<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wolf and All<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I agree with you about the unfulfilling nature of popular theory, both of the Standard Model and of relativity theory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It seems to me that we deviate from scientific principles when the problems got a little hard and confusing. Rather than sticking to the principle of cause and effect it seems we had to invent magic to explain our theories.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And yes this leaves me quite unsatisfied with the “answers” that modern physics offers. So this is also why I have been searching for more concrete, causal, answers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding what is fundamental and what is derived, this is a real challenge for us. But perhaps if we see momentum without mass we can assume that momentum is created by energy, and that mass is also created by energy. And perhaps even that energy creates momentum which in turn can create mass. I like Andre’s view on this matter, in that he considers mass to be comprised of omnidirectional momentum. If we assume mass is fundamental then we have no explanation for mass and its relationship to energy? But if we assume that energy and space are fundamental, and that momentum, mass, charge, etc. are created from space and energy, we seem to have the simplest and most complete analysis, with the fewest constants required.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My interpretation of the experimental data, and the resultant proposition for the constitution of space as a CTF, leaves only a very few possibilities for the probable solutions. But this approach provides more explanation for what we observe than any other I have read. If you find problems with the approach in the paper I sent, please let me know. There is a lot that is not in that paper, but I have done the research and it is difficult to put it all into a single paper. One thing which I have confirmed is that the photon model which is a result of the approach in the paper will behave in such a way as to recreate the behavior of Huygens–Fresnel principle. This agrees which Richards observations as well, that the electron, also a particle, also follows the results of the Huygens–Fresnel principle. So the Huygens–Fresnel principle does not mean that photons do not exist, and the Huygens–Fresnel principle does not mean that light is just waves in space.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>By the way, the photon model dictated by the approach to space and its reaction to energy that I am using is coincidentally also a helical superluminal photon model (for the spin polarized photon) in many ways similar to Richards’s model. However in the approach I am using a photon is also able to be plane polarized, and this behavior is a normal consequence of that model of space.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:56 PM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Chip and Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>In Goldstien’s Classical Mechanics he states the existence of mass, charge, space and time are a prior assumptions. In grad school I always thought classical physics was the last jumping off point for physics that made sense i.e. corresponded to my sensory intuition. Neither quantum or relativity theory gives me the same feeling of comfort, that is why I like to, and perhaps have always been stuck, on attempting to find my way from classical physics assumptions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I agree most with Chandra’s call for reexamination of our belief in “<span style='font-size:14.0pt'>various characteristics of waves and particles with reference to the experiments that measure them and the interaction processes that give rise to the data.’’</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>What I am missing is the rational for calling something emergent rather than fundamental. Most of the arguments I’ve seen indeed include equations that relate energy and perhaps properties of the CTF field to mass and charge but why is one set of variables more fundamental and the other derived?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Consider mass a single parameter that appears in the calculation of gravity and inertial forces both as a source and sink. E=mc<sup>2</sup> does not make any of the three parameters more fundamental than the others , in fact since c<sup>2</sup> is related to space permeability and susceptibility and is in this case equal to the potential energy of the particle in a Universe mass shell so E = mMG/R , and furthermore Sciama showed inertia is directly calculable from a velocity dependent gravitational field in analogy with the Magnetic field since any velocity change of a particle is equal to the opposite velocity change of the M mass of the surrounding universe. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>So momentum is due to the velocity dependent component of the gravito inertial field fulfilling Mach’s principle.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I do not understand “<span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Particles much tinier than the wavelength of a propagating radiation, and electromagnetically non-resonant to the frequency, will not experience any “momentum” due to the passing wave.” </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I assume you are assuming a mass-charge particle and a very long EM wave. The EM wave passes the charge is moved very slowly compared with its size- as it moves it drags the mass along, the mass in turn interact with the inertial gravity field and restrains the charge from moving. If there were no mass attached the charge would always stay in equilibrium with the EM field there would be no Lorenz force i.e. its motion would be determined by the current in Maxwell’s equation assuming transverse waves. <span style='font-size:14.0pt'>So, “momentum” is an interaction property. </span>Yes but an interaction property due to interaction with other masses. How does this make mass emergent?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Chip I do not understand your first statement. “<span style='font-size:14.0pt'>One problem with the approach you suggest is the overwhelming evidence that space (the complex tension field) is a frictionless and therefore massless medium.” </span>There is no friction in elementary particle interactions why does a frictionless medium have to be mass less?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>“In our macro world momentum is the result of moving mass, but for particles, and EM radiation, momentum is present without what we call mass.’</span> I assume your are talking about light bending around the sun. But that is due to a refraction effect due to the fact that the speed of light squared varies in a gravitational field. Einstein’s field equations code this fact into space warp. If you use the classic m= hv/c<sup>2</sup> one gets the wrong answer by a factor of two.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Richard has shown how confined momentum can create mass. </span>I assume this has to do with gyroscopes and would be very surprised if mass did not show up to calculate the inertia in the first place and such confinement depended upon internal mass-charge interaction. After all what forces keep the mass in a gyroscope from flying apart? Some form of coulomb attraction? Again without mass-charge interaction there would be no Lorenz force <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I have also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum </span>This is very interesting and may give us a hint that I asked Chandra starting this thread. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>What properties of CTF are you assuming? What motions of those properties are you assuming that would confine the momentum to a particle size?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This may lead to an answer I’m looking for?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/21/2018 2:33 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>“….it is likely that momentum, mass and charge are emergent properties…”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>Andre: Perhaps, we need to start re-classifying various characteristics of waves and particles with reference to the experiments that measure them and the interaction processes that give rise to the data. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> I agree with you for “charge”. It is an emergent property out of the dynamics in the CTF. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>The “mass” property becomes manifest only when we try to make the object move. The fundamental property is “inertia’ to motion. The existence of the object (particle), of course, is a form of modified energetic excited state of the CTF (localized oscillation).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> The “momentum” property, to me, becomes manifest during an interaction with an entity that has “inertia”, whether induced by a propagating particle or a propagating wave. “Interaction” is the key term. Particles much tinier than the wavelength of a propagating radiation, and electromagnetically non-resonant to the frequency, will not experience any “momentum” due to the passing wave. So, “momentum” is an interaction property. A fast neutron (or high energy cosmic particle) does not easily impart any momentum to Another particle until passing through a lot of materials.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>André Michaud<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'>Hi Chip (and All),<o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA>I completely agree with you, except that I would formulate what you say only from a strict electromagnetism perspective, in which the classical concept of "momentum" does not come in perfect focus with the manner in which the energy that allows momentum to exist is adiabatically induced in charges by the Coulomb force (stemming from Maxwell's first equation, which is Gauss's equation for the electric field).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA>In classical mechanics, momentum is obviously the more fundamental principle, but in electromagnetism energy proper is even more fundamental than momentum, and still remains adiabatically present even when translational momentum is inhibited.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA> He is how I would reformulate what you wrote, but re-focused from the electromagnetism perspective:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><i><span lang=EN-CA>"</span></i><span lang=EN-CA>Another consideration regarding the energy of which mass is made, is its similarity to the energy that sustains momentum. In our macro world momentum is the result of moving mass, which is due from the electromagnetism perspective to translational momentum energy not being inhibited in its motion, but for charged particles, and EM radiation, the energy sustaining their translational momentum is present without its transversely electromagnetically oscillating component being called mass. Richard has shown how inhibiting the forward motion of the energy sustaining momentum can create inertia. I have also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum, and how that specific momentum can become mass of a particle. So there is some evidence from the electromagnetism perspective which seems to indicate the energy is more fundamental than momentum and mass, and that mass, which in electromagnetism amounts to the "omnidirectional inertia" of transverslly oscillating energy, is created from the same momentum sustaining "unidirectional" energy that remains adiabatically induced even when its translational motion is inhibited.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA> At any rate, neither mass nor charge are observed when no energy is present, but energy can be present even when no momentum can be observed. So it is likely that momentum, mass and charge are emergent properties, resulting from the physical presence of energy as a materially existing substance, which is adiabatically induced by the Coulomb force in action between all charged particles."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA>If interested in this perspective on momentum, I provide my analysis in Section "Momentum, the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian" starting on page 15 of this paper:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span lang=EN-CA>Best Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>André</span><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>---<br>André Michaud<br>GSJournal admin<br><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br><a href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</a> <br><br>On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:28:29 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:<br><br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One problem with the approach you suggest is the overwhelming evidence that space (the complex tension field) is a frictionless and therefore massless medium.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Another consideration regarding mass, is its similarity to momentum. In our macro world momentum is the result of moving mass, but for particles, and EM radiation, momentum is present without what we call mass. Richard has shown how confined momentum can create mass. I have also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum, and how that specific momentum can become mass of a particle. So there is some evidence which seems to indicate the momentum is more fundamental than mass, and that mass is created from confined momentum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>At any rate, neither mass nor charge are observed when no energy is present. So it is likely that mass and charge are emergent properties, created by the interaction of the complex tension field and energy, and not fundamental components of space.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:36 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p><p>I think the first question I would want to ask is whether the idea of making charge and mass elementary makes sense <o:p></o:p></p><p>I ask this because so many of our participants are attempting to derive these quantities from the more fundamental principles.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Then I would ask is there any traction in recognizing an internal side of matter in addition to the past and future side? <o:p></o:p></p><p>As far as 4-D space time , I think putting time on a spatial dimension and calling it the 4'th dimension is confusing the actuality of change with the way we display phenomena, Time is simply the state of a system we use as a clock, which traditionally is the whole gravity driven universe of stars, time intervals such as a second is a measure of the amount of change required to go from one state to another - the 4th dimension concept has always been a confusion between the map and the territory.<o:p></o:p></p><p>The flow of charge around a circle produces a self contained doughnut of magnetic field - this makes me think cold mass have a similar characteristic and are we moving along with our mass aong a cycle in time<o:p></o:p></p><p>Best<o:p></o:p></p><p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p><pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2/20/2018 3:00 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><i>“We nee</i><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>d a geometry in which both space and time are curved back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action quanta. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking about??”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists and turns” of different intrinsic potential gradients embedded in CTF (Complex Tension Field) to create stationary self-looped oscillations (<b><i>field-particles</i></b>). Maxwell achieved that for the propagating linear excitations using his brilliant observations of using the double differentiation – giving us the EM wave equation. We need to find non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s first law) self-looped oscillations – the in-phase ones will be stable, others will “break apart” with different life-times depending upon how far they are from the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The successes of the mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be judged by the number of predicted properties the theory can find for the <b><i>field-particles,</i></b> which we have measured so far. The physical CTF must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic energy. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy of Relativity by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D concept intact. If we want to capture the ontological reality; we must imagine and visualize the potential <b><i>foundational</i></b> physical process and represent that with a set of algebraic symbols and call them the primary parameters of “different grades”. During constructing mathematical theories, it is of prime importance to introduce consciously this concept of “primary”, vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc., physical parameters related to any observable physical phenomenon. The physical parameter that dictates the core existence of an entity in nature should be considered as primary. However, it is not going to be easy because of the complexities in the different interaction processes – different parameters take key role in transferring the energy in different interactions. Besides, our ignorance is still significantly broad compared to the “validated” knowledge we have gathered about our universe. Here is a glaring example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic physics, ν is of primary importance because of the quantum resonance with ν and the QM energy exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes from medium to medium. If I am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are of primary significance; even though people tend to use “c”, while missing out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core building blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and µ of free space were recognized well before Maxwell synthesized Electromagnetism.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>With this background, I want underscore that the “running time, “t” is of critical importance in our formulation of the dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is not a directly measurable physical parameter of any object in this universe. What we measure is really the frequency, or its inverse, the oscillation periods of different physical oscillators in this universe. So, frequency can be dilated or contracted by controlling the ambient physical parameter of the environment that surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator. The running time cannot be dilated or contracted; even though Minkowsky introduced this “dilation” concept. This is the reason why I have been pushing for the introduction in physics thinking the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext'>Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p>Candra:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium underlying the experience of space composed of charge and mass density spread out in the cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate frame cells of <i>small enough</i> sizes can be described by constant enough mass and charge densities in each cell. For small enough cells the mass and charge values concentrated at their centers may be used in stead of the densities. The resulting field of center values can take any pattern that satisfies the extended dAlambert principle. Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem and gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass charge centers in each cell appear at locations of balanced forces. Each pattern which satisfies this condition represents a static state of the loop in which the patterns are fixed for the lifetime of the loop.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>The physical size of the space is its volume. The volume (Vol) of space is the sum of the infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the cells composing that space “Vol = ∫<sub>all space</sub> dVol”. These infinitesimal volumes are calculated from the mass-charge density extensions in each cell when viewed externally as shown in figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume depends upon the mass charge separation pattern of the equilibrium state the system being modeled exists in. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In CAT the extension of a cell can be calculated as follows. In each cell the distance between the center of charge and mass is a vector d<b>ζ.</b> The projection of this vector onto the degrees of freedom directions available for the charge and mass to move in the generalized coordinate space allows us to expansion this vector as, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Eq. 4.3-1 <b>dζ =</b> dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙u<sub>t</sub></b> + dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙u<sub>x</sub> </b>+ dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙u<sub>y</sub> </b>+ dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙u<sub>z</sub> +…</b> dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙u<sub>f</sub> +…,</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>where the <b>u<sub>f</sub></b>’s are the unit vectors. A space limited to Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions, but CAT models a generalized space that encompasses all sensor modalities not only the optical ones. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The volume of a cell calculated from the diagonal expansion vector “<b>dζ”</b> by multiplying all non zero coefficients,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Eq. 4.3-2 dVol = dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙…∙</b>dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙… .</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The shape of this volume is determined by the direction of the expansion vector which in turn is determined by the direction and strength of forces pulling the charge and mass apart. The direction of pull depends upon the number of dimensions available in the generalized coordinates of the media. The forces must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium pattern depends upon which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ” the event being modeled is in. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the simplest equilibrium state the masses and charges are collocated. This implies the internal forward propagating in time forces F<sub>cm</sub>,F<sub>mc</sub>, and backward propagating in time force F<sub>mc</sub>*,F<sub>cm</sub>* are zero, and if there are no internal force pulling the charges and masses together then sum of the remaining exterior gravito-electric forces pulling the charge and mass apart must separately be zero precisely at the collocation point. A trivial condition that satisfies these equations is when all forces are zero. In this case there is no action in the media and no action for expanding the coordinate frame defining a volume of space. We are back to a formless blob of zero volume, where all charges and masses are at the same point. This is the absolute ground state of material, one level of something above nothing. The big bang before the energy of action flow is added. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:190.5pt;height:187.5pt;z-index:-251658240;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image001.gif@01D3AAA9.A05423A0" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=254 height=250 src="cid:image001.gif@01D3AAA9.A05423A0" align=left v:shapes="_x0000_s1026"><![endif]>To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium state of a single isolated cell whose only degree of freedom is the time direction. This means the volume in all space directions are infinitesimally small and the volume can be considered a single line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT<sub>w</sub> = ∫dζ<sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>t</span></sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> “ </span>along the time direction as shown in the god’s eye perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this situation we can consider charges and masses to be point particles. Forces as well as action can only propagate along the material length of the line time line represented in space as “Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can propagate through around the equilibrium positions indicated by numbers in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'>(1)<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position (filled icon) forward along the time line<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'>(2)<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it forward while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that retards it back to its equilibrium position<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'>(3)<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts an internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while feeling a reaction force “Fcm*” which returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'>(4)<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a reaction force “Fgi*” which returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'>(5)<span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span>While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a reaction force “Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium. We are now back to (1).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into other degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues to move as a compression wave around the “Qw” time line circumference forever. The graph however is static and shows a fixed amount of action indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line. Motion in “block” models is produced by the velocity of the observer or model operator as he moves around the time line. From our god’s eye perspective an action density is permanently painted on the clock dial and thereby describes an total event. The last degree of freedom events are rather trivial <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We need a geometry in which both space and time are curved back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action quanta. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking about??<o:p></o:p></p><pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the approval link yet. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a supporting infrastructure to replace SPIE-like support, it is very difficult to manage. I will try NSF during the last week of May. Do you want to start negotiating with some out-of-box European groups?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the only way to start re-building a unified field theory. It is futile to force-fit whole bunch of different theories that were structured differently at different states of human cultural epoch.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div id=AppleMailSignature><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer <<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p><p>Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of evolution..."<o:p></o:p></p><p>I love the sentiment " This is a good time to start iteratively re-evaluating and restructuring all the foundational postulates behind all the working theories"<o:p></o:p></p><p>Did you write a paper for FQXi?<o:p></o:p></p><p>I sent one in <a href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a><o:p></o:p></p><pre><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE conference, one that would expand the questions </span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>beyond the nature of light?</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br><br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">Click here to unsubscribe</a><br> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>