<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>I shall try to give some answers.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.02.2017 um 20:45 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think that in the frame, which is our focus here, the sun is not
in motion. The consequence: Fact is on the one hand that the light
needs 8 minute from the sun to the earth. But that should not have
any influence to our view of the position of the sun seen against
its stellar background. The light coming from the stellar background
passing the sun has a steady state configuration at the positions
which are passed by the earth. So this delay of 8 minutes should not
be visible from the earth in this case.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Historically the fact of stellar aberration was taken as an argument
that there cannot be an ether which is fixed in relation to the
stellar background. <br>
Not true for sound? We have to look at comparable situations. If we
follow the sound of a plane flying by then the "ether", which is the
air in this case, is at rest in relation to the observer. In the
historical case of stellar aberration it was assumed that the ether
is not at rest in relation to the earth, so to us.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
The earth moves on a circuit around the sun. This process cannot be
reversed so as to assume that the sun orbits the earth. That is
physically very different. Formally: the Galilean transformation and
the Lorentz transformation are about linear motion. Circular motion
is different.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Up to this point this is independent of QM, I think. Why do you
think that the wave of a photon is not an EM wave? De Broglie's
concern which made him invent the de Broglie wave did not apply to
the photon. - And independent of this, I think that I have shown
very clearly at Vigier 10 that de Broglie was in severe error when
he concluded that he needed this specific wave.
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<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. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Here I do not follow. It may sound a bit funny, but regarding your
thoughts the cosmic background defines a <i>local </i>frame. Even
though it has a huge extension. Because the assumption of Galileo /
Newton that any inertial system is equivalent or the according
assumption of SRT that any inertial system is Lorentz invariant is
not made void by the existence of the cosmic background. The cosmic
background has a position which was at the end given by the position
of the Big Bang. But the position of a Big Bank does not abolish the
validity of these invariants as similarly the position of my living
room does not abolish these physical rules. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>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>
</div>
</blockquote>
To say it again: Einstein's SRT is a formal mathematical system with
no reference to imagination. This is not changed by the fact that
Einstein may have used imagination to develop his system or that
Einstein used some images to make relativity plausible for other
persons. Maxwell may have assumed an independent background, but
Maxwell is anyway outdated. (In clear words: his theory is
physically wrong even if it can be well used in technical tasks; for
instance that from his theory there follows the existence of
magnetic monopoles which by present understanding is completely
impossible.) And as you know, I do not follow your ideas about
space. In my view space is nothing but emptiness, I do not see any
stringent argument to assume anything more complicated. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
To my knowledge the relation between Maxwell and Lorentz is just the
other way around. Maxwell (i.e. the correct part of it) follows from
Lorentz, not the other way around. And the Lorentz transformation
follows not necessarily from the equivalence principle (even though
Einstein has done it in this way,) but SRT can be derived from
independent physical facts (i.e. contraction of fields and dilation
of oscillations) without a use of principles.<br>
<br>
So, Maxwell's theory can be deduced using the Coulomb law and the
Lorentz transformation. For this I can tell you two sources<br>
1.) The already mentioned book "Special relativity" of A.P. French,
Chapman & Hall, which is not too formal but quite well
understandable<br>
2.) W.G.V. Rosser, "Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity",
Springer, which is a very thorough and formal derivation of
Maxwell's equations.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Regarding Aristotle I do not know any statement of him about physics
which is correct. It was great fun for Galileo to show how illogical
his statements were even for the understanding of that time. Plato
did have some good ideas (about cognition theory like his cave
allegory) but his world as being built by structures is not our
understanding.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:be939e0f-3d27-a1c7-d91b-7285fb846bf3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<br>
<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 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:part3.64A62D5E.B37E914C@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.B1F85808.44F1E2DF@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.C96C00DC.CF563A43@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>
</div>
<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>
</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>