<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>you find the information about mass on my web site
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> .</p>
<p>And you can find additional refinements for the electron on the
site <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a> .</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.10.2016 um 14:38 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:013501d223bc$65374330$2fa5c990$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<base href="x-msg://1692/"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 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;
color:black;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can you tell me where to find your paper
which discusses the aspect of any extended object must possess
the property of rest mass?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read it before but cannot find it in
my archives. I would like to review it once more.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 10, 2016 2:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a>; Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hello Richard,<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian
Robinson <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Richard, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Vivian <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Richard,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Albrecht
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">(And
you may have a look at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a>
) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 06.10.2016 um 15:12
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John and Vivian and
others,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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">https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia</a> ,
which is attached.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Oct 5, 2016,
at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">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><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">,
given by F = m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">.a.
Gravitational mass m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">g</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> is
different by potential energy
(PE) divided by c squared (m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">g</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> = m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> -
PE/c^2). Rest mass m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">r</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> is m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">
measured at velocity = 0 with
respect to m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">.
Relativistic mass m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">rel</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> is
the mass measured at </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">velocity
v wrt an observer. Invariant
mass doesn't exist because its
value depends upon its
position</span><span
style="font-size:18.0pt"> wrt an
observer, gravitational field
and velocity. In practice all
m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">i</span><span
style="font-size:18.0pt">, m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">g</span><span
style="font-size:18.0pt"> and
m</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt">r</span><span
style="font-size:18.0pt"> will
be measured the same within
experimental error,
essentially making them
invariant. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt">IMHO,
you are quite correct about
aspects of the standard model.
There are some very serious
problems.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt">Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt">Viv </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
06/10/2016, at 4:08 AM, John
Duffield <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">Viv:</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">Good
stuff. I empathize
totally.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">Re
photons and mass, do
make sure you call it<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>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/"><span
style="color:purple">Einstein’s E=mc² paper</span></a>, where the last
line reads thus:</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN">“If the
theory corresponds
to the facts,
radiation conveys
inertia between the
emitting and
absorbing bodies”.</span></i><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">I say
this because IMHO the
sort of people who
bang on about gluons
or the 8<sup>th</sup><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>spatial dimension will use
anything cast
aspersions on people
like you. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">Regards</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099"
lang="EN-GB">JohnD</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in
0in;border-top-color:rgb(225,
225, 225)">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">General
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general">mailto:general</a>-<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vivian
Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>05 October 2016 09:58<br>
<b>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">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Rear Richard and others,</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">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. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Chandra, is that the kind of paper
you would like
presented at your
next SPIE
conference? It will
be more advanced by
then. </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Cheers,</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Vivian Robinson</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">On
29/09/2016, at
11:25 PM,
Richard Gauthier
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Hello
Vivian, Chip
and others,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">
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"><span
style="color:purple">https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health</span></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"><span
style="color:purple">https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</span></a> . <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">
Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"><Microvita
A New Approach
to Matter Life
and
Health.pdf><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"><FTL
Quantum Models
of the Photon
and the
Electron.pdf><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">On
Sep 24, 2016,
at 8:34 AM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span
style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Hello
Vivian,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">
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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">
Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">On
Sep 22, 2016,
at 8:55 PM,
Vivian
Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><span
style="color:purple">viv@universephysics.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Hodge,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">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></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">I
append my
paper on the
electron
structure
FYI. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Vivian
Robinson<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"><Proposed
electron
structure.pdf><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">On
23/09/2016, at
1:08 AM, Hodge
John <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com"><span style="color:purple">jchodge@frontier.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"
lang="EN-GB">_______________________________________________<br>
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">viv@universephysics.com</a><br>
<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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
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">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE
1.0pt" border="1" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
height="29" border="0"
width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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"><span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
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">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br>
<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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
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">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt" border="1"
cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1026"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
height="29" border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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"><span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</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>