<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>some responses to your last mail:<br>
</p>
Am 16.02.2017 um 20:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>if I understand it, the periodic displacement of stars due to
earth orbital motion is also the steady state displacement
causing the 8.5 min displacement of the Sun in Flanders
argument. If I understand his argument then the Sun is displaced
because the photons come in at an angle which is exactly the
angle in my diagram between the wave front line propagating from
the12 nd 6 O'clock positions and the orbit line intercecting at
5 and 11 Oclock<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I guess that you mean here the annual orbital motion of earth around
the sun. True? But in this case I do not understand your reference
to the 8.5 min. displacement. Because this is the time which light
needs to pass the distance between sun and earth. What does this
have to do which the orbital annual motion?<br>
<br>
If we discuss this orbital motion then we can assume the sun to be
at a fixed position in space. Because the orbital motion of the sun
around the centre of our galaxy is in comparison an almost straight
motion so that we can treat the system of the sun and its planets as
an inertial system. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><img alt="" src="cid:part1.76AC9DA1.A44A938F@a-giese.de"
height="295" width="392"></p>
<p>I was taught that photons are wave packets i.e a carrier wave
modified by an envelope.And the same localization argument
applied to quantum waves which ultimately explained Heisenberg's
uncertainty. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I would agree that this is a usable approximation.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>Yes if bullets show aberration and fields do not , then we are
back to the quantum picture - or perhaps Bohm's pilot wave -
bullets guided by mysterious quantum waves.</p>
</blockquote>
Is this the quantum picture? I think that it is a good picture but
QM does not like it as we know. And the pilot wave was an invention
of de Broglie (but maybe Bohm has used it for a further
development).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>I think we are at the right forum. What are photons anyway?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
In my view also photons can be described by the Basic Particle Model
as I have presented it in San Diego. Then it is also - like the
electron and other particles - object of the strong force. But in
contrast to the electron the photon has to carry a positive and a
negative electric charge as it is electrically neutral. And maybe
two of them as the photon has twice the spin of a lepton or a quark.
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>I wrote to Falndern at the Mindspring Email address but no such
person found. now I see he died in 2009. but he was <span
class="st">In 2002 Dr. <em>Tom van Flandern</em>, a PhD in
Astronomy and formerly the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office .</span></p>
<p>What text d you have that derives the field of a moving charge,
I can probably find it in our library?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
As said in my previous mail, my favourite book is at present
"Special Relativity" of A.P. French. <br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80124616-ff65-0289-743e-64193ae7b916@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 2/16/2017 6:32 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1ba2dc49-b719-be19-01a6-f7da11c843c7@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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:part5.6CED071C.880CE4EC@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:part6.0F0EF814.F5B9D566@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:part1.76AC9DA1.A44A938F@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 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>
</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>