<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=gb2312">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body class="" style="word-wrap:break-word" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"£Í£Ó Ã÷³¯";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"£Í£Ó Ã÷³¯";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"£Í£Ó Ã÷³¯";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear friends,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Happy new year!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I think Chandra is right in that we are all ¡°wrong¡±. On the other hand we are all ¡°right¡± in very many respects. In particular, I must admit up front that I KNOW that I do not yet have the whole story. Why? Because, for
me, there remain alternatives in the signs I bring in for handedness and the implicit order of products and quotients. Only one of the (far too many!) alternatives can be that which precisely parallels the underlying workings of reality. If any! I am working
on this now with one of ex-students, who has talents in computing which far exceed mine. Maybe this will get us there, maybe not. Ok, I think the path I am on is the most promising of all of us, but I would think that wouldn¡¯t I?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I like much of Chandra¡¯s thinking, and agree that the partial basis is the nature of space. I think that the notion of a complex tension field, though, is just to simple to describe what is really going on, notwithstanding
that such an approach can bring in much of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Again, though I have read a lot Chandra¡¯s maths I haven¡¯t seen any mistakes in that either. As I have said many times before, though, I think complex is too simple in that it does not bring in the proper commutation relations of space. I do think that
the space-time medium, whatever IT is, is the basis for everything. This MUST, for me, bring in a level of complexity at the order of a Dirac algebra.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I do not see why its primary store must be tension. Why not compression? Better, why not something better described (though not wholly) as ¡°torsion¡±. One reason: then ¡°complex torsion field¡± would not work as you need
a spatial plane to wind stuff up in. Torsion is anyway, for me, still to simple. For describing this kind of ansatz you need maths which is up to the job to make progress. I would then need to go for something like ¡°hypercomplex field¡± since ¡°hypercomplex
torsion field¡± would be an oxymoron.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Coming back to a previous discussion, in neither Viv¡¯s and Richard¡¯s maths is there any error (I believe). It is where they start, the assumptions on which that maths rest where they differ.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It may seem, at first sight, that one or other may be ¡°right¡± but then the other is certainly ¡°wrong¡±, but even this is not the case. They could BOTH be right. It may be that there exists TWO sets of constraints on reality, one that it must conform to
an old , Pythagorean, 3D projection algebra such as that which Richard is using AND to the constraints of special relativity which Viv is bringing in.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>That for some electromagneticfieldplus configuration its stability depends on it being harmonic and well-confined in as many ways as are simultaneously possible within the higher constraints imposed upon it. In reality there is a hierarchy of such constraints.
Some are more important than others. For example energy conservation seems to trump anything else, you may think. Maybe not. What about angular momentum? Energy may be absolutely conserved, but angular momentum is also, and further is always a multiple of
a half hbar where it counts. Wow! No matter, for us poor creatures of space and time we cannot break either conservation rule experimentally, so must take both to be absolute.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now, holding to both does not exclude Pythagorean projection, or ¡°lateral shrinkage¡± to conserve angular moment. Angular momentum is not just a length: it contains two. It could be (and I think should be) linear in both.
And in time. It has three indices in a relativistic notation, not just one. If we stupid humans want to think of it as being constrained just by one then that would be our problem, would it not?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">All we can do for each other (and ourselves) is to constantly challenge. The basis for this challenge must always be in that which experiment reveals, not just that particular opinion we happen to hold at the time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I¡¯d like to thank both Viv and Richard for having challenged me in the past! That goes for many of the rest of you too.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As to the future: I think we need to find enough funding from somewhere to organize a meeting sometime this year. Online discussions are manifestly not up to the job of making the kind of progress we need.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Regards, to all, John. </span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF736330" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 06, 2017 5:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Vivian Robinson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="">Hello Vivian, </div>
<div class=""> I¡¯m going to try one more time for the benefit of you and others reading this. (See relevant snapshot from your article below.) Your model of a circling light speed photon with a transverse radius of Ro is like a small light clock on a moving
train with an observer traveling with the light clock on the moving train who sees the light make one round trip of circumference 2 pi Ro with the light traveling at c in time t (the Proper Time as measured by the person traveling on the train with the light
clock.) So 2 pi Ro = ct for the traveler on the train for one ¡°tick¡± of the light clock. But an observer watching the train and the light clock go by at speed v to the right measures the light in the light clock to make one full helical turn (for one ¡°tick¡±
of the moving light clock.) This light traveling at c for a time t¡¯ (as measured by the observer watching the train go by) for a helical distance c t¡¯ which is the length of the helically curving hypotenuse of the light-clock triangle. In the mean time the
train moves to the right a distance vt¡¯ as measured by the stationary observer watching the train go by. This helical distance ct¡¯ measured by the train watcher is given by (2 pi Ro)^2 + (vt¡¯)^2 = (ct¡¯)^2 where t¡¯ > t since the transverse radius of a light
clock on a moving train is not different from the transverse radius of the light clock on a stationary train, and the light travels further (taking more time) during one full tick as seen by the observer watching the moving train. According to special relativity,
space contraction for a macroscopic object is only in the longitudinal direction of the moving train, not in the transverse direction. There is nothing in your particle model that implies that this non-contraction rule in the transverse direction will not
also apply to your particle model¡¯s microscopic transverse radius Ro. When you substitute 2 pi Ro = ct into the above equation with t¡¯ you get (ct)^2 = (vt¡¯)^2 + (ct¡¯)^2 which when you solve this equation for t¡¯ gives t¡¯ = gamma t which is the standard
time dilation result for an observer watching 1 tick of the moving light clock during the train passing, compared to the time t measured for 1 tick by the person traveling with the light clock on the train. There is no contraction in the transverse direction
so Rv = Ro not Rv=Ro/gamma as you found. If your particle radius contracted as Ro/gamma, then the whole transverse height H of the moving train should also contract as H/gamma according to your calculation, which it does not according to special relativity.
So your particle¡¯s transverse radius contraction result Rv = Ro/gamma (equation 7 below) is unfortunately mistaken.</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><img id="68C4B3D7-8A2B-4326-90F2-09782C98D754" src="cid:404E49B3-398E-461C-84C9-CE9F4C36E1BE@hsd1.ca.comcast.net." class="" height="594" width="392"></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a 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"><span class="" style="font-size:13px">Richard,</span>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">I have acknowledged several times the error you pointed out in my derivation of the electron's magnetic moment. I have corrected it in my further work, acknowledging you. I have not yet published that and will do so some
time in the future. </div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">Regarding what you call my error in the .. <font class="" color="#4038ff">time of travel of light over the hypotenuse of a right triangle ..</font>, I am not sure that you read or understood my paper properly on that part.
The "hypotenuse" is not fixed. It has a forward linear motion as well as its spiralling helical motion. This is necessary to maintain the photon's axis at constant speed c. It is that which gives rise to the relativistic corrections. I am satisfied that it
is the electron's structure that is responsible for the special relativity corrections through the mechanism proposed. If you have another physical reason for the existence of the special relativity corrections please let us know. In your opinion my mathematics
is wrong. In my opinion my mathematics is correct and you have misread or not understood the physical processes involved in my model. Experiment is the best arbiter. </div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">You are very wrong about my use of the spin of a photon in an electron. In that paper I made no reference to the the photon's intrinsic spin. i have done that in the article I sent this group last year where I derived the
wave equations psi for photons. The spin I derived of the electron was the angular momentum of the photon caused by the mass of the photon (m = hnu/c^2) rotating at c on an axis with a radius r = hbar/2mc, giving angular momentum = half hbar. Due to the reduction
in radius I determined, that value of angular momentum is maintained at all relativistic velocities. That is one of the reasons "standard model" physicists insist that spin is not angular momentum as originally proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. They could
not visualise how a point particle (r < 10^-17 m) could have angular momentum. Despite your opinion, I am suggesting that is why a "point particle" can have angular momentum. It matches observation.</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">
<div class="">As for the rest of what you call fatal errors, I suggest you refer to experiment. I have made sixteen statements on how the rotating photon model matches observed electron properties and seven predictions of unknown or unrecognised properties.
I am wrong when those predictions don't match observation. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">Richard, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I suggest you are wrong because you misread my paper. You suggest I am wrong because I don't use your calculations, or whatever other reason. Experiment is the
only arbiter. I have invited you several times to point out where my model does not match observation. If you still insist I am wrong, why don't you point out where my predictions don't match observation. That is really all you need to do. </div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">I suggest we end this discussion unless you point out where my work does not match observation.</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">Sincerely,</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:13px">Vivian Robinson</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:11px"> </span><br class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">On 04/01/2017, at 5:43 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">Vivian and all,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> Thanks for your further comments.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I am not looking for a kind of average of our two electron models, which have some notable similarities. I am looking for a critical comparison of them as well as other double-looping electron models.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You mentioned Qui-Hong¡¯s double-looping electron model. It¡¯s interesting that both you and he made the same error in calculating the magnetic moment of your two models using the classical magnetic moment formula M=nIA , where n is the number
of current-carrying wire loops, I is the current in each wire, and A is the area of each loop. You both thought you got the ¡°right" answer (the Bohr magneton) for your models. But you and he both treated your double-looping charge models as having 2 current
loops (and therefore used n=2 in the formula) when in fact the same electric charge alternates going first around one loop and then the other adjacent loop, making the equivalent of 1 current loop and not 2, so n =1and not 2 in the formula. Using n = 1 in
the formula, you will get only half a Bohr Magneton. You acknowledged your mistake publicly. Qui-Hong did not reply twice to my emails to him at his Swedish university. Perhaps he never received my emails. In any case he never corrected the mistake in his
article, and neither did you in your article on page 8, Equation 14, which still shows the incorrect calculation result of 1 Bohr magneton for your resting particle model.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Your article still contains at least two fatal errors (which you tried to rationalize in the past by saying that your paper still makes good predictions, a strange rationalization for keeping errors that led to some of those good predictions,
in my opinion). The first fatal error (as I have pointed out to you in this list several times) is your incorrect calculation of the transverse change of radius of the photon loop with velocity, where you obtain the result R = Ro/gamma by assuming that the
time of travel of light over the hypotenuse of a right triangle (having a longer length than a side) is the same as the time of travel along one side of the triangle. This is similar to the calculation done in the standard moving light-clock thought experiment
for deriving T=gamma Tproper, i.e. relativistic time dilation for a moving clock. Your error leads to your result R=Ro/gamma where the correct calculation would lead to R being unchanging with particle velocity (which would be consistent with the special
relativity prediction of no length contraction in the transverse direction of a longitudinally moving relativistic object. So the correct conclusion from your calculation (rather than your mistaken conclusion) would be that the photon loop radius (like any
transverse length) would not change with velocity. This would make your model similar to that of Grahame Blackwell and would take away all the predictions that you derive from your faulty calculation leading to R=Ro/gamma.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> The second fatal error is in your supposed calculation of the de Broglie wavelength from your electron model, where you use the wrong formula for relativistic kinetic energy (based on mis-applying the correct relativistic energy-momentum pythagorean
equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 to apply to the correct relativistic linear equation E = KE + mc^2 , and therefore claiming that pc = KE which is incorrect), to derive the de Broglie wavelength invalidly. If you use the correct formula for relativistic
kinetic energy KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2 you won¡¯t get the de Broglie wavelength from your model.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> A third limitation of your model, in my opinion, is you did not make sufficient use of the de Broglie-Einstein equation E = hf = gamma mc^2 for a moving particle by setting the energy hf of the helically moving photon equal to the total energy
gamma mc^2 of the relativistically moving electron being modeled. Since the helically circulating photon will have a wavelength L given by L f = c , or f = c/L , substituting f = c/L into hf=gamma mc^2 gives L = h/(gamma mc) = (Lcompton)/gamma as the wavelength
of the helically circulating photon, where Lcompton is the Compton wavelength h/mc. You make no use of this relativistically-decreased circulating photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) in your electron model. Neither did de Broglie, because he didn¡¯t conceive of
the electron as a photon-like object. But you don¡¯t have this ¡°excuse¡±. Using this relativistically-decreased photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) along the photon's helical trajectory, and its corresponding wave vector k= 2pi/L , immediately leads to the relativistic
de Broglie wavelength lambda-deBroglie = h/(gamma mv) along the longitudinal axis of the helix, as derived from the longitudinal component of the wave vector k=2pi/Lambda along the longitudinal axis.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Finally, in your particle model I think you are assuming that the spin of the helically-moving photon itself is 1 hbar as for normal photons. But at relativistic velocities of your particle model, the total spin of your model as the photon
trajectory direction becomes more and more longitudinal will then approach 1 hbar and not hbar/2 , the spin of an electron at highly relativistic velocities. This would also be a fatal error of the model.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> If I am mistaken in any of these criticisms of your particle model, please explain which one or ones are mistaken. Thanks.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""> <br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 2, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a 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"><font class="" size="4">Richard and All,</font>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">In my referenced paper I outlined my position on the structure of the electron, namely that it was composed of a photon of the appropriate energy rotating twice in its wavelength. At the time I had not done a full literature
search and later found other references to such an idea. The first was by Compton, reference below, in which he proposed an electron as a ring of charge in 1915. His suggested dimension was too high. I also found the reference by Williamson and van der Mark,
1997, and Qiu-Hong Hu (¡Ö 2005), <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf" class="" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf</a>. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Several others have since forwarded similar models, perhaps you know their chronological order. This not surprising because the standard model treatment of the electron is as a point particle with properties such as charge,
mass, magnetic moment, spin and relativistic corrections attached in a Hamiltonian. It gets the right mathematical answer but doesn't give any physical description. I am sure you, like others, </font><span class="" style="font-size:large">are</span> <span class="" style="font-size:large">interested
in determining the physical reason behind something. </span></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Qiu-Hong and others treated the electron as a closed loop as in a hubius coil or mobius strip. That is fine for a stationary electron. It does not allow an electron to move, other than by mathematically attaching the SRT
corrections with motion.</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Treating the ends of the photon as not making a permanent join allows an electron to spiral or corkscrew its way through space as it moves. The constant speed of light determines that it will automatically subject the electron
to all the SRT corrections determined by Einstein and others. That motion describes a helix that the photon's axis follows as it spirals or corkscrews through space. Most important it both gives a physical reason for the SRT corrections and makes experimentally
testable predictions of unknown electron properties. In particular it gives an equation of how the radius of the rotating photon will decrease with velocity, which decrease has been measured to be similar to said equation.</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Richard, if your model acknowledges that the spiralling rotating photon gives rise to the SRT, we have significant agreement. If your model applies the SRT corrections to a hubius coil or mobius strip we have a significant
difference. I am not prepared to accept that mathematical equations are imposed upon any situation without a physical reason for said mathematics. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Science is not about compromise or consensus. It is about reason. Things happen for a reason. Mathematics can be used to describe that reason. IMHO it is best to determine the physical reason for an event and then check
the magnitude of the effect using mathematics. There have been many examples of mathematics successfully predicting events before the physics was established. Newton's gravitational theory and Einstein's SRT are two significant examples. There are many examples
of mathematics without a physical explanation leading science "up the garden path". Black holes, treating particles as waves and string theory are some examples. They are so well entrenched in science that scientists wonder why fewer people are prepared to
accept scientific explanations. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Swapping standard model mathematics that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason, for another approach that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason is not my idea of advancing science.</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">You will see from my paper that I have suggested many ways in which, under the rotating photon model, a moving electron's photon axis spirals or corkscrews its way through space in a helical trajectory describes many known
electron properties. In particular I suggest the electron's spiralling motion gives it all the SRT corrections. That paper also make a few testable predictions, </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">If you believe you can add further to a paper along those lines, particularly the dereivation of e and µB, it would be good. If you have an alternative derivation of the reason for the SRT corrections it would make interesting
reading. Its value would be in making testable predictions. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">IMHO I, and to some extent Qiu-Hong, have provided the "skeleton" of the rotating photon model. Williamson and van der Mark (JW and MvdM) provided some "flesh" around it. There is still a lot more to be done. All contributions
welcome. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">As I have said many times before, the value of a theory is in its ability to match observation and make testable predictions. If you wish to forward alternative ideas you need to make testable predictions of unknown properties.
Pointing out mathematical calculations that match some known observations without anything that is different and can be tested is not an advance. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">On that note I would like to ask the participants in the debate about inertial mass "What is the discussion about?" IMHO </font><span class="" style="font-size:large">mass is mass. </span><span class="" style="font-size:large">As
I mentioned below all masses, inertial, </span><span class="" style="font-size:large">gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant</span><font class="" size="4"> are related. Knowing any one enables any other to be determined from knowledge of the gravitational
field and velocity of the observer and observed. I agree with Einstein's concept that "..radiation (photons) convey inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" (Einstein A, Ann. der Phys.
</font><b class="" style="font-size:large">18, </b><font class="" size="4">p 639 *1906). I see no evidence to suggest he was wrong. It seems to me that a body composed of a rotating photon, or whatever other description is used, will have the same inertia as
the original photon. I am happy to be corrected if there is an experimentally measurable difference. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Cheers,</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Vivian Robinson</font></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""></div>
</div>
<span id="cid:9FE63D89-6AA5-496D-AAC4-29E5E3F1E910@hsd1.ca.comcast.net." class=""><PastedGraphic-1.pdf></span>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class=""></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">On 02/01/2017, at 3:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a 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"><span class="" style="font-size:14px">Chandra and All,</span>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px">OR</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px"><a href="http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron" class="" target="_blank">http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron</a></div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">Regarding mass. There are five different references to mass, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant. Most agree that inertial mass, m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">i</span>, is that given in Newton's
law, F = m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">i</span>a, F = force, a = acceleration . In its strictest sense, m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">i</span> is only constant at the first application of F. After that it accelerates, gaining velocity and
hence developing relativistic mass m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">rel</span>. Gravitational mass m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">g</span> is given W = m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">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 class="" style="font-size:12px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">Relativistic mass, m<span class="" style="font-size:12px">rel<span class="" style="font-size:14px">,</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 class="" style="font-size:12px">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px">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 class="" style="font-size:12px">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 class="" style="font-size:12px">e0h</span> for the observer at infinity, where h is the height of the local
observer. </div>
<div class="" style="font-size:14px"><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"> </span><font class="" size="4">when measured in the new time frame. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" style="font-size:14px"> nu</span><span class="" style="font-size:12px">e0i</span><font class="" size="4">.
However an external observer at "rest" will see that its frequency has increased according to the SRT correction. </font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" style="font-size:large"> mass of the </span><span class="" style="font-size:large">same</span><font class="" size="4"> 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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" style="font-size:large">rotating
photon fundamental particles</span><span class="" style="font-size:large"> increase through SRT. When the car is slowed down, the increased </span><span class="" style="font-size:large">frequencies</span><font class="" size="4"> 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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">As another example, consider the situation of a shell fired upwards from a </font><span class="" style="font-size:large">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 class="" size="4">barrel its new particle rotating photon frequencies remain the same. Even though its velocity reduces as it gains potential energy, giving
a </font><span class="" style="font-size:large">SRT time frame </span><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">The points of the above are:-</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">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 class="" style="font-size:large">observation and</span><span class="" style="font-size:large"> SRT/GRT
(black holes and related phenomena excluded - Einstein didn't agree with them). </span></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Happy new year,</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4">Vivian Robinson</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>