<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Vivian, <div class=""> Thanks for your further explanations.<div class=""> Our approaches to modeling the electron are so similar in various ways, it would be great to get convergence. Both are independently obtained double-looping helical models of a relativistic electron. In both cases there is light speed movement along the helical (not spiral) trajectories. Both approaches claim to derive the de Broglie wavelength. In both approaches the radius of the helical trajectory is claimed to reduce with increasing speed of the electron. In both cases the relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron plays an important role. In both cases special relativity is built into the geometry of the helical motion. Since each of us favors our own model, it may be time for an objective third party to compare and contrast the two models. Grahame Blackwell has a third electron-modeling approach which could be included in the comparison. John and Martin’s 1997 electron model and John’s current model could be included. Alex’s bag model. Anyone else’s model to be included?</div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class="">viv@universephysics.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252" class=""><base href="x-msg://130/" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><span style="font-size: 14px; " class="">Chandra and All,</span><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">Referring to the discussions about special relativity theory (SRT), I make the following comments. That it was developed from theoretical (mathematical/goemetrical or other) considerations does not make it wrong. The <b class=""><u class="">ONLY</u></b> thing that makes SRT wrong is that it does not match experiment or observation. To the best of my knowledge there is no experiment or observation that contradicts SRT. There are at least two possibilities that make SRT calculations match experiment. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The SRT corrections are inherent in the structure of all matter particles. in other words they are automatically invoked with motion.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">OR</div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The SRT corrections are an inherent property of space. They are applied mathematically and no physical explanation is either available or needed.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">This discussion group has previously given an in depth coverage of the electron being composed of a rotating photon, toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever, in which the photon makes two revolutions within its wavelength. The issue of whether the rotating photon formed a closed loop, like a hubius coil or a mobius strip, or formed a spiralling helix. At rest they are equivalent. The only difference is when they move. If the loop is closed and the structure is already traveling at c, no further motion is possible because it would require the loop or parts thereof to travel at superluminal speed (> c). This can be overcome by applying point 2 above and saying that the SRT corrections are an inherent property of space that can be applied as necessary. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">This is overcome if the photon spirals through space as the particle moves. This requires the electron to move in a direction perpendicular to the photon's plane of rotation. When this occurs its rotating helical structure automatically subjects the electron to the SRT corrections of mass, length and time with increasing speed. In other words the SRT corrections are an inherent property of the electron, or any other particle composed of the same rotating photon (or toroidal magnetic field) structure. You can find further details of the derivation of the SRT corrections at:-</div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><a href="http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron" class="">http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron</a></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">That presentation makes several testable predictions, including that the electron's diameter will diminish as its speed increases. The detection of the electron as a point particle at high energies matches that correction. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">My point is that SR is a theory that works and can be explained by an inherent structure of matter. Further the above paper makes a number of testable predictions. Why is it necessary to show that Einstein was wrong? Not understand something does not make it wrong. I suggest Einstein was correct with SRT. Further there is a satisfactory explanation for SRT corrections with velocity based upon "classical" electromagnetism</div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">Regarding mass. There are five different references to mass, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant. Most agree that inertial mass, m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>, is that given in Newton's law, F = m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>a, F = force, a = acceleration . In its strictest sense, m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span> is only constant at the first application of F. After that it accelerates, gaining velocity and hence developing relativistic mass m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">rel</span>. Gravitational mass m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">g</span> is given W = m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">g</span>g, W = weight and g = acceleration due to gravity. Again that is only constant at a particular gravitational strength, or when falling freely in a gravitational field. Rest mass, m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">res</span>, depends upon the frame of reference in which it is measured. The ultimate rest mass is the inertial mass of a body in flat Minkowski space-time, that is in the absence of any gravitational field and at rest with respect to the observer. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">Relativistic mass, m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">rel<span style="font-size: 14px; " class="">,</span></span> has two situations. A photon only has mass when traveling at c. The mass of any object increases with its speed with respect to an observer, which increase can be calculated using Einstein's SRT. Finally there is invariant mass, m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">inv</span>. With mass varying depending upon velocity and gravitational field strength, how can it be invariant? The answer is that if you measure the mass of an object at rest with respect to and at the same gravitational field strength as yourself, you will always get the same answer. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class="">This is explained under the rotating photon model in which the particle spirals as it moves through space with respect to an observer. First the effect of a gravitational field. In flat Minkowski space time, the rotating photon that makes up each individual sub atomic particle, has its base frequency, let is say nu<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">e0i</span> for an electron, nu for frequency, e for electron, 0 for velocity and i for infinity (flat Minkowski space-time). Moving freely in a gravitational field it will lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy. Its frequency is unaltered - the special relativity correction with increasing velocity matches its reduction in potential energy. When it is stopped with respect to another observer, the kinetic energy it had with respect to the new stationary observer is released. The electron's frequency now becomes nu<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">e0h</span> for the observer at infinity, where h is the height of the local observer. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; " class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">There is a time variation between infinity and height h, calculable from general relativity (GR). If the observer in flat Minkowski space-time moves to height h and repeats the frequency measurement, the result will still be nu</font>e0i<span style="font-size: 14px; " class=""> </span><font size="4" class="">when measured in the new time frame. </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">When a particle moves with respect to an observer, its rotating photon is seen to spiral with respect to that observer. As indicated in that paper above, that spiralling gives rise to the SRT corrections of mass, time and distance. If the observer is accelerated with the particle, he will observe the particle as still at rest. The acceleration experienced will have exactly the same effect as being in a gravitational field and the particle will be observed to have a frequency</font><span style="font-size: 14px; " class=""> nu</span><span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">e0i</span><font size="4" class="">. However an external observer at "rest" will see that its frequency has increased according to the SRT correction. </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">In all situations the mass of the particle is given by hnu/c^2. Irrespective of the situation, a local observer will always get the same answer when measuring the</font><span style="font-size: large; " class=""> mass of the </span><span style="font-size: large; " class="">same</span><font size="4" class=""> body, no matter what the circumstances. External observers will get different answers for the mass depending upon the relationship between observer, observed, gravitational field and velocity.</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">Think of it this way. Every step you take up stairs increases the frequency of every rotating photon fundamental particle in your body, compared to that which it had at your starting point. However your time zone changes such that, even with the most accurate measurement, you will never detect the difference. The monitoring device you left at your starting point would detect that difference (if it were accurate enough). (For fundamental particle, read proton, neutron and electron only.)</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">When astronauts are boosted into space by rockets, the energy used to boost them is converted through E = mc^2 into increased mass and hence the frequency of all their fundamental particle rotating photons. When the rockets are switched off they drift with an increased mass and rotating photon frequency from their starting point. Even though they continue to gain potential energy they lose an equivalent kinetic energy and their mass and rotating photon frequencies remain the same to both themselves and an external observer. The SRT correction due to slowing velocity is matched by the change in time due to potential energy, calculable from general relativity theory (GRT). </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">Take the frequency (mass) change associated when driving a motor vehicle. As the car accelerates its velocity increases and hence its mass and the frequencies of the individual </font><span style="font-size: large; " class="">rotating photon fundamental particles</span><span style="font-size: large; " class=""> increase through SRT. When the car is slowed down, the increased </span><span style="font-size: large; " class="">frequencies</span><font size="4" class=""> of the rotating photon particles are imparted from the particles to whatever caused the decreased velocity. If the change in velocity was due to the application of breaks, the break pads and disks are heated as the frequency is transferred from the mass of the car to them. If the change in velocity is due to the vehicle hitting a large stationary object, the energy will be imparted to those parts of the vehicle most affected by the velocity change, altering the shape of the vehicle. Panel beaters usually take care of small shape changes.</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">When astronauts return to Earth the additional frequency acquired by them and their vehicle is imparted to the air molecules as they use its effect to slow them down. The frequencies of their individual fundamental particle rotating photons will revert back to the same frequency they had before they embarked upon their journey. </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">As another example, consider the situation of a shell fired upwards from a </font><span style="font-size: large; " class="">cannon. It receives considerable energy from the explosive charge. This energy increases its velocity, energy and hence the frequencies of its individual rotating photons. After exiting the </span><font size="4" class="">barrel its new particle rotating photon frequencies remain the same. Even though its velocity reduces as it gains potential energy, giving a </font><span style="font-size: large; " class="">SRT time frame </span><font size="4" class="">change, that change exactly matches its time change due to gravitational field effects GRT. When the shell falls back to the ground, the frequencies of the individual rotating photon particles is imparted from the shell to the ground. </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">The points of the above are:-</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">1<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Mass is mass. Whether it is inertial, rest, relativistic, gravitational or invariant, all mass is still mass. Their differences are due to their circumstances of measurement and/or observation. </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">2<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The interchange between the different masses, and indeed other forms of motion, are well explained by special and general relativity theories (black holes and related phenomena excluded). </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">The question becomes one of "Why is it considered necessary to derive alternatives to the special and general theories of relativity? IMHO the spiralling rotating photon model of matter explains the origins of SRT and GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded). </font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">Although SRT and GRT were originally calculated mathematically they have sound physical principles based upon the rotating photon (toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever you wish to call it) model for the structure of fundamental particles that make up all matter. Not understanding the physics or hiding behind mathematics is not going to alter the agreement between </font><span style="font-size: large; " class="">observation and</span><span style="font-size: large; " class=""> SRT/GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded - Einstein didn't agree with them). </span></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">Happy new year,</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">Vivian Robinson</font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font><div class=""><div class="">On 31/12/2016, at 4:40 AM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" class="">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">Albrecht, your remark is important: “We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics.”<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); " class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); " class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class="">Albrecht: I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest my case for this ongoing debate on SR.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class=""> Physics is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in utilizing the nature-allowed processes in various permutations and combinations to create new techniques and technologies, have been behind the successful emergence of the human as the top species today.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">Elegant geometry and mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not save the human species from going extinct if we blindly keep on following the same current success tracks, both in science and in socio-economic philosophy.</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class="">Further, let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR is still presented as one of the core foundation that is holding the “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be challenge this platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned around.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class="">This collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”) has to be turned around toward<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">perpetual critical enquiry</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>of the “working theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured some ontological realities of nature; so they must be leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper ontological realities. I am trying to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further, before the end of 2017, I will write a full paper accommodating and explaining some of the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as old fashioned classical physics.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext; " class="">Chandra. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in; " class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: windowtext; " class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: windowtext; " class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class="">bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of</b>Albrecht Giese<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:33 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><i class="">Chandra</i>,<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel that I should comment that.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the "running time". Also about "space-time" and about the necessity of a kind of an inertial frame. But in the other hand one cannot deny that for instance clocks are running more slowly when in motion. So, what about SRT in general?<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your concern. We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics. But the relativistic phenomena can in fact be based on physics. That was done for instance by Lorentz prior to Einstein's first publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888 derived from Maxwell's theory that fields contract at motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor found out - before Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent motion in elementary particles to explain dilation. All this is real physics, not geometry. Further Einstein's famous relation E = mc<sup class="">2</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>was found by others before Einstein and before Einstein declared relativity. For instance by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a bit different but the connection of both notions was seen).<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks in Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use Lorentz' relativity rather than the one of Einstein. And I have also undertaken to develop General Relativity following the concept of Lorentz in order to understand it at a task in physics, not in geometry. That explains gravity without any space-time curvature; it is in that view a weak side effect of the strong force. It is much simpler than the view of Einstein, because no need for four-dimensionality and Riemannian geometry. It explains dark matter quantitatively (for an example which I have calculated), and it has no need for dark energy.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum may be a usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of the forum of Physics Essays. But it may have the risk that this discussion will slowly come to an end. A meeting is a higher challenge for all who contribute and who attend, so it keeps all active. But if meetings are not possible any more, this will be better than to give up.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><i class="">Richard</i>:<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia. In my view that explanations are tautological statements, as you explain the mass of an electron by the mass of its constituents. Or you explain the mass of an object by its momentum, where momentum is essentially the same as inertia, just in a different context. - In contrast to that the mechanism that two objects bound to each other at a distance have inevitably inertia does not need any other assumptions or preconditions than the existence of a binding field and the existence of c.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-bottom: 12pt; " class="">Sincerely<br class="">Albrecht<o:p class=""></o:p></p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; " class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Good thinking, Richard!</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> I like your approach, especially that the derivation does not need SR.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">I have expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book, “Causal Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR does not represent good Physics.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> To me, the first criterion of a good physics theory is that it must guide us to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on nature. In theorizing such interaction processes, the “primary” parameters must relate to the inherent behavior-representing property of the object whose interaction process is being modeled. The interaction process is guided by nature’s rule (logic) that allows the entity to exist and/or interact with other cosmic entities (large or small). Our perceptible and observable universe is elusive but is not an illusion. This is because we can never measure (acquire) complete information about anything with all the necessary details. We are always “information starved”. So, we must not also describe the universe as “It from bit”. Interaction between “bits” generate data; which human minds interprets as information. Subjective interpretations of data by human minds as information, cannot be the ontological foundation of the universe.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> The running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from very short to very long periods. We measure the frequency of an oscillator (primary parameter) and then invert it to generate a new secondary parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do need the running time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it is not a physical parameter and hence the assertion that “space-time” is the new physical order of the universe, will only divert us away from fathoming nature’s ontological reality.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> There are many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory. For example, there are no physical inertial frame in this universe that can be used to validate SR postulates. All planetary platforms are undergoing accelerated motion in closed loop orbits!</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> However, I have postulated that the space itself is the stationary inertial frame of reference filled with Complex Tension Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation to perpetually propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant self-looped high-energy oscillations are the particles we experience. Their inertial properties have been modeled by us as “Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy exists in motion (as EM waves and particles) or in quiescent form (as the prime CTF). And 100% of the energy is contained by the CTF. No need to postulate separate Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are no exchange particles to facilitate various forces. “Forces” are the physically extended potential gradients generated in the CTF due to the complex physical motions of the CTF, which represent various particles. To develop a unified field theory, we need a single field that is capable of generating everything. The necessary postulates for unified field theory cannot be generated while accepting the primacy of the existing but self-contradictory, postulates behind the existing “working” theories.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Happy New Year!</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">I am sorry that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -0.25in; " class=""><span class="">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; " class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><b class=""><i class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">This Forum:</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>We will maintain this discussion forum.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Although, in future, I am thinking of splitting it up into several parallel discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to suggestions from all of you. [As before, the discussion forums do not need to be based upon the unified field, CTF only.]</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -0.25in; " class=""><span class="">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; " class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><b class=""><i class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Physics Essays:</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>You could also utilize the forum of Physics Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting journal has been running for over 25 years. It has page charge. But, then you can re-post it anywhere in the web after publication. The page-charge is much less than attending the conference. </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Sincerely,</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; " class="">Chandra.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); " class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in; " class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; " class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; " class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class="">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class=""><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>; Mark, Martin van der<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class=""><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class="">Hello all,<br class=""> Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.<br class=""><br class=""> Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and Momentum at <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class="">https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2</a> . It is I think relevant to all who have circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and other particles.<br class=""><br class=""> What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is composed of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If we start with Newton's second law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where dp/dt is the time rate of change of the circling vector momentum p = Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the circling photon-like object, and A is the centripetal acceleration c^2/R of the circling photon-like object (where R is the radius of its circle), we find with very easy math (and using the circling vector relation dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial mass M = (dp/dt)/A = (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is, the inertial mass M of an electron (if it is composed of a circling photon-like object) is derived from the circling photon-like object's energy Eo and its circling vector momentum Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is Einstein's equation for the energy content Eo of a resting electron of inertial mass M. <br class=""><br class=""> This result is published at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; " class="">https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained</a> . This derivation of the relation of the energy content of a resting fundamental particle to its inertial mass is done without using Einstein's special theory of relativity. Note: Einstein's 1905 article in which he first derived m = E/c^2 or E = mc^2 for a resting object by using his special theory of relativity is titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?”<br class=""><br class=""> Richard<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>