[General] Gravity

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dr Grahame Blackwell 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] Gravity


  Roy (et al)

  Thanks for this.  I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've said (as long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight difference in view is, I believe, a matter of semantics rather than science.

  Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying particles'; this concept appears to raise far more questions than it answers (if it answers any) - it certainly doesn't in any way offer significantly greater insight than the 'action at a distance' proposed by Newton.  [Not to put too fine a point on it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be taken on trust.]  I agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the additional 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced by some form of 'force gradient' that is itself an extended consequence (part of the structure) of 'material particles' and moves concomitantly with them.  In this respect such 'force effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that effect: if a complete unified singular object moves as a whole, we don't propose that one part of the object 'communicates its motion' to another part (at FTL speed) so that it too moves - it just IS a unified moving body.  No threat to causality there.  The fact that our limited senses don't perceive the whole of that extended entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very action proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding of EM effects.

  My difference in view relates to your observation that particles "are not made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter of semantics - essentialy how one defines a photon.  We agree that they are formed from light-like oscillations of the universal field - i.e. TEM wave packets.  If one defines a photon simply as a TEM wave packet then particles are formed from photons; if however we add the stipulation that a photon radiates rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source, then by definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a photon.  The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can be) initially created from photons is, I believe, established by Landau & Lifshits (1934) and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.

  I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a particle will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that this must be true, since the configuration of its formative field will be somewhat different.  As you say, it would be interesting if it were possible to construct an experiment to demonstrate this - I suspect one would first have to persuade the experimenters that SR is primarily a subjective effect, so that they don't apply 'SR logic' as an objective truth to their readings!

  Best regards,
  Grahame


  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra 
    To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
    Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM
    Subject: Re: [General] Gravity


    Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:

     

    Chip:

    After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug out a possible later publication by Flandern. The link is given below.

    ……………………………..

    Foundations of Physics

    July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1031–1068

    “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van Flandern, Jean-Pierre Vigier

    …………………………………………..

     

    The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not conversant with the GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly from review articles without math. Now, after reading Flandern, Now I believe, like that for SR, GR does also have rather serious foundational problems. And our understanding of momentum of a moving object needs to explored deeper in light of the fact that mass in not some immutable “substance”. It is the perturbation energy that creates the resonant self-looped oscillation of the cosmic Complex Tension Field (CTF); the rest mass being the original oscillation-inducing  energy. Spatial (definitely not space-time) velocity, induced by some  “force gradient” adds further energy to a particle in the form of “kinetic oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we measure and interpret “momentum” since mass is not an immutable intrinsic property. 

     

    Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always intuitively believed that forces are not mediated by various force particles. Thus, I clearly disagree with Flandern and Vigier. I have said that in many of my publications, including my book.

     

    Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties of the CTF, the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate various kinds of decaying potential gradients of the CTF properties around the oscillating “particle”. These gradients are not exactly like the physical curvature in a stretched membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each other depending upon the sign of the potential gradients. all into or are repulsed by this gradient. Hence, these force gradients are mobile with the particles and would suffer spatial distortion at very high velocity. Attempts to measure these distortion should open up new frontiers of physics. “The potential gradients representing “forces”, obey the principle of linear superposition; very much like the EM wave amplitudes; even though the former is “stationary” around the parent particle; and the latter is true propagating wave that follows the classic wave equation.

     

    LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to design experiments to measure the distortions in the electrostatic “force gradient” generated by speeding electrons and protons. Speedy protons-electron collision might help reveal the distortion in their gravitational potential gradients. These potential gradient based “forces” are not communicated by some particles. Causality is not violated. “c” is not exceeded by anything since even the particles are light-like self-looped oscillations. Note that I am using the phrase, light-like oscillations of the CTF; they are not constructed out of photons. Photon wave packets are linear propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually running away from the original point in space where they were created by some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear). 

     

    Albrecht: 

    In a separate recent email you have raised a very important point, which in some of my epistemology articles underscore as the necessity of assigning the physical parameters in any physics equation with the hierarchy of “primary”, “secondary”, “tertiary”, etc., based upon the physical roles they play in interactions with other entities; or their emergence out of the CTF. So, I like your argument related to √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀). In this context, we may note that Einstein preferred to write m=E/c-squared;  because m is not an immutable property; it is an emergent property in our methods of measuring it.

     

    Sincerely,

    Chandra.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160828/bc822ee7/attachment.htm>