[General] (no subject)

Wed Jan 27 04:38:30 PST 2016

Hi Andrew

One problem with the “wormhole” conjecture is that there are so many more electrons than positrons in our universe. So for the vast majority of electrons there is no positron for it to wormhole pair with.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:58 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

John D,

I like most of the things you've said recently. However, I think that you need to reexamine this last (or describe it more clearly) "

Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then have is a standing field."  A standing wave results from colliding waves (2 waves moving in opposite directions). Are you describing waves or only the field components? 

If you are describing waves, then with following a 1 wavelength circumference the result is a 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of light in the local medium. This is observable as the whispering gallery mode in microspheres.

If you are describing fields, then, with a 1/2 wavelength circumference and 180 degree rotation of the wave's polarization vector, the result is a 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of light in the local medium, but with the same field pointing out (or in) all of the time. If that were all, then, because of the modulated field intensity, the resulting E-field would be directional (anisotropic). However, field concentrations are an energy (mass?) concentration that alters the local distortion of space (refractive index). The redistribution of the resultant, to lower the total energy by spreading the field intensity uniformly in space, gives the isotropic field of an electron at rest. The result is a 3-D vortex in 4-space that gives stability and spin in all 3-space directions (not just along the selected axis). The vortex formed in the creation of an electron/positron pair connects the leptons by a sub-micro-wormhole that does not appear in our measurements of field. The stable vortex is matter. The worm-hole (vortex) can be infinitely extended or 'diluted' in 3-space; however, I believe that it is the source of stable matter.

It is the relativistic effects on the bound photon (the electron, when in motion) that provides distortion of the field ('flattening' of the electron E-fields in the direction of motion) and consequent raising of the total energy to increase the effective mass of the electron and is displayed as inertia. Since there are no losses in space (within the concept of conservative system), once the acceleration stops, the distortion at velocity v remains, until another force changes it back or further.

Thus, acceleration always changes mass as well as velocity. The change is not observable for non-relativistic velocities. Mass is equal to the force required to change the velocity of an object (m = F/a). Force is the gradient of the potential (F = -dV/dr) and so it can convert potential energy into kinetic energy (velocity). But force also gives the change in momentum (F = dp/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt). Normally, dm/dt is too small to measure and can be ignored. The acceleration, dv/dt, is the observable feature. However, the bigger the mass (for a given acceleration) the bigger the momentum or inertia. All of this depends on the change in 'shape' of the electrons (and positrons, the relativistic constituents of quarks) in matter under acceleration.

Andrew

________________________________________

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:34 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

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 <mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield> =btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: 26 January 2016 22:40
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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%252%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.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

_____________________

 <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-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 <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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-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. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=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-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 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. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=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-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 mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20160127/bb91cdda/attachment.htm>