<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I agree one must integrate the effect, but since the
instantaneous snapshot shown below generate a small but not zero
tangential force along the trajectory if you rotate the entire
diagram by an infinitesimal angle the same force will move around
the cycle in the same direction , so there would be no
cancellation but an accumulation of the tangential force build up.</p>
<p>I believe the only way to avoid the problem is to have an
attractive force at the center so only radial force fields are
encountered, or have infinite propagation speed which is what TOm
Vam Flandern's paper tried to prove.</p>
<p>Albrecht has some other ideas</p>
<p>Best, 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 2/5/2017 5:26 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-f11d112e-e338-4304-9917-5b7634fc0a8c-1486344379031@3capp-webde-bs15"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hey Wolf:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The actual force at any reception point is not just that
from one position of the sending charge, but an integral
over all positions of the sending charge intersecting the
past light cone of the sender. I don't know what the answer
is and I'm too tired at the moment to do the math. Looks
too like it might be very involved! Cone intersecting a
spiral, etc. 3/4-D, lots of unknown integrals....</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, a positron-electron pair should be essentiall
invisible as it is charge nutral, i.e., won't interact with
our only agent of "seeing." Except ...??</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---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,
05. Februar 2017 um 21:47 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous
gravity force</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<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?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Consider two particles instantly at 10 and 6 Oclock
send out a force that propagates radially from their
instantaneous position</p>
<p><img alt=""
src="cid:part1.CDF707F9.E4883727@nascentinc.com"
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>
<p> </p>
<p>This angle will give a force vector along the orbit
path would this not change the momentum??</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.</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?</p>
<p>best,</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/2017 1:35 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>regarding the <i>speed of gravitational
influence</i>:</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.</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.</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</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<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.</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.</p>
<p>I would be very curious to read how your "one
way out" formulates this problem.</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</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<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 style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu';
return false;" target="_blank"><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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] light
and particles group</div>
<div>
<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"
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 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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de'; return
false;" target="_blank">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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">"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>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border:
none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">"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>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>