<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Al:</p>
<p>I think the "where is the evidence" argument is no longer
powerful because so many things happening in physics have little
or even contradictory evidence. I'm just reading Van Flanders 1998
"the speed of gravity" Physics Letters A250 1-11 which makes a
good case for gravity influences influences moving instantly - not
at the speed of light. <br>
</p>
<p>However I like your idea of only interactions - in fact I'm
developing a theory along those lines by modeling nothing as an
empty page and requiring material formatting of the page as an
explicit field of space cells. This still allows fields as a
shortcut for calculating interactions from multiple distant
cells, but nothing remains nothing, if there are no cells to host
interactions i.e. sources and sinks, then there is no influence
propagating. It takes some material to propagate influences. <br>
</p>
<p>I would be very curious to read how your "one way out" formulates
this problem. <br>
</p>
<p>One of my hang ups is that any visualization of material basis
for space implies a kind of permanent structural relationship
between sources and sinks - but objects do seem to move fairly
fluidly from place to place. Do sources and sinks move in your
vision, If so what do they move in?</p>
<p>best,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-a8d78138-8395-4545-a198-0f39483ba66c-1485066042967@3capp-webde-bap54"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Challenge for proponents of fields (all kinds: E&M,
Gravity, Tension, whatever): If the universe is finite,
then the field sources on the outer rind will be pumping
field energy into the void, the material universe would be
cooling down, etc. So, where is the evidence for such? If
the universe is finite but topologically closed, then it
will have certain "Betti numbers" for various forms which
will be closed, (see: algebraic topology texts), again there
should be some observable consequence from the these closed
forms. So (again) where's the evidence? Granted, current
tech may not be up to the task; but that would imply that
field theories have to be reduced in status to be virtually
religion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One way out: there are no fields, but interactions
between sources and sinks. Where one is missing, there's
nothing! In particular nothing emminating from sources
without regard for target-like sinks. Advantage: the math
works out without internal contradictions (divergencies,
etc.). Another advantage: from this viewpoint, there are no
waves, and associated divergencies. They are just cocek the
ptual Fourier components for the interactions. Useful, but
strictly hypothetical. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
22. Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Roychoudhuri, Chandra"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] light and particles group</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 8.0pt;
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.5in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
span.BalloonTextChar {
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0 {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
span.EmailStyle21 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle22 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(32,24,140);
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
text-decoration: none none;
}
span.EmailStyle23 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(153,51,102);
}
span.EmailStyle24 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(32,24,140);
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
text-decoration: none none;
}
span.EmailStyle25 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(0,51,0);
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
ol {
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
}
ul {
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
}
-->
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);">John M.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);">I am not the right
person to give you decisive answers as I have
not followed the math relevant to the origin of
Gravitational Wave (GW) and its spontaneous
propagation. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> First, you can
find out the current state of technology in the
measuring precision of (i) fringe fraction, F
(i.e., 180-degree/F) vs. (i) polarization angle
fraction F (90-degree/F). As I recall, much
better than thousandth of a fringe-shift is now
measurable. I do not know what is the current
best value of F for polarization measurement.
You can look up Gravitational Faraday Effect
also. I did “poke my nose” there in the past;
but could not find anything measurable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> Second, more
fundamental physics. All material based waves
and light waves require a continuous tension
field that steadily gets pushed away from the
original site of perturbation induced on the
field; provided the perturbation does not exceed
the restoration linearity condition (“Young’s
Modulus”, or equivalent). For, stretched
material string, the mechanical tension is T and
the restoration force is the “inertial mass”
“Sigma” per unit length; then string-wave
v-squared =T/Sigma. For light, c-squared =
Epsilon-inverse/Mu. Epsilon-inverse is the
electric tension and Mu is the magnetic
restoration force. These analogies are explained
in some of my papers; I have sent earlier.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> Now my very
basic question for the experts in GW: <b><i>How
do you define the GW-tension field?</i></b>
All spontaneously propagating waves require a
steady and continuous tension field in which a
suitable perturbation triggers the original
wave. What is the velocity of GW and what are
the corresponding tension and restoration
parameters? If you say, it is the same velocity
as “c”, for the EM wave; then <b><i>we have
some serious confusion to resolve</i></b>.
Are the tension and restoration parameters same
as those for EM waves? Then, why should we call
it GW; instead of pulsed EM waves? Or, <b><i>are
the two parameters really physically
different for GW</i></b>(should be); but
GW-velocity number just happens to coincide with
“c”?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> I took
Einstein’s explanation for the origin of Gravity
as the “Curvature of Space” literally, as the
Potential Gradient generated around any assembly
of Baryonic Particles. So, a pair of rotating
binary stars will generate a periodically
oscillating potential gradient. Whatever the
value of the effective gravity of a “stationary”
binary star around earth is; it would be
oscillating slightly when the “stationary”
binary stars start rotating around themselves.
But, this is not Gravity Wave to me. It is a
phenomenon of “locally” changing value of the
“curvature of space”; not a passing by wave.
Imagine the typical “trampoline demo” for
Einsteinian gravity with a heavy iron ball at
the depressed center. If you periodically
magnetically attract the iron ball to
effectively reduce the trampoline curvature; we
are not generating propagating GW; we are
periodically changing the local “curvature”! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> These comments
should give you some pragmatic “food for
thought”! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(0,51,0);"> </span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:14
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Chandra,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">I have one quick question for
you and the group to consider. You mention that
Maxwell connected the speed of light to the
properties of space (epsilon and mu). To explain
my question, I first have to give some
background which is accomplished by quoting a
short section of the previously attached paper.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">“Gravitational waves
(GWs) propagate in the medium of spacetime. They
are transverse quadrupole waves which slightly
distort the “fabric of space”. For example, a
GW propagating in the “Z” direction would cause
a sphere made from baryonic matter such as metal
to become an oscillating ellipsoid. When the
sphere expands in the X direction it contracts
in the Y direction and vice versa. The GW
produces: 1) no change in the total volume of
the oscillating sphere 2) no change in the rate
of time, 3) no displacement of the center of
mass of the oscillating sphere. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Point #3 addresses an important point.
If there are two isolated masses such as two
LIGO interferometer mirrors suspended by wires
[17], the passage of a GW does not move the
mirror’s center of mass. Instead of the mirrors
physically moving, the GW changes the properties
of spacetime producing a redshift and a blue
shift on LIGO’s laser beams. This difference in
wavelength is detected by the interferometer as
a fringe shift…”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">With this introduction, the
questions are:</span></p>
<ol start="1" style="margin-top: 0.0in;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should a GW effect the
permeability and permittivity of free space?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should the two orthogonal
polarizations of a GW produce opposite effects
on the permeability and permittivity of free
space?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Since epsilon and mu determine
the speed of light, should a GW produce a
different effect on the two orthogonal
polarizations of light?</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">If the answer to question #3 is
yes, then this suggests that it should be
possible to detect GWs by monitoring the
polarization of a laser beam. It is vastly
simpler to detect a slight difference in the
polarization of a single beam of light than it
is to detect the same optical shift between two
arms of an interferometer. The interferometer
encounters vibration noise to a much greater
degree than is encountered in the polarization
of a single laser beam. Also, multiple laser
beams could identify the direction of the GW
much better than an interferometer.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Perhaps this is off the subject
of the discussion group. But it is an example of
a subject which might be low hanging fruit that
could make a historic contribution to physics.
In the past I have made the suggestion that GWs
produce a polarization effect, but this
suggestion is lacking additional insight and
analysis to be taken seriously. Is there anyone
in this group with the expertise to contribute
to this study? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">John M. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri , sans-serif;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 21, 2017
11:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);">“Gravitational
waves indicate vacuum energy exists”, paper by
John Macken</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);">John M.: Thanks
for attaching your paper. <b><i>The title
clearly indicates that we really are in
basic agreement. The cosmic space has
physical properties.</i></b> I have
expressed my views a bit differently, that the
cosmic space is a <b><i>stationary </i></b>Complex
Tension Filed (CTF), <b><i>holding 100% of the
cosmic energy</i></b> in the attached papers
and in my book, “Causal Physics”. <b><i>If the
so-called vacuous cosmic space and the CTF
were not inseparable, the velocity of light
would have been different through different
regions of the cosmic space</i></b>!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> I just do
not like to continue to use the word “vacuum”
because, in the English language, it has
acquired a very different meaning (“nothing”)
for absolute majority of people over many
centuries. It is better not to confuse common
people by asserting new meanings on very old and
very well established words. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> Further, in
your support, the quantitative values of at
least two physical properties,</span> <span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Epsilon & Mu, of the comic
space have already presented as quantified
properties by Maxwell around 1867 through his
wave equation. Recall
(c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu). These properties of
the cosmic space were already quantified before
Maxwell by the early developers of
electrostatics and magneto statics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> I assume
that you are suggesting us that we need to
postulate and quantify other physical properties
possessed by this cosmic space (<b><i>Maxwellian
or Faraday Tension Field</i></b>?), so that
the “emergent dynamic particles” out of this
cosmic space would display all the properties we
have already been measuring for well over a
century.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> However, I
disagree, as of now, that cosmic space is
“space-time” four dimensional. Because, the
“running time” is not a measurable physical
parameter of any physical entity that we know of
in this universe. So, I assert that the “running
time” cannot be altered by any physical process.
<b><i>Humans have smartly derived the concept of
“running time” using various kinds of
harmonic oscillators and/or periodic
motions.</i></b> We can alter the frequency
of a physical oscillator by changing its
physical environment. Of course, this is my
personal perception, <b><i>not supported by the
entire group</i></b>. But, that is precisely
the purpose of this free and honest discussions
so we can learn from each other. As my
understanding evolves; I might change back my
mind and accept space as four- or even
thirteen-dimensional.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(153,51,102);">Chandra.</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:37
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'; 'Andrew Worsley'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'M.A.'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Dear Chandra and All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">You have said “</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">We definitely have
advanced our <b><i>collective understanding</i></b>
that <b><i>space is not empty and the particles
are some form of emergent properties of this
same universal cosmic field.</i></b></span><span
style="color: rgb(32,24,140);">” The idea that
space is not an empty void has not been
quantified in any model of spacetime proposed by
members of the group. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">I have concentrated in defining
and quantifying the properties of the vacuum and
the results are presented in the attached
paper. This paper analyzes the properties of
spacetime encountered by gravitational waves.
The conclusion is that spacetime is a sea of
Planck length vacuum fluctuations that oscillate
at Planck frequency. This model can be
quantified, analyzed and tested. It is shown
that this model gives the correct energy for
virtual particle formation. It also gives the
correct energy density for black holes, the
correct zero point energy density of the
universe (about 10<sup>113</sup> J/m<sup>3</sup>)
and generates the Friedmann equation for the
critical density of the universe (about 10<sup>-26</sup>
kg/m<sup>3</sup> = 10<sup>-9</sup> J/m<sup>3</sup>).
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">The reason for mentioning this
to a group interested in the structure of
electrons, photons and electric fields is that
the quantifiable properties of spacetime must be
incorporated into any particle or field model.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">John M.</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri , sans-serif;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:45
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Worsley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank">worsley333@gmail.com</a>>;
Light & particles. Web discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> M.A. <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu';
return false;" target="_blank">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Dear Andrew Worsely: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> This is a platform for ethical,
serious and honest discussions on scientific
issues that the prevailing mainstream platforms
have been shunning. We definitely do not want to
sow unsubstantiated distrust within this group.
<b><i>This not a political forum where
sophisticated deceptions are highly prized;
which has been intellectualized as
“post-truth”!</i></b> This is not a
“post-truth” forum.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> So, please, <b><i><span
style="color: rgb(192,0,0);">help us</span></i></b><span
style="color: rgb(192,0,0);"> </span>by
getting help from computer professionals before
repeating any further unsubstantiated
accusations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> If you can definitively identify
anybody within our group carrying out unethical
and destructive activities; obviously, we would
bar such persons from this group discussion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Dear All Participants: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Please be vigilant in maintaining the
essential ethics behind this discussion forum –
honestly accept or reject others’ opinions;
preferably, <b><i>build upon them. This is the
main objective of this forum as this would
advance real progress in physics out of the
currently stagnant culture</i></b>. While we
have not come to realize any broadly-acceptable
major break-through out of this forum; we
definitely have advanced our <b><i>collective
understanding</i></b> that <b><i>space is
not empty and the particles are some form of
emergent properties of this same universal
cosmic field.</i></b> This, in itself, is
significant; because the approach of this group
to particle physics is significantly different
from the mainstream. I definitely see a better
future for physics out of this thinking: Space
is a real physical field and observables are
manifestation (different forms of excited
states) of this field.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> Most of you are aware that our
SPIE conference series, which was continuing
since 2005, has been abruptly shut down without
serious valid justifications (complains from
“knowledgeable people” that “bad apples” have
joined in). We certainly do not want something
similar happen to this web discussion forum due
to internal dissentions and internal unethical
behavior.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Many thanks for your vigilance and
support.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Respectfully,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Chandra. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color: rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;"> Andrew Worsley [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank">mailto:worsley333@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Duffield<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra; ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Andrew Worsley, light and
particles group</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Could be a coincidence, but
some damn troll from the discussion group
(called Vladimir) has screwed up my email
which I have had problem free for the last 20
years- and my computer is now going
suspiciously slow.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at
7:44 PM, John Duffield <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='johnduffield@btconnect.com';
return false;" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chandra: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Please can you
add Andrew Worsley to the nature of
light and particles group. I’ve met him
personally, and think he has a valuable
contribution to make. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Apologies if
you’ve already done this, but Andrew
tells me he’s received a <i>blocked by
moderator</i> message. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>John Duffield</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>7 Gleneagles
Avenue</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Poole</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>BH14 9LJ</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>UK</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> John
Duffield [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='johnduffield@btconnect.com';
return false;" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 09 January 2017 08:34<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra'
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu';
return false;" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk';
return false;" target="_blank">member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk</a>>;
'John Williamson' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk';
return false;" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>;
'Martin Van Der Mark' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martinvandermark1@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='martinvandermark1@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank">martinvandermark1@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Andrew Worsley, light
and particles group</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chandra: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Please can you
add Andrew Worsley (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com';
return false;" target="_blank">worsley333@gmail.com</a>)
to the nature of light and particles
group. I’ve met him personally, and
think he has a valuable contribution to
make. He has described the electron as
being what you might call a quantum
harmonic structure. The electron in an
orbital is described by spherical
harmonics, the electron itself might be
described by spherical (or toroidal)
harmonics. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>JohnD</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>