[General] Relativity and Gravity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Sep 21 22:53:41 PDT 2017
Chip;
I read your paper and generally like your approach
Light propagates forward through space at /c,/ and matter is made of
confined “light-speed” energy
So there is lots of discussion about the size of a photon. MOst people
would say the size of a photon is determined by the boundary conditions
Your claiming and effective radius in flight?
and a force holding it together?
Is there a mechanism for the force. This is a problem I have with
Albrecht's elementary particle model as well. He postulates force and
gives field stregth equations but the only macroscopic force in nature
are gravito-inertial and Electro-magnetic and both require sourcesof
mass and charge respectively. "P c" is twice the kinetic energy of a
particle traveling along the time axis and is essentially mc^2 so "r"
is the radius of curvature of a time axis. "pc' is also "qA" where q is
the charge and A the Em vector potential . Is this force a kind of self
field?
'"space is comprised of two components." What would these components
be? I usually think there is a medium of charge and mass in a background
space of in equilibrium that is perturbed by light and when confined in
vertices make particles .
"
"Confined momentum creates the inertial mass property of the electron"
nice but how does this become a 3D symmetric presumably the pr is
rotating around a kind of spin axis which is not spherically symetric,
or what am I missing?
Enough for now.
very interesting relationships.
thanks
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 9/1/2017 7:03 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Grahame
>
> I have been jotting down some notes, into something which may one day
> become a paper.
>
> It is still pretty crude but it might provide some food for thought.
>
> I am coming to believe that neither gravity nor relativity are near as
> strange as we have been led to think.
>
> That rambling set of notes is attached.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Friday, September 01, 2017 8:55 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> When I talk about 'dislodging Relativity' I'm referring to the
> mind-set that all states of motion are purely relative and there is no
> absolute state of motion/rest - that's exactly what (Einsteinian)
> Relativity IS.
>
> The reason that I keep saying that Relativity is mathematically
> self-consistent is precisely because people (like you and Wolf) have
> for the past century tried to show an inconsistency (aka a paradox)
> through variations of the Twins 'Paradox' (not). My absolute main
> objective, personally, is to get people - particularly scientists
> responsible for leading the world's thinking on physical reality - to
> realise that yes, Relativity as an observational phenomenon is a
> reality - but NO, Relativity in the sense of 'no absolute rest-state'
> (and so also no absolute measures of motion-states) is NOT a reality,
> it IS an 'observational phenomenon' in the sense that the effects and
> measurements experienced are in no small part down to the altered
> state of perception in a moving observer. We are clearly both very
> much in agreement about this!
>
> I agree that NO experiment has ever proved that Einsteinian Relativity
> actually holds - EVERY experimental result that appears to do so can
> be fully explained in terms of totally predictable observer effects.
> However, the reason that I'm banging on about 'SR/GR is
> self-consistent' is that we do ourselves a serious disservice by
> attempting to show holes in that self-consistency when they don't
> exist. By doing this we reinforce the notion (held by mainsteam
> physicists) that those who don't agree with Einsteinian SR/GR just
> don't really understand it. MY position is "Yes, I DO understand very
> fully why and how it's self-consistent - but it's still wrong!!!"
>
> As for 'curved space(time), don't get me started on that! I agree
> that it's impossible for something that is in fact nothing to be
> curved - but it goes much further than that:
>
> (1) No-one has ever explained, in direct terms, what they mean by
> 'spacetime is curved'; it's only ever 'explained' by analogy, in terms
> of objects following 'contours' in spacetime. What are those contours
> formed from, and why would objects follow them - how do they influence
> object behaviour?
>
> (2) How is it that massive objects create those contours? What is it
> about massive objects that gives rise to these mystical contours??
>
> (3) Not least: if the Higgs boson causes mass (a premise that I do not
> subscribe to) then in what way does it give rise to 'gravitational'
> effects? We're told that mass creates space-time contours, we're told
> that the Higgs Field gives objects mass - then what exactly is the
> connection between the Higgs and gravitation, causally???
>
> It appears to me that mainstream physics hs thrown the concept of
> causation out the window; it's about time that they were called to
> account for that - called to account for causation, in other words.
>
> [By the way, I'm interested in your notion of "logically
> self-consistent". I'm not quite sure how that would pan out or how it
> could be shown to be not so? Clearly the Twins Paradox ain't gonna do
> it!]
>
> Regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Friday, September 01, 2017 12:08 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>
> Hi Grahame
>
> My intent is not to dislodge relativity. Relativity is a fact.
> But one part of SRT is not, the “all motion is relative” part.
>
> I find it interesting that in order to “defend” SRT’s all motion
> is relative postulate, GR is apparently always used. During the
> pre GR era, SRT was interpreted to support the idea that space is
> not a medium and that all motion is relative. Then with GR space
> has to be curved. And it is hard to curve what does not exist.
>
> You keep saying that “Relativity” is mathematically
> self-consistent. And I agree. But nothing in SRT proves that all
> motion is relative. It is just an arbitrary addition to the
> theory. No experiment has proven that all motion is relative.
>
> While SRT may be mathematically self-consistent, SRT’s “all motion
> is relative” is not logically self-consistent.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Friday, September 01, 2017 5:49 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>
> Sorry Chip, but you're not going to dislodge Relativity like that.
>
> Under Relativity circular motion is NOT absolute - I have most
> definitely 'questioned that' in my last several emails. The whole
> point of my recent missives is to make it clear that Relativity
> allows a person undergoing circular motion to consider themselves
> at rest - and that view is as valid as any other, under Relativity.
>
> That's why GR then has to come into it. Because even whilst
> considering themselves to be at rest, that person will experience
> a force - and GR allows them to regard that force as a
> gravitational effect (and considers that as valid a view as any
> other).
>
> The whole point of GR was to extend 'relativity' to non-inertial
> frames - so to claim that a non-inertial frame is 'absolute' and
> then extent that to embrace SR is a complete misunderstanding of
> Relativity.
>
> Sorry!
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>
> Hi All
>
> We have discussed the “twin paradox” and many have said that
> there is no paradox. But using SRT alone this is not strictly
> true. The postulate that “all motion is relative” is an
> arbitrary and so far experimentally unsupported part of SRT.
> This postulate alone causes a paradox.
>
> But there is another way to consider these issues
>
> We have established that circular motion is absolute, and no
> one has questioned that, because we have experimentally been
> able to verify that is the case.
>
> Now let us take that circular motion toward the limit, and
> continue to enlarge the radius of that motion. Still, no
> matter how large the radius, circular motion is absolute. At
> what point, at how large a radius, would you say that the laws
> of motion change from absolute to relative?
>
> The fact is, the laws of motion do not change from absolute to
> relative, even if the radius is so large that we cannot
> measure the curvature. All motion is not relative.
>
> Chip
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> grahame at starweave.com <mailto: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 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/20170921/a6f1e211/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecgagbndbmigkglp.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170921/a6f1e211/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mlmapgfealglmiag.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170921/a6f1e211/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eacejmohkpiciddk.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 998 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170921/a6f1e211/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list