[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Tue Feb 27 10:28:04 PST 2018
Wolf:
I think that there is a simple answer to your concern regarding
magnetism. If you accept that magnetism is not a real physical entity
but a seeming effect then there should not exist the logical conflicts
which you see.
I think that the Coriolis force is a good example to understand the
situation: Assume that you are sitting in a cabin without a view to the
outside. Now assume that this cabin is rotating very silently so that
you do not notice the rotation. You are sitting in a chair in the middle
on the rotational axis. Now you throw a ball from your position away
from you. You will expect that the ball flies on a straight path off.
But you will observe that the ball flies on a curved path. And what will
be your explanation? You will think that there must be a force which
moves the ball to the side. - This is the Coriolis force.
But this force does not in fact exist. If there is an observer on top of
the cabin and can look into the cabin, in his view the ball moves on a
straight line. And there is no reason for a force.
The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly the magnetic field
is a non-existent field.
Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I have a tremendous aversion to believing that the observer (unless we
> are talking quantum effects where measurement interferes with the
> object measured ) can have any effect on the independent “whatever it
> is” out there. But physicists often confuse measurement results with
> physical realities.
>
> Regarding “*The relative velocity between charges does NOT determine
> the magnetic field.”*
>
> Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force between two
> current segments is oin differential form
>
> d*F12*= - I1*I2 (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3
>
> now the current is charge q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and q2**v2 = *I1**dl1
> *substituting means the magnetic force between the two charges is
> dependent on the dot product between the two velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
>
> Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity
> dependent potentials p19
>
> And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12 while the magnetic
> field is dependent on v! , so the force is dependent on two velocities.
>
> Now your statement ‘*But the magnetic field depends on the relative
> velocity between the observer and the one charge and the observer and
> the other charge. Where "observer" means the measuring tool.” *Is
> certainly true because one can always define one coordinate frame that
> moves with velocity of the first charge and a second coordinate frame
> that moves with the velocity of the second charge. So in these two
> coordinate frames each one would say there is no B field.
>
> However I see both charges in *one coordinate frame* and that is how
> the experiments leading to the force equations were conducted. So I
> question whether your assumption that there are two coordinate frames
> and I assume you would like to connected by the Lorenz transforms
> reflects physical reality.
>
I have asked you in the previous mail NOT to argue with coordinate
frames because we should discuss physics and not mathematics. Now you
cite me with statements about coordinate frames. How can I understand that?
However if you really insist to talk about frames: The saying that two
charges are in different coordinate frames means that these charges are
_at rest_ in different coordinate frames. They can of course be
investigated by an observer (or a tool) which resides in _one _frame.
The equation from Jackson which you have cited above is essentially the
same as the one that I gave you in the previous mail. And it says also
that the magnetic field depends on the _product _of both charges
involved, not on their difference.
>
> I reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb fieldis passed upon
> the measured force between a test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So
> that the total force on the test charge is
>
> F =~SUM over all n (Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )
>
> And it is possible to introduce a field
>
> E = SUM over all n (Qn / Rtn^2 )
>
> As that F= Qt * E
>
> Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume that physically E is a
> property of space rather than simply the sum of charge to charge
> interactions that would happen if a test charge were at that space is
> a counter factual. And not consistent with the quantum photon theory.
>
Why do you assume that a field is a property of space? If you assume
that space is nothing else than emptiness then you will have all
necessary results. Why making things unnecessarily complicated?
>
> Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false
> interpretations of charge to charge interactions.
>
I do not remember that we talk here about quantum theory. For this
discussion at least it is not needed. And regarding photons, I have
explained very detailed that photons - as I have measured them in my
thesis work - are particles with specific properties; but clearly
particles. You did not object to my arguments but you repeat your
statement that a photon as a particle is a false interpretation. It
would be good to hear argument than only statements.
>
>
> that is for another discussion
>
Which else discussion?
>
>
> best wishes
>
>
> wolf
>
Best wishes
Albrecht
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> my comments and explanations in the text below.
>>
>>
>> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I think I understand your arguments since this is what is generally
>>> taught, however I have always been uncomfortable with the statements
>>> involving “observer”.
>>>
>>> So I question your statement “The different amount seen by the
>>> observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related Lorentz
>>> transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the
>>> observer.”
>>>
>>> Now ancient experiments discovered that there are two reciprocal
>>> forces between charges. The relative distance R gives the Coulomb
>>> force F_E and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force F_B
>>>
>>> Now if these are independent entities whose existence does not
>>> depend upon any observation made by the observer (until we get to
>>> quantum measurements) . /This means the physics is fixed /and so are
>>> the parameters. Any measurement made by any coordinate frame when
>>> properly processed for its own distortions will result in the same
>>> parameters, so R,V, F_B , F_E ^and yes the speed of light must be
>>> constant.
>>>
>>> If the measurement results differ either we do not have objective
>>> measurement independent reality or else there is an unaccounted
>>> artifact in the measurement process.
>>>
>> There is an error in your above arguments. The relative velocity
>> between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field. But the
>> magnetic field depends on the relative velocity between the observer
>> and the one charge and the observer and the other charge. Where
>> "observer" means the measuring tool.
>>
>> The entities are not independent in so far as any observer will see
>> them in a different way. That is not a consequence of quantum
>> mechanics but very simply the consequence of the fact that in a
>> moving system the tools change (like rulers contract and clocks are
>> slowed down) and so their measurement results differ from a tool
>> measuring while being at rest. This is the reason that we need a
>> Lorentz transformation to compare physical entities in one moving
>> frame to entities in another moving frame.
>>>
>>> I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent reality.
>>>
>> That may be the case but has nothing to do with our discussion here.
>>>
>>> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that when
>>> raw measurements are made and no correction is applied we may
>>> notobserve a magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb field so
>>> that the actual result on the object measured remains the same only
>>> the names of the causes have been changed.
>>>
>> You are permanently referring to coordinate frames. But we are
>> treating here physical facts and not mathematical ones. So
>> coordinates should be omitted as an argument as I have proposed it
>> earlier.
>>>
>>> Now consider looking at the same two charges from an arbitrary
>>> coordinate frame. then in that frame the two charges will have wo
>>> velocities V1 and V2 but there will always be a difference V
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>>
>>> I contend that it does not matter what frame you chose cannot get
>>> rid of the relative velocity. The only way you can get rid of the
>>> magnetic field is if there was no relative velocity in the first
>>> palace. And there never was a magnetic field in the physics.
>>>
>> As soon as the observer moves in the same frame, i.e. with the same
>> speed vector as one of the charges, he does not see a magnetic field.
>> In the deduction of the magnetic field which I have attached (from a
>> talk at a conference last year) the magnetic force is defined by the
>> equation:
>>
>> where v and u are the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with
>> respect to the observer. y is the distance and gamma the Lorentz
>> factor in the set up shown.
>>>
>>> Therefore your further conclusion “As soon as an observer moves with
>>> one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame of one of
>>> the charges, then there is no magnetic field for him.” Is only true
>>> if there was no magnetic field in the first place, a very special case.
>>>
>>> We must be very careful not to confuse the actual physics in a
>>> situation with the way we look at it.
>>>
>> I guess that you know the Coriolis force. This force is somewhat
>> similar to magnetism. It is in effect for one observer but not for
>> another one depending on the observer's motion. And there is nothing
>> mysterious about it, and also quantum mechanics is not needed for an
>> explanation.
>>
>> In your logic you would have to say: If there is no Coriolis force
>> then there is no inertial mass. But that is clearly not the case.
>>>
>>> If we apply the same analysis to the Michelson Morley experiment I
>>> think we will also find that there never was a fringe shift in the
>>> physics. The physics states charges interact with other charges,
>>> basta. Introducing fields and then attributing what has always been
>>> a summation of many charge effects on one test charge onto a
>>> property of empty space is simply a convenient mathematical trick
>>> that hides the physical reality.
>>>
>> The MM experiment is easily explained by the fact that there is
>> contraction in the direction of motion. Nothing more is needed to
>> explain the null-result. In the view of Einstein space contracts and
>> in the view of Lorentz the apparatus contracts as the internal fields
>> contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon in physics.
>>>
>>>
>>> I further submit this as an argument that mass and charge are
>>> fundamental physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the tension
>>> that holds mass and charge together when electro-magentic forces
>>> operating on charge densities and gravito-inertial forces operating
>>> on mass densities are not balanced and pulls mass and charge apart.
>>> I further submit the the resulting fluctuations in the mass-charge
>>> densities leads to CTF propagating patterns that are an
>>> ontologically defensible interpretation of Schroedingers Wave function.
>>>
>> An indication that mass is not fundamental is the fact that mass can
>> be converted into energy. On the other hand charge cannot be
>> converted into energy; this can be taken as an argument that it is
>> fundamental.
>>>
>> Anything still controversial? Then please explain.
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Tell me why I’m wrong
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chandra:
>>>>
>>>> If two electrons move side by side, the main force between them is
>>>> of course the electrostatic one. But there is an additional
>>>> contribution to the force which is measured in the frame of an
>>>> observer at rest (like the one of Millikan). In the frame of the
>>>> moving electrons (maybe they belong to the same frame) there is
>>>> only the electrostatic force, true. The different amount seen by
>>>> the observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related
>>>> Lorentz transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the
>>>> frame of the observer.
>>>>
>>>> If the oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this has primarily no
>>>> influence. Important is the motion state of the observer. If the
>>>> observer is at rest with respect to the moving oil-drops (and so of
>>>> the electrons), he will notice a contribution of magnetism. Any
>>>> motion of the chamber does not matter for this fact.
>>>>
>>>> In general magnetism is visible for an observer who is in motion
>>>> with respect to both charges under consideration. As soon as an
>>>> observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to
>>>> the frame of one of the charges, then there is no magnetic field
>>>> for him.
>>>>
>>>> Your example of two compass needles is a more complex one even if
>>>> it does not look so. To treat this case correctly we have to take
>>>> into account the cause of the magnetism of the needle, that means
>>>> of the circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do this
>>>> then - seen from our own frame - both groups of charges are moving,
>>>> the charges in the conductor and also the charges in the needle's
>>>> atoms. So as both are moving with respect to the observer, this is
>>>> the cause for a magnetic field between both objects.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht: Your point is well taken. Not being expert in magnetism,
>>>>> I need to spend more time on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, let me pose a question to think.
>>>>>
>>>>> If two electrons are trapped in two side by side but separate
>>>>> Millikan oil drops, the two electrons feel each other’s static
>>>>> E-field, but no magnetic field. If the oil-drop chamber was given
>>>>> a steady velocity, could Millikan have measured the presence of a
>>>>> magnetic field due to the moving electrons (“current”), which
>>>>> would have been dying out as the chamber moved further away? This
>>>>> experiment can be conceived in many different ways and can be
>>>>> executed. Hence, this is not a pure “Gedanken” experiment. I am
>>>>> sure, some equivalent experiment has been done by somebody. Send
>>>>> me the reference, if you can find one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are two parallel current carrying conductors deflecting magnetic
>>>>> needles (undergraduate experiment) different from two independent
>>>>> electrons moving parallel to each other?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just re-phrased Einstein’s example that you have given below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:26 PM
>>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>>>> stable particles
>>>>>
>>>>> Chandra,
>>>>>
>>>>> I like very much what you have written here. Particularly what you
>>>>> say about "time" which physically means oscillations. That is what
>>>>> one should keep in mind when thinking about relativity.
>>>>>
>>>>> However in one point I have to object. That is your judgement of
>>>>> the parameter µ. I think that it is a result from the historical
>>>>> fact that magnetism was detected long time earlier than
>>>>> electricity. So magnetism plays a great role in our view of
>>>>> physics which does not reflect its role there. We know since about
>>>>> 100 years that magnetism is not a primary phenomenon but an
>>>>> apparent effect, a side effect of the electric field which is
>>>>> caused by the finiteness of c. If c would be infinite there would
>>>>> not be any magnetism. This is given by the equation c^2 =
>>>>> (1/ϵµ)which you have mentioned. This equation should be better
>>>>> written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) to reflect this physical fact, the
>>>>> dependency of the magnetism on c.
>>>>>
>>>>> The symmetry between electricity and magnetism is suggested by
>>>>> Maxwell's equation. These equations are mathematically very
>>>>> elegant and well usable in practice. But they do not reflect the
>>>>> physical reality. Easiest visible is the fact that we have
>>>>> electrical monopoles but no magnetic monopoles. Einstein has
>>>>> described this fact by saying: Whenever an observer is in a
>>>>> magnetic field, he can find a motion state so that the magnetic
>>>>> field disappears. - This is as we know not possible for an
>>>>> electric field.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we have discussed this earlier. Do you remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>>>
>>>>> /“We nee//d a geometry in which both space and time are curved
>>>>> back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem,
>>>>> Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action
>>>>> quanta. /
>>>>>
>>>>> /Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be
>>>>> thinking about??”/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists and
>>>>> turns” of different intrinsic potential gradients embedded in
>>>>> CTF (Complex Tension Field) to create stationary self-looped
>>>>> oscillations (*/field-particles/*). Maxwell achieved that for
>>>>> the propagating linear excitations using his brilliant
>>>>> observations of using the double differentiation – giving us
>>>>> the EM wave equation. We need to find non-propagating
>>>>> (stationary – Newton’s first law) self-looped oscillations –
>>>>> the in-phase ones will be stable, others will “break apart”
>>>>> with different life-times depending upon how far they are from
>>>>> the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The successes of the
>>>>> mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be judged by the
>>>>> number of predicted properties the theory can find for the
>>>>> */field-particles,/* which we have measured so far. The
>>>>> physical CTF must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic
>>>>> energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy of
>>>>> Relativity by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D concept
>>>>> intact. If we want to capture the ontological reality; we must
>>>>> imagine and visualize the potential */foundational/* physical
>>>>> process and represent that with a set of algebraic symbols and
>>>>> call them the primary parameters of “different grades”. During
>>>>> constructing mathematical theories, it is of prime importance
>>>>> to introduce consciously this concept of “primary”, vs.
>>>>> “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc., physical parameters related
>>>>> to any observable physical phenomenon. The physical parameter
>>>>> that dictates the core existence of an entity in nature should
>>>>> be considered as primary. However, it is not going to be easy
>>>>> because of the complexities in the different interaction
>>>>> processes – different parameters take key role in transferring
>>>>> the energy in different interactions. Besides, our ignorance
>>>>> is still significantly broad compared to the “validated”
>>>>> knowledge we have gathered about our universe. Here is a
>>>>> glaring example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic
>>>>> physics, ν is of primary importance because of the quantum
>>>>> resonance with ν and the QM energy exchange rule is “hν”.
>>>>> “λ” changes from medium to medium. If I am doing
>>>>> Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are of primary
>>>>> significance; even though people tend to use “c”, while
>>>>> missing out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some of the
>>>>> core building blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that the
>>>>> ϵ and µ of free space were recognized well before Maxwell
>>>>> synthesized Electromagnetism.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this background, I want underscore that the “running
>>>>> time, “t” is of critical importance in our formulation of the
>>>>> dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is not a directly measurable
>>>>> physical parameter of any object in this universe. What we
>>>>> measure is really the frequency, or its inverse, the
>>>>> oscillation periods of different physical oscillators in this
>>>>> universe. So, frequency can be dilated or contracted by
>>>>> controlling the ambient physical parameter of the environment
>>>>> that surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator. The running time
>>>>> cannot be dilated or contracted; even though Minkowsky
>>>>> introduced this “dilation” concept. This is the reason why I
>>>>> have been pushing for the introduction in physics thinking the
>>>>> Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>>>>>
>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM
>>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>>>> stable particles
>>>>>
>>>>> Candra:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium underlying the
>>>>> experience of space composed of charge and mass density spread
>>>>> out in the cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate frame
>>>>> cells of /small enough/ sizes can be described by constant
>>>>> enough mass and charge densities in each cell. For small
>>>>> enough cells the mass and charge values concentrated at their
>>>>> centers may be used in stead of the densities. The resulting
>>>>> field of center values can take any pattern that satisfies the
>>>>> extended dAlambert principle. Besides the classic
>>>>> electro-magnetic Fem and gravito-inertial force Fgi I
>>>>> postulate forces tat hold charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc.
>>>>> This condition assures mass charge centers in each cell appear
>>>>> at locations of balanced forces. Each pattern which satisfies
>>>>> this condition represents a static state of the loop in which
>>>>> the patterns are fixed for the lifetime of the loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States*
>>>>>
>>>>> The physical size of the space is its volume. The volume (Vol)
>>>>> of space is the sum of the infinitesimal volumes dVol of each
>>>>> of the cells composing that space “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”.
>>>>> These infinitesimal volumes are calculated from the
>>>>> mass-charge density extensions in each cell when viewed
>>>>> externally as shown in figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume
>>>>> depends upon the mass charge separation pattern of the
>>>>> equilibrium state the system being modeled exists in.
>>>>>
>>>>> In CAT the extension of a cell can be calculated
>>>>> as follows. In each cell the distance between the center of
>>>>> charge and mass is a vector d*ζ.* The projection of this
>>>>> vector onto the degrees of freedom directions available for
>>>>> the charge and mass to move in the generalized coordinate
>>>>> space allows us to expansion this vector as,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t * + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y *∙u_y *+
>>>>> dζ_z *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>>>>>
>>>>> **where the *u_f *’s are the unit vectors. A space limited to
>>>>> Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions,
>>>>> but CAT models a generalized space that encompasses all sensor
>>>>> modalities not only the optical ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> The volume of a cell calculated from the diagonal
>>>>> expansion vector “*dζ”* by multiplying all non zero coefficients,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eq. 4.3-2 dVol = dζ_t *∙*dζ_x *∙*dζ_y *∙*dζ_z *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>>>>>
>>>>> The shape of this volume is determined by the
>>>>> direction of the expansion vector which in turn is determined
>>>>> by the direction and strength of forces pulling the charge and
>>>>> mass apart. The direction of pull depends upon the number of
>>>>> dimensions available in the generalized coordinates of the
>>>>> media. The forces must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium
>>>>> pattern depends upon which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ”
>>>>> the event being modeled is in.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the simplest equilibrium state the masses and
>>>>> charges are collocated. This implies the internal forward
>>>>> propagating in time forces F_cm ,F_mc , and backward
>>>>> propagating in time force F_mc *,F_cm * are zero, and if there
>>>>> are no internal force pulling the charges and masses together
>>>>> then sum of the remaining exterior gravito-electric forces
>>>>> pulling the charge and mass apart must separately be zero
>>>>> precisely at the collocation point. A trivial condition that
>>>>> satisfies these equations is when all forces are zero. In this
>>>>> case there is no action in the media and no action for
>>>>> expanding the coordinate frame defining a volume of space. We
>>>>> are back to a formless blob of zero volume, where all charges
>>>>> and masses are at the same point. This is the absolute ground
>>>>> state of material, one level of something above nothing. The
>>>>> big bang before the energy of action flow is added.
>>>>>
>>>>> To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium state of a
>>>>> single isolated cell whose only degree of freedom is the time
>>>>> direction. This means the volume in all space directions are
>>>>> infinitesimally small and the volume can be considered a
>>>>> single line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along the time
>>>>> direction as shown in the god’s eye perspective of figure
>>>>> 4.3-6. In this situation we can consider charges and masses to
>>>>> be point particles. Forces as well as action can only
>>>>> propagate along the material length of the line time line
>>>>> represented in space as “Qw”. We now list the sequence of
>>>>> changes that can propagate through around the equilibrium
>>>>> positions indicated by numbers in parenthesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1)The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position
>>>>> (filled icon) forward along the time line
>>>>>
>>>>> (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it
>>>>> forward while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that retards it
>>>>> back to its equilibrium position
>>>>>
>>>>> (3)While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts
>>>>> an internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while feeling a
>>>>> reaction force “Fcm*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>>>>>
>>>>> (4)While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
>>>>> force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a reaction force
>>>>> “Fgi*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>>>>>
>>>>> (5)While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
>>>>> force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a reaction force
>>>>> “Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium. We are now back to (1).
>>>>>
>>>>> If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into other
>>>>> degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues to move as a
>>>>> compression wave around the “Qw” time line circumference
>>>>> forever. The graph however is static and shows a fixed amount
>>>>> of action indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line.
>>>>> Motion in “block” models is produced by the velocity of the
>>>>> observer or model operator as he moves around the time line.
>>>>> From our god’s eye perspective an action density is
>>>>> permanently painted on the clock dial and thereby describes an
>>>>> total event. The last degree of freedom events are rather trivial
>>>>>
>>>>> We need a geometry in which both space and time
>>>>> are curved back on themselves to provide a donut in which the
>>>>> forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at
>>>>> each action quanta.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking
>>>>> about??
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the
>>>>> approval link yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
>>>>> infrastructure to replace SPIE-like support, it is very
>>>>> difficult to manage. I will try NSF during the last week
>>>>> of May. Do you want to start negotiating with some
>>>>> out-of-box European groups?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the only way
>>>>> to start re-building a unified field theory. It is futile
>>>>> to force-fit whole bunch of different theories that were
>>>>> structured differently at different states of human
>>>>> cultural epoch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Chandra:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of evolution..."
>>>>>
>>>>> I love the sentiment " This is a good time to start
>>>>> iteratively re-evaluating and restructuring all the
>>>>> foundational postulates behind all the working theories"
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you write a paper for FQXi?
>>>>>
>>>>> I sent one in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE
>>>>> conference, one that would expand the questions
>>>>>
>>>>> beyond the nature of light?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 <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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180227/1e07d724/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cmmpoehdbdlkmfdj.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180227/1e07d724/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jchaklmahldlaada.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180227/1e07d724/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gdfpdmnggfigcpkp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180227/1e07d724/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180227/1e07d724/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list