[General] (no subject)
Hodge John
jchodge at frontier.com
Fri Jan 29 21:48:29 PST 2016
Dr. Wolf:An alternative explanation of cosmic (galactic redshift)that does not use the Doppler effect: Scalar potential model ofredshift and discrete redshiftNew Astronomy, Volume 11,Issue 5, March 2006, Pages 344-358http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107605001387(NewAstronomy Homepage)orhttp://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602344v1.pdf The effect on time dilation is not yet modeled (it’s on mytodo list). However, I suggest a redshift model need not explain the “timedilation effect”. However this model has several advantages:The correlation with Cepheid distance is much better thanDoppler. It does allow a.The model does derive the Hubble law for moderate and longdistances (>10 Mpc).It includes the blue shifted galaxies as part of therelation (Hubble law does not).No other model explains the discrete redshift observations.I view this as rejection criteria for galaxy redshift models. The larger portion of the galaxy redshift is NOT due tomotion but to a small peculiar velocity such as revolution of galaxies around acluster center. Hubble liked what became known as “tired light models” butlater in his career he changed his mind. The same equation is used in the explanation of the Scalar potential model ofthe Pioneer Anomaly http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0612/0612567v2.pdfThat is, these paperssuggest the galactic redshift, the pioneer anomaly, and the Pound--Rebkaexperiment are the same phenomena. The plenum is similar to theclassical ether and the General Relativity’s “gravitational ether” with someslight differences. Hence, the different name. This model also posits somecharacteristics of photons used in the https://www.academia.edu/17116351/Diffraction_experiment_and_its_STOE_photon_simulation_program_rejects_wave_models_of_light Gauthiernoticed the equation did not have a velocity term. This suggests the plenum islike the Higgs field. That is in the acceleration part of the plenum, theplenum causes a change in the “mass” (inertial mass?) of the photons. Perhapsthis suggest a hint about the character of the Inertial Mass. Hodge
On Friday, January 29, 2016 8:49 PM, Vladimir Tamari <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> wrote:
Albrecht, for what its worth here is my approach to understanding the Strong Force:http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0033v2.pdfCheersVladimir
_____________________vladimirtamari.com
On Jan 30, 2016, at 2:34 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
Hi Wolf,
in my view most models of particles in general and for mass in specific are mostly tautological in that physical quantities, which are seen to need an explanation, are just replaced by other quantities which we all know but which also need a basic explanation. In most models presented I miss the step to the next lower level of explanation in the sense of the reductionist's world.
Of course I am in favour of my strong force model to explain particles, otherwise I would not present it and defend it.
Best
Albrecht
Am 26.01.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
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 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 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 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 , 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 inertial mass calcul ation above gives M-inertial = 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> 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
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 at 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
<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 at 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 einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
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
<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 einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
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
<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 einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
www.avast.com |
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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/20160130/3e9e9040/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list