<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I do not see how your example with electric forces applies to the
gravitational example.in van Flanders 1998 paper , or for that
matter to your model of an elementary particle. Has anyone ever
seen positron electron orbiting each other? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Consider two particles instantly at 10 and 6 Oclock send out a
force that propagates radially from their instantaneous position<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.C13B157F.C78754A3@nascentinc.com" alt=""
height="295" width="392"></p>
<p>A time of flight delay caused by field propagating spherically to
reach the other particle after it has moved around the orbit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This means there is an angle between the purely
radial from orbit center direction by an angle<span
style="font-size:18.0pt"> Θ<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This angle will give a force vector along the orbit path would
this not change the momentum?? <br>
</p>
<p>The only way I know Bohr atom works is because the proton is at
the center of the electron orbit so no matter where the electron
moves around the orbit it will experience a radial only force. <br>
</p>
<p>I believe van Flanders 1998 paper claims that ephemerus data was
calculated assuming instantaneous gravity force projection and
which seem to match visual position when corrected for the time
delay between sources and observer. And if the time delay for
gravity were introduced it would show up in orbit corrections not
actually seen. Is he making a mistake?<br>
</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 1/31/2017 1:35 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2888083b-5118-3e77-2779-f8202180f4e3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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=UTF-8"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"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;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"> <img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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: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>