[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Mar 9 19:59:43 PST 2018
Albrecht
Answers below
I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my cognitive Action
Theory Book for Routledge press. I think a good case can be made for
considering ourselves to be living inside a black hole of a universe
consisting of our own material. Our own material is the physical phase
of a self explanatory/measurement activity cycle (A la Wheeler) and
thereby generates its own space. In such a space all the EM effects of
Maxwell and Lorentz would be valid by self consistency, since such a
Universe runs at its own time rate and contains its own 1st person
observer , which is YOU. I'm looking for readers and comments from
interested parties. Its not trivial. Chapter 4 and appendices are about
100 pages since this is new action based physics.
I am sending appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes the case that
the applicability of Calculus to physical reality is limited and the
failure to understand these limits leads to conceptual errors such as
the concept of a space time continuum. I think I am following the kind
of reassessment of our scientific methods Chandra is advocating.
let me know what you think
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 3/8/2018 10:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I am going to also answer your other mail. But this one first.
>
> Am 07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always the frame
>> defined by the observer , which is always the 1st person you, you
>> cannot get out of yourself and in that sense makes this frame a fixed
>> frame. Each of us lives in our own space and refers all our
>> experiences and experimental results back to that space
>>
> Following Einstein it is true that every observer, which means every
> measuring tool, refers to his/its own space. But following Lorentz the
> space is universal. The measurement tools are cheating the observer by
> hiding the difference between the different motion states.
By universal do you mean every observer has his own space experience or
do you mean there is an independent observer independent space out there ?
>
>> WE must discuss my contention that we are always looking through the
>> coordinate frame which is the Hilbert space defined by our detector
>> arrays - the error in SR pictures is that they show the observer
>> riding along with a coordinate frame and than assume the observer can
>> see what is out there including clock dials and rod lengths as though
>> he were god outside the material looking in. But the observer must
>> be restricted to look at a TV monitor inside the coordinate frame
>> that displays the result of detector interactions
>>
> Please do not overlook that the so called "Hilbert space" is not a
> physical space but a mathematical tool to describe vectors in a
> convenient way.
>
Albrecht I keep trying to make progress by suggesting new ways to look
at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong because i am not conforming
to the old way of looking at things. Hilbert space is describe as a
mathematical tool in every text book on Quantum Mechanics I'm fully
aware of that but I also believe this is a limited and restrictive
interpretation. If you actually examine actual experiments from simple
photon polarzation measurements involving two state to comlex position
measurements involving a spectrum of detectors in a bubble chaber you
will notice that the mathematical Hilbert space is always the the
detector cell "through which we look" -by that I mean into which we
project the interpretation of the measurement interactions recorded on
our side of the detector cells.
> If we follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all measures like
> clocks and rods change as soon as we move with relation to the basic
> fixed frame. But we know the changes (which is Lorentzian RT) and can
> compensate for them to a certain degree.
I agree wth that as long as you realize that this basic fixed frame is
defined by the material from which the observer - in the end always YOU
is built.
>>
>> Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic field. If
>> there are more than two charges moving in say three independent
>> directions I think there is no Lorenz transform that eliminates the
>> magnetic field for all the particles , Am I right on this?
>>
> This is a good question, and I have an idea for this. But I did not
> make a quantitative calculation.
>
> I think that also in this case a motion state can be found where a
> magnetic field disappears. And I base this on the following consideration:
> Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be caused by one
> electric charge like in the standard case which has the appropriate
> motion state. Because also for magnetic fields a superposition is
> possible. How can the state of this related single electric charge be
> determined? Assume you have such field then you take an (electric)
> test charge. And then you measure the force on this test charge if it
> is at rest with respect to your frame. Then you move this charge in
> arbitrary directions and determine the Lorentz force depending on the
> three possible directions in space. So you have at least 4
> measurements, which is the force at rest and at the three dimensions
> of the magnetic field. Now you can determine the value and the motion
> state of the single electric charge which will cause the same
> measurement. And with respect to this single charge you have the
> situation which we have discussed before, which means you can find an
> own motion state for which the magnetism disappears.
I think what you are saying is that the magnetic field of all the
charges can be vector summed into one composite field, and this field
can duplicated by a substitute average source charge moving in the
appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two charge problem
to which a Lorenz transformation is applied. I have not done the
calculation but my guess is such a scheme only works under the point
particle assumption since but the local magnetic field environment
around a test charge would not be duplicated. However in any case it
seems one wuld go through the use of magnetic forces in order to make
them disappear. Why bother wy not simply accept the fact that bith
gravity and electric forc categories have a range and a velocity
dependence , and in fact possibly acceleration and all the derivatives
- it just seems easier.
>>
>> wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> Albrecht
>
>> On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> Einstein used indeed later in his life the word "ether", but in a
>>> different sense. He did not change his mind in the way that he
>>> permanently and finally refused the understanding that there exists
>>> a fixed frame in the world.
>>>
>>> But in his view space has properties. One property is the known
>>> assumption that space and space-time are curved. And Einstein tried
>>> for the rest of his life to find and to define more properties of
>>> the space in the expectation that the existence of fields can be
>>> deduced from those properties. Up to the end of his life he tried to
>>> find in this way a / the "Theory of Everything". He was, as we know,
>>> not successful with it.
>>>
>>> But he never gave up his denial of the possibility that there is a
>>> fixed frame. (I refer here particularly to the book of Ludwik
>>> Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly
>>> investigated everything what Einstein has said and published up to
>>> the end of his life.)
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>>
>>>> Gentlemen
>>>>
>>>> Later in Einstein’s career he *reversed his opinion* about the “ether”.
>>>>
>>>> As Einstein pointed out, “/There Is an Important argument In favor
>>>> of the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether
>>>> means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to
>>>> empty space/”… and he said, “/the ether remains still absolute
>>>> because its influence on the inertia of bodies and on the
>>>> propagation of light is conceived as independent of every kind of
>>>> physical influence./”
>>>>
>>>> But the physics community was already so attached to the idea that
>>>> space was empty that Einstein’s later comments on the subject have
>>>> been principally ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
>>>> *To:* Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>;
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>>> stable particles
>>>>
>>>> Wolf:
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism and
>>>> coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can be created
>>>> or not by the way we look at phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look at
>>>> the physics of the observer as an integral and necessary part
>>>> of how phenomena are perceived. And this is where we should be
>>>> focusing our discussion. What assumptions are valid and what
>>>> physics would we develop if we change our assumptions?
>>>>
>>>> more comments added
>>>>
>>>> ... and some comments back.
>>>>
>>>> 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 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf:
>>>>
>>>> my answers again in your text.
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>
>>>> The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic
>>>> force is a good example that shows we are talking about
>>>> ttwo different things. I was taught exactly what you
>>>> repeated below in Mr. Bray's physics class and did not
>>>> believe it then because when I take a ride on a
>>>> Merry-go-Round I feel a force that is real. Period.
>>>>
>>>> That is indeed correct. It is a real force. If we have a
>>>> hurricane on earth it is a result of the Coriolis force and
>>>> that is a real force. The point is, however, that it is not
>>>> a NEW force but the well known Newtonian inertial force;
>>>> just interpreted in a different way.
>>>>
>>>> The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real force.
>>>> And that force is the electric force, but also in this case
>>>> interpreted in a different way.
>>>>
>>>> *OK*
>>>>
>>>> I do not care what you call it You can look at me from
>>>> many different angles and in many different ways but
>>>> the force I feel is real,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a different way.
>>>>
>>>> *OK*
>>>>
>>>> What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of is
>>>> that in the sentence "The Coriolis force is a
>>>> non-existent force." it is the name of the force that
>>>> may be the wrong name for the force I experience, but
>>>> the force is real.
>>>>
>>>> You are right, better wording would be "it does not exist
>>>> as a NEW force".
>>>>
>>>> All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz
>>>> Force F= E*q + B xV , where V my velocity.You think I
>>>> am arguing but I am not arguing that by moving at
>>>> some velocity you can make B disappear in your equation
>>>> and by moving at another velocity you can make V equal
>>>> to zero in your equation. I am arguing that you cannot
>>>> make the phenomena disappear. No matter how many
>>>> theories you invent and how many different names you
>>>> invent. The phenomena, the force I feel does not
>>>> depend on your theory. I and the situation I am in is
>>>> an independent reality. All you can do with Lorenz
>>>> transformations is shift the name of the force from
>>>> magnatic to and additional Coulonb component. Exactly
>>>> the same way moving from astationary observer at the
>>>> center of the Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the
>>>> force from acceleration to Coreolis. Its the same force!
>>>>
>>>> True, there is a force. But only interpreted as something
>>>> new or additional, which is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> "To make magnetism disappear" does not mean that every
>>>> force disappears. It means that you can explain all what
>>>> you observe as Coulomb force.
>>>>
>>>> And one should be cautious in the practical case. In daily
>>>> physical practise we measure magnetism by use of a magnetic
>>>> dipole. But that is not the correct way. Correct is to use
>>>> an electric charge, measure the force and compare it to the
>>>> Coulomb force as visible from the actual state of motion.
>>>>
>>>> *OK*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the
>>>> situation in a good and correct way.
>>>>
>>>> Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to go)
>>>> one begins to believe and evoke the principles of
>>>> quantum theory or its marcro-scopic extension which I
>>>> am trying to develop.
>>>>
>>>> All this has nothing to do with quantum theory. It is one
>>>> of the sources of QM that physicists misinterpret classical
>>>> physical processes, lack an explanation and then divert to
>>>> QM seeking for an explanation, which is in those cases not
>>>> needed. But misleading.
>>>>
>>>> *So we agree until we get to this point*
>>>>
>>>> In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian
>>>> phenomena are true in the coordinate frame of the
>>>> observer BECAUSE the coordinate frame supplies the
>>>> space , now called Hilbert space in which those
>>>> phenomena are displayed to the observer. The observer
>>>> IS the coordinate frame and his observable phenomena
>>>> occur within the space defined by that coordinate
>>>> frame. Everything you see is seen in a space you create
>>>> within the material from which you are built.
>>>>
>>>> I personally do not see the space as being created by
>>>> anything. I keep my naive view that space is nothing than
>>>> emptiness and has no extra properties, Euclidean geometry
>>>> applies and is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Should I ever encounter an argument that this is not
>>>> sufficient, I am prepared to change my mind. But up to now
>>>> it was not necessary.
>>>>
>>>> *Does the fact that you simply are not recognizing that it is
>>>> your first person perspective in which "empty" space appears
>>>> that is your fundamental experience and any assumption that
>>>> such experience is due to a real space is Theory. Do you not
>>>> ask how is it that I am able to create the sensations I have.
>>>> Are you and your experiences not part of the reality and
>>>> therefore must be explained as part of your if you are to have
>>>> a comprehensive theory. AND there is no explanation in classic
>>>> or relativistic physics for the consciousness of the observer.
>>>> One must begin to think in Quantum terms*
>>>>
>>>> We know that our brain gives us wrong or biased information about
>>>> this world. Because our brains have developed to help us to
>>>> survive, not to have insights. But as a guide to help us to survive
>>>> it can only function if our understanding of the world is not too
>>>> far away from the way as the world in fact is.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand this world
>>>> they (at least the scientists) know the problem that our brain and
>>>> our senses are misleading us. So this general problem of
>>>> understanding is in the mind of the people and was in their mind at
>>>> least since the time of ancient Greece. The only question is how to
>>>> start with an according investigation. One way to cope with this
>>>> problem is and was to build measurement tools which give us results
>>>> independent of our mood. These tools are continuously developed.
>>>> And we are of course not at the end of this development. But we can
>>>> only develop and correct our tools if there are results and hints
>>>> which give us informations on errors. Without those informations we
>>>> are playing with dice, and these dice do not have 6 numbers but
>>>> many thousand numbers. Does this playing make any sense for us?
>>>>
>>>> Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact that our
>>>> understanding is related to our brain. This assumption that a
>>>> physical process depends on the consciousness of the observer has a
>>>> different origin. Heisenberg found himself completely unable and
>>>> helpless to understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he once
>>>> said that we have to go back to Plato and so he threw away all that
>>>> progress which Newton has brought into our physical understanding.
>>>> And on the other hand he neglected the proposal of Louis de Broglie
>>>> about the particle-wave question because at that time he was
>>>> already so much related to a mysterious view that he was no more
>>>> able to leave that. - At this point I agree to Einstein and de
>>>> Broglie that a mystification of physics will not give us progress.
>>>>
>>>> All the physics before Einstein was developed with the
>>>> assumption that there is an independent objective 3D
>>>> reality space ( and it should be a stationary ether) in
>>>> which all these objects appear. Einstein almost got it
>>>> right. There is no independent ether and it all depends
>>>> upon the coordinate frame. He did not take the next
>>>> step. We observers are the coordinate frame each of
>>>> us supplies the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Here my position is completely opposite. We do have an
>>>> independent ether as Lorentz has assumed it. And it is an
>>>> ether in the sense that the speed of light is related to a
>>>> fixed frame, and this does not cause any logical conflicts
>>>> in my understanding.
>>>>
>>>> *OK so you make the assumption that we do have an independent
>>>> ether. That is the old "naive reality" assumption and classic
>>>> mechanics and EM theory is built on this assumption. But
>>>> quantum theory is no longer built on this assumption.*
>>>>
>>>> Ether is not compatible with Einstein's understanding of
>>>> relativity. But also QM is not compatible with Einstein's
>>>> relativity. So I do not see any specific connection of QM to the
>>>> absence of an ether. QM simple does not to care.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not helpful.
>>>> Lorentz told him situations which by Lorentz view are not
>>>> understandable without ether. Einstein repeated his denial of an
>>>> ether but he could not answer the questions of Lorentz.
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether is
>>>> attached to my fixed frame? Are they different ethers? Or is
>>>> there one ether, and we are all material objects moving in that
>>>> ether who just happen to be able to interpret some
>>>> configurations of material as space with objects moving in
>>>> them. why should our mental display of our experience be
>>>> anything but one possible way of building a mental display
>>>> along a very very long path of evolution. Do you really believe
>>>> you are the pinnacle or end of that process?*
>>>>
>>>> The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything more than the existence
>>>> of a fixed frame. And in the view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly
>>>> my view, the photons of our light are giving us this reference. All
>>>> photons move with the same - absolute - speed c, and this speed is
>>>> related to something. I guess to the position and motion state of
>>>> the Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a different red shift
>>>> depending on the direction. And we can quite easily calculate which
>>>> motion with respect to our earth we must have so that this red
>>>> shift becomes isotropic. This tells us what the reference of the
>>>> ether most probably is.
>>>>
>>>> Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the
>>>> first part where I'm trying to show why SR is wrong -
>>>> you argued a lot with that. The real reason SR is wrong
>>>> is because Einstein developed it without recognizing
>>>> that his imagination supplied the background ether and
>>>> his rail car and .embankment observer where "RIDING
>>>> ALONG" with their coordinate frames observing Einsteins
>>>> imaginary space. They were not IN their own space.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please copy this essential part of your paper here?
>>>> I do not have it at hand in this moment.
>>>>
>>>> *SEE ATTACHED*
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> This is where we should return to our SR discussion and
>>>> properly add the observer to physics
>>>>
>>>> Special relativity gives us in my view not any reason to
>>>> turn to an observer dependent physics. For Einstein's view
>>>> it is correct, but for the Lorentzian it is not necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written a
>>>> book about "Einstein and the ether". And he has - among
>>>> other sources - reprinted a letter exchange between
>>>> Einstein and Lorentz about the necessity of an ether.
>>>> Lorentz described a (Gedanken) experiment which in his view
>>>> is not explainable without ether. Einstein refused to
>>>> except an ether, but he did not present any arguments how
>>>> this experiment can be understood without it.
>>>>
>>>> I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the
>>>> physical world in a tremendous way. There are in fact
>>>> relativistic phenomena, but Einstein's way to treat them
>>>> was really bad.
>>>>
>>>> *I agree and this agreement is what gave us a common goal of
>>>> finding a better explanation.*
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully
>>>> Albrecht*
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> CHANDRA- there may be an abstract independent CTF but
>>>> my suggestion is that it may be the ether each of us is
>>>> made of and therefor may be thought to be stationary.
>>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 field is 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 <mailto:wolf 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 not observe 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
>>>> <mailto:wolf 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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <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 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
>>>> <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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: A4-1-Math and Physics.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 54272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180309/da4ecc12/attachment.doc>
More information about the General
mailing list