[General] (no subject)

Mon Jan 25 18:18:55 PST 2016

Hi Chip,
   I’m wondering if there is always such a 4th order polynomial expression in n that can predict the values of five specified masses for the first five integer values of n.    
     Richard

> On Jan 25, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
> 
> Chip: My conjecture is this: what we call “mass” (m=E/c-squared) is the inertial behavior of the self-loped oscillations that we identify as particles. And the quantitative “inertial property” is directly proportional to the energy content, E, of the self-looped oscillation of the CTF. The inertia, of course, is its resistance to move through the CTF. We need new potential gradients in the CTF around interacting particles for them to experience “Falling into” or “be repelled by”. 
>  
> Chandra.
>   <>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:44 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>  
> Hi All
>  
> I am looking for any thoughts or insight regarding the masses of the particles.  Specifically the electron, muon, proton neutron, and tau.
>  
> Recently I have been searching for a physical explanation of why the following 4th order polynomial predicts these masses (Energies).
>  
> E = 2.16215091940284E-11n4 - 2.57974739967757E-10n3 + 1.06568810515144E-09n2 - 1.69871730871029E-09n + 8.69464305369825E-10
>  
> Chip
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:09 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>  
> Friends: 
>  
> I am of the opinion that all waves are excited states of their respective mother tension field. They do not even carry energy. The externally perturbing energy; which disturbed the quiescent state of the tension field holding all the energy; gets perpetually pushed away by the mother tension field to regain its original state of equilibrium (quiescence). This is at the foundation of perpetual wave propagation; the velocity is being determined by the intrinsic tension properties of the tension field. This is built into our LINEAR wave equation! Linear superposition only means that within the linear domain (sum of all amplitudes) in the local tension field; all waves can co-propagate and cross-propagate away as per their original Poynting vectors without picking up any memory of their temporary co-local-propagation.
>  
> SP, the Superposition Principle is a very smart starting-step mathematical-logic invention by humans to structure the energy exchange process with a resonant detector  - as the square modulus of the sum-total complex amplitudes. Then what we measure is Superposition Effect SE.  This non-linear square modulus physical OPERATION can be carried out only by some resonant detector; not by the field themselves. That is why superposed fields do not re-organize their intrinsic energy; they still are propagating as various excited AMPLITUDE states of the tension field. Within the tension field, which still holds all the tension energies, they still remain dedicated to individual waves. That is why finite size waves, when emerge out of each other, do not have any memory of their earlier encounter. This what I have been describing as Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW).
>  
> SE is an observable phenomenon of nature; SP is not. That is why nobody is going to make quantum computers using mathematical logic based upon SP only. If we want to build something physical; we better build that logic based upon measurable SE. God is not going to change its operating rules just because we have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make quantum computers based upon non-observable logics of SP (single photon interference) over the past several decades. Neither can photon have mass; just like we do not assign mass to undulation surface tension field (water waves). Yes, water itself does have inertia to motion (“mass”). 
>  
> Chandra.
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:44 PM
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
>  
> Does this not all start with the E=mc^2 energy mass equivalence postulate?
> A moving photon has energy therefore mass , if the wave is confined to a circular path the mass could be considered stationary
> The equations can all be manipulated to come up with various quantities and interpretations.
> 
> What to me is problematic is the centrifugal forces. What balances the tremendous outward pull?
> An electron only has charge that repels, and now centrifugal forces, what holds it all together?
> 
> Wolf
> 
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
> On 1/25/2016 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese 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 <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 <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 athttps://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia <https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_%20%20th%0A%20e_Elect%0A%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 calcul ation ab ove 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.natureoflightandparticles.org <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 <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 <jchodge at frontier.com <mailto: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-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <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>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20160125/c2c2113c/attachment.htm>