[General] (no subject)
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Jan 30 19:04:10 PST 2016
agree
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 1/29/2016 9:34 AM, Albrecht Giese 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 "f_0 '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 "f_0 ' 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 "f_0 ' 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-mailwolf 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-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_Orig%0A%20in%0A%2%0A0_o%0A%2%0A0f_%0A%2%0A0th%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, 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <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 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 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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160130/ec36de8a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list