[General] (no subject)
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Feb 7 06:06:32 PST 2016
Hi Richard,
to say it again: The origin of inertia is the fact that /any extended
object inevitably has inertia/. This assumption does not need more
assumptions than the fact that c is finite.
Nobody is forcing you to investigate my deduction of it. But if you are
talking about it here and you have an opinion, you should know what you
are talking about. Isn't this the normal way?
Regarding the momentum of the photon once again: Momentum is defined as
/p = m * v/, where m is the dynamical mass of the object in motion.
This is physics on school level. Really too complicated? - The photon
does have dynamical mass, and consequently it has momentum.
Have a nice Sunday!
Albrecht
Am 06.02.2016 um 05:58 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hi Albrecht,
> I’ll let someone else check your work on inertia if they want.
> Anyone who thinks they can derive the electron’s mass from two
> circling light-speed particles having no mass, energy or momentum is I
> think probably fooling themselves on other subjects also. I’m not much
> interested in someone asking me to read their ‘book’ or website and
> telling them where they might be wrong. Life is too short.
> Richard
>
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> your say:
>>
>> "As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an object is due to an
>> object being “extended” and therefore that since extended objects
>> have inertia, the inertia problem is solved. This type of explanation
>> is just too “cheap” to be believable."
>>
>> Yes, this is my statement that any extended object has necessarily
>> inertia. "Cheap" is not bad if it is in the sense of "simple". Good
>> solutions are normally simple in physics as history has shown.
>>
>> But you say, you cannot follow. My point here is: I have explained
>> the kinetic process which causes inertia as a step by step process
>> (explicitly on my website). Any step is mathematically described and
>> stated and the whole job ends with an equation for inertia. If there
>> is an error in my way, as you assume, it should be quite easy for you
>> to follow this deduction and to find at least one step which is not
>> logical or at which the mathematical treatment is incorrect.
>>
>> Please do this and tell me, where you found an incorrect step. Then
>> we can continue talking about it. (You would be the first one in 15
>> years to find a bug, but I assure you that I would appreciate such
>> information.)
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 01.02.2016 um 21:03 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>> Replying your last comment first:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Just because momentum is measured in units of mass x velocity = mass
>>> x distance/time does not mean that momentum is not a fundamental
>>> physical quantity, perhaps more fundamental than mass or distance or
>>> time. The international kilogram standard for mass is a chunk of
>>> platinum-iridium metal enclosed in a double glass container in
>>> Paris. That hardly indicates that mass is more fundamental than
>>> momentum, does it? By the way, the units of energy are mass x
>>> distance^2/ time^2 . Does this mean that energy is also less
>>> fundamental than mass or distance or time? You need to distinguish
>>> between physical quantities like momentum and units of measurement
>>> like mass.
>>>
>>> As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an object is due to an
>>> object being “extended” and therefore that since extended objects
>>> have inertia, the inertia problem is solved. This type of
>>> explanation is just too “cheap” to be believable. It is circular
>>> reasoning of the crudest type, and I would personally be ashamed if
>>> I continually claimed this defective explanation of inertia for
>>> almost 20 years. If no one has previously pointed out this defective
>>> logic to you in nearly 20 years of your advocating it, so much the
>>> worse. Rather, I would be pleased to have my defective logic pointed
>>> out to me, the sooner the better.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, you claim that inertia and momentum are basically the
>>> same thing (there may be some truth to this, as my article on the
>>> electron’s inertia suggests). But you say that the two circulating
>>> particles in your 2-particle model of the electron neither
>>> individually contain mass, momentum, nor energy, yet you claim that
>>> this composite model of the electron has inertia. Unbelievable!
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> 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 <http://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
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.academia.ed%0Au/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Elect%0Arons_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 inert ial 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 <http://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 atrichgauthier 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
>>>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier 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 atphys 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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet,
>>>>>>>> der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
>>>>>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>>>> Avast geschützt wird.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>
---
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/20160207/55cd92aa/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list