<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>the solution to this apparent problem is not a property of the
electric field but a consequence of special relativity. So
applicable for all kinds of forces. I have mentioned "retarded
potential", and the according calculation has to take into account
relativity. So, textbooks about special relativity which also
treat retarded potential have the formal solution.</p>
<p>(If this would be a real problem or a real phenomenon in physics
we would have a violation of angular momentum at many occasions.)<br>
</p>
<p>I shall try to explain this in the following in a way which can
(hopefully) be a bit visualized.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.02.2017 um 21:47 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:72a7b6bd-34c5-bc58-22dd-95792619a80a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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:part1.01D1F262.CE11ADBE@a-giese.de" 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</span></p>
</blockquote>
I am not so sure that I understand this description. So I try to
describe the problem, as it appears initially, in my way. Hopefully
correctly. <br>
<br>
The apparent paradox is that the object at position 6 o'clock does
not see the opposite object at 12 o'clock where it is at that
moment, but at the past position 10 o'clock where it was when it has
emitted the field of the force. So one may conclude that the force
vector arriving at the position at 6 o'clock points to (or from) the
10 o'clock position. And so there is a component in the tangential
direction which affects the momentum of the object. Is this your
concern?<br>
<br>
But this conclusion, that it points to the 10 o'clock position, is
not correct. The force vector points to (or from) the position 12
o'clock. <br>
<br>
This does not seem logical at the first glance. But it is physically
correct. Because with respect to the frame of the moving object in
the opposite position the space is contracted (if following
Einstein) or the fields are contracted (if following Lorentz). This
contraction causes a turn of the direction of the force vector,
visible if Lorentz-transformed into the frame of the observer at
rest.<br>
<br>
This now is only a qualitative description. Maybe not satisfying.
But the precise determination has to be done by use of the according
Lorentz transformations. It is too lengthy to do it here. So I have
to refer to a description in a text book.<br>
<br>
I have one which does it and which I find well understandable. It
is: A.P. French, Special Relativity, Chapman & Hall. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:72a7b6bd-34c5-bc58-22dd-95792619a80a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt"><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 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 1/31/2017 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 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>