[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force

Mon Feb 6 05:04:43 PST 2017

Hey Wolf:

The actual force at any reception point is not just that from one position of the sending charge, but an integral over all positions of the sending charge 
intersecting the past light cone of the sender.  I don't know what the answer is and I'm too tired at the moment to do the math.  Looks too like it might be very 
involved!  Cone intersecting a spiral, etc.  3/4-D, lots of unknown integrals....

Also, a positron-electron pair should be essentiall invisible as it is charge nutral, i.e., won't interact with our only agent of "seeing."  Except ...??

---Al

Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. Februar 2017 um 21:47 Uhr

Von: "Wolfgang Baer" 

An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org

Betreff: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force

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" 

An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 

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
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?
unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?
unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

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
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?
unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ 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 