<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 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:0in;
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.yiv4772255142msonormal, li.yiv4772255142msonormal, div.yiv4772255142msonormal
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.yiv4772255142msochpdefault, li.yiv4772255142msochpdefault, div.yiv4772255142msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.yiv4772255142msohyperlink
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msohyperlink;}
span.yiv4772255142msohyperlinkfollowed
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msohyperlinkfollowed;}
span.yiv4772255142emailstyle17
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142emailstyle17;}
p.yiv4772255142msonormal1, li.yiv4772255142msonormal1, div.yiv4772255142msonormal1
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msonormal1;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.yiv4772255142msohyperlink1
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msohyperlink1;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.yiv4772255142msohyperlinkfollowed1
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msohyperlinkfollowed1;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.yiv4772255142emailstyle171
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142emailstyle171;
color:#1F497D;}
p.yiv4772255142msochpdefault1, li.yiv4772255142msochpdefault1, div.yiv4772255142msochpdefault1
{mso-style-name:yiv4772255142msochpdefault1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle29
{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: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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hodge: I am in the twilight zone of ignorance. This ignorance has been covered up by the word “Complex” in CTF!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> However, in my imagination, I see “epsilon-inverse” as the electric tension (triggered by an excited oscillating dipole) and “mu” as the magnetic resistance generated
in proportion to the growth of electric tension pushed by the energy contributing atom. 3D sound waves also have wave equation similar structure but with different physical properties than a string under mechanical tension.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Chandra. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Hodge John [mailto:jchodge@frontier.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 09, 2016 8:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] CTF has inertia?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7690">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">The "Next frontier..." paper refers to the wave equation describing "...undulations of CTF, ...".
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7712">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">In classical physics the wave equation describes undulations of strings (for example). But the characteristic that keeps the undulation going is an
inertial mass element. Otherwise there is nothing to have the string mass element to go beyond equilibrium.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7576">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">What in the CTF corresponds to the inertial element in the wave equation?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7924">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_8049">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I ask because im facing the issue of inertia in my own model (STOE). I had thought it to be the amont of plenum captured by hods (hence the Equivalence
Principle). But this doesn't work when trying to structure particles. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7922">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455021503671_7921">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Hodge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">On Monday, February 8, 2016 6:49 PM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>>
wrote:</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div id="yiv4772255142">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Dear John Hodge</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">:
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I have attached the original 1976 experiment that convinced me of NIW while recognizing that Fourier summation and decompositions cannot
be carried out by linear optical components. Later, I found out that NIW was experimentally demonstrated by Alhazen, literally a thousand years ago. It was also categorically mentioned by Huygens in his book in 1687 (without mentioning Alhazen). I do not recall
any paper where I have used Fresnel lens to demonstrate NIW. But, I did try to exploit a pair of Talbot grating images to demonstrate that dark fringe locations in free space (in the absence of detector elements) are not devoid of EM wave energy. This experiment
did not succeed because it requires (i) a whole set of super precision optics, (ii) super precision optical components, mounts and translation stages, and (iii) super precision digital camera for quantitative recording of energy. Nobody wanted to support this
experiment [~$30K equipment + engineer time].</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <b><i>Again:</i></b> Superposition Principle (SP) is a mathematically correct epistemic starting step. Nothing is wrong there! It
sums the amplitudes (waves or probabilities). SP is not observable because “amplitudes” themselves do not interact to re-organize their energy distribution (the NIW property). They are “oscillatory amplitudes”; excitations of the CTF. SP is just a starting
math statement cooked up by human mind and it works! Superposition Effect (SE), on the other hand, is registered by resonant detectors as observable
<b><i>physical transformation</i></b>. They are the observers; not the humans! SE is an observable phenomenon (the square modulus!). Detectors can carry out this non-linear quadratic step of taking the square modulus and absorb the proportionate amount of energy
out of <b><i>ALL THE</i></b> stimulating fields; not just one. There is no “single photon” energy transfer. Even our working math does not support this!!!!! Of course, the energy transfer can take place only after the detector senses (selects) out only the
resonant fields; executes the resultant dipolar amplitude undulation; and then only the quadratic step of energy assimilation take place. These are the real physical processes. They take finite time; at least one cycle of the resonant frequency of the stimulating
field. This I call “quantum compatibility sensing period”. There is no “wave function collapse”!</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">But, learning to separate non-observable SP from observable SE (as a phenomenon) helps us make some profound transition in our physics
thinking. Most of the non-causal assertions of QM (Copenhagen Interpretations) simply become unnecessary and QM becomes a lot more realistic formalism.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Sincerely,</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Chandra.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">PS: Since the title says -“CTF has inertia?”; here is my response.
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> My preliminary view of CTF is that it is a universally stationary complex field. It is the “cosmic inertial rest frame” to support
all EM waves and particles as two different kinds of excitations (oscillations). It is postulated to allow for the constant velocity of light all across the cosmic space. What holds or has generated the CTF (current postulate)? I do not know. No further postulate
at this moment. <b><i>Since it does not move; it cannot display inertial property by itself.</i></b> Only particles as its localized resonant oscillations can display the property, “inertia of motion”. Particles do not have “Mass”. They do not contain some
“substance”. They are just self-looped resonant oscillation of the same CTF, holding a finite quantity of “perturbing” energy. This postulate of “particle” removes the problem faced by old ether.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yqt83140">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Hodge John<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 08, 2016 11:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] CTF has inertia?</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Chandra:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">So, no new experiment …”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2566">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I agree with the
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">interaction processes
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2568">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2570">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2598">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Tell me where I’m wrong. In the
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">“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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2599">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2600">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Other issues:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2601">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2650">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2613">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2617">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">The wave equation allows a dampening factor? Is your CTF dampened, also. Dampening could give the gravitational non- wave effect.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2612">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2611">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I like your neat approach to time dilation - food for thought.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2610">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv4772255142yui_3_16_0_1_1454946893038_2606">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Hodge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>