<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi!</p>
<p>No, it is not the point that 'Albrecht has some other ideas'. But
it is the situation solved by the treatment of "retarded
potential" as I have already written. This is classical Main
Stream physics. <br>
</p>
<p>I can only repeat to refer to textbooks about retarded potential
which is besides my favourite French the well known
Landau&Lifschitz about the so called Lienard-Wiechert
potential (and I think also in Jackson). From that calculation
follows that the forces arrive in a radial direction at the
particles / charges and so there is no tangential component. <br>
</p>
<p>Van Flanders has obviously overlooked this fact which is - to say
it again - standard classical physics.</p>
<p>Best, Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ddf67d39-119e-0554-1273-7b3f4610e861@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 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 2/5/2017 5:26 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-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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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:part5.34620532.33E0123F@a-giese.de"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>