<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Gulim;
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Gulim";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:KO;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi John M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Speaking from my perspective, I think that most members of this group believe that space is comprised of something like Chandra¡¯s CTF, or something similar to your space model. However analyzing a model of space requires knowing and understanding all the properties of space well enough to model it in a way that displays the properties of the particles, forces, and fields. I think you have given it a very valuable effort. We know that Maxwell¡¯s ¡°fluid mechanics¡± approach worked well to describe a part of the actions of fields in space. So it is a short step to assume that implies that space consists of a sort of superfluid. This is not new. However I am reluctant to jump in and model space with so much speculation, but would rather lay sufficient groundwork first, so as not to have to take so many guesses. Much of that groundwork must be laid by understanding the fields, waves, and forces. That can be done better by modeling the particles, testing the models, and choosing the solution which matches experiment in all ways. So if we can understand specifically what space does in relation to fields, waves, and forces, we can then attempt to model space with some hope of accuracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>After reading your work I find some items of significant value, however I do not think you have the model of space quite right yet. I think there are still things missing in your model and I think that some of the assumptions have yielded results which do not agree with the observable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think, and perhaps others feel as well, that by studying the things we can observe, seeing how all the pieces fit, establishing understandable relationships between those items, understanding the geometries, topologies, actions of fields and forces, we will be able to model space with more accuracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>My eventual goal is to model space. But for me it is too early to attempt that, because there are several issues which must be worked out before I can know the exact properties of space. So it is an interesting exercise and speculation to model space as you have done, but for me it is insufficient to do the task like this. It seems that if we model space in a way which gives us spin 1 electrons, or electrons with a radius of Compton¡¯s wavelength over 2 pi, we have done it incorrectly. And I would think that if we model space correctly we will find the cause for Planck¡¯s constant, as well as the elementary charge, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, and a host of other ¡°constants¡± which are a <b>result of the space we live in</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I do admire the task you have undertaken, and much of the work you have done. But my take on your model so far is that it is still quite incomplete, has a few errors, is quite speculative, and has not been as fruitful yet as such a spacetime model should be.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This is not intended to be a dismissal of your work, on the contrary, it is intended to give some praise for much of the approach, but to indicate that a reasonable model of space will eventually disclose to us many things we have been looking for, and, in my opinion, your model is just not there yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>As has been stated before, there is significant value in each approach, whether from the standpoint of fields, waves, forces, or the standpoint of the makeup of space. These will eventually converge into one comprehensive explanation. So in my opinion, debating the merits of these individual approaches is not productive. But creating a comprehensive and accurate description of the fields, waves, forces, and of space, is a worthy goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>With Respect<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:04 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles<br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Challenge<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Hello All,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Various graphic representations of electrons have been presented by members of the group. They have looked like knots, spirals, loops and even medieval torture devices. However, not once has there been any description of the medium or the distortion that is being pictured. This is the equivalent of drawing a three dimensional graph except failing to designate what exactly is being graphed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>When I show pictures of my electron model, I can tell you exactly what is being graphed. I have a spacetime field with impedance and a wave structure. My electron model produces quantifiable distortions of this spacetime field. They have specific wave properties with known strain amplitude, known frequency and known size. While I cannot predict the energy of an electron from first principles, I can calculate the energy of the model being pictured and show that it corresponds to the electron¡¯s energy. I do not hide behind the equation E = </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>©€¥ø</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> and say that no further calculation is required. I can derive E = </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>©€¥ø</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> from my proposed structure of the spacetime field. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Therefore, my challenge to the group is to identify what is being shown in the pictures. Are these waves? If so, give the details of the medium carrying the waves. String theory has served as a bad example because they draw pictures of vibrating strings while claiming that the strings are a basic building block that is not made of anything more fundamental. If a photon or an electric field is your basic building block, are you claiming that it is also unknowable? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>For those that doubt the existence of the energetic spacetime field, I challenge you to identify the components being pictured in your electron models. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>John M.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>