<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Dear Richard,<br><br></div>It was presumptuous of me to think that, even if you had read that email, you would have remembered any details.<br><br></div>I don't know how to search the emails for a specific item and I don't think that the thread involved had a label that would help. I'll quickly outline the model that leads to inertia.<br><b><br></b></div><b>The electron (positron):</b><br><ol><li>is a bound 1/2 photon (I actually have come to accept your term of 'charged' photon to describe the transitory EM wave existing between the 'rectification' of a >1MwV photon by a nucleus and the condensation into an electron / positron pair).<br></li><li>the 1/2 photon is self-trapped by total internal reflection (the high energy density of the compacted photon gives a higher refractive index (so that n > 1 and v = c/n) that confines the photon.</li><li>The photon 'wraps' about itself (maybe 1e4 - 1e8 times) as a long rubber band on a ball. The lowest energy state is that of uniform wrapping, not a planar wrap that would compress all of the field lines. The path circumference is lambda/2.<br></li><li>During the traverse of the circumference, the photon twists 180 degrees so that the E-field is always pointing outward (not necessarily normal to the surface of the 'ball'). This twist is automatic in the case of circularly polarized photons, but augmented by the Imbert–Fedorov effect.. It depends on the Goos–Hänchen effect for linearly-polarized photons. Both effects shift the photon out of the planar configuration.</li><li><b>The tricky part of the model comes from addressing the oppositely-directed E-Field always pointing inward. </b>There are 3 distinct options to consider to counter the argument of the electrons' self-field:</li></ol><div style="margin-left:40px"><ul><li>because the EM field has been rectified, the inward-pointing reverse polarity has zero amplitude. There is no inward pointing field.</li><li>the inward pointing field concentration is intense enough to give an energy density great enough to give a gravitational gradient sufficient to balance the self-charge repulsion of each of the leptons.</li><li>the rectification process separates the photon potentials (giving the spatial potential gradients seen as charges). However, the separation process leaves a connection between the leptons (thru time?) to close the field lines. This connection is a wormhole.</li></ul></div><div><div>The spherically 'wrapped' photon gives an angular momentum component in all directions, so the designated spin axis for a stationary lepton in a field-free region is entirely arbitrary. The leptons equally share the photon's ang mom of 1. Thus, there is a spin 1/2 in all directions (as far as I know, there is no other model that can do this). <p><b>Inertia:</b></p><ol><li>Since the lepton has photon 'flow' in all directions at close to c (v = c/n), any motion will create a relativistic effect that seeks to reduce the added velocity of all the portions with components in the direction of motion. Since there is a net spin, the effect of velocity is unbalanced and results in a precession of the spin vectors about the velocity vector. The distance traveled during a single cycle of the precession is the deBroglie wavelength.</li><li>Any acceleration to add velocity will create a torque from the
relativistic effect that will result in a change in precession about the
velocity vector. </li><li>The net torque is composed of the effect on all the 'windings' of the photon, but moreso for those with velocity components in the direction of motion. Thus there is a 'flattening' of the lepton along the velocity vector.</li><li>The flattening (thus concentration) of the leptons increases their total EM field energies. <br></li><li><b>Thus, the change of energies from the change in precession angular velocity and the distortion of the photon (EM field) distribution, gives the resistance to change in momentum and energy defined as inertia.</b><br></li></ol><div class="gmail_extra">Andrew<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">___________________________<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Hi Andrew,</div><div> I hope all is well with the twins.</div><div> I don’t want to propose as a new idea about inertia something that I might have read of yours earlier but forgot. Can you point me to where you expressed your ideas on inertia in the forum, or at least very briefly summarize what you said about your inertia hypothesis in this forum? Thanks!</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div> Richard</div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dear Richard,<br><br></div>I think that the closest I've come to writing it up is earlier in this forum. The twins and other works (e.g., getting the anomalous solution of the Dirac equations accepted) have priority at the moment. Maybe by the end of the year.<br><br></div>Andrew<br></div><div><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #aaabb6">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><a width="1" height="1"></a></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hello Andrew,<div> Is your own relativistic model of the electron’s inertia (electron as a spherically bound photon) written up? You can put it on <a href="http://academia.edu/" target="_blank">academia.edu</a> or another website if it’s not already. I’d like to compare it with mine at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model</a> .</div><div> Richard</div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Albrecht,<br><br></div>You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives (with very precise results). E.g., <br><div><div><br><div style="margin-left:80px">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of
oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I
have not seen any.<span></span><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span></span></div><br></div><div>I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have very precise results to support them may be up for debate. <br><br>My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the electron being, in its ground (restmass) state, a spherically bound photon. Until that concept is accepted, it makes little sense to go further in a description. However, if accepted, it then also leads to understanding the inertia of a photon. <br><br></div><div>Your two-particle model faces the same challenge. Unless you are able to shape that premise into an acceptable form, it is unlikely that anything that follows will matter. Can you (re)define your particles to be acceptable to an audience and still fulfill your assumptions and derived results?<br><br></div><div>Andrew<br></div></div></div><div><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #aaabb6">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><a width="1" height="1"></a></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #aaabb6">
<tr>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div>