[General] (no subject)
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Jan 27 13:47:28 PST 2016
Hi Richard,
here again my objection. You use "momentum" without explaining it
physically. That sounds to me not like physics, more like religion.
(Unfortunately we are used to hear arguments like this since QM was
developed.)
Which "force" is inertia? In my view this force is the strong force. And
with this assumption all inertia related phenomena can be explained as
there are mass and momentum.
Albrecht
Am 26.01.2016 um 03:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Chandra and all,
> I think it has been historically misleading to define inertia as a
> “resistance” to acceleration. There is no known innate force or
> mechanism of resistance to acceleration (although Isaac Newton
> originally defined inertia as being caused by some kind of ‘innate
> force’. Conservation of momentum may be the best explanation for
> inertia. The more momentum something has, the larger the force
> required to accelerate it. Why momentum is conserved is a deeper
> topic. If you google “difference between inertia and momentum” you’ll
> find a lot of confusion between inertia and momentum, probably because
> the concepts seem closely related.
> According to the Wikipedia article : “inertia”
>
> In fact, Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his
> First Law of Motion as being caused by "innate forces" inherent in
> matter, which resisted any acceleration. Given this perspective, and
> borrowing from Kepler, Newton actually attributed the term "inertia"
> to mean "the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes
> in motion"; thus Newton defined "inertia" to mean the cause of the
> phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton's
> original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic
> for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in
> these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and
> it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can
> know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon
> itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately,
> "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the
> same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two
> concepts are now considered to be equivalent.
>
>
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>> <mailto: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]*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 4^th order polynomial predicts these masses (Energies).
>> E = 2.16215091940284E-11n^4 - 2.57974739967757E-10n^3 +
>> 1.06568810515144E-09n^2 - 1.69871730871029E-09n + 8.69464305369825E-10
>> Chip
>> *From:*General
>> [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]*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-mailwolf 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
>> 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]*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 atrichgauthier 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">
>> 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 <mailto:richgauthier 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 <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 atWolf 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 atrichgauthier 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">
>> 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/20160127/e1d10edd/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list