[General] Gravity
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Fri Sep 2 05:25:40 PDT 2016
Hi Grahame,
I am sorry that I did not know your paper about gravity and so did not
refer to it. I shall read it.
Regarding exchange particles I do not find this model or assumption so
complicated. And please note that exchange particles are different from
virtual particles.
I have the following picture of exchange particles and I think that the
understanding of Main Stream is not so different. An elementary charge
sends out a continuous stream of such exchange particles which are
mass-less and move with c. For a mono charge the density of this stream
is independent of the direction. The density, however, decreases with
increasing distance from the charge with 1/r^2. That is simply caused by
geometry. They move with c and the move is permanent, so until infinity.
If one exchange particle hits another charge of the same kind, then it
is absorbed and a certain amount of momentum is transferred to the other
charge. This momentum is either attracting, i.e. towards the direction
of the incoming x-particle, or repelling, i.e. opposite. That depends on
the sign of the two charges, the charge which has emitted the x-particle
and the particle which absorbs the x-particle.
One point where my picture is different from Main Stream is that the
exchange particles have to carry the information of the sign of the
sending charge. For an electric charge this should mean that there are
two kinds of photons, if photons are assumed to be the exchange
particles of the electric charge. So in my understanding this "photon"
is of a different type than the photon which is normally assumed to
transport EM-energy. - Always when I meet theoretical physicists I ask
them this question how a photon as an exchange particle can transport
the information of the sign. Up to now I never received a satisfying
answer.
One complication which I see is the housekeeping of energy. Every
exchange particle which flies off has the ability to perform work if it
meets another charge. Most will never meet a charge so this ability is
not used. But if it meets then the energy balance is correct. And the
other x-particles? They transport the ability to transfer energy, but
the energy housekeeping in its summary obviously is not violated.
Conclusion? I think that the exchange particles violate the conservation
of energy. One may ask: why not? I do not see any argument for the
conviction that energy is always conserved, even on the smallest scales.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 30.08.2016 um 23:16 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> Hi Albrecht,
> I agree that force interactions can be modelled AS IF they are
> mediated by particles of certain types - that much is not an issue to
> me. But to propose that this is ACTUALLY the case (rather than just a
> simple analogy or model) for me simply leads to a host of questions -
> far more than this one 'solution' to action-at-a-distance that gauge
> bosons purport to provide.
> Let's take the case of electrostatic interaction: this is unlimited in
> its range - so presumably the cloud of virtual photons that mediate
> this force extends out without limit from the charged particle whose
> effect they carry? Also they must be present wherever that charge
> effect may have an influence - which means that they must completely
> envelop that charged particle in spherical shells at every radius from
> that particle to infinity? In other words, the totality of the
> universe plays host, in every cubic attometer of its entirety, to
> virtual photons for EACH and EVERY elementary charged particle in the
> cosmos. The housekeeping requirements for such an arrangement are
> beyond belief: what is the mechanism that links each particle to its
> attendant virtual photons, way out to the limits of the universe? How
> are the VPs of one material particle distinguished from those of
> another? And that's before we even start considering the strength
> (frequency?) of those VPs in relation to distance from their 'parent'
> particle and how they communicate their behaviour, let alone the
> bizarre notion of 'negative photons' that can attract other charged
> particles rather than repel them. Come back phlogiston, your
> mysteries are as nothing compared to virtual photons!
> Actually my own proposal for the basis of 'electrostatic charge'
> effects isn't a million miles removed from this notion. However it
> recognises that 'action at a distance' isn't actually 'at a distance'
> at all, since the actual form of an electromagnetically-formed
> 'particle' will itself extend without limit, as is the nature of
> electromagnetic effects (notably electromagnetic potential). We then
> also have to recognise that our perception of material particles
> (including our own bodies!) is seriously limited by our own senses,
> which rely on certain forms of interaction that give the illusion of
> 'localisation'. This leads on to the observation that space itself IS
> suffused with the extended electromagnetic 'being' of those
> 'localised' material particles, giving all of space an electromagnetic
> 'texture' that gives the effects known as 'electrostatic
> attraction/repulsion' and 'gravitation' (also an effect that may be
> MODELLED as 'curvature of space', since it defines paths through space
> for all entities, including light).
> That takes me to another point in your email (below): it's not quite
> 100% correct to say that "all explanations about gravity which do not
> use Einstein's funny distorted space-time rely on exchange particles";
> my own explanation, published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal
> five years ago (and attached to two of my previous emails, so I won't
> do so again here), most definitely does NOT use Einstein's proposed
> space-time, neither does it rely to any extent whatsoever on exchange
> particles. So maybe I have a first in that respect, at least?
> Best regards,
> Grahame
> ++++++++++++
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Dear Chandra and dear Grahame,
>
> firstly, thank you, Chandra, for your feedback to my contribution.
> I generally agree that there is a hierarchy of physical
> quantities. But for your example of Einstein's m=E/c^2 I am not
> so sure. Is E more fundamental than m? True, m is not a
> fundamental quantity on the lowest level. It describes the force
> which is needed to accelerate an object. So, the quantity force
> should be more fundamental. But what about E? In my understanding
> it is a human concept which was brought up, when physicists
> detected one day that in a closed system the quantity F*way is
> conserved. So it received the name "energy". Is this energy always
> conserved? I think that in some reactions of particle physics it
> is not. And that is not only in the context of Heisenberg's
> uncertainty relation. It is also violated by exchange particles.
>
> So, what is about exchange particles which mediate a force or a
> charge? You both seem not to like it. But it has advantages. The
> general law of distance of forces: 1/r^2 (e.g. the Coulomb law)
> can easily be deduced by it if using the continuity relation and
> geometrical broadening. In this context it is just simple
> geometry. In addition the relativistic contraction (of fields) is
> easily understandable if exchange particles are assumed. And
> further, all explanations about gravity which do not use
> Einstein's funny distorted space-time rely on exchange particles.
>
> Another point in the discussion is the question of how photons can
> be understood. It is said (at different places of the foregoing
> discussion) that matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) can be converted
> into pure energy, which means photons in this context. Why is it
> denied that a photon is a particle? It has all properties of a
> particle which the speciality that it permanently moves with c.
> And with this latter property it is very close to a neutrino for
> which nobody questions that it is a particle. And a photon has a
> well defined energy. This fact was indeed questioned by some
> contributions in this forum. To those who are questioning it I
> would like to explain the following:
>
> My PhD thesis was about an experiment in which photons were
> scattered. The source of the photon beam delivered photons with
> well defined energy (it was a spectrum with a strong limit of an
> upper energy). The photons were, after the scattering, detected by
> pair production which took place when the photon passed a thin
> sheet of metal. From the energy and direction of the
> electron-positron pair the energy and the direction of the photon
> was determined. The resulting energy of the scattered photon was
> in agreement with the energy of the incoming photon. So the energy
> of the individual photon was precisely measured and so well
> defined. I do not see any argument for the position that a photon
> is not an individual but just a beam with properties which can
> only be statistically assumed. The photon energy measured was
> clearly not defined by some property of the detector what was
> sometimes suspected in the discussion here.
>
> Sincerely
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 28.08.2016 um 00:51 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>> Roy (et al)
>> Thanks for this. I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've
>> said (as long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight
>> difference in view is, I believe, a matter of semantics rather
>> than science.
>> Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying
>> particles'; this concept appears to raise far more questions than
>> it answers (if it answers any) - it certainly doesn't in any
>> way offer significantly greater insight than the 'action at a
>> distance' proposed by Newton. [Not to put too fine a point on
>> it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to
>> expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be taken on
>> trust.] I agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the
>> additional 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced
>> by some form of 'force gradient' that is itself an extended
>> consequence (part of the structure) of 'material particles' and
>> moves concomitantly with them. In this respect such 'force
>> effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or
>> faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that
>> effect: if a complete unified singular object moves as a whole,
>> we don't propose that one part of the object 'communicates its
>> motion' to another part (at FTL speed) so that it too moves - it
>> just IS a unified moving body. No threat to causality there.
>> The fact that our limited senses don't perceive the whole of that
>> extended entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very
>> action proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding
>> of EM effects.
>> My difference in view relates to your observation that particles
>> "are not made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter
>> of semantics - essentialy how one defines a photon. We agree
>> that they are formed from light-like oscillations of the
>> universal field - i.e. TEM wave packets. If one defines a photon
>> simply as a TEM wave packet then particles are formed from
>> photons; if however we add the stipulation that a photon radiates
>> rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source, then by
>> definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a
>> photon. The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can
>> be) initially created from photons is, I believe, established by
>> Landau & Lifshits (1934) and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton
>> Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.
>> I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a
>> particle will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that
>> this must be true, since the configuration of its formative field
>> will be somewhat different. As you say, it would be interesting
>> if it were possible to construct an experiment to demonstrate
>> this - I suspect one would first have to persuade the
>> experimenters that SR is primarily a subjective effect, so that
>> they don't apply 'SR logic' as an objective truth to their readings!
>> Best regards,
>> Grahame
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:
>>
>> */Chip:/*
>>
>> After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug
>> out a possible later publication by Flandern. The link is
>> given below.
>>
>> ……………………………..
>>
>> Foundations of Physics <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701>
>>
>> July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7
>> <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1>, pp
>> 1031–1068
>>
>> “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
>> Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van
>> Flandern
>> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1>,
>> Jean-Pierre Vigier
>> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2>
>>
>> …………………………………………..
>>
>> The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not
>> conversant with the GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly
>> from review articles without math. Now, after reading
>> Flandern, Now I believe, like that for SR, GR does also have
>> rather serious foundational problems. And our understanding
>> of momentum of a moving object needs to explored deeper in
>> light of the fact that mass in not some immutable
>> “substance”. It is the perturbation energy that creates the
>> resonant self-looped oscillation of the cosmic Complex
>> Tension Field (CTF); the rest mass being the original
>> oscillation-inducing energy. Spatial (definitely not
>> space-time) velocity, induced by some “force gradient” adds
>> further energy to a particle in the form of “kinetic
>> oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we measure
>> and interpret “momentum” since mass is not an immutable
>> intrinsic property.
>>
>> Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always
>> intuitively believed that forces are not mediated by various
>> force particles. Thus, I clearly disagree with Flandern and
>> Vigier. I have said that in many of my publications,
>> including my book.
>>
>> Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties
>> of the CTF, the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate
>> various kinds of decaying potential gradients of the CTF
>> properties around the oscillating “particle”. These gradients
>> are not exactly like the physical curvature in a stretched
>> membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the
>> vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each
>> other depending upon the sign of the potential gradients. all
>> into or are repulsed by this gradient. Hence*/, these force
>> gradients are mobile with the particles and would suffer
>> spatial distortion at very high velocity./* Attempts to
>> measure these distortion should open up new frontiers of
>> physics. “The potential gradients representing “forces”, obey
>> the principle of linear superposition; very much like the EM
>> wave amplitudes; even though the former is “stationary”
>> around the parent particle; and the latter is true
>> propagating wave that follows the classic wave equation.
>>
>> LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to
>> design experiments to measure the distortions in the
>> electrostatic “force gradient” generated by speeding
>> electrons and protons. Speedy protons-electron collision
>> might help reveal the distortion in their gravitational
>> potential gradients. These potential gradient based “forces”
>> are not */communicated/* by some particles. Causality is not
>> violated. “c” is not exceeded by anything since even the
>> particles are light-like self-looped oscillations. Note that
>> I am using the phrase, light-like oscillations of the CTF;
>> they are not constructed out of photons. Photon wave packets
>> are linear propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually
>> running away from the original point in space where they were
>> created by some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear).
>>
>> */Albrecht: /*
>>
>> In a separate recent email you have raised a very important
>> point, which in some of my epistemology articles underscore
>> as the necessity of assigning the physical parameters in any
>> physics equation with the hierarchy of “primary”,
>> “secondary”, “tertiary”, etc., based upon the physical roles
>> they play in interactions with other entities; or their
>> emergence out of the CTF. So, I like your argument related to
>> √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀). In this context, we may note that
>> Einsteinpreferred to write m=E/c-squared; because m is not
>> an immutable property; it is an emergent property in our
>> methods of measuring it.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:41 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Hi Vladimir
>>
>> Here is one reference for the speed of gravity and pulsars.
>>
>> The speed of gravity – What the experiments say – attached.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:15 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Hi John D and Vladimir
>>
>> As it turns out gravity needs to be 10000 to 20000 times as
>> fast as light in order for the orbits of the pulsars to be as
>> we observe.
>>
>> If most of the mass of a black hole is inside the “event
>> horizon” then how does the huge gravity field escape? It
>> seem that all of the black holes gravity escapes the event
>> horizon with no problem.
>>
>> For a black hole to have gravity which is related to its mass
>> then gravity HAS to travel faster than light.
>>
>> Charge (the Coulomb field) also travels “almost
>> instantaneously” (10000 to 20000 times the speed of light).
>>
>> Yes John D. Transverse (S) waves travel at the velocity:
>>
>> <!--[if !msEquation]--><!--[endif]-->
>>
>> Where v is velocity of propagation, 𝜇is the transverse
>> modulus of the medium, and 𝜌is the “density” of the medium.
>>
>> And longitudinal (P) waves travel at the velocity:
>>
>> <!--[if !msEquation]--><!--[endif]-->
>>
>> Where K is the bulk or longitudinal modulus.
>>
>> We have never found a medium which supports transverse waves
>> and does not support longitudinal waves. Longitudinal waves
>> are always faster, and can be orders of magnitude faster.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *John Duffield
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:26 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Chip:
>>
>> I don’t think it’s heresy. See hyperphysics
>> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/seismic.html>:
>> /“S waves travel typically 60% of the speed of P waves”. /
>>
>> //
>>
>> I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if different types of waves in space
>> travelled at different speeds too.
>>
>> But I have to say I’m not totally convinced by the recent
>> LIGO news.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Vladimir Tamari
>> *Sent:* 25 August 2016 16:14
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> The pulsars analysis sounds interesting - a reference would
>> be appreciated. Would it change calculation if one considers
>> that just as light slows down in a gravitational field (as
>> John D pointed out) gravity itself would slow down in its own
>> field. A gravitational wave starts out sluggish just after
>> starting out at the edge of the black holes and reach c in
>> empty space?
>>
>> Here is a thought: Following my own arguments would measuring
>> light velocity as c in the Earth's gravitational field mean
>> it is larger in space?!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Vladimir
>> _____________________
>>
>> vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
>> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> The issue of gravity is a bit more involved than the
>> density of electromagnetic fields.
>>
>> When we study binary pulsars, we see orbits which are
>> much more stable than they would be if gravity traveled
>> at the speed of electromagnetic fields. Studying pulsars
>> is important because if the speed of gravity is the same
>> as the speed of light these pulsars would change their
>> orbits at a specific rate, but they do not. The “static
>> field” argument does not apply to pulsars which are
>> moving massive bodies with their gravitational centers
>> constantly changing. Studying pulsars clearly indicates
>> that gravity is much faster than light (electromagnetic
>> fields).
>>
>> It seems that gravity may be the result of the Coulomb
>> field (electric charge) density instead of
>> electromagnetic field density. (There is a significant
>> difference between the Coulomb field and electromagnetic
>> fields).
>>
>> I have quoted two experiments on this forum before,
>> conducted in Italy, which indicate that the Coulomb field
>> (charge) is much faster than the speed of light, just a
>> Feynman found in one of his papers.
>>
>> While moving charge creates electromagnetic fields,
>> charge is not the same as an electromagnetic field. It is
>> not even the same as the E portion of the EM field.
>> Charge is a quantized quantity, EM radiation may be any
>> magnitude.
>>
>> There are things in this universe which travel much
>> faster than light.
>>
>> I know some will consider these statements to be
>> “heresy”, but take a good look at the experimental
>> evidence and the issue of binary pulsars.
>>
>> Happy to provide references for those interested.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *John Duffield
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:08 AM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Vlad:
>>
>> It’s the Einstein digital papers. See this
>> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22>.
>> The first page is here
>> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/129?ajax>.
>> Einstein was talking about the /“Fundamental Ideas and
>> Methods of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their
>> Development”./
>>
>> Note though that Einstein wasn’t talking in terms of “a
>> car decelerating because it takes a curve”. He was
>> talking about a car’s path curving to the left /because/
>> the speed of its wheels on the left is less than the
>> speed of its wheels on the right. Imagine you’re driving
>> down a country road. The road is muddy on the left, so
>> the car pulls left. We steer tanks in this fashion.
>>
>> Your paper reminds me of Inhomogeneous Vaccuum, an
>> Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. See
>> attached.
>>
>> <image002.jpg>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Vladimir Tamari
>> *Sent:* 25 August 2016 03:04
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Very good Grahame
>>
>> John D. What is the book you quoted about light speed
>> varying?
>>
>> Yes Einstein admitted that the speed of light had to
>> vary, as in mechanics the speed slows down with curvature
>> - that is the link between gravity and acceleration -
>> actually deceleration when a car takes a curve.
>> Unfortunately the whole unnecessarily complex structure
>> of General Relativity equations remained expressed in the
>> language of variable spacetime!
>>
>> In my 1993 paper United Dipole Field I show how curvature
>> of light rays ie gravity occured in the variable
>> refractive index of a dipole.
>> http://vladimirtamari.com/United-Dipole-Field-Tamari.pdf
>>
>> Here is a figure from the Dipole paper. I generalized
>> this idea in my Beautiful Universe model for an entire
>> Universe made up of such dipoles.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> <image003.jpg>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> _____________________
>>
>> vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:47 AM, John Duffield
>> <johnduffield at btconnect.com
>> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Grahame:
>>
>> Sorry I haven’t got back to you on your paper yet,
>> I’ve been busy. But note that Einstein never said
>> light curves because spacetime was curved. He said
>> light curves because the speed of light varies with
>> position.
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>> Light curves for the same reason sonar waves curve.
>>
>> <image002.gif>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> JohnD
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>> *Sent:* 23 August 2016 14:38
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>>
>> Dear Chandra, John D, John H, Wolf and others,
>>
>> Thanks, Chandra, for your response. I totally agree
>> that the answer to the gravitation issue (as to so
>> many others) involves reverse engineering the system
>> we refer to as reality. More on that below. (I also
>> find myself in strong agreement with your views on
>> 'the spacetime continuum'.)
>>
>> John D, I agree also the the 'curvature' of spacetime
>> is in fact inhomogeneity of the electromagnetic field
>> density - which also appears to concur with Hammond's
>> view. More on this also below.
>>
>> Wolf, I understand your preference for considering
>> the interplay of electricity and gravity/inertia;
>> however, given that gravitation is an effect wholly
>> engendered by particles of matter, it seems most
>> unlikely that we're going to understand gravity
>> without getting a clear grip on those particles.
>>
>> The SR 'explanation' of gravitation as 'curvature of
>> spacetime' is in fact no explanation at all - it says
>> nothing about WHAT is being curved, HOW it's being
>> curved, WHAT it is about matter that causes that
>> curvature or WHY light and material objects move in
>> accordance with that 'curvature'. It's a useful
>> picture, certainly, but in terms of explanation it
>> appears to add little to Newton's
>> action-at-a-distance (other than relativistic effects).
>>
>> So let's try a bit of that reverse systems engineering:
>>
>> Fact (1): It's known (and has been since at least
>> 1934) that particles of matter are (time-varying)
>> electromagnetic constructs.
>>
>> Fact (2): Given fact (1), and given that
>> electromagnetic field effects drop off
>> inverse-quadratically in relation to the distance
>> from their source, it follows that material particles
>> will have a presence that likewise drops off as the
>> inverse square of distance; that presence is
>> detectable - we refer to it by two names: gravitation
>> and electrical charge.
>>
>> Fact (3): In this very real sense every particle of
>> matter is in fact unlimited spatially in its extent;
>> the limitations that we attribute to such particles
>> are in fact limitations of our own perception, which
>> is only capable of detecting them through 'virtual
>> photon' interactions, which are interactions between
>> the central 'cores' (loops) of particles being sensed
>> and particles doing the sensing.
>>
>> Fact (4): Given facts (1) - (3), it follows that the
>> whole of space will be permeated by the totality of
>> (time-varying) electromagnetic field effects from all
>> the particles in the universe, each contributing in
>> accordance with the inverse square law; given also
>> the evening out of 'positive' and 'negative' charge
>> effects on a macroscopic scale, these field effects
>> constitute what we refer to as 'the universal
>> gravitational field'.
>>
>> Fact (5): That field will vary in intensity in
>> accordance with distance from the various massive
>> bodies that form it; this varying intensity of
>> electromagnetic field effects will influence the
>> behaviour of other electromagnetic constructs passing
>> through that field, i.e. ensembles of particles that
>> form massive bodies; (it is implicit in this, of
>> course, that the principle of coherent superposition
>> of linear photons won't apply to these non-linear
>> time-varying electromagnetic field effects - i.e.they
>> will influence each other through a complex process
>> of mutual interference).
>>
>> Fact (6): This varying density of field effects will
>> give this continuum a 'shape' defined by the surfaces
>> of equal intensity of those effects; these 3-D
>> contours will effectively determine the motion of
>> electromagnetic constructs - light, particles -
>> through that medium; (any scuba diver who has seen or
>> felt a thermocline in water will have a good analogy
>> to work from here).
>>
>> Fact (7): It's implicit, and would necessarily be the
>> case, that, although electrostatic charge 'cancel
>> out' if they are equal and opposite, the
>> electromagnetic field effects giving rise to those
>> charges will in fact be additive across the cosmos;
>> likewise, though gravitational 'pull' from opposing
>> directions may appear to cancel out, there may still
>> be a strong gravitational field in that location -
>> think of a plateau high on a great mountain, with a
>> small hillock on that platea.
>>
>> Fact (8): Substantial supporting detail for this
>> perspective on gravitation can be found in my paper
>> 'Cosmic System Dynamics', posted with my email of
>> 20th August.
>>
>> A couple of points as a postscript:
>>
>> (a) This means that we ourselves, being ensembles of
>> material particles, actually extend across the whole
>> cosmos; this may prove relevant;
>>
>> (b) The entire cosmos is in fact one electromagnetic
>> entity; from the QM point of view there is just ONE
>> wavefunction, spanning the whole universe:
>> wavefunctions for single particles or ensembles of
>> particles are in fact local approximations to this
>> universal wavefunction, in which terms for more
>> distant influences have been ignored as being
>> insignificant; this could well have something to say
>> about 'quantum randomness', which may in fact be
>> those other influences tipping the balance (this is
>> also expanded upon in my book).
>>
>> Best regards to all,
>>
>> Grahame
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:*Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>
>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>; Chandra
>> UConn <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:*Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:54 PM
>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Gravity and
>> ultraweak-photonemission
>>
>> Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of
>> thinking. I call it ergently needed "Evolution
>> Process Congruent Thinking", which I sometimes
>> express as, "Reverse System Engineering Thinking".
>>
>> My papers can be downloaded from the web:
>> phy.ucon.edu <http://phy.ucon.edu>-- faculty --
>> research; the link is below my image.
>>
>> Keep up the good spirit.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T
>> 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com
>> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>>
>> Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and
>> ultraweak-photonemission
>>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> I'm more than ever convinced that unless we can
>> get a better grasp of what 'space-time' actually
>> IS - which fundamentally means a proper
>> understanding of gravitation - then our species
>> is at very serious risk of imploding and taking
>> much (most?) of life on this planet with us. For
>> the past century or more we've been looking
>> inward rather than outward; humankind is
>> essentally an outward-looking race (the very word
>> 'race' implies that!), and without somewhere to
>> look outward TO we tend to flounder and bicker -
>> just look around the planet today! The world is
>> so vastly overcrowded now, and set to be
>> increasingly more so, with numerous environmental
>> issues to compound the problem. We need new
>> horizons, new frontiers, more than we ever did in
>> the time of Vasco de Gama and Columbus!
>>
>> [As an aside, I hope we'd also be rather more
>> considerate of any indigenous lifeforms that
>> those who followed Columbus!]
>>
>> That's a major reason why I've offered my
>> proposal on gravitation for consideration. If we
>> don't crack this one, VERY soon, we may run out
>> of time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with
>> the pressure-cooker environment we've created for
>> ourselves. David Attenborough is proposing that
>> we seriously limit population growth; the Chinese
>> have tried that and it didn't work - and it never
>> will; the 'prime directive' built into our makeup
>> by evolution is procreation. Our planet is like
>> a dandelion head full of seeds ready to fly -
>> we've even been exploring the heavens around us
>> for places to fly TO! What we need now is the
>> way to do it; I earnestly believe that the way to
>> do it is there in a greater understanding of
>> matter, space-time and gravitation - but not as
>> long as the established scientific community
>> insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and
>> doggedly refuses to even look at things from a
>> new perspective.
>>
>> Ok, off my soap-box now. But I do really hope
>> that a few of you out there will take a look at
>> my paper posted with my last email; if there's
>> something clearly wrong with it, please tell me -
>> if not, please tell others! Thanks.
>>
>> Grahame
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:*John Duffield
>> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
>>
>> *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion'
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>
>> *Sent:*Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:04 PM
>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Gravity and
>> ultraweak-photonemission
>>
>> Grahame:
>>
>> I share your general sentiment. I’ll read
>> through your paper and get back to you.
>> Meanwhile I rather think the “shake the rug”
>> waves are light waves. A gravitational field
>> is a place where space is inhomogeneous, not
>> curved. See what Percy Hammond sayshere
>> <http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond.pdf>:
>> /"We conclude that the field describes the
>> curvature that characterizes the
>> electromagnetic interaction"/.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John D
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>> *Sent:* 20 August 2016 16:37
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity and
>> ultraweak-photonemission
>>
>> Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert,
>> Vladimir, Beverly et al.,
>>
>> There appear to be very strong reasons to
>> believe that gravitation is in fact an EM
>> effect. If one starts from the premise that
>> elementary particles are themselves
>> electromagnetic constructs then it's almost a
>> foregone conclusion. That premise was
>> strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in
>> Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit &
>> Wheeler later that same year and proved
>> beyond all reasonable doubt at SLAC in 1997
>> by Burke et al. (Phys Rev Lett 79, pp1626-9).
>>
>> It's at times somewhat paradoxical to me that
>> physicists (present company excepted!) all
>> too often go looking for complicated
>> explanations when there's a simple one
>> staring them in the face. If one simply sees
>> the force of attraction between unlike unit
>> charges as being minutely greater than
>> the force of repulsion between like charges -
>> and there's no known reason why they should
>> be identical (in fact it's likely that they
>> won't) - then gravitation drops out totally
>> naturally as the difference between those two
>> effects. This would seem to sit well with
>> Occam's razor since it eliminates the need
>> for one otherwise totally unexplained cosmic
>> force at a stroke. We know that every
>> nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of
>> opposing charge (quarks) to give an overall
>> charge; it seems eminently likely that even
>> those quarks are formed from energies that,
>> taken separately, would give rise to either
>> positive or negative charge elements to give
>> the overall charge for a quark - this links
>> the gravitational effect of a particle
>> directly to its total energy content and so
>> to its total mass.
>>
>> I've attached a copy of my paper, published
>> in 'Kybernetes' five years ago, that details
>> this proposal for gravitation. You'll see
>> that it posits the notion that space(-time)
>> has a 'texture' (also explaining its
>> 'stiffness' and the 'curvature of spacetime')
>> given by the summation of all time-varying EM
>> field effects emanating from all of the
>> material particles in the universe - this of
>> course draws on the fact that electromagnetic
>> fields are unlimited in their reach (and
>> electromagnetic potential is unblockable -
>> Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we
>> experience as a localised particle is just
>> the 'core', so to speak, of an
>> electromagnetic field effect unlimited in its
>> extent. The (-time) in brackets above
>> reflects the fact that this 'texture' of this
>> 'neo-aether' is continually varying as
>> celestial bodies (and groups of celestial
>> bodies) are themselves in continuous motion,
>> so also is their contribution to this
>> 'textured' continuum.
>>
>> I'd be most interested in any feedback on
>> this proposal, including of course any clear
>> reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be
>> a feasible proposition. You'll note that
>> this concept includes a pretty thorough
>> explanation for every aspect of the
>> Equivalence Principle as included in GR.
>> There's also the strong implication that the
>> gravity waves recently detected are
>> themselves electromagnetic constructs (since
>> the fabric of spacetime is itself EM in
>> nature, and so susceptible to being 'shaken
>> like a rug' by such waves); this may have
>> something to say to Beverly's field of
>> interest, since tidal forces are themselves
>> in a sense a pale shadow of gravity waves.
>>
>> Thanks all,
>>
>> Grahame
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>> Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
>> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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
>> <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>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>> vladimirtamari 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>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>> grahame at starweave.com
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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>
> Virenfrei. 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 grahame at starweave.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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>
---
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/20160902/39d78550/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 789 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160902/39d78550/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160902/39d78550/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list