[General] (no subject)

Joakim Pettersson joakimbits at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 02:17:24 PST 2016


Dear John,

Good luck with the exams and negotiations, and rest assure the WcdM 
equations will be there when you got the time and energy back!

I think the main reason people don't understand is that they can't 
follow the maths unless it is given 100% attention and at least a full 
workweek, and that may only result in an understanding similar to yours 
if there are also tools to visualize and experiment with during that 
time. Some of this is missing for all the people on the discussion list, 
including me...

I believe that to understand this apparently simple GdG = 0 equation at 
any deeper level, there needs to be a PhD-level course with use pf 
proper math tools and exercises to it so that it can be explored and 
discussed in more detail. At least until there is research funding for 
it enough to support a team with many competences for at least a year.

I guess you would be able to get a lot of students to sign up for such 
an international PhD course, could you try? Not sure what it could be 
called but looking at the mathemathical content in the full WvdM 
equation it does result in most engineering formulas used in 
contemporary continuum analysis today. It does also open the possibility 
to extend the continuum to relativistic velocities or energy densities 
when used as a complete set, but the FEM grid to calculate it on would 
be enormous so the course would need access to lots of resources on a 
supercomputer for such exercises if even possible, so maybe it should 
not be part of the course even though that is what we are trying to 
discuss here... It takes time to get the grips on this!

Best wishes,/joakim

------ Originalmeddelande ------
Från: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
Till: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Kopia: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Skickat: 2016-02-04 20:00:22
Ämne: Re: [General] (no subject)

>Dear All,
>
>
>
>Albrecht – I must apologise for being so direct in my criticism of your 
>work. As I have said before, there is much which is good in it. You 
>just did not seem to properly take on board some aspects of 
>well-established fact. Perhaps there is a deeper level to your thinking 
>where these are properly balanced.
>
>To do something positive ...
>
>Chip is right that I simple calculation shows that the photon 
>confinement force would be (if the electron was a localised photon) of 
>the order of the "strong" interaction in magnitude. Though this picture 
>is not quite so simple- the electron is no more simply a confined 
>photon, simply, that the “photon” is just given by the retarded 
>potentials). Neither picture is complete.
>
>
>
>There ARE forces sufficient to the task in my new theory of light and 
>matter. They are given by a generalisation of the Lorentz force. These 
>were first outlined in my talk in 2008 at CYBCOM, and you can hear them 
>talked about there as the talk is up on the CYBCOM website hosted by 
>Nick Green. The full set are given by multiplying the left hand side of 
>the WvdM equations by the generalised field. The WvdM equations (which 
>contain the Maxwell equations as a special case, may be written dG=0, 
>as in the SPIE paper. This contains the four coupled Maxwell equations 
>(for the field alone), and also four new equations relating current and 
>quantum spin. As is said there, the generalised force is just GdG. 
>These ARE big enough to confine light - that is the point. It is easy 
>to see this if one sets the total generalised force to zero one writes 
>the 1024 coupled terms of the set of coupled first order differential 
>general equation GdG = 0. Clearly this is zero (force free motion) if 
>either the sixteen terms of G are all zero - in which case one has 
>nothing, or if the 64 terms of dG  are zero. That condition is 
>expressed mathematically by writing dG = 0. Those 64 terms ARE the WvdM 
>equation. There are forces - big forces - forces as strong as the 
>strong force - but the net force on each and every element - field and 
>masses - is zero in the WvdM equation. There are lots of heavy forces – 
>all beautifully balanced in the new theory. All described by a set of 
>coupled differential equation in (ONLY!) space and time.
>
>
>
>I have said this many times, I have written this in the papers I 
>submitted, there has been lots of discussion about this - that we need 
>forces. I have argued that one needs a theory of these forces – not a 
>bunch of opinions – a theory with equations, forces, quantities such as 
>current, quantum spin, rest mass and field. We have such a theory!
>
>
>
>After all that I have the distinct impression that none of you seem to 
>know what I am talking about at all. My friend Weaver says this is just 
>because it is just hard – but it isn’t if you just follow the logic 
>properly.
>
>I must apologise for not contributing much to the group discussion over 
>the last couple of months and if I’m being a bit short and rude now. 
>This has been mainly because the University has started a program to 
>try to fire me (just before Christmas) based on the fact that I am not 
>considered to be research active! This has been, as one might expect, 
>causing me a lot of stress and has been taking up a lot of my time over 
>the last couple of months. Also, I have an exam (actually four separate 
>exams – to combat copying) for tomorrow, with 400 folk taking it - and 
>have just discovered that the university has booked the room in which I 
>will be holding it of another event (In which I am also involved, by 
>pure chance, which is the only reason I have heard about it at all!). 
>This may or may not be a problem depending on when it finishes. This 
>semester I will have more than a thousand scripts to mark – the 400 
>from the exam tomorrow plus more than 600 in April, plus hundreds of 
>logbooks and dozens of masters theses (four years ago I would have had 
>a couple of hundred scripts in a whole year,  which felt like a lot at 
>the time!) I have a (teaching) work program that has quadrupled in four 
>years. Overall, I’m feeling a bit abused and very very tired! Sorry 
>guys!
>
>Regards, John.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: General 
>[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:09 PM
>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>HI Everybody:
>
>
>
>I am in general agreement with Chip regrading all stable particles as 
>being emergent excitation properties of the same Complex Tension Field 
>(CTF); which also supports the perpetually propagating linear 
>excitations as the EM waves. “Linear excitation” also mathematically 
>and physically imply Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW). Particles are 
>local excitations and EM waves are perpetually propagating excitations 
>of the same stationary CTF. The core “quantumness” arises from 
>classical self-resonant self-looped harmonic oscillations. QM is not at 
>all fundamentally different from CM. QM appeared as a “revolution” 
>because it has been such an incomplete theory from its original 
>formulation and yet it succeeds in predicting so many diverse 
>properties of the micro universe! The key incompleteness of QM lies 
>with its inability to guide us to understand and visualize the details 
>of the interaction processes.
>
>
>
>The CTF is also the universal stationary reference frame. Atoms in the 
>stars and inside my He-Ne discharge tube are moving randomly in the 
>same stationary CTF. That is why the characteristics of the emission 
>and absorption spectra of atoms in the stars and in earth-based 
>laboratories can be des cribbed by the same rules of QM. The atoms in 
>the stars are confined by Gravitational Potential Gradients of the 
>stars and atoms in my He-Ne tube are essentially confined mechanically 
>by the walls of the discharge tube [the tube held by the earth’s 
>gravity gradient. The space between all atoms and particles everywhere 
>in this universe is the same stationary CTF.
>
>
>
>There are no “forces”. But there are diverse “Potential gradients” of 
>the CTF (“Curvatures” a la Einstein) generated around localized (finite 
>size, not a point) self-looped oscillations, depending upon their 
>internal oscillations (movements) characteristics. Stationary CTF also 
>implies Cosmological Redshift is definitely not due to Doppler Velocity 
>Effect.
>
>
>
>Yes, developing the mathematical structure for self-resonant 
>self-looped oscillation has been the “elephant in the physics edifice” 
>for quite some time! We just need to anchor our thinking to visualize 
>the invisible interaction processes that give rise to the measurable 
>data. Mathematical theory, supported by measured data, is not 
>sufficient to keep us anchored in perpetually excavating ontological 
>realities. Interaction processes, if we can visualize, give us a 
>glimpse of some aspects of the ongoing ontological realities.
>
>
>
>The philosophical thinking behind the “Special Relativity” and the 
>“Copenhagen School” have slowed down the progress of physics quite 
>severally. We need to “stand on the shoulders” of these “giant” 
>philosophies and see further out; rather than bowing down to them out 
>of our Messiah Complex; and, thereby, keep our knowledge horizon 
>stagnant, or even reduced!
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Chandra.
>
>
>
>From: General 
>[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>On Behalf Of Chip Akins
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:51 AM
>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>
>
>Hi All
>
>
>
>Many of us, probably most of us, believe that fermionic particles are 
>confined energy in the form of waves.
>
>
>
>Regarding inertia, I think that Richard is dead on, as have been many 
>of us and several before us, and that inertia is quite easy to explain 
>once we accept that fermionic particles are (principally circularly) 
>confined waves of energy traveling at c (or the sqrt(2) c).
>
>
>
>Then inertia is simply the consequence of the fixed velocity and the 
>momentum of the waves when confined.
>
>
>
>As an aside, the most economical solution for gravity is to assume that 
>it is the diffraction of these waves due to changes in the density of 
>space (permittivity and permeability) in the vicinity of concentrations 
>of energy (mass being one example of the concentration of energy).
>
>
>
>Of course the real puzzle is the method and nature of the confinement.
>
>Confinement of these waves, with their known momentum, to make 
>fermions, requires a force at least equal to the Strong Nuclear force.
>
>This confinement force is at least 1/a (137 times) stronger than the E 
>field forces… and about 1/(6.0E-39) = (1.66667E+38) stronger than 
>gravity.
>
>
>
>(So the Higgs field or gravity is in no way a cause of inertial mass, 
>but rather gravity is an effect of the concentration of energy. And the 
>Higgs Field may be just imaginations.)
>
>
>
>So while the “cause for inertia” might be stated as the momentum of the 
>confined wave-- that is not an adequately complete explanation.  For we 
>must then explain how it is that these waves can be confined against 
>such a strong force of momentum. The centripetal force required is in 
>the range of 0.42 kg for the electron.
>
>
>
>This confinement force yields only specific fermionic results.  We do 
>not see rest masses of fermions throughout the full energy spectrum, 
>but only sparsely distributed through this spectrum.
>
>
>
>When we really understand this confinement force we will then 
>understand why it is that the particles have the exact inertial masses 
>they have.
>
>
>
>This confinement force is the elephant in the room.
>
>
>
>For me this is the largest remaining piece of the puzzle.
>
>
>
>We still have some discovery ahead.  Work to do.
>
>
>
>If any of you have insight or information that may help in this quest 
>it would be so very appreciated.
>
>
>
>Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>From: General 
>[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>On Behalf Of John Williamson
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:36 AM
>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
><general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; phys at a-giese.de
>Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>
>
>Dear Albrecht,
>
>Sorry to be so direct - but you are quite simply wrong in much of what 
>you say. This is not wrong in the senso fo a matter of opinion - but 
>just wrong in that your view are simply contradicted by experiment.
>
>Going on with this is sucking oxygen out of what should be a 
>constructive debate - and driving people away.
>
>For example on momentum  you say ....
>
>"Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said 
>it earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial 
>mass. So, to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia 
>as general explanation are in my view tautological statements. There is 
>something explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it."
>
>This is just bullshit.
>
>Photons have no inertial mass. Photons carry momentum. Ergo - bullshit.
>
>No?
>
>Even in classical electromagnetism the momentum density is the cross 
>product of the E and B fields. Even at this level it is bullshit.
>
>More: there is no sign of a force between parts of the electron not an 
>electromagnetic force and certainly not a strong force. Experimentally. 
>End of story.
>
>So more bullshit...
>
>All you are doing is diverting debate into dead ends ... dead ends with 
>no theory, no equations, no explanations, no dynamics - nothing ....
>
>Please stop!
>
>JGW.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: General 
>[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>on behalf of Wolfgang Baer [wolf at nascentinc.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:51 PM
>To:phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>albrecht;
>Your paragraph in bold below is a very nice and concise way to 
>summarize your point, especially if the Lande factor can be fit.
>I have "Relativity Based on Physical Processes Rather Than Space-Time" 
>and the "can a photon be described...." article from SPIE 2015
>I can see after eq. 2.6 the words "this is now the inertial mass...'
>
>this calculation makes sense but works out because you have
>1) defined a specific binding field as a multipole bond
>2) assumed mass-less particles which react individually to some 
>"external agent"
>
>Is there a reference or can you explain both of these assumptions or 
>else one might think you backed into them.
>I mean your requirements for the sub-particles and their fields may be 
>more complicated than the effects they explain.
>
>"for example you say the internal motion must be circular in order to 
>account for angular momentum"
>
>Does that not imply an inertial mass when the particles are in their 
>equilibrium orbits?
>If it takes an external agent force to show the properties of inertial 
>mass, how does this equilibrium field have a minimum.
>in the planetary orbit model the minimum is produced by a a coulomb 
>force pulling in and a centripetal force pulling out
>how did you get your minimum?
>
>best wishes
>wolf
>
>Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>Research Director
>Nascent Systems Inc.
>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>On 1/30/2016 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>>Hello Richard,
>>
>>yes, we have to assume fundamentals in physics, and which those are, 
>>may be different for different physicists. In my view, forces are 
>>fundamental phenomena where I do not see an explanation on a lower 
>>level, at least at present. I follow QM at this point in so far, as 
>>forces are realized by exchange particles which are mass-less,  move 
>>with c and have a distance law of 1/r^2. .
>>
>>Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said 
>>it earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial 
>>mass. So, to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia 
>>as general explanation are in my view tautological statements. There 
>>is something explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it.
>>
>>Inertia is caused in my view (I think explained here several times) by 
>>a very fundamental process. Every extended object must have inertia. 
>>This is caused by nothing than the finiteness of the speed of light by 
>>which the internal forces in an object propagate. And without internal 
>>forces an extended object cannot exist. This is true for any type of 
>>force, so in our world the strong force and the electric force. In an 
>>elementary particle the strong force dominates, so I have restricted 
>>my explanation mostly to the strong force. To be precise, the electric 
>>force must not be overlooked. In my model the consideration of the 
>>electric force in the electron causes the Landé factor (very 
>>precisely!)
>>
>>So,  the fact that an extended object behaves inert, is not a 
>>possibility or some special theory, but it is completely unavoidable 
>>that an extended object is inert.
>>
>>Only because you mention it: In my model there does not exist a 
>>gravitational mass because gravity has nothing to do with mass. But 
>>this is another topic. If you are interested you can find it explained 
>>on my web site "origin of gravity" (which is the no. 1 in the internet 
>>about this topic since 12 years).
>>
>>About Newton's law: As I have understood, Newton has defined mass as 
>>F/a. 'F' is in his view an elementary quantity visible e.g. by 
>>stretching a spring. 'a' is defined by length and time, both are also 
>>elementaries for him in the way that length is given by a prototype 
>>ruler and time by some sufficiently defined oscillators like a 
>>pendulum. We have better definitions now using means of higher 
>>precision, but that does not change the idea behind.
>>
>>One can of course have a lot of cognition-related thoughts about the 
>>understanding of these quantities, but that seems to me to be beyond 
>>the level which we need here.
>>
>>One famous American physicist ones wrote: Mass is a great mystery. I 
>>know that many understand it this way. But I am very sure that my 
>>finding that every extended object has inertial mass solves this 
>>"mystery" completely. It is my intention to convince my colleagues 
>>about this since more than 15 year on conferences and by the internet. 
>>And I have never got a refuting argument. Most main stream physicists 
>>refer to Higgs and say that one does not need another explanation. But 
>>never something more substantial.
>>
>>My model of inertia is in some way similar to the Higgs mechanism. 
>>According to the Higgs theory there are virtual particles 
>>intermediately generated in the Higgs field. These virtual particles 
>>couple to the real particle in view and keep staying at rest in the 
>>same inertial system as the real particle. If now the real particle is 
>>accelerated to any direction, it moves off the virtual Higgs and that 
>>needs a force. This force is inertia. - The similarity to my model is 
>>that in my model the role of the virtual Higgs is realized by the 
>>other (real) sub-particle in the elementary particle.
>>
>>My model does not explain why there are certain masses in particles 
>>realized and others not. Otto Greulich has found a numerical relation 
>>for the existing particles but no explanation why it works. In his 
>>algorithm the factor alpha plays an important role. And I have the 
>>impression that the relation of strong force and electric force, which 
>>is described by alpha, plays an essential role in the question if a 
>>particle is stable. Otto is looking for a possible mechanism, but up 
>>to now he has no solution. I also think about it, but presently also 
>>with no success.
>>
>>To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and 
>>speed, as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed is 
>>a vector and so it is unavoidable that the product, called momentum, 
>>is a vector. But just from this definition of momentum it is visible 
>>that momentum is not fundamental but a combination of two other units. 
>>Isn't it?
>>
>>Albrecht
>>
>>Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>
>>>Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    You want to explain inertia and therefore momentum (in your view) 
>>>by the strong force. But what is your “mechanism” or explanation for 
>>>the strong force?  You have not explained or even tried to explain 
>>>the strong force so you are actually doing what you are accusing me 
>>>of doing — not explaining what momentum is or what is its 
>>>“mechanism”.  But I’m not trying to explain momentum, I’m trying to 
>>>explain inertial mass or inertia in terms of momentum. If inertia can 
>>>be explained in terms of momentum, I would say that is progress. If 
>>>this leads to a greater insights into why inertial mass equals 
>>>gravitational mass (if it does), that would be further progress. 
>>>Scientific progress occurs in steps, it’s not all or nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Newton’s F=ma is actually a tautological or circular 
>>>relationship. A force F does not CAUSE acceleration. Acceleration is 
>>>observed and measured. “Force" is DEFINED as ma, never observed. Or m 
>>>is DEFINED as F/a.  “Mass" is also never observed. Physical objects 
>>>are hypothesized, observed, measured or inferred. None of Newton’s 
>>>laws have ever been experimentally proved, at least according to MIT 
>>>physics lecturer Walter Lewin (introduction to mechanics). You can’t 
>>>prove or disprove a definition. F=ma is a circular relationship that 
>>>works within certain limits without knowing what either force or mass 
>>>is fundamentally.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      The cause of the inertia of the electron is considered to be one 
>>>of the deepest mysteries of physics. Frank Wilczek in his article 
>>>“The origin of mass” at 
>>>http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf 
>>>concludes:
>>>
>>>"Still, as I’ve already mentioned, our understanding of the origin of 
>>>mass is by no means complete. We have achieved a beautiful and 
>>>profound understanding of the origin of most of the mass of ordinary 
>>>matter, but not of all of it. The value of the electron mass, in 
>>>particular, remains deeply mysterious even in our most advanced 
>>>speculations about unification and string theory. And ordinary 
>>>matter, we have recently learned, supplies only a small fraction of 
>>>mass in the Universe as a whole. More beautiful and profound 
>>>revelations surely await discovery. We continue to search for 
>>>concepts and theories that will allow us to understand the origin of 
>>>mass in all its forms, by unveiling more of Nature’s hidden 
>>>symmetries."
>>>
>>>And Wilczek is talking about the origin of the magnitude of the 
>>>electron’s mass, not the cause of the electron’s inertia.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am not claiming, as you do, to derive the electron’s mass m = 
>>>0.511 MeV/c^2  in a circular way from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m 
>>>which isn’t even the electron’s experimental magnetic moment, only an 
>>>approximation calculated from the known measured values of e, h and 
>>>m.  But it is not tautological or circular to derive the electron’s 
>>>inertial mass m = 0.511Mev/c^2 from a circulating photon model of an 
>>>electron where this circulating photon has (for no known reason) 
>>>energy hf = 0.511MeV and momentum p = 0.511MeV/c . After all, a 
>>>photon’s rest mass (0 Mev/c^2)  is not the same as a photon’s 
>>>inertial mass (hf/c^2). And the rest mass m of a moving electron is 
>>>not the same as the inertial mass gamma m of this moving electron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As far as what you say about the Higgs mechanism and inertia, here’s 
>>>an interesting quote from Bernhard Haisch in 
>>>http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html . Haisch and his 
>>>colleagues have been studying inertia and its possible explanation 
>>>for years: "But the Higgs mechanism does not explain why mass, or its 
>>>energy equivalent, resists motion or reacts to gravity," says Bernard 
>>>Haisch of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in 
>>>Palo Alto. He believes instead that inertia and gravity are 
>>>manifestations of far more familiar effects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So the Higgs field, while it may “explain” why some particles have 
>>>rest mass and others don't, apparently doesn’t explain the inertia of 
>>>mass. So your explanation of inertia is apparently not in competition 
>>>with the Higgs mechanism of mass. But I would say that your 
>>>explanation of inertial mass in terms of the strong nuclear force IS 
>>>in competition with the derivation of inertial mass from momentum. 
>>>And Occam’s razor and physical facts do apply.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One more comment. Momentum is a vector quantity, with both magnitude 
>>>and direction. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity, with magnitude 
>>>only. So Inertia cannot be the same as momentum unless inertia is 
>>>also a vector quantity, having direction as well as magnitude. 
>>>Perhaps inertia IS a vector quantity after all, subject to vector 
>>>addition (and cancellation). That would be interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>>there is not necessarily a hierarchy between mass and momentum. But 
>>>>the origin of all is the resistance against a change of the motion 
>>>>state. That resistance is called inertia. And this resistance causes 
>>>>momentum as well as mass.
>>>>
>>>>If you understand the momentum as on the top of the hierarchy, you 
>>>>have to explain which mechanism causes momentum. There must be one. 
>>>>What is it?
>>>>
>>>>My explanation of inertia is the only working one which I know. And 
>>>>which of course is not a tautological explanation. The other 
>>>>explanation followed by main stream is the Higgs model. That is 
>>>>derived from QM, and that is something which I personally do not 
>>>>like very much. But the strong argument against the Higgs model is 
>>>>the fact that the necessary Higgs field does not exist as far as we 
>>>>know. And again, I have never heard about another model of inertial 
>>>>which is not tautological.
>>>>
>>>>My model for leptons and for quarks has to function as it does, 
>>>>under the assumption that inertia has to be explained. And we may 
>>>>not ask for Occam's Razor if there is no alternative. I do not see 
>>>>any.
>>>>
>>>>My model explains the photon in a fundamentally similar way as a 
>>>>lepton and a quark. But for the photon something has to be added to 
>>>>explain its constant speed, i.e. the fact that it cannot be found at 
>>>>rest. And the fact of twice the spin. This letter point seems to me 
>>>>not too serious.
>>>>
>>>>The relativistic increase of the particle mass at motion (not only 
>>>>the electron, but all) is easily and straight explained by the 
>>>>model. Take the calculation of the inertial mass and adjust the 
>>>>distance of the sub-particles for the relativistic contraction. Then 
>>>>the straight result is the new mass increased by the factor gamma. 
>>>>Your find it in my web site about "origin of mass". And the relation 
>>>>energy to mass: E=mc^2 follows immediately from the same 
>>>>calculation. Who else has ever deduced the famous formula of 
>>>>Einstein? I do not know any else deduction which refers to a 
>>>>physical mechanism.
>>>>
>>>>Strong force? In the 1940s calculations of the electron have been 
>>>>made in Germany which were based on the assumption that there are 
>>>>only electrical forces in the particle. The resulting mass turned 
>>>>out to be too low by a factor of ca. 300. This is about the factor 
>>>>by which the strong force is stronger than the electrical one. So 
>>>>there is no surprise that with the assumption of the strong force 
>>>>the results are correct. I think this is a good argument. Isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Am 26.01.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    I know that you object to my derivation, but I am proposing that 
>>>>>momentum is primary and inertia is secondary. You have got it 
>>>>>backwards. The inertial mass of an electron is (in my approach) 
>>>>>quantitatively due to the circulating internal momentum of its 
>>>>>charged (or uncharged) photon. By extension, the inertial mass of 
>>>>>all particles with rest mass is likely due to internally 
>>>>>circulating momenta. It is true as you say that in a world without 
>>>>>inertia (or inertial mass) there would be no momentum, but in a 
>>>>>world without momentum there would also be no inertia (or inertial 
>>>>>mass). Inertia (or inertial mass) is due to momentum (in my 
>>>>>approach). Momentum is not due to inertia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   I know that your electron hypothesis attempts to derive the 
>>>>>inertia of an electron differently. But I think you will have to 
>>>>>admit that my derivation of the electron’s inertial mass from the 
>>>>>electron’s proposed circulating internal photon momentum is very 
>>>>>much simpler than yours (which is by the way based on highly 
>>>>>questionable premises since there is no accepted experimental 
>>>>>evidence for the strong nuclear force influencing electric charges, 
>>>>>zero experimental evidence for two sub-particles in an electron, 
>>>>>and your electron model’s apparently negative rest mass due to its 
>>>>>negative internal potential energy), and thus by Occam's Razor, 
>>>>>much to be preferred. Plus, your model doesn’t derive the inertial 
>>>>>mass of a photon as hf/c^2 or the inertial mass of a 
>>>>>relativistically moving electron as gamma m, does it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> 
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You 
>>>>>>deduce it from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using 
>>>>>>the known relations. But it is not logical in so far as momentum 
>>>>>>depends on inertia. In a world without inertia there would be no 
>>>>>>momentum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then 
>>>>>>we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best
>>>>>>Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material 
>>>>>>>space, and that all physical particles are derived from this 
>>>>>>>ether. This ether can also be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension 
>>>>>>>Field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I don’t however think that it is necessary to explain the 
>>>>>>>inertial mass of particles in relation to a "coefficient of 
>>>>>>>inertia” or "the amount of momentum the ether resists." I have 
>>>>>>>shown 
>>>>>>>(https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia 
>>>>>>>) by a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an 
>>>>>>>electron may be derived from the momentum of the circling photon 
>>>>>>>in a circulating-photon model of the electron, whose circling 
>>>>>>>photon has momentum mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 ,  where Eo is 
>>>>>>>the rest energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and f is the frequency 
>>>>>>>of the circulating photon in the resting electron. Secondly, in a 
>>>>>>>similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial mass to 
>>>>>>>be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon’s frequency, even 
>>>>>>>though a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the 
>>>>>>>inertial mass of a relativistic electron, whose momentum is 
>>>>>>>p=gamma mv, to be  M-inertial = gamma m , even though the moving 
>>>>>>>electron's rest mass is m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I present these  derivations below, taken from the 
>>>>>>>academia.edu session on my electron inertia article at 
>>>>>>>https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial 
>>>>>>>mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a 
>>>>>>>photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to 
>>>>>>>measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster or slower than c in 
>>>>>>>a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction, and in 
>>>>>>>normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except with 
>>>>>>>gravity), which would make it possible to measure its centripetal 
>>>>>>>acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short electron inertia 
>>>>>>>article at 
>>>>>>>https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia 
>>>>>>>, the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going 
>>>>>>>in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's 
>>>>>>>inertial mass is then calculated to be M-inertial 
>>>>>>>=(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass 
>>>>>>>of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged 
>>>>>>>photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the 
>>>>>>>charged photon’s circular orbit. Let that circular radius go 
>>>>>>>towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a 
>>>>>>>straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where 
>>>>>>>the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle 
>>>>>>>increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving photon 
>>>>>>>DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon 
>>>>>>>has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with 
>>>>>>>momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, the iner 
>>>>>>>tia l mass c alculation above gives M -in ertial = gamma m for a 
>>>>>>>circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron’s 
>>>>>>>rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives 
>>>>>>>a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not 
>>>>>>>just the electron's rest mass m."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       As far as I know these are all original derivations of the 
>>>>>>>inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic 
>>>>>>>electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I 
>>>>>>>would be pleased to be shown otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra 
>>>>>>>><chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while 
>>>>>>>>communicating with you earlier. I call the “plenum” Cosmic 
>>>>>>>>Tension Field (CTF), to be descriptive in its essential 
>>>>>>>>properties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chandra.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From: General 
>>>>>>>>[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>>>>>>>>On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
>>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM
>>>>>>>>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a 
>>>>>>>>"plenum field" but if it is an ether I definitely think there is 
>>>>>>>>one. A "coefficent of inertia" might be defined as the amount of 
>>>>>>>>momentum the ether resists. In a charged or gravitational field 
>>>>>>>>this coefficent would increase...I think of this in terms of my 
>>>>>>>>Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric nodes, except this may 
>>>>>>>>give the wrong idea it is something matter wades in.. not so. 
>>>>>>>>Matter and ether are made if the selfsame nodes of energy!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Vladimir
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>_____________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>vladimirtamari.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier 
>>>>>>>><richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi Hodge,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad the 
>>>>>>>>>question was helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have 
>>>>>>>>>any insights about its nature?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Richard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly, 
>>>>>>>>>>Pound--Rebka experiment model had a velocity term. I looked at 
>>>>>>>>>>redshift data for 1 galaxy and found no indication of a 
>>>>>>>>>>velocity term.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I had not noticed this in the equations. Your suggestion that 
>>>>>>>>>>the plenum field can look like the Higgs field seems valid. 
>>>>>>>>>>That is, the acceleration of the plenum field looks like it 
>>>>>>>>>>adds energy (mass) is a Higgs Field characteristic. Thus, the 
>>>>>>>>>>plenum is closer to the idea of a quantum field and Higgs 
>>>>>>>>>>field (weak force).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hodge
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature 
>>>>>>>>>>of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 
>>>>>>>>>>richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>><a 
>>>>>>>>>>href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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 
>>>>>>>>>atvladimirtamari 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>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><2012.2_JMP_Space as real 
>>>>>>>>field.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature 
>>>>>>>>of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 
>>>>>>>>richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>><a 
>>>>>>>>href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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 einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der 
>>>>>>von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>>www.avast.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von 
>>>>Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>www.avast.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von 
>>Avast geschützt wird.
>>www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20160205/3a0c1700/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list