[General] (no subject)

Mon Jan 25 13:13:58 PST 2016

Hi Albrecht

But light has momentum.  Perhaps momentum is fundamentally the cause of
inertia, and therefore more fundamental than inertia.

We do not just see momentum from material objects but also from energy
propagating through space.

So I think you may have it backwards.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:34 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Richard Gauthier
<richgauthier at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

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.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_th%20e_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 inertial mass calculation
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 <mailto: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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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

_____________________

 <http://vladimirtamari.com/> vladimirtamari.com

On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto: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 < <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>
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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. 

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160125/ecc5c0ad/attachment.htm>