<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hello Richard,</p>
<p>that are correct equations which you have listed here for
Newton's description of mass and its rules. But that does not
answer the question what the physical mechanism is, which causes
inertia.</p>
<p>You may compare the situation with Galileo's law of free fall.
His law was correct, even today it is accepted. But also this law
does not give us any information of why an object falls down in a
gravitational field. That is a similar situation like Newton's law
of motion. We are asking for the next step.</p>
<p>As an explanation for the mechanism of inertia I know two
theories. One is the Higgs model, which is believed by main stream
but delivers numerical results which are wrong by many orders of
magnitude. The other one is the mechanism which I have proposed.
It is not accepted by main stream (but by many colleagues outside
main stream) and it delivers precise results. In this model the
mass depends on the radius (only), and in practise the radius can
be determined classically by the magnetic moment if there is
electrical charge. <br>
</p>
<p>You are saying that the mass is independent of the radius. Here
please look at the Bohr magneton. It says (for the electron)</p>
<p>Magnetic moment = (e/m) * h(bar)/2. If this magnetic moment is
classically calculated on the assumption that an elementary
charge e is orbiting with speed c (which is necessary for
dilation), then the magnetic moment depends linearly on the
radius. So, m must be inversely proportional to the radius; which
is exactly what my model of mass says. <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.10.2016 um 05:37 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E0EC886B-33B6-4EAD-B3C9-178B379B9D0F@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hello John, Allbrecht and all,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> As you know, I have a different approach to a
massive particle's inertial mass. Normal photons don’t have a
rest mass but they do have an inertial mass hf/c^2 as I think
Martin at least would agree based on “Light is Heavy”. When a
photon model (whether an uncharged photon-like object with
spin 1 or a charged photon with spin 1/2) curls up to form an
electron model, the photon model still has inertial mass =
hf/c^2 which for the electron model is hf/c^2 = Eo/c^2 =
mc^2/(c^2) = m. The inertial mass m of a resting electron is
conventionally just called the mass m of the electron. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> The electron model's inertial mass m is also
derived from Newton’s 2nd law applied internally to the
electron model: F= dp/dt = ma where “m” is the circling
photon-like-object’s inertial mass, “a" is the circling
photon-like-object's centripetal acceleration a = c^2/ R= w^2
R where R is the radius of the photon-like-object’s circular
loop, and F=dp/dt is the time rate of change of the
photon-like-object's circulating momentum hf/c = Eo/c = mc^2
/c = mc. Here, dp/dt = pw = mcw (where w is the angular
velocity omega of the circulating photon-like object). </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Solving this Newton’s 2nd law equation gives
the circling photon-like-object's inertial mass m = (dp/dt)/a
= (mcw) /( w^2 R) = mc/(w R) =(mc)/c = m which, as above, is
the inertial mass of the circulating photon-like object and
therefore it is the inertial mass of the particle with mass
being modeled (in this case the electron model composed of the
circling photon-like-object.) This derived inertial mass m of
the circling-photon-like-object electron model is independent
of the radius R of the circular loop and independent of
whether the loop is a single or double loop. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:27 PM, 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">
<div class="">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Dear
John,</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">this
can be answered, and it is not too difficult. Look:</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Photons
do not have a rest mass, true. But they are never at
rest. The fact that they have no rest mass is an
extrapolation from real existing photons which have
some energy (and so mass) to (only theoretically
assumed) photons without energy.</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">And
if the photon would be at rest (and so have m = 0)
then it would not transfer any momentum. Not so
surprising!<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">It
is also simple to show that the angular momentum
(spin) is a constant independent from the actual
energy of the photon. That can be classically deduced.
Also this fact is not in conflict with my statement.
Do you want to see it calculated?</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Regards,
Albrecht</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Am
11.10.2016 um 05:50 schrieb John Williamson:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9207051FB@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 10pt;" class="">Dear Albrecht,<br
class="">
<br class="">
With the greatest respect, this view is far too
simple and you are simply wrong.<br class="">
<br class="">
Proof: photons are (rest) massless and yet they
transfer momentum.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards, John.<br class="">
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';
font-size: 16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF761302" style="direction: ltr;"
class=""><font class="" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b
class="">From:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br
class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday,
October 10, 2016 8:18 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard
Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] Proposed photon wave functions<br
class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom:
0px;" class="">Hello Richard,</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom:
0px;" class="">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.</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom:
0px;" class="">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.</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom:
0px;" class="">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
class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.10.2016 um
03:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<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=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"
target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">
<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="" target="_blank">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:
break-word;">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="" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div style="margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;"
class="">Richard,</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;"
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.</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;"
class="">Albrecht<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;"
class="">(And you may have a
look at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>)<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.10.2016 um 15:12 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
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="" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia</a> ,
which is attached.</div>
<div class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"
target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br 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=""
target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="word-wrap:
break-word;">John,
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
14px;">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
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span>,
given by F = m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span>.a.
Gravitational
mass m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">g</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is different by potential energy
(PE) divided by
c squared (m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">g</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>= m<span class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>- PE/c^2). Rest mass m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">r</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is m<span class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>measured at velocity = 0 with
respect to m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span>.
Relativistic
mass m</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">rel</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:
14px;"> 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
class=""
style="font-size:
large;"> </span><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;">wrt</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;"> an
observer, </span><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;">gravitational
field and
velocity. In
practice all m<span
class=""
style="font-size:
12px;">i</span>,
m<span class=""
style="font-size: 12px;">g</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and
m<span class=""
style="font-size: 12px;">r</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>will
be measured the
same within
experimental
error,
essentially
making them
invariant. </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;">IMHO,
you are quite
correct about
aspects of the
standard model.
There are some
very serious
problems.</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;">Cheers,</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
large;">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=""
target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote
type="cite"
class="">
<div class=""
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-indent:
0px;
text-transform:
none;
white-space:
normal;
widows: 2;
word-spacing:
0px;"
lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="WordSection1">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">Viv:</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">Good
stuff. I
empathize
totally.</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">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/"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span
class=""
style="color:
rgb(0, 0,
153);">Einstein’s
E=mc² paper</span></a>,
where the last
line reads
thus:</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><i
class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"
lang="EN">“If
the theory
corresponds to
the facts,
radiation
conveys
inertia
between the
emitting and
absorbing
bodies”.</span></i><i
class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"></span></i></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">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. </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">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></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">Regards</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(0,
0, 153);">JohnD</span></div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225); padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class=""
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><b
class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
class=""
style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"
lang="EN-US"><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general" target="_blank">mailto:general</a>-<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class=""
target="_blank">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=""
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">Rear
Richard and
others,</span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">Chandra,
is that the
kind of paper
you would like
presented at
your next SPIE
conference? It
will be more
advanced by
then. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">Cheers,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;">Vivian
Robinson</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
10.5pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">On
29/09/2016, at
11:25 PM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><br
class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hello
Vivian, Chip
and others,</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;"> 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"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">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"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> . </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;">
Richard</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;"> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><Microvita
A New Approach
to Matter Life
and
Health.pdf></div>
<div class=""><FTL
Quantum Models
of the Photon
and the
Electron.pdf></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">On
Sep 24, 2016,
at 8:34 AM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Hello
Vivian,</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
Richard</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">On
Sep 22, 2016,
at 8:55 PM,
Vivian
Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hodge,</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div 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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">I
append my
paper on the
electron
structure
FYI. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Regards,</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Vivian
Robinson</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><Proposed
electron
structure.pdf></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">On
23/09/2016, at
1:08 AM, Hodge
John <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" class="" target="_blank"
style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class=""
target="_blank">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=""
target="_blank">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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
class=""
target="_blank">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=""
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre 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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">"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 class=""
style="border-top-width:
1px; border-top-style:
solid; border-top-color:
rgb(211, 212, 222);">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class=""
style="width: 55px;
padding-top: 18px;"><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"
class=""
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
class=""
style="width:
46px; height:
29px;" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td class=""
style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 17px;
color: rgb(65, 66,
78); font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color:
rgb(68, 83, 234);">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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"
class="" target="_blank">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="" target="_blank">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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
class="" target="_blank">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="" target="_blank">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 class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top-width: 1px;
border-top-style: solid; border-top-color:
rgb(211, 212, 222);" 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: rgb(65, 66, 78); font-size:
13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Virenfrei.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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: rgb(68,
83, 234);" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<table style="font-family: Helvetica; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); border-top-width: 1px;
border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(211,
212, 222);" 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:
rgb(65, 66, 78); font-size: 13px; font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height:
18px;" class="">Virenfrei.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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: rgb(68, 83,
234);" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>