[General] STR twin Paradox

Mon Jun 26 11:32:12 PDT 2017

Thank, Chandra, for this.

I shall be interested to see how this paper explains gravitational lensing by a whole galaxy (as seen in many Hubble Telescope pics) in these terms.  Without even looking at it I have very great difficulty in envisaging how that argument could possibly apply to a composite mass of that nature.  I believe also that gravitational lensing by black holes is considered to be 'de facto' - how could that fit with the plasma theory?  [A supermassive black hole at the centre of a galaxy will also comprise a significant part of that galaxy's mass giving rise to gravitational lensing - but surely not any part of a plasma-generated lensing??]

More than this, if light is indeed slowed by gravity - which is surely the fundamental rationale of a black hole (and black holes are surely now accepted fact?) - then this in itself explains bending of light, by the 'differential' effect that I referred to.  Is not a second explanation, for something that's already been explained, somewhat redundant?

Best,
Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Grahame and the rest of the colleagues:

  Please, have a look at the attached paper by a retired NASA scientist, who firmly believes that the bending of light by stars is due to the refractive index-gradient produced by the plasma of the stars, not by its gravity.

  I am just “stirring up the pot” J.

  Chandra.

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
  Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:27 AM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Hi Chip (et al.),

  I've sent you the paper in question twice: once 25 Aug '16 in response to your posting of the same date, and once specifically in response to your request for same on 23rd April '17.  Let me know if you can't find either one of these and I can send it again.

  With regard to refraction of light by gravitational fields*, this follows directly from slowing of electromagnetic waves by such fields (a commonsense consideration akin to swimming through a dense liquid - but this is an interference effect); the bending is directly analogous to causing a vehicle to turn by rotating the wheels on one side slower than those on the other (the same effect also causes climbing plants to curl around their supports, rate of growth being inhibited on the side that's touching something).

  * Actually by the GRADIENT in such a field.

  Best,

  Grahame

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Chip Akins 

    To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 

    Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 2:13 PM

    Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

    Hi Grahame

    Question.  Regarding your paper on gravity. 

    If the attractive force between unlike charges is slightly larger than the repulsive force between like charges, how do we explain the refraction of light by gravitational fields?

    Do you have a copy of this paper you can share?

    Chip

    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
    Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:52 PM
    To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
    Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

    Al et al.,

    "I'm nervous about bringing gravity in.  Really what it is, is still too mysterious.  Even for AE, it is just a pregiven phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it.  But, perhaps it's an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and - charge carriers."

    I'd refer you once again to my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics: A Cyberneticist's Perspective on Gravitation' (Kybernetes Vol 40 issue 9/10, Nov 2011, pp 1319-1330).  In this I show in some detail how the phenomenon referred to as 'gravitation' can be fully explained in every detail by simply recognising that attractive forces between opposite charges and repelling forces between like charges are NOT precisely equal (for unit charges in each case).  A tiny difference between these two effects (for which there is NO scientific reason why they should be identical) - attraction being infinitesimally greater than repulsion - gives rise to an overall attraction between 'ponderable masses' precisely in accordance with every recorded observation.  This explanation could well also shed new light on those effects attributed to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - another couple of what could well be regarded as 'fiddle factors' comparable to Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.  Like Einstein's CC they could, rather, point to a feature of the cosmos that we have overlooked or wrongly assumed.

    If one looks at it from this very simple perspective, gravitation is far from being mysterious - it's simply a 2nd-order effect of 'electrostatic' attraction/repulsion (which is itself an artefact of electromagnetic wave interference between non-linear configurations of such waves, i.e. particles of matter) - gravitation, as another separate 'force' in its own right, doesn't actually exist.

    Grahame

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: af.kracklauer at web.de 

      To: general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org 

      Cc: general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org 

      Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 6:41 PM

      Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

      While I am not completely confident that I fully understand the objections, perhaps they have to do with the following point.  Ontological chages occure at (or to) the source of E&M interaction. Perspective changes happen to (or at) the sink of E&M interaction---not just sentient, passive observers.  The actual, real efffect from the source on a sink is physcially altered by the relative (deleayed) position and motion of the source.  For one thing, it is Gaussian diminished (i.e., reduced by 1/r**2).  In this sense, time-dilation, space-contraction are real effects (but only as far as the sink is concerned!).  Sentient observers, such as those emphasized by Wolf, are no more that a collection of E&M sinks.  So, the "obesrver" is taken into account in this formulation.

      I'm nervious about bringing gravity in.  Really what it is, is still too mysterious.  Even for AE, it is just a pregiven phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it.  But, perhaps it"s an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and - charge carriers.  Who knows???  For what it's worth!  ---Al

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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/20170626/6f6e317e/attachment.htm>