[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force

Sun Feb 12 06:46:38 PST 2017

Albrecht:

I'll admit that I do not follow the consequences of Special
Relativity Theory (SRT) as it is worked out in the
Lienard-Wiechert potential. And since I identified at least a half
dozen  derivations of these results in the internet I assume the
math is correct. However we have been to the Vigier Conference and
seen several presentations criticizing Special Relativity 

So rather than go through a derivation again, which I do not
doubt,  I'm trying to make sense of the predicted results. Its
kind of like seeing SRT calculations and coming up with the twin
paradox. Something is wrong with SRT

The VanFlanders paper ( I can send another copy for anyone who
needs it) in the paragraph above "3.3 the solar eclipse test"
clearly claims that experimental data from the Astronomical
Almanac produced by the US naval observatory shows that the earth
is attracted to  a point 8.5 min. ahead of its optical position.
This means the earth is gravitationally attracted to where the sun
is Now not where the sun was when light was emitted.

The drawing below shows a simple example of how a light emitted
from a non-relativistic particle ( 30km/sec) at the upper past
position will not hit a parallel traveling lower particle at some
distance achieved during the flight time of light and therefore 
will receive light at an angle pointing to the retarded position.
For earth orbit (30Km/sec) which is 10^4 less than the speed of
light relativistic effects are 10^-8 , i.e.very very
small.compared with Newtonian thinking,  but the displacement in
8.5 minutes is 15,300km nearly 3 earth diameters offset which
should be measurable.

I've just gotten some visitors and need to go, but we are
questioning SRT and the assumption that gravity may move at a
different speed. so just citing more SRT derivations is not
convincing. 

Why is My diagram and "Eddington" and Flanders wrong? Is Flanders
lying about his Ephemeris data and its experimental content? 

Or are we just so brow beaten by SRT that whatever derivations we
develop from it must be right? 

Got to go

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 2/10/2017 12:33 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:

Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and All,

it is correct that the solution is a relativistic calculation.
In the figure below, the lower circuit "now" gets the field from
the direction of the higher (small) circuit "now". Not so easily
understandable by visualisation but theoretically confirmed. It
has to do with relativistic contraction (of space / fields) and
with relativistic time synchronization.

If I look into Jackson, to the mentioned p486 and p487, then
eq. (14.17) describes (unfortunately only) the transverse field.
But if in this equation the product (kappa*R) is replace by the
value given in (14.16) then the result does not depend on the
retarded position P'. -  It would be better to have here the
field component for the longitudinal direction. But even this is
an indication that the retarded position has no effect.

Regarding the two charges in my model I assume that both
charges are getting the field of the respective other charge by
similar considerations. If we assume that charges permanently
emit exchange particles for the corresponding field following QM
in this respect, then there are exchange particles leaving the
one charge and reaching the other one. So there is a field (a
binding field) at the locations of both charges. - But this
statement is of course not a precise one and I am going to
present a detailed calculation taking all this into account
mathematically.

And by the way with respect to gravity: This discussion which
we have started here has kept the physicists busy during the
entire 19th century (which can be found at Wikipedia) The
discussion used the arguments of Van Flanders, Wolf, and also
myself (in the beginning) about the influence of retardation to
the perspective of the gravitational force; but this discussion
ended when Special Relativity was introduced.

Best

Albrecht

Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:

What I know about retarded potentials exactly corroborates my
point

The potential is retarded yes but go backwards from the
4Oklock location of the advancing lower particle you will see
the force vector no longer goes through the orbit center. It
comes from the retarded position of the source, which was at
12Oclock.

Does retarded potential not mean one must calculate the
potential from the point sources were in the past ? I'm
reading Jackson p468 right now

Its a typical formula first section with no explanation of
what they mean, but it is clear that my diagram is non
relativistic and that may be my error.

However a very slow moving particle very far away moving
transversely would have almost no relativistic correction and
still be seen. So in this case would the observer ( big
circle) not see the source at the retarded past position. And
if that is the case would he not "see" the force vector from
the retarded past position?

And that is exactly Flanders Argument regarding the motion of
the sun relative to an observer on the earth. The EM force
vector points to the retarded position not the current
position. But gravity orbits are calculated as though the
force vector points to the actual Now position. 

In my diagram the past upper particle is at 12Oclock and when
the Light(EM INFLUENCE) gets to the lower particle at 4 Oclock
it sees the upper particle at its past 12O'clock position.
Thus the force vector is no longer radially symmetric but has
a tangential component. 

How your dual orbiting charge model traveling at "c" works
out I do not know. But if the E filed is squeezed in the
velocity direction then 

then
the two particles would never influence each other since the
flat plane of E fileds would rotate and always miss the

other particle. So what creates the field holding the
particles in orbit? 

best

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 2/8/2017 12:34 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:

Hi!

No, it is not the point that 'Albrecht has some other
ideas'. But it is the situation solved by the treatment of
"retarded potential" as I have already written. This is
classical Main Stream physics. 

I can only repeat to refer to textbooks about retarded
potential which is besides my favourite French the well
known Landau&Lifschitz about the so called
Lienard-Wiechert potential (and I think also in Jackson).
>From that calculation follows that the forces arrive in a
radial direction at the particles / charges and so there is
no tangential component. 

Van Flanders has obviously overlooked this fact which is -
to say it again - standard classical physics.

Best, Albrecht

Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:

I agree one must integrate the effect, but since the
instantaneous snapshot shown below generate a small but
not zero tangential force along the trajectory if you
rotate the entire diagram by an infinitesimal angle the
same force will move around the cycle in the same
direction , so there would be no cancellation but an
accumulation of the tangential force build up.

I believe the only way to avoid the problem is to have an
attractive force at the center so only radial force fields
are encountered, or have infinite propagation speed which
is what TOm Vam Flandern's paper tried to prove.

Albrecht has some other ideas

Best, wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de
wrote:

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. 

style="text-align:
justify;">“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. 

style="text-align:
justify;"> 

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:

style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should
a GW effect the
permeability and
permittivity of free
space?

style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should
the two orthogonal
 polarizations of a GW
produce opposite
effects on the
permeability and
permittivity of free
space?

style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">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:

class="MsoNormal">Chandra:

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">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. 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">Apologies
if you’ve
already done
this, but
Andrew tells
me he’s
received a blocked
by moderator
message. 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">Regards

class="MsoNormal">John
Duffield

class="MsoNormal">7
Gleneagles
Avenue

class="MsoNormal">Poole

class="MsoNormal">BH14
9LJ

class="MsoNormal">UK

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">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

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">Chandra:

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">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. 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">Regards

class="MsoNormal">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

rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri
, Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">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 

_______________________________________________
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

font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;"> 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 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

font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;"> 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