[General] Relativity and Gravity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Sep 23 22:36:40 PDT 2017
Chip
Energy pulling on space?
so you mean that the energy of a photon has some mass by E/c^2 and thus
like any other mass produces a curvature
or perhaps a simpler way of saying it is that mass collapses unless
there is some EM counter force keeping it apart
I agree with you contention that time is not a fourth dimension except
when we draw it on a piece of paper and then a 1cm length corresponds to
a time interval of
1/3 x10^-10 sec. - there is some relationship between our way of
displaying time that makes us think we are moving through it
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 9/22/2017 5:59 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> Thank you for reading the paper.
>
> Your first question, “Is there a mechanism for the force…Is this force
> a kind of self-field?”
>
> The source of the force, the mechanism of confinement, is simply
> energy which pulls on space to displace space.
>
> The force is created by energy pulling on space toward the center of
> the photon. In this way a more energetic particle becomes a smaller
> particle because energy can pull on space more, and therefore confine
> itself more. This is part of the reason E=hv for a photon.
>
> Note: The radius, is a radius in Euclidian 3 dimensional space. I do
> not believe there is a “time axis” in space. Time is separate from
> space. Fundamental time is the serial development of cause and effect,
> not a 4^th dimension.
>
> The spherical symmetry of the electron is due to (at least) two
> perpendicular spin components. The illustration of electron spin in
> the paper is probably too simplified, but I am having a hard time
> figuring out how to represents this spin graphically.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 12:54 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Relativity and Gravity
>
> 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-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 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/20170923/a941981a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170923/a941981a/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170923/a941981a/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 998 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170923/a941981a/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list