[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Hodge John
jchodge at frontier.com
Sun Feb 5 14:22:01 PST 2017
T. vanFlandern suggeted the speed of gravity was at least 10^& or 10^10c. Taking account of the speen of gravity is negligable correction.
Hodge
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/5/17, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2017, 3:47 PM
Albrecht:
I do not see how your example with electric forces
applies to the
gravitational example.in van Flanders 1998 paper , or
for that
matter to your model of an elementary particle. Has
anyone ever
seen positron electron orbiting each other?
Consider two particles instantly at 10 and 6 Oclock
send out a
force that propagates radially from their
instantaneous position
A time of flight delay caused by field propagating
spherically to
reach the other particle after it has moved around the
orbit.
This means there is an
angle between the purely
radial from orbit center direction by an angle Θ
This angle will give a force vector along the orbit
path would
this not change the momentum??
The only way I know Bohr atom works is because the
proton is at
the center of the electron orbit so no matter where
the electron
moves around the orbit it will experience a radial
only force.
I believe van Flanders 1998 paper claims that
ephemerus data was
calculated assuming instantaneous gravity force
projection and
which seem to match visual position when corrected for
the time
delay between sources and observer. And if the time
delay for
gravity were introduced it would show up in orbit
corrections not
actually seen. Is he making a mistake?
best,
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang
Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 1/31/2017
1:35 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:
Wolf,
regarding the speed of gravitational
influence:
I have looked into the mentioned paper of Van
Flanders in 1998
and particularly his arguments why gravitational
influences must
propagate instantly, not at the speed of light. I do
not follow
his arguments because he has overlooked an important
point.
His argument (also that one cited from Eddington)
is: If the
speed of gravitational propagation is limited (e.g.
to c) then
in the case of two celestial bodies each body would
not see the
other one at its actual position but at a past
position. This
would destroy the conservation of momentum. -
However, this is
not the case.
One simple example to see that this argument cannot
be true. We
can imagine a set up of two massive bodies
which orbit
each other and which are bound to each other by an
electrical
force; this is easily possible by putting an
appropriate
electrical charge of different sign onto both
bodies. Also the
electrical force is, as we know, restricted to the
speed of
light. But it is very clear that this set up would
keep the
momentum of both bodies and would steadily move in a
stable way.
How does this work? The phenomenon is the so called
"retarded
potential". It has the effect that, even though
both charges are
seen at a past position by the other charge, the
force vector
points to the actual position of the other
one.
If we now assume that gravity is a force
(independent of what
Einstein talks about curvature of space), then the
same rules of
retarded potential apply to gravity. And so there is
no change
of momentum even though the effect of gravity is
limited to the
speed of light.
Does this provide some clarification?
Albrecht
Am
22.01.2017 um 20:52 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:
Al:
I think the "where is the evidence"
argument is no longer
powerful because so many things happening in
physics have
little or even contradictory evidence. I'm
just reading Van
Flanders 1998 "the speed of gravity"
Physics Letters A250 1-11
which makes a good case for gravity influences
influences
moving instantly - not at the speed of light.
However I like your idea of only interactions -
in fact I'm
developing a theory along those lines by modeling
nothing as
an empty page and requiring material formatting of
the page as
an explicit field of space cells. This still
allows fields as
a shortcut for calculating interactions from
multiple distant
cells, but nothing remains nothing, if there are
no cells to
host interactions i.e. sources and sinks, then
there is no
influence propagating. It takes some material to
propagate
influences.
I would be very curious to read how your
"one way out"
formulates this problem.
One of my hang ups is that any visualization of
material
basis for space implies a kind of permanent
structural
relationship between sources and sinks - but
objects do seem
to move fairly fluidly from place to place. Do
sources and
sinks move in your vision, If so what do they move
in?
best,
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang
Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On
1/21/2017 10:20 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de
wrote:
Challenge for proponents of fields (all
kinds:
E&M, Gravity, Tension, whatever): If
the universe
is finite, then the field sources on the
outer rind will
be pumping field energy into the void, the
material
universe would be cooling down, etc. So,
where is the
evidence for such? If the universe is
finite but
topologically closed, then it will have
certain "Betti
numbers" for various forms which will
be closed, (see:
algebraic topology texts), again there
should be some
observable consequence from the these closed
forms. So
(again) where's the evidence?
Granted, current tech
may not be up to the task; but that would
imply that
field theories have to be reduced in status
to be
virtually religion.
One way out: there are no fields, but
interactions
between sources and sinks. Where one is
missing,
there's nothing! In particular nothing
emminating from
sources without regard for target-like
sinks.
Advantage: the math works out without
internal
contradictions (divergencies, etc.).
Another advantage:
from this viewpoint, there are no waves, and
associated
divergencies. They are just cocek the
ptual Fourier
components for the interactions. Useful,
but strictly
hypothetical.
For what it's worth, Al
Gesendet: Sonntag,
22. Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr
Von: "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
An: "Nature of Light and
Particles - General
Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] light and
particles
group
John
M.
I am not the
right person to give you
decisive answers as
I have not followed the math
relevant to the
origin of Gravitational Wave
(GW) and its
spontaneous propagation.
First,
you
can find out the current state
of technology
in the measuring precision of
(i) fringe
fraction, F (i.e., 180-degree/F)
vs. (i)
polarization angle fraction F
(90-degree/F).
As I recall, much better than
thousandth of
a fringe-shift is now
measurable. I do not
know what is the current best
value of F for
polarization measurement. You
can look up
Gravitational Faraday Effect
also. I did
“poke my nose” there in the
past; but could
not find anything
measurable.
Second,
more fundamental physics. All
material based
waves and light waves require a
continuous
tension field that steadily gets
pushed away
from the original site of
perturbation
induced on the field; provided
the
perturbation does not exceed the
restoration
linearity condition
(“Young’s Modulus”, or
equivalent). For, stretched
material string,
the mechanical tension is T and
the
restoration force is the
“inertial mass”
“Sigma” per unit length;
then string-wave
v-squared =T/Sigma. For light,
c-squared =
Epsilon-inverse/Mu.
Epsilon-inverse is the
electric tension and Mu is the
magnetic
restoration force. These
analogies are
explained in some of my papers;
I have sent
earlier.
Now
my
very basic question for the
experts in GW: How
do you define the GW-tension
field?
All spontaneously propagating
waves require
a steady and continuous tension
field in
which a suitable perturbation
triggers the
original wave. What is the
velocity of GW
and what are the corresponding
tension and
restoration parameters? If you
say, it is
the same velocity as “c”,
for the EM wave;
then we have some serious
confusion
to resolve. Are the
tension and
restoration parameters same as
those for EM
waves? Then, why should we call
it GW;
instead of pulsed EM waves? Or,
are
the two parameters really
physically
different for
GW(should be); but
GW-velocity number just happens
to coincide
with “c”?
I took
Einstein’s explanation for the
origin of
Gravity as the “Curvature of
Space”
literally, as the Potential
Gradient
generated around any assembly of
Baryonic
Particles. So, a pair of
rotating binary
stars will generate a
periodically
oscillating potential gradient.
Whatever the
value of the effective gravity
of a
“stationary” binary star
around earth is; it
would be oscillating slightly
when the
“stationary” binary stars
start rotating
around themselves. But, this is
not Gravity
Wave to me. It is a phenomenon
of “locally”
changing value of the
“curvature of space”;
not a passing by wave. Imagine
the typical
“trampoline demo” for
Einsteinian gravity
with a heavy iron ball at the
depressed
center. If you periodically
magnetically
attract the iron ball to
effectively reduce
the trampoline curvature; we are
not
generating propagating GW; we
are
periodically changing the local
“curvature”!
These
comments should give you some
pragmatic
“food for thought”!
Chandra.
From:
General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John
Macken
Sent: Saturday,
January 21, 2017
4:14 PM
To: 'Nature of
Light and
Particles - General
Discussion'
Subject: Re:
[General] light and
particles group
Chandra,
I have one quick question
for you and the group to
consider. You
mention that Maxwell connected
the speed of
light to the properties of space
(epsilon
and mu). To explain my question,
I first
have to give some background
which is
accomplished by quoting a short
section of
the previously attached paper.
“Gravitational
waves (GWs) propagate in the
medium of
spacetime. They are transverse
quadrupole
waves which slightly distort the
“fabric of
space”. For example, a GW
propagating in
the “Z” direction would
cause a sphere made
from baryonic matter such as
metal to become
an oscillating ellipsoid. When
the sphere
expands in the X direction it
contracts in
the Y direction and vice versa.
The GW
produces: 1) no change in the
total volume
of the oscillating sphere 2) no
change in
the rate of time, 3) no
displacement of the
center of mass of the
oscillating sphere.
Point #3 addresses an important
point. If there are two isolated
masses such
as two LIGO interferometer
mirrors suspended
by wires [17], the passage of a
GW does not
move the mirror’s center of
mass. Instead
of the mirrors physically
moving, the GW
changes the properties of
spacetime
producing a redshift and a blue
shift on
LIGO’s laser beams. This
difference in
wavelength is detected by the
interferometer
as a fringe
shift…”
With this introduction, the
questions are:
Should a GW effect the
permeability and permittivity of
free space?
Should the two orthogonal
polarizations of a GW produce
opposite
effects on the permeability and
permittivity
of free space?
Since epsilon and mu
determine the speed of light,
should a GW
produce a different effect on
the two
orthogonal polarizations of
light?
If the answer to question
#3 is yes, then this suggests
that it should
be possible to detect GWs by
monitoring the
polarization of a laser beam.
It is vastly
simpler to detect a slight
difference in the
polarization of a single beam of
light than
it is to detect the same optical
shift
between two arms of an
interferometer. The
interferometer encounters
vibration noise to
a much greater degree than is
encountered in
the polarization of a single
laser beam.
Also, multiple laser beams
could identify
the direction of the GW much
better than an
interferometer.
Perhaps this is off the
subject of the discussion group.
But it is
an example of a subject which
might be low
hanging fruit that could make a
historic
contribution to physics. In
the past I have
made the suggestion that GWs
produce a
polarization effect, but this
suggestion is
lacking additional insight and
analysis to
be taken seriously. Is there
anyone in this
group with the expertise to
contribute to
this study?
John M.
From:
General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of
Roychoudhuri,
Chandra
Sent: Saturday,
January 21, 2017
11:56 AM
To: Nature of Light
and Particles
- General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re:
[General] light and
particles group
“Gravitational
waves indicate vacuum energy
exists”, paper
by John Macken
John M.:
Thanks for attaching your paper.
The
title clearly indicates that
we really
are in basic agreement. The
cosmic space
has physical
properties. I have
expressed my views a bit
differently, that
the cosmic space is a
stationary Complex
Tension Filed (CTF),
holding 100% of
the cosmic energy in
the
attached papers and in my book,
“Causal
Physics”. If the
so-called vacuous
cosmic space and the CTF
were not
inseparable, the velocity of
light would
have been different through
different
regions of the cosmic
space!
I
just
do not like to continue to use
the word
“vacuum” because, in the
English language,
it has acquired a very different
meaning
(“nothing”) for absolute
majority of people
over many centuries. It is
better not to
confuse common people by
asserting new
meanings on very old and very
well
established words.
Further,
in your support, the
quantitative values of
at least two physical
properties, Epsilon
& Mu, of the
comic space have already
presented as
quantified properties by Maxwell
around 1867
through his wave equation.
Recall
(c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu).
These properties
of the cosmic space were already
quantified
before Maxwell by the early
developers of
electrostatics and magneto
statics.
I
assume that you are suggesting
us that we
need to postulate and quantify
other
physical properties possessed by
this cosmic
space (Maxwellian or
Faraday Tension
Field?), so that the
“emergent
dynamic particles” out of this
cosmic space
would display all the properties
we have
already been measuring for well
over a
century.
However, I disagree, as of now,
that cosmic
space is “space-time” four
dimensional.
Because, the “running time”
is not a
measurable physical parameter of
any
physical entity that we know of
in this
universe. So, I assert that the
“running
time” cannot be altered by any
physical
process. Humans have
smartly derived
the concept of “running
time” using
various kinds of harmonic
oscillators
and/or periodic
motions. We can
alter the frequency of a
physical oscillator
by changing its physical
environment. Of
course, this is my personal
perception, not
supported by the entire
group.
But, that is precisely the
purpose of this
free and honest discussions so
we can learn
from each other. As my
understanding
evolves; I might change back my
mind and
accept space as four- or even
thirteen-dimensional.
Chandra.
From:
General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John
Macken
Sent: Saturday,
January 21, 2017
1:37 PM
To: 'Nature of
Light and
Particles - General
Discussion'; 'Andrew
Worsley'
Cc: 'M.A.'
Subject: Re:
[General] light and
particles group
Dear Chandra and
All,
You have said “We definitely
have advanced our
collective
understanding that
space
is not empty and the
particles are some
form of emergent properties
of this same
universal cosmic
field.” The idea
that space is not an empty void
has not been
quantified in any model of
spacetime
proposed by members of the
group.
I have concentrated in
defining and quantifying the
properties of
the vacuum and the results are
presented in
the attached paper. This paper
analyzes the
properties of spacetime
encountered by
gravitational waves. The
conclusion is that
spacetime is a sea of Planck
length vacuum
fluctuations that oscillate at
Planck
frequency. This model can be
quantified,
analyzed and tested. It is
shown that this
model gives the correct energy
for virtual
particle formation. It also
gives the
correct energy density for black
holes, the
correct zero point energy
density of the
universe (about 10113
J/m3)
and generates the Friedmann
equation for the
critical density of the universe
(about 10-26
kg/m3 =
10-9 J/m3).
The reason for mentioning
this to a group interested in
the structure
of electrons, photons and
electric fields
is that the quantifiable
properties of
spacetime must be incorporated
into any
particle or field model.
John M.
From:
General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of
Roychoudhuri,
Chandra
Sent: Saturday,
January 21, 2017
8:45 AM
To: Andrew Worsley
<worsley333 at gmail.com>;
Light & particles. Web
discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>
Subject: Re:
[General] light and
particles group
Dear Andrew Worsely:
This is a platform for
ethical,
serious and honest discussions
on scientific
issues that the prevailing
mainstream
platforms have been shunning. We
definitely
do not want to sow
unsubstantiated distrust
within this group. This
not a
political forum where
sophisticated
deceptions are highly
prized; which has
been intellectualized as
“post-truth”!
This is not a “post-truth”
forum.
So, please, help us by
getting help from computer
professionals
before repeating any further
unsubstantiated
accusations.
If you can definitively
identify anybody within our
group carrying
out unethical and destructive
activities;
obviously, we would bar such
persons from
this group
discussion.
Chandra.
Dear All Participants:
Please be vigilant in maintaining
the essential ethics behind this
discussion
forum – honestly accept or
reject others’
opinions; preferably,
build upon
them. This is the main
objective of this
forum as this would advance
real
progress in physics out of
the currently
stagnant culture.
While we have
not come to realize any
broadly-acceptable
major break-through out of this
forum; we
definitely have advanced our
collective
understanding that
space
is not empty and the
particles are some
form of emergent properties
of this same
universal cosmic
field. This, in
itself, is significant; because
the approach
of this group to particle
physics is
significantly different from the
mainstream.
I definitely see a better future
for physics
out of this thinking: Space is a
real
physical field and observables
are
manifestation (different forms
of excited
states) of this
field.
Most of you are aware
that
our SPIE conference series,
which was
continuing since 2005, has been
abruptly
shut down without serious valid
justifications (complains from
“knowledgeable people” that
“bad apples”
have joined in). We certainly do
not want
something similar happen to this
web
discussion forum due to internal
dissentions
and internal unethical
behavior.
Many thanks for your vigilance and
support.
Respectfully,
Chandra.
From:
Andrew Worsley [mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 4:49
AM
To: John Duffield
Cc: Roychoudhuri,
Chandra; ANDREW
WORSLEY
Subject: Re: Andrew
Worsley, light
and particles group
Hi John,
Could be a coincidence,
but some damn troll from the
discussion
group (called Vladimir) has
screwed up my
email which I have had problem
free for
the last 20 years- and my
computer is now
going suspiciously slow.
Andrew
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at
7:44 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:
Chandra:
Please can
you add Andrew Worsley
to the nature
of light and particles
group. I’ve
met him personally, and
think he has
a valuable contribution
to make.
Apologies if
you’ve already done
this, but Andrew
tells me he’s received
a blocked
by moderator
message.
Regards
John
Duffield
7 Gleneagles
Avenue
Poole
BH14 9LJ
UK
From:
John Duffield
[mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: 09
January 2017 08:34
To:
'Roychoudhuri, Chandra'
<chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
Cc: 'ANDREW
WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>;
'John
Williamson' <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>;
'Martin Van Der
Mark' <martinvandermark1 at gmail.com>
Subject: Andrew
Worsley,
light and particles
group
Chandra:
Please can
you add Andrew Worsley
(worsley333 at gmail.com)
to the nature of light
and particles
group. I’ve met him
personally, and
think he has a valuable
contribution
to make. He has
described the
electron as being what
you might
call a quantum harmonic
structure.
The electron in an
orbital is
described by spherical
harmonics,
the electron itself
might be
described by spherical
(or toroidal)
harmonics.
Regards
JohnD
_______________________________________________ If
you no longer wish to receive
communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles
General
Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
Click here to unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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 Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
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>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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>
More information about the General
mailing list