Wolf

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

On 8/21/2016 7:54 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
> 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
>     sayshere
>     <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160822/e0f951ec/attachment.htm>