<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hello Richard,</p>
<p>you are right that inertia and momentum are related to each
other. The relation is that inertia is the cause of momentum,
without inertia in our world there would be no momentum in our
world.</p>
<p>Mathematically spoken: momentum = mass * vector_of_motion. The
vector_of motion is a vector, so the product "momentum" is a
vector. An explanation of momentum needs the explanation of mass
as a precondition. Not the other way around.</p>
<p>Inertial mass can in fact be explained if one accepts that an
extended object necessarily has inertia. And as the electron has
to be extended (in order to have angular momentum and magnetic
moment) it has inertial mass just from this reason. And I like to
repeat: the assumption that an extended object has inertia is not
only an idea but can be deduced quantitatively with precise
results without the use of any free parameters which had to be
adjusted.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:60825476-6150-419B-ADAF-37D10FBE45A9@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an apple is
essentially the same as an orange (despite their different
properties) then you can also say that inertial mass is
essentially the same as momentum (despite their different
properties). But inertial mass is not the same as momentum, and
apples are not the same as oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar
quantity and momentum is a vector quantity, which is
fundamentally different. They also have different physical
units. My point is that inertial mass is NOT the same as
momentum although they are related. A linearly moving photon has
inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as well as
external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has inertial mass m=
Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal) external momentum. In
circulating-photon electron models (which your electron model is
not), the circulating photon also has inertial mass
m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its circulating photon, and this inertial
mass m of a resting electron is called the rest mass m of the
electron, or simply the mass m of the electron. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Vivian: I think you are agreeing with Albrecht too
quickly. Physicists have been trying hard to understand the
nature of inertia since Newton failed to. Mach tried and failed.
Several modern physicists such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch
et al have also tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of
inertial mass (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m
is Eo=mc^2 is NOT in itself an explanation for inertial mass).
The Higgs Field (as I understand it) also doesn’t explain
inertial mass, although it may explain the origin of a
particle's invariant mass as is claimed. Anyway, I won’t accept
any explanation from you about particles and inertia as long as
you continue to insist that the relativistic kinetic energy of a
particle is KE = pc = gamma mv c (instead of the well-known
experimentally established formula KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2 ) as
you claim on p 13 in your article “A proposal for the structure
and properties of the electron” (attached).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"
class="">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class="">Richard,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I agree with Albrecht. For a physical
relationship between energy and mass through E + mc^2,
you have seen my paper on it. Energy is the photon
travelling in a straight line. Mass is the same photon
confined in a circle of radius equal to half its
wavelength. That relationship is directly E = mc^2 and
it explains many other properties associated with mass
particles. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Mathematics comes in many forms, the same as
languages. Not every one is specialised in all forms of
mathematics, anymore than everyone is specialises in all
languages. Almost all physicists understand physical
descriptions. A physical description of the process
accompanied by the appropriate mathematics will go a
long way towards helping others understanding the
message being presented.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Vivian </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM, Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<p class="">Richard,</p>
<p class="">you know my objection. Inertial mass
and momentum are fundamentally the same physical
phenomenon. Just the result of a different
application. And so it is no real explanation to
explain mass by momentum. Because that means
that you explain a physical phenomenon by the
same physical phenomenon.</p>
<p class="">Albrecht <br class="">
</p>
<p class="">(And you may have a look at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a>
) <br class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.10.2016 um
15:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DA16948E-6831-4E3E-BE52-0BA7285B767F@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">John and Vivian and others,</div>
<div class=""> Yes, inertial mass must be
defined by F=ma and F=dp/dt as Newton defined
it, though he couldn’t explain what causes it.
It is caused by a particle’s circling internal
momentum, as I derive in <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia"
class="">https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia</a> ,
which is attached.</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM,
Vivian Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"
class="">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
class="">
<base href="x-msg://1692/" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "
class="">John,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
14px; " class="">Thanks for the
advice. I regularly reference
Einstein's Ann. der Phys. 17,
639-641 (1905) paper. By mass I have
tried to think of it as inertial
mass m<span style="font-size: 12px;
" class="">i</span>, given by F =
m<span style="font-size: 12px; "
class="">i</span>.a. Gravitational
mass m<span style="font-size: 12px;
" class="">g</span> is different
by potential energy (PE) divided by
c squared (m<span style="font-size:
12px; " class="">g</span> = m<span
style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>
- PE/c^2). Rest mass m<span
style="font-size: 12px; " class="">r</span>
is m<span style="font-size: 12px; "
class="">i</span> measured at
velocity = 0 with respect to m<span
style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>.
Relativistic mass m</span><span
style="font-size: 12px; " class="">rel</span><span
style="font-size: 14px; " class=""> is
the mass measured at </span><font
class="" size="4">velocity v wrt an
observer. Invariant mass doesn't
exist because its value depends upon
its position</font><span
style="font-size: large; " class=""> </span><span
style="font-size: large; " class="">wrt</span><span
style="font-size: large; " class=""> an
observer, </span><span
style="font-size: large; " class="">gravitational
field and velocity. In practice all
m<span style="font-size: 12px; "
class="">i</span>, m<span
style="font-size: 12px; " class="">g</span>
and m<span style="font-size: 12px; "
class="">r</span> will be measured
the same within experimental error,
essentially making them invariant. </span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class="">IMHO, you are
quite correct about aspects of the
standard model. There are some very
serious problems.</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class="">Cheers,</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size:
large; " class="">Viv </span></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br
class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br
class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br
class="">
</font>
<div class="">
<div class="">On 06/10/2016, at 4:08
AM, John Duffield <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
class="">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple"
style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: inherit; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"
class="" lang="EN-GB">
<div class="WordSection1"
style="page: WordSection1; ">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">Viv:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">Good stuff. I
empathize totally.<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">Re photons and
mass, do make sure you
call it<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="">inertial mass</i>.
And/or protect yourself
with a reference to<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/"
style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline; " class=""><span
style="color: rgb(0,
0, 153); " class="">Einstein’s
E=mc² paper</span></a>,
where the last line reads
thus:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><i
class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="" lang="EN">“If
the theory corresponds
to the facts, radiation
conveys inertia between
the emitting and
absorbing bodies”.</span></i><i
class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">I say this
because IMHO the sort of
people who bang on about
gluons or the 8<sup
class="">th</sup><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>spatial
dimension will use
anything cast aspersions
on people like you. <o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">I’ve been doing
some major writing
recently, and in doing so
I’m getting the feeling
that there’s more wrong
with standard-model
physics than people
appreciate. Much more.<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">Regards<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "
class="">JohnD<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); " class=""> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div style="border-style:
solid none none;
border-top-width: 1pt;
border-top-color: rgb(225,
225, 225); padding: 3pt
0cm 0cm; " class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class=""><b
class=""><span
style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
" class=""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; "
class="" lang="EN-US"><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general">mailto:general</a>-<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b
class="">On Behalf
Of<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vivian
Robinson<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>05 October 2016 09:58<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size: 10.5pt;
" class="">Rear Richard
and others,</span><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">I
submitted my results to
the group in the hope
that it would start
debate on my topic.
Richard I appreciate
that you have taken time
to make a couple of
comments. I would like
to add a few points to
aid (I hope) further
discussion.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">First,
the so called "standard
models" of matter suffer
from some disadvantages,
not the least of which
is the use of invented
concepts, e.g. quarks,
gluons and strings that
have never been
separately identified.
String theory is one
very bad example. It
uses several space
dimensions that have
never been detected
along with particles too
small to be ever
detected to make
predictions that don't
match observation.
However the mathematics
is sufficiently
complicated that
referees are prepared to
accept that it may have
some future. That is
another example of
theoreticians being out
of touch with reality. I
am sure that if their
funding body informed
them that their salary
has been paid in full
in a combinations of
strings in the 8th
spatial dimension, our
universe being the three
detectable ones and
they can collect it when
they find the eighth
dimension and unravel
the strings, they would
also be the first to
complain. Yet they would
have us believe that is
the origins of the whole
universe, not just their
salary.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">Quarks
and gluons are another
example. They have never
been separately
isolated. So Quantum
ChromoDynamics (QCD)
theoreticians developed
the concept that
the gluon "force"
between quarks increases
as their separation
distance increases.
Unfortunately when
"satellite" nucleons
orbit a nucleus at a
"significant distance"
where quark separations
are quite large, the
binding is very weak and
the lifetimes of these
nuclei are measures
immilli seconds. As some
QCD practitioners will
attest, QCD calculations
are not good at matching
observation so
theoreticians keep
changing their model
until it does. They have
devised 36 quarks, 2
types, 3 generations of
each type. three
"colours for each
generation, plus their
anti-particles, plus 8
colours or flavours of
gluons, a total of 44
undetected particles,
and they still can't get
good answers. Again by
making their mathematics
complex they avoid
scrutiny by non
experts. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">The
point is that "standard
model" physics has many
examples of
theoreticians using non
detected particles or
entities and dimensions,
to give unsatisfactory
answers to some aspects
of experimental
observation. Trying to
replace those with a
further set of
hypothetical particles,
be they rotars, hods,
microvita or faster than
light
(superluminal) particles does
not make their concept
any better than those
forwarded by standard
model practitioners.
Being able to match a
few physical properties
by ascribing specific
properties to undetected
hypothetical particles
is no advance if all it
is doing is matching a
few local properties. <o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">I am
forwarding my work as
different. It uses known
properties of free
space, namely its
electric permittivity
(ep) and magnetic
permeability (mp). It
suggests that these
facilitate the passage
of packets of
electromagnetic energy
called photons, possibly
by being composed of
vibrations in ep and mp.
John W and I have used
different wording to
convey the idea that
photons convey mass, as
was proposed by Einstein
in 1905. I feel sure a
suitable set of words
could be found to
describe how those
photon oscillations
convey that mass. I have
presented four wave
equations that describe
the Einstein-de Broglie
wave function psi, along
with a physical
representation of them. <o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">I
describe the angular
momentum of photons as
being due to the
circular wave motion of
the electromagnetic
field in circularly
polarised photons. This
implies that plane
polarised photons will
not have any angular
momentum and hence no
intrinsic spin. This is
able to be checked
experimentally. Its
rotating centre of mass
only travels at sqrt 2 x
c for a photon composed
of a single wavelength.
It is not a super
luminal velocity. The
centre of mass is a
mathematical point that
rotates. It is not a
physical rotation of a
mass traveling faster
than c. The mass of the
photon is traveling at c
in its propagation
direction. One might as
well say that the wave
motion of the electric
field is superluminal
because it follows a
sine curve which has a
length longer than the
straight line travel of
c. That does not mean
that its mass is
travelling faster than c
and therefore all
photons are
superluminal. <o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">Mathematical
points traveling at
faster than c is not
superluminal travel.
There has been an often
quoted example of waving
a laser into space. If
waved fast enough across
the dark surface of the
new moon, it could be
possible to observe the
laser point moving
across the moon's
surface at faster than
c. That is a
mathematical point
moving faster than c. It
is not superluminal
motion. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">I
submit that making
models of hypothetical
particles and ascribing
properties to them is
not the same as deriving
those properties from
fundamental
considerations. Others
are entitled to their
own views.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">FYI,
I have been working on
this for three decades.
I decided not to publish
much of my work, apart
from compiling it into
some extended
manuscripts, complete
with ISBNs, that I made
available to a few
selected friends and
interested parties. My
career experience was
that reviewers and
critics have a habit of
raising non relevant
objections, bogging
authors down and slowing
further progress. <o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">Chandra,
is that the kind of
paper you would like
presented at your next
SPIE conference? It will
be more advanced by
then. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">Cheers,<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class="">Vivian
Robinson<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span
style="font-size:
10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class="">On
29/09/2016, at 11:25
PM, Richard Gauthier
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class=""><br
class="">
<br class="">
<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt; "
class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class="">Hello
Vivian, Chip and
others,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class="">
The derivations
of the radius
R=lambda/2pi of my
internally
superluminal
photon model and
the corresponding
45-degree forward
angle of the
photon model's
internal helical
trajectory are
given in Section
5, equations 8
through 17 in my
published 1996
article
“Microvita: A new
approach to
matter, life and
health”, which I
attach and which
is available from
Springer and at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health</a>.
My
internally-double-looping
model of the
electron is also
presented
quantitatively
there in Section
6. The electron
model there has
evolved into my
SPIE relativistic
spin-1/2
charged-photon
electron model
since then. It
follows directly
from the photon
model's helical
angle of 45
degrees that the
internal speed of
the photon model
is c sqrt(2),
which I state
explicitly in my
published 2007
article “FTL
quantum models of
the photon and the
electron”,
attached below and
available from
STAIF-2007 and at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> . <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class="">
Richard<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class=""><Microvita
A New Approach to
Matter Life and
Health.pdf><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class=""><FTL
Quantum Models of the
Photon and the
Electron.pdf><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt; " class="">
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">On
Sep 24, 2016,
at 8:34 AM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif; "
class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Hello
Vivian,<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">
I’ve gone
through your
new article on
the photon and
it looks
interesting. I
appreciate
that your
photon model
is now
internally
superluminal
with an
internal
helical speed
of c sqrt(2)
and an
effective
radius of
lambda/2pi.
Your photon
model has
similarities
to Chip’s
model of the
photon in this
and other
respects and
I’m surprised
that you
didn’t
reference his
work. I would
be interested
to see a
comparison
between your
photon model
and Chip’s.
I’d also like
to hear Chip’s
comments on
your photon
model.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">
Richard<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt; "
class="">
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">On
Sep 22, 2016,
at 8:55 PM,
Vivian
Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Hodge,<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">It
would still be
best if you
sent the
article. I
(finally)
accessed some
of your STOE
articles but
could not find
mse42my.pdf. I
am not exactly
sure to what
you are
referring.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Some
aspects of
your work have
commonality
with mine. I
use detectable
photons as the
basis of
everything,
you use hods.
We are both
trying to show
that
everything
follows from
that one
particle. I
prefer my
approach
because
photons are
detectable and
have
properties to
which my work
must comply.
The wave
functions in
my article are
their
restriction.
Like you I
prefer
Newtonian
mechanics to
relativity and
quantum
mechanics.
There are many
observations
that confirm
relativity and
quantum
mechanics that
don't match
Newtonian
mechanics. My
work must
match those
observations. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">I
have found
that the
toroidal (John
W and Martin
vdM) or
rotating
photon (Viv
R) model of
an electron is
one in which
an electron
consists of
a photon of
the
appropriate
energy (≈
0.511 MeV at
rest) makes
two
revolutions in
one
wavelength. It
is this that
gives the
electron spin
(angular
momentum) of
half hbar. The
E - mc^2
relationship
between mass
and energy is
mass is the
photon
rotating twice
within its
wavelength.
Unlock its
angular
momentum gives
it energy E =
mc^2. As the
particle moves
its structure
means that it
is
automatically
subject to the
special
relativity
corrections of
mass, length
and time. I
make mention
of other
properties,
although as
Richard G
pointed out,
my derivation
of the
magnetic
moment of the
electron was
in error in
that paper. I
have now
corrected
that.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">I
suggest that
all other
particles,
stable or
otherwise, are
composed of
appropriate
rotating
photons and
have derived
the structure
and properties
of many of
them based
upon that
model. If this
is the
structure of
all matter,
the special
relativity
corrections are
due to the
rotating
photon being
"stretched" as
it moves.
They are not
some
mathematically
imposed
restriction.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">You
will find that
when you apply
Newtonian
mechanics to a
photon with
those
waveforms and
mass, you get
Einstein's
general theory
of relativity
for space
outside
matter, ie,
gravity as we
know it. The
exception is
that there is
no singularity
at the
Schwarzschild
radius and
therefore no
black holes.
That doesn't
prevent the
existence of
massive
objects, which
is all
astronomers
are detecting.
It is the
theoretical
physicists who
call them
black holes.
Astronomical
measurements
are still
thousands of
times less
accurate than
required to
distinguish
between my
metric and the
Schwarzschild
metric. I am
confident that
when they do
improve, my
metric, with
the
gravitational
singularity at
the centre of
mass and not
at the
Schwarzschild
radius, will
hold. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">You
will then
recognise that
gravity is not
inverse square
law. If you
studied
Newton's
Principia you
will see that
he also worked
out what would
happen if
gravity was
stronger or
weaker than
inverse square
law. His
observations
showed that
the planets
were following
the
trajectories
predicted by
the inverse
square law
calculations,
leading to the
conclusion
that
gravity is controlled
by inverse
square.
However, not
all
observations
follow the
inverse square
law.
Conclusion -
gravity is not
inverse
square. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">The
only reason
the Big Bang
theory was
accepted was
because early
calculations
showed that,
if gravity was
inverse square
law, an
infinite
static
universe would
collapse in on
itself through
gravitational
attraction.
That clearly
hasn't
happened.
Einstein tried
to overcome it
with his
cosmological
constant. His
field
equations only
allowed for an
expanding or
collapsing
universe.
Since
forwarding the
Big Bang
theory, they
have done
everything to
match a new
observation
into that
theory,
ignoring the
other
possibility.
If gravity
isn't inverse
square, other
possibilities
exist. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Again,
using
Newtonian
mechanics to
the structure
of the photon
I propose,
shows that
gravity is
either inverse
square law or
stronger for
space outside
matter: Or
inverse square
law or weaker
for space
inside matter,
something that
applies to the
structure of
the universe
as a whole. If
you have a
universe in
which gravity
is weaker than
the inverse
square law by
an amount
predicted from
my photon's
wave function,
then an
infinite
static
universe will
not collapse
under
gravitational
influence.
Photons from
distant
galaxies will
still be
redshifted, as
observed.
Things like
gravitational
lensing still
occur,
although I am
not convinced
that
everything
forwarded as
gravitational
lensing is
actually
gravitational
lensing. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Forget
the Big Bang
theory.
Therefore no
inflation
(straight
after the Big
Bang). Dark
matter is
required to
explain the
more rapid
rotation of
galaxies.
Based upon
other aspects
of inverse
square law,
galaxies and
even clusters
of galaxies
would be
expected to
rotate about
their centre
of mass much
faster than is
determined
from gravity
alone. The
detected
components in
galaxies will
cause them to
rotate
significantly
faster than
predicted from
either
Newtonian or
Relativistic
gravity. That
statement can
be justified
by
experimental
evidence
(courtesy of
Uncle Sam
whose work is
much
appreciated at
least by this
author) beyond
the mere
detection of
more rapidly
rotating
galaxies.
Forget about
dark matter.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">As
for dark
energy, it is
based upon the
observation of
apparently
anomalous type
1a supernovae
(SNe1a)
intensities.
In order to
match the
observed SNe1a
intensities to
my work I need
our galaxy to
be in a region
of space with
a density of
about 10^-24
kg/m^3. This
is about 1,000
times the
density
required under
the Big Bang
theory for the
universe to
exist in its
current form
some 23.8
billion years
after the Big
Bang. But
there are many
problems with
that figure.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">The
odds of the
universe
having this
structure 13.8
billion years
after the Big
Bang are about
1 : 10^60. (I
doubt that any
Big Bang
proponent
would risk
his/her money
when she/he
had only 1 :
1000 chance of
winning. If
they are, I am
prepared to
wager against
as many as are
prepared to
show their
faith in low
odds.) Yet
they expect us
to believe the
whole universe
exists because
of 1 : 10^60
odds and we
are the one
universe in
over 10^60
other
universes in
the
multiverse.
Talk about
having lost
touch with
reality.
Another
feature is
that a "quick"
(i.e., long
and involved)
calculation
will show that
the density of
the visible
universe is
higher than ≈
10^-27 kg/m^3.
Thirdly, for
an expanding
universe in
which there is
only light
from up to
13.8 billion
light years
distance,
there are far
too many stars
visible in the
Hubble Extreme
field images
(again, thanks
Uncle Sam). I
am sure some
of you can
think of other
observations
as well.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Going
back to dark
energy. In
order to match
the observed
SNe1a
intensities,
my model
requires a
local (<
10^8 LYs
radius)
density of
just over 1 x
10^-24 kg/m^3,
dropping down
to a
background
average of ≈ 8
x 10^-26
kg/m^3. Or
another effect
I haven't yet
included. Both
of these
figures are
much higher
than the
"official"
(i.e. matches
their theory)
value of ≈
10^-27 kg/m^3.
A brief look
at the stars
in our local
region, ≈ 10^6
LYs radius,
gives the
number of sun
mass stars, ≈
200 x 10^9 for
Milky Way, ≈
300 x 10^9
Andromeda, and
others, gives
a star mass
density
approaching
10^-25 kg/m^3.
Here is where
astronomers
are a little
vague. The
mass of
galaxies is
usually quoted
in terms of
number of
stars of the
same mass as
our sun
(luminous
matter). They
also add to
that figure,
the
observation
that the
average galaxy
has about ten
times as much
matter in a
gas and dust
cloud
surrounding
the galaxy
(non luminous
matter) as
there is
luminous
matter. Adding
the mass of
the non
luminous
matter to the
mass of the
luminous
matter, if it
isn't already
included, gets
me close to
10^-24 kg/m^3.
I admit I am
not quite
there. I am
not out by as
much as a
factor of 24
times the
observed mass
of the
universe and
that is
without dark
matter to make
the galaxies
rotate faster
than they
should under
gravity alone.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">There
are many other
problems
associated
with the Big
Bang theory.
Just think
about the
additional
mass a galaxy
must have to a
receding
velocity that
gives a
redshift of
10. Perhaps
you know a few
more of them. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">In
summary, I
believe the
photon model
just forwarded
can be used
with the
rotating
photon or
toroidal
electromagnetic
field
structure of
matter
and Newtonian
mechanics give
a continuity
between
quantum
"weirdness"
and special
and general
relativity.
Much of what
is called
quantum
"weirdness"
can be
explained by
the structures
of the photon
and the
particles
composed of
rotating or
toroidal
photons. Yes
they need
refinement,
but we have to
start
somewhere. As
I said, the
object of my
communication
was to have a
general
discussion on
the nature of
light and
particles. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">I
append my
paper on the
electron
structure
FYI. <o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Regards,<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">Vivian
Robinson<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><Proposed
electron
structure.pdf><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
" class="">On
23/09/2016, at
1:08 AM, Hodge
John <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline; "
class="">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; "
class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"
class="">viv@universephysics.com</a><br
class="">
<a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br
class="">
</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br
class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;"
class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"
class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" class=""><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
class="" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;" class="">Virenfrei. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" class="">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br
class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br
class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>