<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>Your comment is reading my diagram wrong. Two identical particles
at 6 and 12 o'clock send out a force in a circular pattern
centered on their own position i.e. 6 and 12 o'clock, they move
counter clock wise.<br>
</p>
<p>due to finite transmission this force reaches the rotating
particles at 10Oclock and 4 o'clock respectively. <br>
</p>
<p>At 4 Oclock the force looks like it comes from the retarded 12
Oclock position, but the force vector is no longer pointing to the
orbit center but along the 4 to 12 Oclock line. This force then
has a radial and tangential component. The tangential component is
always in the direction of the motion and would accelerate each
particle <br>
</p>
<p>If the force is transmitted at the speed of light and the
particles have slow motions the effect is small, which is the case
for gravity measurements addressed by Flandern's paper but
measureable.</p>
<p>If particles are moving at the speed of light the progress around
the circle would equal the diagonal, so the force from 12 would
intersect the particle from 6 at about 3 Oclock. Now the
tangential force is obvious and nearly as big as the radial
component. In your elementary particle model you get around this
by assuming an orbit central force field that has a minimum
precisely at the orbit radius. Ok that will work, but assuming
such a force field is a new mystery, <br>
</p>
<p>best</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><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 2/6/2017 8:09 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:afff60ea-40f3-5585-2d97-74cd25803aa9@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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.D9168DE3.8281E59E@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</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 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>