<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>regarding the <i>speed of gravitational influence</i>:<br>
</p>
<p>I have looked into the mentioned paper of Van Flanders in 1998
and particularly his arguments why gravitational influences must
propagate instantly, not at the speed of light. I do not follow
his arguments because he has overlooked an important point.</p>
<p>His argument (also that one cited from Eddington) is: If the
speed of gravitational propagation is limited (e.g. to c) then in
the case of two celestial bodies each body would not see the other
one at its actual position but at a past position. This would
destroy the conservation of momentum. - However, this is not the
case. <br>
</p>
<p>One simple example to see that this argument cannot be true. We
can imagine a set up of two <i>massive </i>bodies which orbit
each other and which are bound to each other by an electrical
force; this is easily possible by putting an appropriate
electrical charge of different sign onto both bodies. Also the
electrical force is, as we know, restricted to the speed of light.
But it is very clear that this set up would keep the momentum of
both bodies and would steadily move in a stable way.<br>
</p>
<p>How does this work? The phenomenon is the so called "retarded
potential". It has the effect that, even though both charges are
seen at a past position by the other charge, the force vector
points to the <i>actual </i>position of the other one.</p>
<p>If we now assume that gravity is a force (independent of what
Einstein talks about curvature of space), then the same rules of
retarded potential apply to gravity. And so there is no change of
momentum even though the effect of gravity is limited to the speed
of light.</p>
<p>Does this provide some clarification?</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6436b706-e782-5056-30a0-e9d9238c74e2@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>