[General] CTF has inertia?

[Hodge John]

Chandra:Thanks for your links to your papers. They weren’t the linkI was seeking. I got your “Next Frontier in physics …” paper from academia.edu.The other was the paper wherein you did experiments on NIW using Fresnel lens.So, no new experiment …”I agree with the interactionprocesses comments to the pointthat the “space”/ plenum/ CTF medium (if that is the correct concept) is notdetected by instruments except by its action on particles. I’m considering the structureof electrons and neutrinos using hods in the STOE model. The structure andproperties of my plenum (CTF, space / gravitational ether of GeneralRelativity) must give observed experimental results such as spin and charge.This is where I hit a roadblock that I had to skirt in the photon diffractionpapers. The roadblock has several aspects (1) what is inertia in the $F=m_I a$concept and (2) do waves propagate in the plenum (space / gravitational etherof General Relativity). The NOL forum has addressedthe inertia issue within the context of a physical property of particles. Ifyou commented on inertia, I missed it. If I remember your paper correctly, theinertia property is a characteristic of your CTF (space, plenum) - notparticles. But I didn’t see this in your paper.Tell me where I’m wrong. Inthe “Next Frontier in physics …” paper, section (5) “Space as CTF…”, TheCTF obeys the wave equation that has the characteristic for a perturbed elementto continue moving beyond the equilibrium point such as a mass element in avibrating string. Therefore, particles depress the CTF to give gravity(gravitational mass is the property of particles) and the CTF provides theinertial characteristic, which is not really a particle property. So, why theEquivalence Principle? Is my understanding of your CTF correct - does it andnot the bodies have the inertia? Other issues:The STOE suggests the plenum (space) obeys the heatequation. That is there is no oscillation in the plenum. Like gravity theplenum changes until the equilibrium reaches the $1/r$ value then stopschanging. Yes, I know the LISA and others are searching for what they call“gravitational waves”. But they are not “waves”. They are changes in positionof gravitationally massive bodies that change position - hence looking morelike an application of the heat equation than the wave equation. Therefore, the STOE should have the inertia as a property ofthe hods that also have the property of depressing the plenum (space) -gravitational mass. The equivalence principle is easy - both are number of hodsrelated. The hard part is how does inertia work - my problem?The Huygens-Fresnel (HF) model of diffraction assumes withouta physical underlying cause that waves progress in only the forward direction.This “obliquity factor’ was needed to make the HF model work. Inertia in themedium handles this issue easily like your CTF. But inertia in space doesn’tmatch gravitation observations. Can’t do a Theory of Everything this way. It iswhy the STOE had to experimentally reject the HF model, which is what partialillumination of slits did. 
The wave equation allows a dampening factor? Is your CTF dampened, also. Dampening could give the gravitational non- wave effect. 
 I like your neat approach to time dilation - food forthought.  Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160208/6efd56e8/attachment.htm>