[General] Gravity
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Aug 30 08:58:04 PDT 2016
Dear Chandra and dear Grahame,
firstly, thank you, Chandra, for your feedback to my contribution. I
generally agree that there is a hierarchy of physical quantities. But
for your example of Einstein's m=E/c^2 I am not so sure. Is E more
fundamental than m? True, m is not a fundamental quantity on the lowest
level. It describes the force which is needed to accelerate an object.
So, the quantity force should be more fundamental. But what about E? In
my understanding it is a human concept which was brought up, when
physicists detected one day that in a closed system the quantity F*way
is conserved. So it received the name "energy". Is this energy always
conserved? I think that in some reactions of particle physics it is not.
And that is not only in the context of Heisenberg's uncertainty
relation. It is also violated by exchange particles.
So, what is about exchange particles which mediate a force or a charge?
You both seem not to like it. But it has advantages. The general law of
distance of forces: 1/r^2 (e.g. the Coulomb law) can easily be deduced
by it if using the continuity relation and geometrical broadening. In
this context it is just simple geometry. In addition the relativistic
contraction (of fields) is easily understandable if exchange particles
are assumed. And further, all explanations about gravity which do not
use Einstein's funny distorted space-time rely on exchange particles.
Another point in the discussion is the question of how photons can be
understood. It is said (at different places of the foregoing discussion)
that matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) can be converted into pure energy,
which means photons in this context. Why is it denied that a photon is a
particle? It has all properties of a particle which the speciality that
it permanently moves with c. And with this latter property it is very
close to a neutrino for which nobody questions that it is a particle.
And a photon has a well defined energy. This fact was indeed questioned
by some contributions in this forum. To those who are questioning it I
would like to explain the following:
My PhD thesis was about an experiment in which photons were scattered.
The source of the photon beam delivered photons with well defined energy
(it was a spectrum with a strong limit of an upper energy). The photons
were, after the scattering, detected by pair production which took place
when the photon passed a thin sheet of metal. From the energy and
direction of the electron-positron pair the energy and the direction of
the photon was determined. The resulting energy of the scattered photon
was in agreement with the energy of the incoming photon. So the energy
of the individual photon was precisely measured and so well defined. I
do not see any argument for the position that a photon is not an
individual but just a beam with properties which can only be
statistically assumed. The photon energy measured was clearly not
defined by some property of the detector what was sometimes suspected in
the discussion here.
Sincerely
Albrecht
Am 28.08.2016 um 00:51 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> 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 <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *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 <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701>
>
> July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7
> <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1>, pp 1031–1068
>
> “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
> Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van
> Flandern
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1>,
> Jean-Pierre Vigier
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2>
>
> …………………………………………..
>
> 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 Einsteinpreferred 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.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:41 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi Vladimir
>
> Here is one reference for the speed of gravity and pulsars.
>
> The speed of gravity – What the experiments say – attached.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:15 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi John D and Vladimir
>
> As it turns out gravity needs to be 10000 to 20000 times as fast
> as light in order for the orbits of the pulsars to be as we observe.
>
> If most of the mass of a black hole is inside the “event horizon”
> then how does the huge gravity field escape? It seem that all of
> the black holes gravity escapes the event horizon with no problem.
>
> For a black hole to have gravity which is related to its mass then
> gravity HAS to travel faster than light.
>
> Charge (the Coulomb field) also travels “almost instantaneously”
> (10000 to 20000 times the speed of light).
>
> Yes John D. Transverse (S) waves travel at the velocity:
>
> Where v is velocity of propagation, 𝜇is the transverse modulus of
> the medium, and 𝜌is the “density” of the medium.
>
> And longitudinal (P) waves travel at the velocity:
>
> Where K is the bulk or longitudinal modulus.
>
> We have never found a medium which supports transverse waves and
> does not support longitudinal waves. Longitudinal waves are always
> faster, and can be orders of magnitude faster.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Duffield
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:26 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Chip:
>
> I don’t think it’s heresy. See hyperphysics
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/seismic.html>:
> /“S waves travel typically 60% of the speed of P waves”. /
>
> //
>
> I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if different types of waves in space
> travelled at different speeds too.
>
> But I have to say I’m not totally convinced by the recent LIGO news.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Vladimir Tamari
> *Sent:* 25 August 2016 16:14
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Chip
>
> The pulsars analysis sounds interesting - a reference would be
> appreciated. Would it change calculation if one considers that
> just as light slows down in a gravitational field (as John D
> pointed out) gravity itself would slow down in its own field. A
> gravitational wave starts out sluggish just after starting out at
> the edge of the black holes and reach c in empty space?
>
> Here is a thought: Following my own arguments would measuring
> light velocity as c in the Earth's gravitational field mean it is
> larger in space?!
>
> Cheers
>
> Vladimir
> _____________________
>
> vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com>
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> The issue of gravity is a bit more involved than the density
> of electromagnetic fields.
>
> When we study binary pulsars, we see orbits which are much
> more stable than they would be if gravity traveled at the
> speed of electromagnetic fields. Studying pulsars is important
> because if the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of
> light these pulsars would change their orbits at a specific
> rate, but they do not. The “static field” argument does not
> apply to pulsars which are moving massive bodies with their
> gravitational centers constantly changing. Studying pulsars
> clearly indicates that gravity is much faster than light
> (electromagnetic fields).
>
> It seems that gravity may be the result of the Coulomb field
> (electric charge) density instead of electromagnetic field
> density. (There is a significant difference between the
> Coulomb field and electromagnetic fields).
>
> I have quoted two experiments on this forum before, conducted
> in Italy, which indicate that the Coulomb field (charge) is
> much faster than the speed of light, just a Feynman found in
> one of his papers.
>
> While moving charge creates electromagnetic fields, charge is
> not the same as an electromagnetic field. It is not even the
> same as the E portion of the EM field. Charge is a quantized
> quantity, EM radiation may be any magnitude.
>
> There are things in this universe which travel much faster
> than light.
>
> I know some will consider these statements to be “heresy”, but
> take a good look at the experimental evidence and the issue of
> binary pulsars.
>
> Happy to provide references for those interested.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Duffield
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:08 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Vlad:
>
> It’s the Einstein digital papers. See this
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22>.
> The first page is here
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/129?ajax>.
> Einstein was talking about the /“Fundamental Ideas and Methods
> of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their Development”./
>
> Note though that Einstein wasn’t talking in terms of “a car
> decelerating because it takes a curve”. He was talking about a
> car’s path curving to the left /because/ the speed of its
> wheels on the left is less than the speed of its wheels on the
> right. Imagine you’re driving down a country road. The road is
> muddy on the left, so the car pulls left. We steer tanks in
> this fashion.
>
> Your paper reminds me of Inhomogeneous Vaccuum, an Alternative
> Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. See attached.
>
> <image002.jpg>
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Vladimir Tamari
> *Sent:* 25 August 2016 03:04
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Very good Grahame
>
> John D. What is the book you quoted about light speed varying?
>
> Yes Einstein admitted that the speed of light had to vary, as
> in mechanics the speed slows down with curvature - that is the
> link between gravity and acceleration - actually deceleration
> when a car takes a curve. Unfortunately the whole
> unnecessarily complex structure of General Relativity
> equations remained expressed in the language of variable
> spacetime!
>
> In my 1993 paper United Dipole Field I show how curvature of
> light rays ie gravity occured in the variable refractive index
> of a dipole.
> http://vladimirtamari.com/United-Dipole-Field-Tamari.pdf
>
> Here is a figure from the Dipole paper. I generalized this
> idea in my Beautiful Universe model for an entire Universe
> made up of such dipoles.
>
> Cheers
>
> Vladimir
>
> <image003.jpg>
>
> Cheers
>
> Vladimir
>
> _____________________
>
> vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com>
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:47 AM, John Duffield
> <johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>
> Grahame:
>
> Sorry I haven’t got back to you on your paper yet, I’ve
> been busy. But note that Einstein never said light curves
> because spacetime was curved. He said light curves because
> the speed of light varies with position.
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> Light curves for the same reason sonar waves curve.
>
> <image002.gif>
>
> Regards
>
> JohnD
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* 23 August 2016 14:38
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Dear Chandra, John D, John H, Wolf and others,
>
> Thanks, Chandra, for your response. I totally agree that
> the answer to the gravitation issue (as to so many others)
> involves reverse engineering the system we refer to as
> reality. More on that below. (I also find myself in
> strong agreement with your views on 'the spacetime
> continuum'.)
>
> John D, I agree also the the 'curvature' of spacetime is
> in fact inhomogeneity of the electromagnetic field density
> - which also appears to concur with Hammond's view. More
> on this also below.
>
> Wolf, I understand your preference for considering the
> interplay of electricity and gravity/inertia; however,
> given that gravitation is an effect wholly engendered by
> particles of matter, it seems most unlikely that we're
> going to understand gravity without getting a clear grip
> on those particles.
>
> The SR 'explanation' of gravitation as 'curvature of
> spacetime' is in fact no explanation at all - it says
> nothing about WHAT is being curved, HOW it's being curved,
> WHAT it is about matter that causes that curvature or WHY
> light and material objects move in accordance with that
> 'curvature'. It's a useful picture, certainly, but in
> terms of explanation it appears to add little to Newton's
> action-at-a-distance (other than relativistic effects).
>
> So let's try a bit of that reverse systems engineering:
>
> Fact (1): It's known (and has been since at least 1934)
> that particles of matter are (time-varying)
> electromagnetic constructs.
>
> Fact (2): Given fact (1), and given that electromagnetic
> field effects drop off inverse-quadratically in relation
> to the distance from their source, it follows that
> material particles will have a presence that likewise
> drops off as the inverse square of distance; that presence
> is detectable - we refer to it by two names: gravitation
> and electrical charge.
>
> Fact (3): In this very real sense every particle of matter
> is in fact unlimited spatially in its extent; the
> limitations that we attribute to such particles are in
> fact limitations of our own perception, which is only
> capable of detecting them through 'virtual photon'
> interactions, which are interactions between the central
> 'cores' (loops) of particles being sensed and particles
> doing the sensing.
>
> Fact (4): Given facts (1) - (3), it follows that the
> whole of space will be permeated by the totality of
> (time-varying) electromagnetic field effects from all the
> particles in the universe, each contributing in accordance
> with the inverse square law; given also the evening out of
> 'positive' and 'negative' charge effects on a macroscopic
> scale, these field effects constitute what we refer to as
> 'the universal gravitational field'.
>
> Fact (5): That field will vary in intensity in accordance
> with distance from the various massive bodies that form
> it; this varying intensity of electromagnetic field
> effects will influence the behaviour of other
> electromagnetic constructs passing through that field,
> i.e. ensembles of particles that form massive bodies; (it
> is implicit in this, of course, that the principle of
> coherent superposition of linear photons won't apply to
> these non-linear time-varying electromagnetic field
> effects - i.e.they will influence each other through a
> complex process of mutual interference).
>
> Fact (6): This varying density of field effects will give
> this continuum a 'shape' defined by the surfaces of equal
> intensity of those effects; these 3-D contours will
> effectively determine the motion of electromagnetic
> constructs - light, particles - through that medium; (any
> scuba diver who has seen or felt a thermocline in water
> will have a good analogy to work from here).
>
> Fact (7): It's implicit, and would necessarily be the
> case, that, although electrostatic charge 'cancel out' if
> they are equal and opposite, the electromagnetic field
> effects giving rise to those charges will in fact be
> additive across the cosmos; likewise, though gravitational
> 'pull' from opposing directions may appear to cancel out,
> there may still be a strong gravitational field in that
> location - think of a plateau high on a great mountain,
> with a small hillock on that platea.
>
> Fact (8): Substantial supporting detail for this
> perspective on gravitation can be found in my paper
> 'Cosmic System Dynamics', posted with my email of 20th August.
>
> A couple of points as a postscript:
>
> (a) This means that we ourselves, being ensembles of
> material particles, actually extend across the whole
> cosmos; this may prove relevant;
>
> (b) The entire cosmos is in fact one electromagnetic
> entity; from the QM point of view there is just ONE
> wavefunction, spanning the whole universe: wavefunctions
> for single particles or ensembles of particles are in fact
> local approximations to this universal wavefunction, in
> which terms for more distant influences have been ignored
> as being insignificant; this could well have something to
> say about 'quantum randomness', which may in fact be those
> other influences tipping the balance (this is also
> expanded upon in my book).
>
> Best regards to all,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>; Chandra UConn
> <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
>
> *Sent:*Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:54 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Gravity and
> ultraweak-photonemission
>
> 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
> <http://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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 grahame at starweave.com
> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/067187d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 789 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/067187d4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/067187d4/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list