<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=iso-8859-7"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://39/"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Chip Vivand All:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I agree with John that QED doesn’t have much to do with it. Feynman couldn’t even explain a magnet. But even though I’m a relativity guy, I don’t think that helps either. Instead I think it’s best to go way back, and take a tip from gravitomagnetism here. Check out this NASA article <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/">http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/</a> where Tony Philips talks about vortices<a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force">, just like Maxwell did</a>, and says “space is twisted”. Then think of an electromagnetic field as something similar. Combine the radial electric field lines with concentric magnetic field lines for electromagnetic field lines like this:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><img border=0 width=645 height=225 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D0C916.FC3F8870"></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There’s a <a href="http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid2.jpg">torus in the middle</a> causing what is in essence frame-dragging, wherein the electromagnetic field is “twisted space”. Or you might call it a “twist field”. Now imagine you were heading into it. For some strange reason this works best if you hold out your arms like you’re a kid playing planes. What happens if you head into it? You <i>turn</i>. If you have relative motion with respect to this twist field, and you didn’t know it, you would call it a turn field. That’s what a magnetic field is. A <i>turn</i> field. We don’t talk of rot and rotor for nothing, electrons don’t go round and round for nothing, see <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Electron_beam_in_a_magnetic_field.jpg">this picture</a>. The Lorentz force is merely the combination of linear “electric” force and rotational magnetic force that results when two (or more) charged particles interacts. They move like cyclones and anticyclones. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><img border=0 width=697 height=437 id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D0C918.93922150"></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The simplest magnet is the current-in-the-wire. There you have two opposite sets of twist fields which cancel. However one set is moving, so there’s a net turn field: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><img border=0 width=463 height=529 id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D0C918.93922150"></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>That’s a magnetic field. Bend the wire into a solenoid to emulate a bar magnet, then bend that again to make a horseshoe magnet. A magnet is a magnet because all the electrons are moving the same way. In a solenoid they go round in a circle of wire, in a bar magnet they go round domains, but there’s not much difference really. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John Duffield<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;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 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> 28 July 2015 03:01<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] The New Aether<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Hi Vivian and Michael<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Thank you for your responses. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>The interesting thing to me is the fact that when you rotate the disk, there is an electric potential generated across the disk, but when you rotate the magnet there is no net electrical potential generated. Naively one would expect the same results at any time the disk or magnet are rotated relative to each other, but this is not the case. It is like the magnetic field is, in a sense, “stationary” in space, regardless of whether the magnet is still or rotating.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Vivian Robinson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 27, 2015 8:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] The New Aether<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Magnetic lines of force don't exist. They are a convenient representation of an observed magnetic effect such as the lines that iron filings form when placed in a magnetic field. You can't corral them by getting a magnetised wire to draw them in and so concentrate them. At least I couldn't when I was tried the experiment many years ago. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) specialists are more experience in magnetism than myself and maybe one of them can give some more information. IMHO, the reason for the noise generated when the magnet was rotated was because of the non uniform nature of the magnetic's field. When the stator is rotated it is also moving through a magnetic field. I am not aware of Einstein's relativity theories have anything to say about magnetic fields. Over to QED experts. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>On 28/07/2015, at 1:46 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hi All<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>A friend forwarded this video regarding magnetic fields.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>It is quite interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE"><span style='color:purple'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I am interested in hearing your views and thoughts on this phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:40 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] The New Aether</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thank you, John, W, Vivian R. and John M.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>As a part of the facilitating system, I am pleased to see that the overall contents of the discussion are conducive to collective learning. Collective learning is at the core of the unusually successful evolution of the human neural network compared to all other species. The best part of the collective learning is that I do not need to spend all my life to find out that my logically self-consistent and elegant theory is based upon postulates that are insufficiently connected with the ongoing natural processes. We need system engineering thinking in all human endeavors; we need collective and iterative thinking.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thanks to all of you that the forum is maintaining its serious enquiry of nature; rather than telling nature how she ought to behave!</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>Chandra.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>PS: I owe a separate personal reply to John M.; will do so in a couple of days.</span></a><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:45 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Joakim Pettersson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] The New Aether</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Hi John M,<br><br>I think you are confusing proof and disproof. There tends to a be a popular mis-conception that an experiment can "prove" a theory. Not so, an experiment may be consistent or inconsistent with a theory - no more. This means that a well-constructed experiment may, in a sense, disprove a theory, but not prove it. If an experiment is inconsistent with a theory - within the realm of validity of that theory - then that theory should, in the proper operation of the scientific method, be either modified or discarded.<br><br>Now you have raised some questions below, not of any of our models, but of science as it stands. Though this has little or nothing to do with the subject of the upcoming conference, I am going to try to help you by answering those questions, within the context of science-as-it-stands. I'm not then going to enter into further discussion to defend those theories for you - this is not my job and I have neither the time nor the energy for it. If you want to go deeper into this you can read the papers on it by Feynmann and others, or look into one of the many textbooks on QED. This is a one off. I will answer in blue.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-US><hr size=3 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF138785><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of John Macken [<a href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:52 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] The New Aether</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Vivian and All.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>I have been away and was not able to answer Vivian’s objections contained in her July 17 post dealing with my paper titled “Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether”. On several of her points she demanded that I had to be able to show the experimental proof in order for a point to be valid.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>This is not so. Viv was talking about a discrepancy with experiment.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> I must admit that as I read this comment I wondered why this demand was being directed at me. Everyone in this group including Vivian and Chandra has offered theoretical models which lack experimental proof.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>This mis-states the position of others.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>In fact, most progress in physics happens when a theoretical prediction is made which initially lacks experimental proof.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Not so. It is discrepancy with the existing body of knowledge that usually drives folk to question. The initial driving discrepancy may not, indeed, correspond with what are later seen as "successes" of a model.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>The experimental proof then follows as the idea matures. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>No theory is ever "proven" by any one experiment.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>For example, general relativity was purely theoretical until the bending of light by the sun’s gravity was experimentally measured in 1919. The experiment would not have been performed without the theoretical prediction. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Oh yes it would. Photons would have been known to carry energy and momentum. there would have been an argument like that in Martin's "light is heavy" and someone would have looked at how these move in a gravitational field by now.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>General relativity remains unproven. It is only the case that, to first order, General relativity is consistent with the facts.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Another problem is that objections were registered without also addressing the arguments I gave to support my conclusions. The central point was that there is no support for my contention that vacuum energy has energy density in excess to 10<sup>-9</sup>J/m<sup>3</sup>. However, before addressing this point, I want to discuss the competition to my model of particles and forces. The competition has the electrostatic force being transferred by virtual photons. There is absolutely no experimental proof that virtual photons transfer the electrostatic force. In fact, there are numerous reasons to doubt this.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>John, there is a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is consistent with a vast range of experimental phenomena. Have you ever studied it? I'm going to give some trite answers based on that theory - and which I could have answered as a postgrad back in 1980. I will not come back to defend them because I myself do not think QED is complete, but I have better things to do than to regurgitate things you could read from a big book. I recommend "Landau and Lifshitz - QED". Anyway, showing that someone else has a problem - even if you had done that which you have not - does not then prove that you are right.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>For example: 1) How is attraction achieved?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>As I have said before in many posts: virtual photons can carry negative 4-momentum squared.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>2) How does an electric field achieve measurable energy density from “virtual” photons?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>You have a lot of them.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>3) What exactly is a virtual photon? (size, wavelength, frequency, etc.)</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Stupid question. Any size, any wavelength , any frequency. Even "real" photons can do that. A virtual photon is a theoretical construct in the theory of QED. Read the book.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> 4) How does a virtual photon locate a distant electron?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Good point. This is relatively hard. It is dealt with in QED by assigning a probability to emit (based on the fine structure constant) and a probability to absorb (ditto). The primary interaction matrix element then goes as alpha- squared times some geometrical factors. You need to understand as well that, as the distant electron becomes more and more distant the "virtual" photon becomes less and less virtual and more and more real. In fact, even for a few tens of wavelengths, the exchange photon is 99.9999 percent "real". There are higher order effects for exotic kinds of interactions (virtual photons!). These, if calculated - give pretty much exactly the effects observed in experiment. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>To understand the deeper implied point better, however, you need to look first at Carver Mead's keynote talk at last years SPIE conference. Then look at Al Kracklauer's translation of Tetrode's paper (look on his website), then read Wheeler and Feynmann's paper then try to understand how this can still be consistent with causality (this is hard and may take you some time. Think - energy.).</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> I could go on, but you get the point. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>I could go on but you get the point.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Also, the competition says that the gravitational force is transferred by either the geometry of curved spacetime or by virtual gravitons. Both of these also have problems. Curved spacetime is fine to explain a particle following a geodesic, but there is a real force when two masses are physically held apart. Where does this force come from?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Easy: masses share the "bend". Many hands make light work. All that sort of thing.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Curved spacetime does not explain the gravitational force. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Oh yes it does. Do you think no-one would have noticed? Many others in the group ... Viv, David, Reg, Al ... know much more about this than I do. It would be good for you to talk to them at the conference.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>In other words, there is no experimental proof that the geometry of spacetime can generate a force corresponding to the gravitational force. Also, gravitons have many of the same problems previously enumerated for virtual photons. There is no experimental proof of gravitons.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>True - as far as I know. Unless someone in the wider group, more specialist or widely-read than I knows better? David? Reg? Al? The fact that there is no proof for someone else's theory has little, or no, bearing on your own though. Also, while there is no experimental "proof" for gravitons there is no experimental disproof either. No inconsistency with experiment then. Also gravitons have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming conference.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>My explanation of both the electrostatic force and gravity is based on the idea that vacuum energy is real. The uncertainty principle implies that the distance between points varies by<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>±</span><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Planck length (L<sub>p</sub>) and perfect clocks in flat spacetime can differ by<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>±</span><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Planck time (T<sub>p</sub>). This simple insight is the basis for the wave-based energy density of spacetime. This energy density has been calculated and shown to be vastly different from the observable energy density which averages10<sup>-9</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>J/m<sup>3</sup>. It is also the basis of everything in the universe – all particles, fields and forces. No extra dimensions are needed. How come when people freely propose extra dimensions there is no chorus demanding experimental proof? However, when energetic spacetime is assumed, then objections are heard even though there is numerous reasons to believe that the vacuum has energy density.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>I think the main reason for this is that energies and masses on this scale are simply not observed. When people make up extra dimensions they do so usually in an area where they ought not to be observed - being very small or only manifesting at an absurdly large energy scale. You start in an area where such energies and masses - if they are energies and masses - should by easily observed by looking out of the window.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Unlike virtual messenger particles transferring forces, this wave-based particle model has real predictions which were easy to prove correct.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>This statement is simply not true. QED predicts, it is true, but it also calculates. So far, with the possible exception of tiny discrepancies in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon w.r.t. that of the electron, its calculations agree exactly with experiment. It calculates to many decimal places. Experiment is still catching up with extending those decimal places by further orders. Down at one part in a million or less. You have shouted a lot about your model - but the only actual number I have seen calculated from it - the electron charge- is out by more than two orders of magnitude.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>For example, the first set of predictions were that both the electrostatic force and the gravitational force were the result of waves generated by fundamental particles at the particle’s Compton frequency. When these forces were expressed in the natural units of the particles, they would reveal that gravity was a nonlinear effect that scaled with wave amplitude squared and electrostatic effects scaled with wave amplitude to the first power. In other words, it should be possible to prove or disprove whether this model was correct by doing either a calculation or an experiment which tested this relationship. In the paper<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><u>Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity</u><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>equations 15 to 23 show that these predictions are correct.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>I looked at this, but all you seem to have done, to me, is plugged in Newton's force law - and a set of other well-known relations in your equation 13, provided only that you also plug in a value of the electron charge which is more than two orders of magnitude out. This is not, in my a book, a prediction. Also, even after all of this, you seem to get no further than Newton's law of gravitation.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> I have subsequently generated other equations showing the close relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. This “foundation” paper was previously attached to my posts and is also available at<a href="http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf</span></a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'><a href="http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><br></span></a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Both the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation have been experimentally verified. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>To a first approximation. The Newton theory is modified, as you know in GR and the Coulomb law breaks down at short distances (the running coupling constant).</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Therefore, showing how there equations are related by a square is the same as doing an experiment.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Oh no it isn't.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>The fact they are related by an inverse square shows only that both are consistent, to first order, with being transmitted by a conserved fluid in 3D. No more and no less.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>If you are looking for predictions which have not been experimentally verified, I have those also. In chapter 9 of my book I discuss an electric field experiment that should be possible but difficult. However, even then I am able to show that it is possible to verify the accuracy of the prediction with a thought experiment. Suppose that it was possible to increase the intensity of a laser beam to arbitrarily large powers. If the beam is focused to 1 wavelength in diameter, then the prediction is that it should be possible to reach a condition where the properties of spacetime would achieve 100% modulation of the vacuum energy density at the laser’s wavelength. Spacetime should be incapable of transmitting more power than the predicted 100% modulation level through the focused spot. Imagine that this experiment was performed by some advanced civilization. At great expense, they would discover that this prediction was correct. The 100% modulation level corresponds to the level that makes a black hole. Once the black hole forms, no further light could be transmitted through this volume of spacetime – just as predicted.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Dear John, you seem quite safe to me for the time being with this experiment. I tried doing the sums. Perhaps I made a mistake so correct me if I am wrong. The poor old laser, if blue, would need a power source rather larger than that which could be obtained by annihilating the entire universe with an equivalent antimatter universe- since the energy contained in a 200nm (Half the wavelength of blue light) cube in your model, to get to "the 100 percent modulation limit" far exceeds the energy of the energy of the entire universe by many many orders of magnitude. This is going to take some serious engineering. Do the sums. Also, I would not recommend having a go at this as annihilating the whole of our universe, just to "prove" a theory would not necessarily be a good idea.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>Finally, the “New Aether” paper contains a new calculation which gives the “interactive” density<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>ñ<sub>i</sub></i>,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>The fact you put "interactive" in quotes is telling.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>energy density<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>U<sub>i</sub></i>, mass<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>m<sub>i</sub></i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>and energy<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>e</i><sub>i</sub><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>encountered by a gravitational wave with angular frequency<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>ù</span><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>and reduced wavelength<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i><s>ë</s></i>. Ignoring the numerical constant k, these equations are very simple:</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>ñ<sub>i</sub><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>=<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></i><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>ù</span></i><i><sup><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>2</span></sup></i><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>/</span><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>G</span></i><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>U<sub>i</sub><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>= F<sub>p</sub></span></i><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>/</span><i><s><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>ë</span></s></i><i><sup><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>2</span></sup></i><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>m<sub>i</sub><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>= Z<sub>s</sub></span></i><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>/<i>ù</i></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>e<sub>i</sub><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>= F<sub>p</sub><s>ë</s></span></i><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>These are all explained in the aether paper. I know that none of these will not be completely satisfying, but they are given because they imply that different frequencies encounter different amount of energy density. Only Planck frequency encounters 10<sup>113</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>J/m<sup>3</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>energy density.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>If interactive, these interactions are huge on a human scale. You should be able to feel them by waving your hand. You do not.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>If you have no need for a higher frequency than the Compton frequency of the Higgs boson, then you need not concern yourself with energy density higher than about 10<sup>46</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>J/m<sup>3</sup>. This also happens to be the energy density of the Higgs field from QED. </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>The Higgs field is not in QED. It is an additional part of the "standard model". QED deals with just the interaction of light and (charged) matter.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>John, a general comment. I have been putting a lot of effort and time into this for your benefit and for the benefit of others in the group. I like some of what you have done, and have been doing, and there is some serious content in some aspects of your ideas. Attacking others, especially physics-as-it-stands, is a waste of everyone's energy and talent. It is beginning to piss me off. Please stick to either developing your own ideas, or posting (preferably constructive) criticism of things that are actually in the theme of this conference.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#444444'>John M.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>Regards, John W.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>