<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>John,<br>
<br>
Yes, any extended object has inertia. I think that this is not
too difficult to understand and to visualize. So again:<br>
<br>
What makes an object to be extended? The constituents have to be
bound to each other so as to maintain a distance. If now one of
the constituents is moved, the other constituents will follow to
keep this distance. But that does not happen instantaneously as
the binding field propagates "only" with the speed of light.
That means that for a very short time the other constituents
remain where they are and the binding fields originating in them
will not change. So, for this short time the constituent being
moved has to be taken out of the potential minimum of the fields
of the other constituents. This requires a force. After a short
time, the speed of light permits the other particles to move and
also their fields to move. And as a consequence there is no
longer a force necessary. - This fact that for an intermediate
time a force is necessary to change the motion state of an
object is called inertia. - Really too difficult?<br>
<br>
The calculation shows that in fact a smaller object has more
inertia. It is proportional to the inverse of the distance of
the constituents. The reason is that on the one hand the binding
field is universal for all elementary particles, on the other
hand the strength of the forces is higher at smaller distances,
as we know it from all forces. As I have said many times, the
model provides precise results. This can be found on my web site
for those interested. This precision applies of course also to
the relation between size and mass.<br>
<br>
Since the time when I started this discussion about inertia 15
years ago, I have made the experience that a certain portion of
discussion partners (maybe 10 to 20 percent) have problems to
understand and to visualize this process of inertia. Those
persons are mainly physicists working in theory and who are more
specialized for algebra than for physics. But a minority. Last
month we had the spring conference of the German Physical
Society here in Hamburg about particle physics. Even though I
had to give my talks about inertia and about the error of de
Broglie in one out of 22 parallel sessions, most people came
into my session. The acceptance and the discussion about these
topics was very encouraging. And this is my permanent
experience.<br>
<br>
Albrecht</small><br>
<br>
<br>
<small>Am 10.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb John Williamson:</small><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C914798366@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Albrecht - why do you think that
somethings "extent" gives it inertia? This is simply non-sense.
You have just made this up haven't you?
<br>
<br>
Experimentally smaller things - with less extent then - have
higher mass.<br>
<br>
JW.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF595153"><font
color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Meulenberg; Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] inertia<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Andrew,<br>
<br>
thank you for your considerations and arguments about my
mass model. And please apologize that I kept you waiting
for a response. I was off for several days.<br>
<br>
My basic point is that any extended object necessarily has
inertia. That is not just an idea or a possibility, it is
on the contrary completely inevitable. I think that I have
explained why this is the case. If necessary I can of
course explain it again.<br>
<br>
Now, if we assume or accept that elementary particles are
extended, then the inertia of particles is inevitably
given. And, as you have cited it again, the results for
leptons and quarks are precise.<br>
<br>
The main argument against my model is the general opinion
that elementary particles, particularly electrons, are
point-like and have no constituents. The argument of those
who have performed the according experiments is that it
was attempted to decompose the electron by bombarding it
with particles (like protons) with sufficiently high
energy, A decomposition has never occurred. From this it
was concluded that the electron has no constituents. - But
this argument does not apply to my particle model. The
constituents of an elementary particle are according to my
model mass-less. So one of its constituents may be
accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one - as
having no own mass - can follow immediately. Not even any
force will occur. - Accordingly this argument is not
applicable against this model.<br>
<br>
And the rest is known. If one determines the size of the
electron by the evaluation of e.g. its magnetic moment,
the result for the mass conforms very precisely to the
measurement.
<br>
<br>
It is true that the assumption of two constituents for an
elementary particle is very uncommon. But as long as there
are no conflicting facts such assumption can be made. It
is a common way in physics by my understanding. On the
other hand there was a kind of indication for two
constituents described by the article of Frank Wilczek
about the electron in Nature in summer 2013.<br>
<br>
The explanation of inertia of an electron by a bound
photon is in my understanding not a real explanation as it
assumes that a photon itself has some kind of inertia,
without explaining how this works inside a photon. So it
just diverts the problem to another particle, at least as
it was explained during this discussion since October last
year. And also the task to be done is not only the mass of
an electron, but the mass of all particles, i.e. all
leptons and all quarks. Do you assume that all these
particles are built by bound photons?<br>
<br>
So, in my understanding, if there is another explanation
for inertia, then we will have two explanations in
parallel. Or, if on the other hand someone has or knows an
experiment which is in conflict with my model, that would
of course refute my model. Up to now I did not hear about
such results.<br>
<br>
Thank you again for your considerations.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg
:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><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
class="im"></span><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><span class="im"></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 id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA.."
style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #aaabb6">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px; padding-top:18px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ."
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-open-tick-round-orange-v1.png"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px; padding-top:20px;
color:#41424e; font-size:13px;
font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
line-height:18px">
Virenfrei. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ."
style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="redir.aspx?REF=IDg2eD5Ad6khGURjpCGA2lOxRyqY2n2SvbEEgfZdI0NSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF2YXN0LmNvbQ.."
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>