[General] (no subject)

Tue Jan 26 13:36:21 PST 2016

Hi Wolf!

The famous equation E=mc^2 is in my understanding one of the 
mystifications in physics created in the last century. Einstein did it 
in a very drastic way: according to him E and m are two symbols for the 
same physical phenomenon. Here I strictly disagree. Look to the 
definitions of mass and energy, they are definitely different. If one 
has a working model for elementary particles, this relation results as a 
/relation /(nothing more) originating in the internal structure of an 
elementary particle.

You see a problem with the electron regarding the repelling force and 
the centrifugal force in an electron. Since the 1930s well known 
physicists have tried to explain the electron classically on the basis 
of the electric force. Their model failed all. So the conclusion was 
(written in text books) that the electron cannot be understood but only 
mathematically treated by QM.

In my model I have gone another way by assuming that the essential force 
in any elementary particle is the strong force. The strong force is 
composed in the particle by positive and negative "charges". With this 
assumption the electron can be calculated (like the other leptons and 
also quarks) with very precise results. Particularly the centrifugal 
force is not a point as the internal parts in an elementary particle are 
mass-less. And the electron looks neutral from the outside regarding the 
strong force.

Albrecht

Am 25.01.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> 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-mailwolf 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 ) 
>>> 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_%0A%20th%0A%2%0A0e_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]*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 <mailto:vladimirtamari 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> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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/20160126/b9facdd9/attachment.htm>