<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I think I need more time as well to investigate , this claim.</p>
<p>I need to get more information for the claim that the
instantaneous center of mass position of the sun is 8 minutes
ahead in its orbit from the apparent optical position. I'll see
if I can contact Van flanders and get the details of this
calculation. Although he says ephemera are calculated from
Newtonian non relativistic physics with infinite gravity
propagation and then the optical correction for light flight is
applied to get the observed location. Any astronomer should know
the answer , but most just deal with the optical right ascension
and declination and do not ever consider the gravity effects.<br>
</p>
<p>"vectors of any fields originating at a moving object do not
point to (or from) the visible position of its source but from the
advanced position, where the object is when the field is
received." obviously this is not true for sound , and I believe
would also not be true if there were an "ether"</p>
<p>"From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a
fixed position" , You are taking a theoretical view point , not an
observational view point. The sum and earth move relative to each
other in your theoretical view point, it looks as though the sun
is moving</p>
<p>"direction from which the photons arrive. That is obviously not a
field." Are you taking the QM approach? Photons are particles
their wave properties are debroglie waves not EM waves. Otherwise
Em waves are traverse field disturbances are they not.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Lastly I feel there is a confusion in relativity discussions
between local experiments like the Michelson Morely that happen
inside a physical structure, which correspond to coordinate frames
in SRT vs. when we look outside the coordinate frame. The
statement that one cannot tell if we are moving is obviously not
true when we look outside our own frame, i.e. our motion relative
to the cosmic background. As you know from my Vigier 10 paper. I
am working on the possibility that space is an internal perceptual
phenomena like any other personal appearance, and therefore
connected the material background from which we are built.
Therefore as long as we compare observations made within one space
attached to one configuration of material we get the maxwell,
Lorenz , SRT, and now Lienard-Wiechert as consistent mathematical
formulations. Thus as my Vigier paper points out SRT is derivable
by Einstein because the thought experiments leading to the
derivatin were carried out in Einsteins imagination space which is
hosted in the material of his brain. Classic EM is formulated in
the assumption that there is an independent classical background
space. If this assumption is wrong, Maxwell may be an over
simplification as well.</p>
<p>Do you have a reference for the derivation of the Lorenz
transforms from Maxwells Equations? What I've found in my texts
are usually statements that say it is true. I have not seen the
actual derivation that defines the coordinate frames independently
of the assumption that the physical laws in all frames should be
identical. Once you make this independent reality assumption then
one starts with the assumption that Maxwell equations have the
same form in two coordinate frames and asks what transformations
between these frames make that assumption true? But that is
circular reasoning. <br>
</p>
<p>This reasoning is especially irritating for people like me who
are exploring the possibility that Aristotle was wrong and Plato
was right. We only see the shadows of reality not reality itself.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><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 2/14/2017 1:12 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35616a9c-fa25-4209-b7ec-26b023da0fc8@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>it is in fact not necessary to follow Einstein's version of
SRT. I for myself follow the version of Hendrik Lorentz as it is
based on known physical facts, not on fictitious assumptions
about space-time. However there are relativistic facts which are
obvious and independent of any formal version of SRT. That is
the contraction of fields and the dilation of periodic
processes. And these are for sure. The calculations according to
Lienard-Wiechert are based on these fact to my knowledge. At
present I have started to follow this derivation step by step
but will need a bit of time.<br>
</p>
<p>Do we indeed see the sun in a position which is about 8 minutes
retarded? From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as
being in a fixed position without making a big mistake. But even
if the sun would be moving in relation to our planetary system
that would not matter in this case The point is that the
vectors of any fields originating at a moving object do not
point to (or from) the visible position of its source but from
the advanced position, where the object is when the field is
received. </p>
<p>As far as I understand what you write (or van Flanders writes)
about the US naval data, these date describe the visible
position of the sun, so the direction from which the photons
arrive. That is obviously not a field. And if the direction of
the gravitational field would be towards the retarded position
then the orbital speed of the Earth would in fact change with
time. Which is not the case - But independent of this
consideration, this case seems particularly simple to me. As
stated above, from the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as
being in a fixed position. With respect to this position the Sun
has a constant gravitational field in all directions. If now the
Earth orbits the sun then this steady field will reach the Earth
as always coming from the centre of the sun. The motion of the
Earth is of no influence. - The interesting case for this
problem discussed at other places is the one of a double star.
If both stars orbit each other then the position of one star
changes permanently as seen from the other star. In that case
the direction of the field and the propagation speed of the
field are of relevance. But also for these cases the
relativistic calculation seems to show that the fields are
pointing towards the centre of the orbit following the
Lienard-Wiechert calculation of potential.<br>
</p>
<p>I shall come back here as soon as I am more familiar with this
case.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0460a32c-368f-27e5-9f84-1c875600a1e7@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I'll admit that I do not follow the consequences of Special
Relativity Theory (SRT) as it is worked out in the
Lienard-Wiechert potential. And since I identified at least a
half dozen derivations of these results in the internet I
assume the math is correct. However we have been to the Vigier
Conference and seen several presentations criticizing Special
Relativity <br>
</p>
<p>So rather than go through a derivation again, which I do not
doubt, I'm trying to make sense of the predicted results. Its
kind of like seeing SRT calculations and coming up with the
twin paradox. Something is wrong with SRT<br>
</p>
<p>The VanFlanders paper ( I can send another copy for anyone
who needs it) in the paragraph above "3.3 the solar eclipse
test" clearly claims that experimental data from the
Astronomical Almanac produced by the US naval observatory
shows that the earth is attracted to a point 8.5 min. ahead
of its optical position. This means the earth is
gravitationally attracted to where the sun is <i>Now</i> not
where the sun was when light was emitted.</p>
<p>The drawing below shows a simple example of how a light
emitted from a non-relativistic particle ( 30km/sec) at the
upper past position will not hit a parallel traveling lower
particle at some distance achieved during the flight time of
light and therefore will receive light at an angle pointing
to the retarded position. For earth orbit (30Km/sec) which is
10^4 less than the speed of light relativistic effects are
10^-8 , i.e.very very small.compared with Newtonian thinking,
but the displacement in 8.5 minutes is 15,300km nearly 3 earth
diameters offset which should be measurable.<br>
</p>
<p>I've just gotten some visitors and need to go, but we are
questioning SRT and the assumption that gravity may move at a
different speed. so just citing more SRT derivations is not
convincing. <br>
</p>
<p>Why is My diagram and "Eddington" and Flanders wrong? Is
Flanders lying about his Ephemeris data and its experimental
content? <br>
</p>
<p>Or are we just so brow beaten by SRT that whatever
derivations we develop from it must be right? <br>
</p>
<p>Got to go</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht
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 2/10/2017 12:33 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b26e6913-7ce4-42e8-2da3-c9e2b9f2ad58@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and All,<br>
</p>
<p>it is correct that the solution is a relativistic
calculation. In the figure below, the lower circuit "now"
gets the field from the direction of the higher (small)
circuit "now". Not so easily understandable by visualisation
but theoretically confirmed. It has to do with relativistic
contraction (of space / fields) and with relativistic time
synchronization.</p>
<p>If I look into Jackson, to the mentioned p486 and p487,
then eq. (14.17) describes (unfortunately only) the
transverse field. But if in this equation the product
(kappa*R) is replace by the value given in (14.16) then the
result does not depend on the retarded position P'. - It
would be better to have here the field component for the
longitudinal direction. But even this is an indication that
the retarded position has no effect.<br>
</p>
<p>Regarding the two charges in my model I assume that both
charges are getting the field of the respective other charge
by similar considerations. If we assume that charges
permanently emit exchange particles for the corresponding
field following QM in this respect, then there are exchange
particles leaving the one charge and reaching the other one.
So there is a field (a binding field) at the locations of
both charges. - But this statement is of course not a
precise one and I am going to present a detailed calculation
taking all this into account mathematically.</p>
<p>And by the way with respect to gravity: This discussion
which we have started here has kept the physicists busy
during the entire 19th century (which can be found at
Wikipedia) The discussion used the arguments of Van
Flanders, Wolf, and also myself (in the beginning) about the
influence of retardation to the perspective of the
gravitational force; but this discussion ended when Special
Relativity was introduced.</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d0077ef8-27a4-c466-66dc-35ac309cf91c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>What I know about retarded potentials exactly
corroborates my point</p>
<p>The potential is retarded yes but go backwards from the
4Oklock location of the advancing lower particle you will
see the force vector no longer goes through the orbit
center. It comes from the retarded position of the source,
which was at 12Oclock.</p>
<p>Does retarded potential not mean one must calculate the
potential from the point sources were in the past ? I'm
reading Jackson p468 right now</p>
<p>Its a typical formula first section with no explanation
of what they mean, but it is clear that my diagram is non
relativistic and that may be my error.<br>
</p>
<p>However a very slow moving particle very far away moving
transversely would have almost no relativistic correction
and still be seen. So in this case would the observer (
big circle) not see the source at the retarded past
position. And if that is the case would he not "see" the
force vector from the retarded past position?<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.A1A8DA99.A9448F36@nascentinc.com"
alt=""></p>
<p>And that is exactly Flanders Argument regarding the
motion of the sun relative to an observer on the earth.
The EM force vector points to the retarded position not
the current position. But gravity orbits are calculated as
though the force vector points to the actual Now position.
<br>
</p>
<p>In my diagram the past upper particle is at 12Oclock and
when the Light(EM INFLUENCE) gets to the lower particle at
4 Oclock it sees the upper particle at its past 12O'clock
position. Thus the force vector is no longer radially
symmetric but has a tangential component. <br>
</p>
<p>How your dual orbiting charge model traveling at "c"
works out I do not know. But if the E filed is squeezed in
the velocity direction then <br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part3.D93596BB.F1B035C8@nascentinc.com"
alt="">then the two particles would never influence each
other since the flat plane of E fileds would rotate and
always miss the</p>
<p>other particle. So what creates the field holding the
particles in orbit? <br>
</p>
<p>best<br>
</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 2/8/2017 12:34 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c816e475-f979-9708-efd1-9b5490991f46@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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:part9.468CEABE.A863D53A@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 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 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>