[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
ANDREW WORSLEY
member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Feb 27 01:30:41 PST 2017
Hi Chip/All,
How's it going
Do you think the PDE is calculable, that is the question?
Andrew
========================================
Message Received: Feb 21 2017, 02:37 PM
From: "ANDREW WORSLEY"
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" , phys at a-giese.de
Cc:
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Hi Chip/All
So here's the problem I have with the PDE, which solved can relate space-time to the energy it contains, in other words a good chance of a Joint publication.
I have attaced a paper where PDE's are used to solve a 3D Jacobi elliptical function. I am only intersted in one of these solutions where it appears the three axes
are perpendicular and the two vibrations are perpendicular (somewhat reminiscent of the action of a photon).
The value of interest is the maximum see FIG 8. Table 3. a2/theta2 max = 5.3523.
The calculation only gives 4 d.p., but 8 d.p. is needed for this to be publishable.
Many thanks in advance for you help
Andrew
========================================
Message Received: Feb 21 2017, 02:03 PM
From: "Chip Akins"
To: phys at a-giese.de, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
Cc:
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Hi Wolf and Albrecht
The solar system is moving through space. It is moving at a rate which is estimated to be 230km/S based on the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy. Of course the
Milky Way galaxy is also moving in space. The Astronomical Society of the Pacific estimates this motion to be 20km/S toward the constellation Lyra.
So our visual perception of the position of the sun is delayed so that the sun appears to be 1917km behind where it actually is.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:22 AM
To: Wolfgang Baer ; phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Wolf:
some responses to your last mail:
Am 16.02.2017 um 20:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
Albrecht:
if I understand it, the periodic displacement of stars due to earth orbital motion is also the steady state displacement causing the 8.5 min displacement of the Sun
in Flanders argument. If I understand his argument then the Sun is displaced because the photons come in at an angle which is exactly the angle in my diagram
between the wave front line propagating from the12 nd 6 O'clock positions and the orbit line intercecting at 5 and 11 Oclock
I guess that you mean here the annual orbital motion of earth around the sun. True? But in this case I do not understand your reference to the 8.5 min.
displacement. Because this is the time which light needs to pass the distance between sun and earth. What does this have to do which the orbital annual
motion?
If we discuss this orbital motion then we can assume the sun to be at a fixed position in space. Because the orbital motion of the sun around the centre of our
galaxy is in comparison an almost straight motion so that we can treat the system of the sun and its planets as an inertial system.
I was taught that photons are wave packets i.e a carrier wave modified by an envelope.And the same localization argument applied to quantum waves which
ultimately explained Heisenberg's uncertainty.
I would agree that this is a usable approximation.
Yes if bullets show aberration and fields do not , then we are back to the quantum picture - or perhaps Bohm's pilot wave - bullets guided by mysterious quantum
waves.
Is this the quantum picture? I think that it is a good picture but QM does not like it as we know. And the pilot wave was an invention of de Broglie (but maybe
Bohm has used it for a further development).
I think we are at the right forum. What are photons anyway?
In my view also photons can be described by the Basic Particle Model as I have presented it in San Diego. Then it is also - like the electron and other particles -
object of the strong force. But in contrast to the electron the photon has to carry a positive and a negative electric charge as it is electrically neutral. And maybe
two of them as the photon has twice the spin of a lepton or a quark.
I wrote to Falndern at the Mindspring Email address but no such person found. now I see he died in 2009. but he was In 2002 Dr. Tom van Flandern, a PhD in
Astronomy and formerly the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office .
What text d you have that derives the field of a moving charge, I can probably find it in our library?
As said in my previous mail, my favourite book is at present "Special Relativity" of A.P. French.
Greetings
Albrecht
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/16/2017 6:32 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Wolf,
two points about this:
1.) By the normal definition of aberration the top part of the drawing of van Flanders, Fig. 2, is aberration, i.e. the case if the target is moving. If our astronomers
look at distant stars then theses stars show a periodic displacement / aberration caused by the periodic motion of the earth.
2.) It becomes more and more obvious to me (and I find it really surprising) that any kinds of "bullets" show aberration in the appropriate situations, but fields
(like the electric field and also the gravitational field) do not show aberration. - For electric fields this is said - and derived - in my textbook about relativity.
This has an amazing consequence. As photons do show aberration it is obvious that photons are not fields or waves but are bullets. - What do you think?
Best
Albrecht
Am 16.02.2017 um 06:16 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
Albrecht:
"The motion of the Earth is of no influence." on page three of the Flandern's paper you will find a comparison of the earth vs the sun movingsituation
Flandern claims as shown in figure 2 that view from source stationary or observer stationary makes no difference in one case it is called aberration in the other
time delay, both get the same angle and the same apparent optic location
best again
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/14/2017 1:12 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Wolf,
it is in fact not necessary to follow Einstein's version of SRT. I for myself follow the version of Hendrik Lorentz as it is based on known physical facts, not on
fictitious assumptions about space-time. However there are relativistic facts which are obvious and independent of any formal version of SRT. That is the
contraction of fields and the dilation of periodic processes. And these are for sure. The calculations according to Lienard-Wiechert are based on these fact to my
knowledge. At present I have started to follow this derivation step by step but will need a bit of time.
Do we indeed see the sun in a position which is about 8 minutes retarded? From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a fixed position without
making a big mistake. But even if the sun would be moving in relation to our planetary system that would not matter in this case The point is that the vectors of
any fields originating at a moving object do not point to (or from) the visible position of its source but from the advanced position, where the object is when the
field is received.
As far as I understand what you write (or van Flanders writes) about the US naval data, these date describe the visible position of the sun, so the direction from
which the photons arrive. That is obviously not a field. And if the direction of the gravitational field would be towards the retarded position then the orbital speed
of
the Earth would in fact change with time. Which is not the case - But independent of this consideration, this case seems particularly simple to me. As stated
above, from the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a fixed position. With respect to this position the Sun has a constant gravitational field in all
directions. If now the Earth orbits the sun then this steady field will reach the Earth as always coming from the centre of the sun. The motion of the Earth is of no
influence. - The interesting case for this problem discussed at other places is the one of a double star. If both stars orbit each other then the position of one star
changes permanently as seen from the other star. In that case the direction of the field and the propagation speed of the field are of relevance. But also for these
cases the relativistic calculation seems to show that the fields are pointing towards the centre of the orbit following the Lienard-Wiechert calculation of potential.
I shall come back here as soon as I am more familiar with this case.
Albrecht
Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
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.
“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:
1. Should a GW effect the permeability and permittivity of free space?
2. Should the two orthogonal polarizations of a GW produce opposite effects on the permeability and permittivity of free space?
3. 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 >
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 >; Light & particles. Web discussion >
Cc: M.A. >
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 > 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' >
Cc: 'ANDREW WORSLEY' >; 'John Williamson' >; 'Martin Van Der Mark' >
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
_______________________________________________
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 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 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 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
_____
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com
[ JEF5.3523[1].pdf (637.3 Kb) ]
More information about the General
mailing list