[General] (no subject)
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Tue Jan 26 15:04:19 PST 2016
Wolf:
Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then
have is a standing field. A charged particle. It doesn’t blow apart because
light is displacement current, and displacement current does what it says on
the can. Light displaces its own path into a closed path. IMHO pair
production and the wave nature of matter should have made all this common
knowledge a long time ago. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing
waves <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties> .
Kick an electron out of an orbital, and it still exists as a standing wave.
Standing wave, standing field.
Regards
JohnD
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: 26 January 2016 22:40
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
Albrecht:
I figured you would say something like this. But this group has published
several intriguing papers ( W. F. Hagen) that suggest light
( won't say photons) curled up in cycles or tourus like shapes can become
the basis of matter and explain various elementary particles.
There is something elegant and intriguing about these conjectures.
However both the charge repulsion and the centripetal forces that tend to
blow things apart need to be explained in these efforts.
The QM explanations, as I understand them, simply describe what must be so.
Dirac's eq. does not answer how charge hangs together
or what contracts gravitational spin energy induced centrifugal forces.
Are you saying this entire category of explanation should be ( has already
been) discarded in favor of your strong force model?
Best,
Wolf
Chandrasekhar;
Reading your "could space be considered as the inertial rest frame" in the
SPIE vol 9570
I would very much like to find an alternative explanation for the red shift
and am interested in your absorption line argument
but do not understand your logic.
If a star is moving away from us both the inner and outer corona are moving
at the same velocity.
The inner corona atom emits light "f0'that is red shifted To "f" in the
media due to its motion
The outer corona atom absorbs light at frequency "f" that is blue shifted
relative to its natural "f0' frequency because it is moving toward the
source
This leaves a hole in the spectra in the media at "f" red shifted
An atom on earth is not moving toward the source and therefore the arriving
light will still be at red shift frequency "f"
atoms on the earth with natural "f0' frequency will not be able to absorb
the light
All light frequencies shift and the hole at "f" is red shifted due to the
motion of the star away from us.
Why do you say this is not a doppler effect?
I would like to find a gravitational argument rather than a Doppler argument
fro the red shift, but do not understand how your argument works.
What am I doing Wrong?
best again,
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 1/26/2016 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
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-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 ) 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%20_o%0A%20f_%0A%252%0A0th%0A%2
52%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, th e inerti al mass cal cul 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.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 <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-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
_______________________________________________
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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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
<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
_______________________________________________
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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20160126/3c076f70/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list