<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>two points about this:</p>
<p>1.) By the normal definition of aberration the top part of the
drawing of van Flanders, Fig. 2, is aberration, i.e. the case if
the target is moving. If our astronomers look at distant stars
then theses stars show a periodic displacement / aberration caused
by the periodic motion of the earth.</p>
<p>2.) It becomes more and more obvious to me (and I find it really
surprising) that any kinds of "bullets" show aberration in the
appropriate situations, but fields (like the electric field and
also the gravitational field) do not show aberration. - For
electric fields this is said - and derived - in my textbook about
relativity.<br>
</p>
<p>This has an amazing consequence. As photons do show aberration it
is obvious that photons are not fields or waves but are bullets. -
What do you think?</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.02.2017 um 06:16 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:eb7552ca-5c3c-7bfb-24b0-4b3ab49c2d9a@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>"The motion of the Earth is of no influence." on page three of
the Flandern's paper you will find a comparison of the earth vs
the sun movingsituation</p>
<p>Flandern claims as shown in figure 2 that view from source
stationary or observer stationary makes no difference in one
case it is called aberration in the other time delay, both get
the same angle and the same apparent optic location <br>
</p>
<p>best again</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 2/14/2017 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:part3.BE401C31.1ACF9628@a-giese.de"
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:part4.2D0A3B74.E0BD54D7@a-giese.de"
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:part10.4C35EB37.4D426C41@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 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 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>