[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Tue Jan 3 17:06:27 PST 2017

Chip,
  It’s not so easy to get a 1 Bohr magneton magnetic moment with a double-looping charge (which produces the correct electron spin 1/2 hbar through its circling photon momentum mc acting at radius hbar/2mc), whether the charge is point-like or continuously spread out. If the charge is continuous and moving around 2 loops, then each loop is effectively carrying 1/2 the charge around its loop, meaning that each loop carries I/2 of current. The net result is then M= nIA = 2 x 1/2 x A which still gives 1/2 Bohr magneton i.e 50% of the desired magnetic moment (pre QED value.)

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
> 
> Chip, Richard: 
>      Let us recall the original experiment of electron-positron (pair production) after a high energy gamma ray is stopped by the layers of Pb-nuclei (Lead plates).
>      A charge-less and material-less entity (gamma) giving birth to two oppositely charged particle along with material-like behavior. So, our imagination can remain widely open as to what brings out this “charge” and “mass” like properties out of a gamma ray.
>      My postulate is that these properties are derivatives of the complex “self-looped” dynamic movement of the stationary space (Complex Tension Field, or CTF). Let us also remember that these properties (charge, mass, etc.) become manifest as instrumental transformations in our experiments and, further, they represent interpretations by our limited human knowledge (albeit steadily increasing). They exist in our mind (“knowledge”) as our interpretations of diverse observations. And these interpretations get enhanced with more experiments and more thinking; while we keep on unifying more and more phenomena.
>         Locality and stability of the particles (electrons and protons) require that the parent oscillations be self-looped. But, the CTF itself is not moving! It is always stationary. The entire cosmic space, as CTF, represents the universal inertial reference frame. It is the perturbation induced potential gradient of different kinds, generated in CTF, that are executing the undulations; whether it is the simple propagating EM waves of any frequency; or it is the localized self-looped oscillation for particles. The entire manifest (observable) universe constitutes these diverse excited states of the stationary CTF.
>       In this model, the secondary potential gradients generated in the CTF always has the same rate of spatial change given by “c-squared” = “Epsilon/Mu”; Epsilon and Mu are two of the various intrinsic properties of the CTF. EM waves are open-ended undulating gradients and hence propagates perpetually until absorbed through some physical interaction process. Remember, the CTF itself is not moving, only the undulations. That is the fundamental characteristics of our wave equation.
>      In this model, particles are also generated out of very similar undulating potential gradients of the CTF; but in the high-energy generation process; they become self-looped and hence localized (free particles are not plane waves!). If phase matched (resonant), then they are stable; which is the origin of energy quantization out of “classical” harmonic oscillation.
>      The key point here is that the “c”, representing the spatial rate of change of the right kind of potential gradient of CTF, is not a displacement velocity of CTF. Nothing is physically moving. CTF is stationary.
>      So, when a particle is modeled as a self-looped oscillation (“rate of change”) of the potential gradients of field, CTF, changing at the rate of  “c”; it does not represent the velocity of any “material” or a “substance”. Further, the translation of the entire particle is limited to “c”. Because, any attempts to push it to any higher velocity, the particles will break up into high energy gamma rays traveling as EM waves with the velocity “c”.  Results of LHC point to this mode of thinking.
>      I hope, this gives a bit more coherent picture in support of my postulate that CTF could represent the foundation for another new attempt to a unified field theory; where everything is an emergent property of the same CTF. For particles, these various complex gradients give rise to the observed properties that we measure during interactions between them. “Mutual forces” become manifest when  different kinds of potential gradients experience each other within each other’s vicinity and attempt to preserve their integrity (self-lopped oscillations). We do not need separate exchange particles for the particles to experience different forces. The null result of MM experiment then becomes a positive support for the CTF- postulate.
>  
> Chandra.
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:36 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
>  
> Hi Richard
>  
> Follow on, related to the previous questions.  If you view the charge as a point charge circulating around the radius of the electron, then I can understand your view.  But I think it is highly unlikely that the charge of the electron is a point charge which circulates. 
>  
> However if you view the moving (probably distributed) charge as a current (a principally continuous flow of charge) which travels in two loops around the radius, then the magnetic moment would indeed be Ub = I * A * 2.
>  
> Chip
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:44 PM
> To: Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>>
> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
>  
> Vivian and all,
>  
>      Thanks for your further comments.
>  
>      I am not looking for a kind of average of our two electron models, which have some notable similarities. I am looking for a critical comparison of them as well as other double-looping electron models.
>  
>      You mentioned Qui-Hong’s double-looping electron model. It’s interesting that both you and he made the same error in calculating the magnetic moment of your two models using the classical magnetic moment formula M=nIA  , where n is the number of current-carrying wire loops, I is the current in each wire, and A is the area of each loop.  You both thought you got the “right" answer (the Bohr magneton) for your models. But you and he both treated your double-looping charge models as having 2 current loops (and therefore used n=2 in the formula) when in fact the same electric charge alternates going first around one loop and then the other adjacent loop, making the equivalent of 1 current loop and not 2, so n =1and not 2 in the formula. Using n = 1 in the formula, you will get only half a Bohr Magneton. You acknowledged your mistake publicly. Qui-Hong did not reply twice to my emails to him at his Swedish university. Perhaps he never received my emails. In any case he never corrected the mistake in his article, and neither did you in your article on page 8, Equation 14, which still shows the incorrect calculation result of 1 Bohr magneton for your resting particle model.
>  
>     Your article still contains at least two fatal errors (which you tried to rationalize in the past by saying that your paper still makes good predictions, a strange rationalization for keeping errors that led to some of those good predictions, in my opinion). The first fatal error (as I have pointed out to you in this list several times) is your incorrect calculation of the transverse change of radius of the photon loop with velocity, where you obtain the result R = Ro/gamma by assuming that the time of travel of light over the hypotenuse of a right triangle (having a longer length than a side) is the same as the time of travel along one side of the triangle. This is similar to the calculation done in the standard moving light-clock thought experiment for deriving T=gamma Tproper, i.e. relativistic time dilation for a moving clock. Your error leads to your result R=Ro/gamma  where the correct calculation would lead to R being unchanging with particle velocity (which would be consistent with the special relativity prediction of no length contraction in the transverse direction of a longitudinally moving relativistic  object. So the correct conclusion from your calculation (rather than your mistaken conclusion) would be that the photon loop radius (like any transverse length) would not change with velocity. This would make your model similar to that of Grahame Blackwell and would take away all the predictions that you derive from your faulty calculation leading to R=Ro/gamma.
>  
>     The second fatal error is in your supposed calculation of the de Broglie wavelength from your electron model, where you use the wrong formula for relativistic kinetic energy (based on mis-applying the correct relativistic energy-momentum pythagorean equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  to apply to the correct relativistic linear equation E = KE + mc^2 ,  and therefore claiming that pc = KE which is incorrect),  to derive the de Broglie wavelength invalidly. If you use the correct formula for relativistic kinetic energy KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2 you won’t get the de Broglie wavelength from your model.
>  
>     A third limitation of your model, in my opinion, is you did not make sufficient use of the de Broglie-Einstein equation E = hf = gamma mc^2 for a moving particle by setting the energy hf of the helically moving photon equal to the total energy  gamma mc^2 of the relativistically moving electron being modeled. Since the helically circulating photon will have a wavelength L given by L f = c  , or  f = c/L , substituting f = c/L into hf=gamma mc^2 gives L = h/(gamma mc) = (Lcompton)/gamma as the wavelength of the helically circulating photon, where Lcompton is the Compton wavelength h/mc. You make no use of this relativistically-decreased circulating photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) in your electron model. Neither did de Broglie, because he didn’t conceive of the electron as a photon-like object. But you don’t have this “excuse”. Using this relativistically-decreased photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) along the photon's helical trajectory, and its corresponding wave vector k= 2pi/L , immediately leads to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength lambda-deBroglie = h/(gamma mv)  along the longitudinal axis of the helix, as derived from the longitudinal component of the wave vector k=2pi/Lambda along the longitudinal axis.
>  
>     Finally, in your particle model I think you are assuming that the spin of the helically-moving photon itself is 1 hbar as for normal photons. But at relativistic velocities of your particle model, the total spin of your model as the photon trajectory direction becomes more and more longitudinal  will then approach 1 hbar and not hbar/2 , the spin of an electron at highly  relativistic velocities. This would also be a fatal error of the model.
>  
>     If I am mistaken in any of these criticisms of your particle model, please explain which one or ones are mistaken. Thanks.
>  
>           Richard
>      
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>  
> Richard and All,
>  
> In my referenced paper I outlined my position on the structure of the electron, namely that it was composed of a photon of the appropriate energy rotating twice in its wavelength. At the time I had not done a full literature search and later found other references to such an idea. The first was by Compton, reference below, in which he proposed an electron as a ring of charge in 1915. His suggested dimension was too high. I also found the reference by Williamson and van der Mark, 1997, and Qiu-Hong Hu (≈ 2005), https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf <https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf>. 
>  
> Several others have since forwarded similar models, perhaps you know their chronological order. This not surprising because the standard model treatment of the electron is as a point particle with properties such as charge, mass, magnetic moment, spin and relativistic corrections attached in a Hamiltonian. It gets the right mathematical answer but doesn't give any physical description. I am sure you, like others, are interested in determining the physical reason behind something. 
>  
> Qiu-Hong and others treated the electron as a closed loop as in a hubius coil or mobius strip. That is fine for a stationary electron. It does not allow an electron to move, other than by mathematically attaching the SRT corrections with motion.
>  
> Treating the ends of the photon as not making a permanent join allows an electron to spiral or corkscrew its way through space as it moves. The constant speed of light determines that it will automatically subject the electron to all the SRT corrections determined by Einstein and others. That motion describes a helix that the photon's axis follows as it spirals or corkscrews through space. Most important it both gives a physical reason for the SRT corrections and makes experimentally testable predictions of unknown electron properties. In particular it gives an equation of how the radius of the rotating photon will decrease with velocity, which decrease has been measured to be similar to said equation.
>  
> Richard, if your model acknowledges that the spiralling rotating photon gives rise to the SRT, we have significant agreement. If your model applies the SRT corrections to a hubius coil or mobius strip we have a significant difference. I am not prepared to accept that mathematical equations are imposed upon any situation without a physical reason for said mathematics. 
>  
> Science is not about compromise or consensus. It is about reason. Things happen for a reason. Mathematics can be used to describe that reason. IMHO it is best to determine the physical reason for an event and then check the magnitude of the effect using mathematics. There have been many examples of mathematics successfully predicting events before the physics was established. Newton's gravitational theory and Einstein's SRT are two significant examples. There are many examples of mathematics without a physical explanation leading science "up the garden path". Black holes, treating particles as waves and string theory are some examples. They are so well entrenched in science that scientists wonder why fewer people are prepared to accept scientific explanations. 
>  
> Swapping standard model mathematics that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason, for another approach that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason is not my idea of advancing science.
>  
> You will see from my paper that I have suggested many ways in which, under the rotating photon model, a moving electron's photon axis spirals or corkscrews its way through space in a helical trajectory describes many known electron properties. In particular I suggest the electron's spiralling motion gives it all the SRT corrections. That paper also make a few testable predictions,  
>  
> If you believe you can add further to a paper along those lines, particularly the dereivation of e and µB, it would be good. If you have an alternative derivation of the reason for the SRT corrections it would make interesting reading. Its value would be in making testable predictions. 
>  
> IMHO I, and to some extent Qiu-Hong, have provided the "skeleton" of the rotating photon model. Williamson and van der Mark (JW and MvdM) provided some "flesh" around it. There is still a lot more to be done. All contributions welcome.  
>  
> As I have said many times before, the value of a theory is in its ability to match observation and make testable predictions. If you wish to forward alternative ideas you need to make testable predictions of unknown properties. Pointing out mathematical calculations that match some known observations without anything that is different and can be tested is not an advance. 
>  
> On that note I would like to ask the participants in the debate about inertial mass "What is the discussion about?"  IMHO mass is mass. As I mentioned below all masses, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant are related. Knowing any one enables any other to be determined from knowledge of the gravitational field and velocity of the observer and observed. I agree with Einstein's concept that "..radiation (photons) convey inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" (Einstein A, Ann. der Phys. 18, p 639 *1906). I see no evidence to suggest he was wrong. It seems to me that a body composed of a rotating photon, or whatever other description is used, will have the same inertia as the original photon. I am happy to be corrected if there is an experimentally measurable difference. 
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Vivian Robinson
>  
> <PastedGraphic-1.pdf>
>  
> On 02/01/2017, at 3:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> 
> Hi Vivian, 
>      Thanks for your further explanations.
>      Our approaches to modeling the electron are so similar in various ways, it would be great to get convergence. Both are independently obtained double-looping helical models of a relativistic electron. In both cases there is light speed movement along the helical (not spiral) trajectories. Both approaches claim to derive the de Broglie wavelength. In both approaches the radius of the helical trajectory is claimed to reduce with increasing speed of the electron. In both cases the relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron plays an important role. In both cases special relativity is built into the geometry of the helical motion. Since each of us favors our own model, it may be time for an objective third party to compare and contrast the two models. Grahame Blackwell has a third electron-modeling approach which could be included in the comparison. John and Martin’s 1997 electron model and John’s current model could be included. Alex’s bag model. Anyone else’s model to be included?
>        Richard
>  
> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>  
> Chandra and All,
>  
> Referring to the discussions about special relativity theory (SRT), I make the following comments. That it was developed from theoretical (mathematical/goemetrical or other) considerations does not make it wrong. The ONLY thing that makes SRT wrong is that it does not match experiment or observation. To the best of my knowledge there is no experiment or observation that contradicts SRT. There are at least two possibilities that make SRT calculations match experiment. 
>  
> 1)         The SRT corrections are inherent in the structure of all matter particles. in other words they are automatically invoked with motion.
> OR
> 2)         The SRT corrections are an inherent property of space. They are applied mathematically and no physical explanation is either available or needed.
>  
> This discussion group has previously given an in depth coverage of the electron being composed of a rotating photon, toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever, in which the photon makes two revolutions within its wavelength. The issue of whether the rotating photon formed a closed loop, like a hubius coil or a mobius strip, or formed a spiralling helix. At rest they are equivalent. The only difference is when they move. If the loop is closed and the structure is already traveling at c, no further motion is possible because it would require the loop or parts thereof to travel at superluminal speed (> c). This can be overcome by applying point 2 above and saying that the SRT corrections are an inherent property of space that can be applied as necessary. 
>  
> This is overcome if the photon spirals through space as the particle moves. This requires the electron to move in a direction perpendicular to the photon's plane of rotation. When this occurs its rotating helical structure automatically subjects the electron to the SRT corrections of mass, length and time with increasing speed. In other words the SRT corrections are an inherent property of the electron, or any other particle composed of the same rotating photon (or toroidal magnetic field) structure. You can find further details of the derivation of the SRT corrections at:-
>  
> http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron <http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron>
>  
> That presentation makes several testable predictions, including that the electron's diameter will diminish as its speed increases. The detection of the electron as a point particle at high energies matches that correction. 
>  
> My point is that SR is a theory that works and can be explained by an inherent structure of matter. Further the above paper makes a number of testable predictions. Why is it necessary to show that Einstein was wrong? Not understand something does not make it wrong. I suggest Einstein was correct with SRT. Further there is a satisfactory explanation for SRT corrections with velocity based upon "classical" electromagnetism
>  
> Regarding mass. There are five different references to mass, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant. Most agree that inertial mass, mi, is that given in Newton's law, F =  mia, F = force, a = acceleration . In its strictest sense, mi is only constant at the first application of F. After that it accelerates, gaining velocity and hence developing relativistic mass mrel. Gravitational mass mg is given W = mgg, W = weight and g = acceleration due to gravity. Again that is only constant at a particular gravitational strength, or when falling freely in a gravitational field. Rest mass, mres, depends upon the frame of reference in which it is measured. The ultimate rest mass is the inertial mass of a body in flat Minkowski space-time, that is in the absence of any gravitational field and at rest with respect to the observer. 
>  
> Relativistic mass, mrel, has two situations. A photon only has mass when traveling at c. The mass of any object increases with its speed with respect to an observer, which increase can be calculated using Einstein's SRT. Finally there is invariant mass, minv. With mass varying depending upon velocity and gravitational field strength, how can it be invariant? The answer is that if you measure the mass of an object at rest with respect to and at the same gravitational field strength as yourself, you will always get the same answer.  
>  
> This is explained under the rotating photon model in which the particle spirals as it moves through space with respect to an observer. First the effect of a gravitational field. In flat Minkowski space time, the rotating photon that makes up each individual sub atomic particle, has its base frequency, let is say nue0ifor an electron, nu for frequency, e for electron, 0 for velocity and i for infinity (flat Minkowski space-time). Moving freely in a gravitational field it will lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy. Its frequency is unaltered - the special relativity correction with increasing velocity matches its reduction in potential energy. When it is stopped with respect to another observer, the kinetic energy it had with respect to the new stationary observer is released. The electron's frequency now becomes nue0h for the observer at infinity, where h is the height of the local observer. 
>  
> There is a time variation between infinity and height h, calculable from general relativity (GR). If the observer in flat Minkowski space-time moves to height h and repeats the frequency measurement, the result will still be nue0i when measured in the new time frame. 
>  
> When a particle moves with respect to an observer, its rotating photon is seen to spiral with respect to that observer. As indicated in that paper above, that spiralling gives rise to the SRT corrections of mass, time and distance. If the observer is accelerated with the particle, he will observe the particle as still at rest. The acceleration experienced will have exactly the same effect as being in a gravitational field and the particle will be observed to have a frequency nue0i. However an external observer at "rest" will see that its frequency has increased according to the SRT correction. 
>  
> In all situations the mass of the particle is given by hnu/c^2. Irrespective of the situation, a local observer will always get the same answer when measuring the mass of the same body, no matter what the circumstances. External observers will get different answers for the mass depending upon the relationship between observer, observed, gravitational field and velocity.
>  
> Think of it this way. Every step you take up stairs increases the frequency of every rotating photon fundamental particle in your body, compared to that which it had at your starting point. However your time zone changes such that, even with the most accurate measurement, you will never detect the difference. The monitoring device you left at your starting point would detect that difference (if it were accurate enough). (For fundamental particle, read proton, neutron and electron only.)
>  
> When astronauts are boosted into space by rockets, the energy used to boost them is converted through E = mc^2 into increased mass and hence the frequency of all their fundamental particle rotating photons. When the rockets are switched off they drift with an increased mass and rotating photon frequency from their starting point. Even though they continue to gain potential energy they lose an equivalent kinetic energy and their mass and rotating photon frequencies remain the same to both themselves and an external observer. The SRT correction due to slowing velocity is matched by the change in time due to potential energy, calculable from general relativity theory (GRT). 
>  
> Take the frequency (mass) change associated when driving a motor vehicle. As the car accelerates its velocity increases and hence its mass and the frequencies of the individual rotating photon fundamental particles increase through SRT. When the car is slowed down, the increased frequencies of the rotating photon particles are imparted from the particles to whatever caused the decreased velocity. If the change in velocity was due to the application of breaks, the break pads and disks are heated as the frequency is transferred from the mass of the car to them. If the change in velocity is due to the vehicle hitting a large stationary object, the energy will be imparted to those parts of the vehicle most affected by the velocity change, altering the shape of the vehicle. Panel beaters usually take care of small shape changes.
>  
> When astronauts return to Earth the additional frequency acquired by them and their vehicle is imparted to the air molecules as they use its effect to slow them down. The frequencies of their individual fundamental particle rotating photons will revert back to the same frequency they had before they embarked upon their journey. 
>  
> As another example, consider the situation of a shell fired upwards from a cannon. It receives considerable energy from the explosive charge. This energy increases its velocity, energy and hence the frequencies of its individual rotating photons. After exiting the barrel its new particle rotating photon frequencies remain the same. Even though its velocity reduces as it gains potential energy, giving a SRT time frame change, that change exactly matches its time change due to gravitational field effects GRT. When the shell falls back to the ground, the frequencies of the individual rotating photon particles is imparted from the shell to the ground. 
>  
> The points of the above are:-
> 1        Mass is mass. Whether it is inertial, rest, relativistic, gravitational or invariant, all mass is still mass. Their differences are due to their circumstances of measurement and/or observation. 
> 2        The interchange between the different masses, and indeed other forms of motion, are well explained by special and general relativity theories (black holes and related phenomena excluded). 
>  
> The question becomes one of "Why is it considered necessary to derive alternatives to the special and general theories of relativity? IMHO the spiralling rotating photon model of matter explains the origins of SRT and GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded). 
>  
> Although SRT and GRT were originally calculated mathematically they have sound physical principles based upon the rotating photon (toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever you wish to call it) model for the structure of fundamental particles that make up all matter. Not understanding the physics or hiding behind mathematics is not going to alter the agreement between observation and SRT/GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded - Einstein didn't agree with them). 
>  
> Happy new year,
>  
> Vivian Robinson
>  
> On 31/12/2016, at 4:40 AM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
>  
> 
> Albrecht, your remark is important: “We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics.”
>  
> Albrecht: I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest my case for this ongoing debate on SR.
>      Physics is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in utilizing the nature-allowed processes in various permutations and combinations to create new techniques and technologies, have been behind the successful emergence of the human as the top species today. Elegant geometry and mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not save the human species from going extinct if we blindly keep on following the same current success tracks, both in science and in socio-economic philosophy.      
>  
> Further, let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR is still presented as one of the core foundation that is holding the “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be challenge this platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned around.
>  
> This collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”) has to be turned around toward perpetual critical enquiry of the “working theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured some ontological realities of nature; so they must be leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper ontological realities. I am trying to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further, before the end of 2017, I will write a full paper accommodating and explaining some of the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as old fashioned classical physics.
>  
> Chandra. 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170103/4768dae9/attachment.htm>