<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2546"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Chandra:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your links to your papers. They weren’t the link
I was seeking. I got your “Next Frontier in physics …” paper from academia.edu.
The other was the paper wherein you did experiments on NIW using Fresnel lens.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">So, no new experiment …”</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2566" class="MsoNormal">I agree with the <b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">interaction
processes </span></i></b><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2567" style="font-size:11.0pt">comments to the point
that the “space”/ plenum/ CTF medium (if that is the correct concept) is not
detected by instruments except by its action on particles. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2568" class="MsoNormal"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2569" style="font-size:11.0pt">I’m considering the structure
of electrons and neutrinos using hods in the STOE model. The structure and
properties of my plenum (CTF, space / gravitational ether of General
Relativity) must give observed experimental results such as spin and charge.
This is where I hit a roadblock that I had to skirt in the photon diffraction
papers. The roadblock has several aspects (1) what is inertia in the $F=m_I a$
concept and (2) do waves propagate in the plenum (space / gravitational ether
of General Relativity). </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2570" class="MsoNormal"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2571" style="font-size:11.0pt">The NOL forum has addressed
the inertia issue within the context of a physical property of particles. If
you commented on inertia, I missed it. If I remember your paper correctly, the
inertia property is a characteristic of your CTF (space, plenum) - not
particles. But I didn’t see this in your paper.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2598" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Tell me where I’m wrong. In
the </span>“Next Frontier in physics …” paper, section (5) “Space as CTF…”, The
CTF obeys the wave equation that has the characteristic for a perturbed element
to continue moving beyond the equilibrium point such as a mass element in a
vibrating string. Therefore, particles depress the CTF to give gravity
(gravitational mass is the property of particles) and the CTF provides the
inertial characteristic, which is not really a particle property. So, why the
Equivalence Principle? Is my understanding of your CTF correct - does it and
not the bodies have the inertia?</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2599" class="MsoNormal"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2600" class="MsoNormal">Other issues:</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2601" class="MsoNormal">The STOE suggests the plenum (space) obeys the heat
equation. That is there is no oscillation in the plenum. Like gravity the
plenum changes until the equilibrium reaches the $1/r$ value then stops
changing. Yes, I know the LISA and others are searching for what they call
“gravitational waves”. But they are not “waves”. They are changes in position
of gravitationally massive bodies that change position - hence looking more
like an application of the heat equation than the wave equation. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2650" class="MsoNormal">Therefore, the STOE should have the inertia as a property of
the hods that also have the property of depressing the plenum (space) -
gravitational mass. The equivalence principle is easy - both are number of hods
related. The hard part is how does inertia work - my problem?</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2613" class="MsoNormal">The Huygens-Fresnel (HF) model of diffraction <b>assumes </b>without
a physical underlying cause that waves progress in only the forward direction.
This “obliquity factor’ was needed to make the HF model work. Inertia in the
medium handles this issue easily like your CTF. But inertia in space doesn’t
match gravitation observations. Can’t do a Theory of Everything this way. It is
why the STOE had to experimentally reject the HF model, which is what partial
illumination of slits did. <br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2617" class="MsoNormal">The wave equation allows a dampening factor? Is your CTF dampened, also. Dampening could give the gravitational non- wave effect. <br></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2612" class="MsoNormal"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2611" class="MsoNormal">I like your neat approach to time dilation - food for
thought. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2610" class="MsoNormal"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2606" class="MsoNormal">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></body></html>