[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Mar 22 11:55:44 PDT 2017
Al;
Yes it's quite a good book and given that he expands gravitational
interactions to include 5 forces not just gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic that would show up in a Lorentz force there is a lot there.
A review of the book is at
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Annales-Fond-Louis-de-Broglie-V32-p117-120(2007).pdf
GravitationGravitation Gravitation and Cogravitation: Developing
Newton’s Theory
of Graof Gravitation to Its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion,
Oleg D. J Oleg D. Jefimenko
, 367 pp. Electret Scientific Company, Star City,
2006. Hardcover. ISBN: 0-917406-00-1. Price: 22.00 dollars.
The question Which lead me to wonder is whether Jefimenko's Cograviation
is the what Sciama addresses as The Origin Of Inertia
https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S for a copy of
Sciama's paper
Furthermore Sciama points out that newton gravity falls of as 1/r^2
while the inertia effect falls of as 1/r Since the event horizon and
black holes are related to the 1/r^2 does this imply we might be
inflenced by a longer range force that penetrates event horizons both in
black holes and our universe (assuming we are in a black hole) Now that
people are discussing Multi-verses might it be possible that universes
outside of our event horizon may communicate with our universe through
inertial long range forces? What do you think? Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 3/22/2017 3:40 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Wolf,
> I tried to encourage/arrange for him to come to San Diego, but in
> stead got the message that his health was very bad and, as best I now
> recall, heard shortly thereafter that he died! Too bad! Seems to me
> his work merits much more attention than it got or gets! But ,like
> you say: digestiong it all is a full project all by itself.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. März 2017 um 19:52 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
>
> Al Kracklauer;
>
> Per your recommendation I just got a copy of Jefimenko's GRavitation
> and CoGravitation
>
> It is a well written book with lots of examples of problems with both
> Newton and Einstein and give some approximation he derives the
> gravitational equivalent of the Maxwell equations a la Heaveside and
> Lorenz
>
> Besides the corresponding equivalent to the magnetic field Vector
> Potential he has 3 other forces that will take some time to understand
>
> He points out that Newtonian Gravity will not conserve angular
> momentum as pointed out by an Flanders.
>
> However there are other gravity forces that may compensate so Lienard-
> Wiechert potential may be an alternative
>
> p341 However he does say "c" may not be the speed of light but has not
> been measured
>
> p327 " Spherical Black holes Cannot exist and gravity collapse is
> impossible"
>
> p337 suggests that Einstein's derivation of the 43 sec of arc Mercury
> orbit residual Precession is "highly questionable"
>
> This is getting to be a research project all its own.
>
> I myself plan to work more on space time models like Bohm's in which
> material cells "dvol" underlies our perception of space so that any
> "warping" of space is explained by an interaction between material
> mass and charge - so that if electromagnetic objects are used to
> parameterize space the interaction between charge and mass (
> gravito-inertial and Electro-magnetic forces) show up as space warping
> in our measurements. But such a conclusion is another example of
> falsely projecting properties of our measuring instruments onto a
> supposed objective real world - it is understanding the confusions
> arising from such false projections that I believe can shed light on
> the physical problems we are encountering.
>
> I'm specifically looking at the situation of an isolated system that
> repeats it evolution in some lifetime. Such an evolution can be mapped
> onto a cycle with space as the cross section of parallel cycles.
> Visualized as a torus, or doughnut (yum). The question then is if
> action flows around the doughnut would the radius of the cross section
> be limited by an attractive force holding the torus together?
>
> Parallel charge currents attract , but Jefimenko suggests
> anti-parallel mass currents attract - If I am traveling at "c" through
> a block universe of material then my material and the Universe would
> travel in opposite directions and produce an attractive force that
> holds us together?
>
> As Jefimenko points out P328 "these are fascinating and intriguing
> conclusions. Are they true or false? Only time will tell."
>
> Best
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/16/2017 9:28 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> Appreciate your compliment, Andrew Worsley!
>
> Chandra.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:39 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
>
> Well said Roychoudhri
>
> On gravity: the graviational potential exists becuase of the
> interaction between matter and the substance of space time.
> Actually enistein equations can also relate to an energy density
> gradient and of course that would be the "dark energy" gradient
> present in space-time.
>
> Andrew
>
> ========================================
>
> Message Received: Feb 15 2017, 07:42 PM
>
> From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra"
>
> To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>
> Cc:
>
> Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
>
> Thank you, Wolf, for re-stating Plato: “We only see the shadows of
> reality not reality itself.”
>
> And we interpret those shadows based upon our individual neural
> networks that are different from each other and also differs from
> one time to another depending upon the state of our health
> (hormonal changes, diseases, depressions, etc., etc.).
>
> This is where comes the Indian story on how five blinds, working
> together, not individually, construct the model of the cosmic
> elephant with better realism than they could do individually.
>
> Thus, we must learn to appreciate that all current working
> theories represent no more than a current model of the “Cosmic
> Elephant”; which we must keep on changing and improving with
> consistent iterations.
>
> We, “the blind sapiens”, must learn to cooperatively and
> iteratively improve upon the interpretations of the observed
> “shadows” (experimental data) and keep on enhancing the stories
> believed by the sapiens; but not by other animals! We must not
> remain so arrogant as to believe that we are the observers. We are
> mere interpreters (using our varied sets of neural networks) of
> the data. Actual “observers” are our sensors and instruments
> generating data for us to interpret. And no instruments can ever
> gather all the exhaustive information about any interactants that
> are participating in our instruments.
>
> Chandra.
>
> PS: If I accept Einstein’s view that the gravity is a “curvature
> of the space”, then it exists since the beginning when the massive
> body has been formed. If that body moves with a finite velocity;
> there should not be any “Gravity Wave” to propagate; only the
> existing “curvature” to follow the moving body. There should be
> some motion-induced distance dependent variations (distortions) in
> this “curvature” (“Retarded Potential”?!), but minimal when the
> main massive body moves with a velocity much slower than that of
> EM waves. That is what my neural network has generated now! It
> could be different tomorrow!
>
> From: General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:50 PM
>
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I think I need more time as well to investigate , this claim.
>
> I need to get more information for the claim that the
> instantaneous center of mass position of the sun is 8 minutes
> ahead in its orbit from the apparent optical position. I'll see if
> I can contact Van flanders and get the details of this
> calculation. Although he says ephemera are calculated from
> Newtonian non relativistic physics with infinite gravity
> propagation and then the optical correction for light flight is
> applied to get the observed location. Any astronomer should know
> the answer , but most just deal with the optical right ascension
> and declination and do not ever consider the gravity effects.
>
> "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." obviously this is not true for sound , and I believe
> would also not be true if there were an "ether"
>
> "From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a
> fixed position" , You are taking a theoretical view point , not an
> observational view point. The sum and earth move relative to each
> other in your theoretical view point, it looks as though the sun
> is moving
>
> "direction from which the photons arrive. That is obviously not a
> field." Are you taking the QM approach? Photons are particles
> their wave properties are debroglie waves not EM waves. Otherwise
> Em waves are traverse field disturbances are they not.
>
> Lastly I feel there is a confusion in relativity discussions
> between local experiments like the Michelson Morely that happen
> inside a physical structure, which
>
> correspond to coordinate frames in SRT vs. when we look outside
> the coordinate frame. The statement that one cannot tell if we are
> moving is obviously not true
>
> when we look outside our own frame, i.e. our motion relative to
> the cosmic background. As you know from my Vigier 10 paper. I am
> working on the possibility that
>
> space is an internal perceptual phenomena like any other personal
> appearance, and therefore connected the material background from
> which we are built.
>
> Therefore as long as we compare observations made within one space
> attached to one configuration of material we get the maxwell,
> Lorenz , SRT, and now
>
> Lienard-Wiechert as consistent mathematical formulations. Thus as
> my Vigier paper points out SRT is derivable by Einstein because
> the thought experiments
>
> leading to the derivatin were carried out in Einsteins imagination
> space which is hosted in the material of his brain. Classic EM is
> formulated in the assumption that
>
> there is an independent classical background space. If this
> assumption is wrong, Maxwell may be an over simplification as well.
>
> Do you have a reference for the derivation of the Lorenz
> transforms from Maxwells Equations? What I've found in my texts
> are usually statements that say it is
>
> true. I have not seen the actual derivation that defines the
> coordinate frames independently of the assumption that the
> physical laws in all frames should be
>
> identical. Once you make this independent reality assumption then
> one starts with the assumption that Maxwell equations have the
> same form in two coordinate
>
> frames and asks what transformations between these frames make
> that assumption true? But that is circular reasoning.
>
> This reasoning is especially irritating for people like me who are
> exploring the possibility that Aristotle was wrong and Plato was
> right. We only see the shadows of
>
> reality not reality itself.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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?
>
> [cid:image001.png at 01D28799.BEB9CF40]
>
> 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
>
> [cid:image002.png at 01D28799.BEB9CF40]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 <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
> [cid:image003.jpg at 01D28799.BEB9CF40]
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> 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
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> >
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> ________________________________
>
> [Avast logo]
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>
> www.avast.com <http://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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> 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
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> >
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> ________________________________
>
> [Avast logo]
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>
> www.avast.com <http://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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> 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
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> >
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> ________________________________
>
> [Avast logo]
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>
> www.avast.com <http://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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> 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
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> >
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> ________________________________
>
> [Avast logo]
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>
> www.avast.com <http://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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> >
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170322/1dce2182/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list