<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp81c2d008yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px;"><div id="ydp81c2d008yiv9003144835"><div class="ydp81c2d008yiv9003144835ydpfd9836cayahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">To add to "summaries of ideas": </span></div><div><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">Start with a working definition of "particle" and "wave." A particle holds itself together, and a wave does not. The models are mutually exclusive. Some experiments are interpreted with wave models and others with particle models. Some try to explain wave effects with particles, some try to explain particle effects with waves. Many have tried. Also, let us be clear on the concept of the photon. As explained by Bohr paraphrasing Einstein, a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter (a beam-split coincidence test), but if you converge the beam and keep counting, you see interference. The photon is not a thing. It is a problematic model of a combination of phenomena. The resolution of this problem requires a workable model, an explanation of past experiments, and an experiment showing how conventional theory fails. If you look at my website, you will see I did all that. The long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, a threshold model, can explain but it needed an upgrade. The experiment I did is the beam-split coincidence test, but performed with gamma-rays. If you choose an isotope that emits a gamma with high photoelectric effect efficiency for the detector employed, you can see its coincidence rate exceed quantum mechanical chance by big factors, like ten times chance. If you believe in photons, the effect is two for one. Start with one emitted, and see two. It is not defying energy conservation; it forces the threshold model. Background pairs were subtracted, it is repeatable, not some special case, and clicks are all full-height and well behaved. RIP the photon 1905-2001. Now the hard part: atoms diffract. I did the same test with alpha-rays, the helium nuclear wave makes coincident detector clicks 6 times chance. It takes 14 MeV to split the alpha but I only had 5.5 MeV from Americium-241. If we count half-height coincident pairs it gives 100 times chance. The conceptual breakthrough preceded my experiments. It is an extension of Planck’s second theory, where his constant is taken as a maximum. We do not see sub-</span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">h</span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;"> action; the illusion of quantization appears after action loads-up to threshold </span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">h</span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">. The new threshold model now extends this idea to charge and mass. Examine the electron first: </span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">h, e, m</span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">. If you look at the equations that are famous for showing wave effects, you will see ratios like </span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">h/e, e/m, h/m</span><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;">. When the wave spreads, the ratios are conserved. This “ratio trick,” plus an understanding of how the envelope of Schrodinger’s psi makes beats, and by counting them correctly, let me derive the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, black body, and more, now free of wave-particle duality. Quantum mechanical particles with rest mass are really solitons that can lose their ability to hold together. Threshold effects at emission and absorption give the illusion of particles. It is explained in detail at thresholdmodel.com. Thank you, Eric Reiter, March 2019.</span><br></div><div><span><span id="ydp4cca354docs-internal-guid-6d87d059-7fff-5b2f-2180-3e3c312b0e32"><div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; --darkreader-inline-color:#e8e7e3; --darkreader-inline-bgcolor:transparent;" data-darkreader-inline-color="" data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor=""><br></span></div></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br clear="none"></div>
</div></div></div><div class="ydp697407a9yiv9003144835yqt1332266178" id="ydp697407a9yiv9003144835yqt66607"><div class="ydp697407a9yiv9003144835ydp255c00fbyahoo_quoted" id="ydp697407a9yiv9003144835ydp255c00fbyahoo_quoted_3709111042">
<div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); --darkreader-inline-color:#d8d6d2;" data-darkreader-inline-color="">
<div>On Monday, March 18, 2019, 1:02:47 PM PDT, general-request@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <general-request@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> wrote:</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Send General mailing list submissions to<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/listinfo.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/listinfo.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-request@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general-request@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">You can reach the person managing the list at<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-owner@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general-owner@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">than "Re: Contents of General digest..."<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Today's Topics:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> 1. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> 2. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> 3. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> 4. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> 5. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (Andr? Michaud)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 1<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:10:35 -0400<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">From: DataPacRat <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To: Joakim Pettersson <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, Vivian Robinson<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>>, John Williamson <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:quicycle@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">quicycle@gmail.com</a>>, John<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> Macken <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <CAB5WduC4C-2h5MmJ7yqwq=_Y6UOZ0Ed-tUqYADj=+<a shape="rect" href="mailto:it_FumX7Q@mail.gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">it_FumX7Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for that series of summaries; and thank you, Vivian, for the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">'Classical Aspects' PDF.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">If I may ask, are there any handy tables of newly extrapolated<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">properties of any of the standard-model particles from the viewpoint<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">of these approaches; or reasonably simple formulas which make<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">predictions beyond the standard? I find that while reaching towards a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">mental model is often useful, it's even more useful to know what that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">model might be leading to.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On 17/03/2019, Joakim Pettersson <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Now spell-checked and Cc:ed correctly - sorry for my eagerness to send!<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> /joakim<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Hi DataPR,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> A crash-start from a long-term reader of this forum:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> * Vivian Robinson studied implications of the assumption that matter is<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> self-confined EM fields. From that assumption he can derive the world as<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> we see it, basically. He also postulates a theory of this<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> self-confinement like Heisenberg/Feynman might have: A push action from<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> particle-particle exchanges with all possible "background" or "virtual<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> as in not really there permanently but quite possible for short enough<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> time" particles in its immediate neighbourhood.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> * John Williamson studied the EM field itself and worked for many years<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> on getting one particle right: the largest-volume and lightest-mass<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> confined particle he can describe with it: an electron/positron. That<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> theory is complementary to Vivian's as it postulates a confinement<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> theory like Maxwell/Shr?dinger/Einstein might have: A pull action from<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> the gravity field within. It can explain all the standing wave<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> phenomena, superconductivity, charge and flux quantization as simple<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> topological problems: A wave knot is the same knot, topologically,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> however far you stretch in it any direction. It is perhaps easier to<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> imagine a free particle (field knot) as a photon circling a black hole.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> But here the black hole is the gravity field created by itself, or in<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> other words some distributed space-void within. A bound particle<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> (electron in an atom) is circling a larger mass so it can be further<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> away from the gravity centre, but then it also has (for an outside<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> viewer) a lower frequency/longer wavelength so that it still finds<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> itself after the same number or rotations around the void. It then<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> interferes constructively over all its path and stays stable. A next<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> level of understanding is that the different particle-fields inside<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> compound matter like a free atom or a sold-state piece of matter are as<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> affected by the neighbouring fields as by itself, and therefore they<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> also stretch as more field is added (to preserve their individual<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> topologies). A more advanced level of understanding is that all these<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> single-particle fields actually are the same field, just more intense<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> and more complex than a fixed set of topological parameters: all the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> possible combinations of the topological parameters that still conserve<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> the net compound topology are in there, in the net field, but at<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> different times or rather room-time zones. That last level explains what<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> happens in superconductors as it slips through a pin-hole of magnetic<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> flux from one side to the other, or any other particle-wave experiment.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> I could never explain this in detail before John W explained his<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> photon-electron theory.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> * John Macken studied the gravitational field itself, and found that it<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> sets a limit on the density of black holes in a given universe-size. I<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> see this as the ultimate level of understanding, where any field we<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> observe is explained as a "swirl" and any particle as "rotation" on the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> sea of all possible oscillations in the gravity-field. I guess it is<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> life-time of the object studied that defines the universe size that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> quantizes these gravitational oscillations. Big bang was very short and<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> might therefore have created all possible oscillations it could contain<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> in a super-excited black hole that then exploded as more oscillations<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> opened up with time.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Now this summary is just one of many that could be made, and all have<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> their favourites here, but hopefully it can give some leads for even<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> better stories to explain the world in worlds that even more can<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> understand.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Best wishes,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Joakim Petterson<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>------ Originalmeddelande ------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>Fr?n: "Viv Robinson" <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>Till: "DataPacRat" <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>>; "Nature of Light and<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>Particles - General Discussion"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>><<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>Skickat: 2019-03-17 00:59:59<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>?mne: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>Hi DataPR<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>I append a dozen pages that gives a physical and mathematical<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>description of photons as I understand them. No calculus involved.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>Most of the mathematics is straight from text books, or slight<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>extensions to them. The wave function equations are just a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>mathematical format of the physical description shown in the images.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>Photons of this structure and description are stable and self<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>sustaining. They do not need other properties to describe them.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>Hope this helps.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>Vivian Robinson<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>On 17 March 2019 at 3:26:52 AM, DataPacRat (<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>)<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>Hello to the members of this list,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>If you don't mind my asking, would it be possible for any of you to<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>share some short summaries of your approaches and the implications?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>I'm afraid that I don't have the mathematical chops to truly<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>understand most of what I've been able to skim from the list's<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>archives, but I do write the odd amateur science-fiction story, and I<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>like being able to add physics details most other SF authours don't.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>For example, I might describe one small part of Chip Akins' ideas as<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>"photons are spiralling ribbons of EM fields, kept together by the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>strong nuclear force; neutrinos are the same thing, only with a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>different angle of twisting, and electrons the same but circling<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>around and around". (Which is about as much as I've managed to<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>assemble so far from the PDFs he's released.) I could do something of<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>the same with my superficial understanding of quantized inertia (or,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>for fun, try to combine QI with Akins' ideas), but I've seen mentions<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>of other approaches in the archives that I haven't been able to track<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>down, let alone start reading.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>How much can you explain to someone who's forgotten just about all<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>techniques of calculus?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>_______________________________________________<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>Light and Particles General Discussion List at<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><a shape="rect" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>><a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>href="<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>>Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">>>>></a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 2<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0400<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">From: DataPacRat <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To: <a shape="rect" href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Cc: <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <CAB5WduArpSs2zbTdb+<a shape="rect" href="mailto:O9CGC7hJkhik4DkKxrVzQbypdfpTmT5Q@mail.gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">O9CGC7hJkhik4DkKxrVzQbypdfpTmT5Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On 17/03/2019, Andr? Michaud <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Hi DataPacRat,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Not sure what your equation a???=2c?/? relates to, but it sure looks like<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> the momentum energy that converts to the magnetic mass increment of a moving<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> electron. Ref. equation (8) in this recent paper:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> <a shape="rect" href="https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> By the same token, you might be interested in trying to sink your teeth in<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> this other possible solution that also defines massive elementary particles<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> as self-confined EM fields by having both fields mutually inducing each<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> other, in complete harmony with Maxwell, but within a space geometry that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> few seem able to fathom.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> No need for any calculus to deal with this one. Only a scientific pocket<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> calculator is required.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">That looks interesting, and I'll give it a closer read this evening.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">The formula in my signature is the simplest prediction from Mike<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">McCulloch's theory of "quantized inertia" (previously MIHSC, "Modified<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Inertia from a Hubble-Scale Casimir Effect"), which he blogs about at<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ </a>. Simplifying a great deal,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">he starts with the uncertainty effect, and derives inertial and<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">gravitational forces from it, with one extra term in the relevant<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">equations. (An alternate derivation expresses the same concepts in<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">terms of Unruh radiation arising from the horizons generated by<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">accelerations.) One of the consequences of the new formulas is that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">just like there's a maximum possible speed, there's a minimum possible<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">acceleration: The speed of light squared and doubled, divided by the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Hubble constant (the diameter of the universe), which at present is<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">around 6.7e-10 m/s^2. This minimum acceleration seems to solve a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">number of outstanding problems physics, large and small: explaining<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">cosmic acceleration without needing to postulate dark energy, galaxy<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">rotation curves without needing to postulate dark matter, and some<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">orbital flyby anomalies. Most recently, he's been modelling wide<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">binary stars, and has tweeted some promising preliminary results.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I have a vague hope that some further reading about the particle<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">physics here will let me get a mental model that similarly simplifies<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">the required number of assumptions, getting more predictive power out<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">of a smaller starting point.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 3<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:31:58 -0400<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">From: DataPacRat <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <CAB5WduCVy_0GrGOic=<a shape="rect" href="mailto:NGMpHgJEHRvZOGoFqSCfdDak_e40qE6g@mail.gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">NGMpHgJEHRvZOGoFqSCfdDak_e40qE6g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On 16/03/2019, Hodge John <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">jchodge@frontier.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> These videos are summaries of papers that present a new model of the theory<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> of everything (TOE). It has predicte...<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Interesting idea.Mine is a radical model of the universe. Here are some<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> videos that explain various aspects.The model is called Scalar Theory of<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Everything. (STOE). It posits the qssc model (continous sources create the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> stuff of the universe posited by Hoyls, Narlikar, et al. 2 decades ago) plus<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> a Sink that ejects the stuff of the universe. Life has a unique role in this<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> model.Hodge<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">May I ask if any of the papers are available? I usually have more<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">opportunities to read static text than to watch videos.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 4<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:38:26 -0400<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">From: DataPacRat <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">datapacrat@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <CAB5WduC=3DwPGTntAzh1NiZMOMVXFsCd8wRhPuhrbgo+<a shape="rect" href="mailto:EMDMHg@mail.gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">EMDMHg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On 16/03/2019, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Dear DataPacRat:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> I am not a theoretician. I am an experimentalist. May be I should send you<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> my models for light and particles.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> If anything in the archive, written by me, appeared interesting to me,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> let me know. I will send supporting published papers.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Chandra<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I'm afraid that I don't have the background to understand the posts of<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">yours that I've come across - for example, I've seen several mentions<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">by you of a space being a 'complex tension field', and while I know of<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">complex numbers in general, I don't know what such a field might be.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 5<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:48:52 -0400<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">From: Andr? Michaud <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">To: <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID: <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:1552859332.hpg4t9i8u8w4o80k@webmail.telushosting.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">1552859332.hpg4t9i8u8w4o80k@webmail.telushosting.com</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Hi DataPacRat,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thanks for the link to Mike's blog. I was not aware of his work before.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">No trace either of any dark matter from the electromagnetic perspective either, and no need for it. Flyby anomalies and the 2 Pioneer 10/11 anomalies (unexplained acceleration rate and rotation slowdown) also find an explanation from the electromagnetic perspective. Didn't mean to pile more material onto your already sizable reading material heap, but this is described in this other paper:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Wishing you luck with your coming Sci-Fi novel, my all-time preferred genre.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Best Regards, Andr?<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">---<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Andr? Michaud<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"GSJournal admin" <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:ntham@gsjournal.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ntham@gsjournal.net</a>><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.srpinc.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0400, DataPacRat wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">On 17/03/2019, Andr? Michaud wrote:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Hi DataPacRat,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> Not sure what your equation a???=2c?/? relates to, but it sure looks like<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> the momentum energy that converts to the magnetic mass increment of a moving<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> electron. Ref. equation (8) in this recent paper:<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> <a shape="rect" href="https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067</a><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> By the same token, you might be interested in trying to sink your teeth in<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> this other possible solution that also defines massive elementary particles<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> as self-confined EM fields by having both fields mutually inducing each<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> other, in complete harmony with Maxwell, but within a space geometry that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> few seem able to fathom.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> No need for any calculus to deal with this one. Only a scientific pocket<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">> calculator is required.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">That looks interesting, and I'll give it a closer read this evening.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">The formula in my signature is the simplest prediction from Mike<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">McCulloch's theory of "quantized inertia" (previously MIHSC, "Modified<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Inertia from a Hubble-Scale Casimir Effect"), which he blogs about at<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ </a>. Simplifying a great deal,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">he starts with the uncertainty effect, and derives inertial and<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">gravitational forces from it, with one extra term in the relevant<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">equations. (An alternate derivation expresses the same concepts in<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">terms of Unruh radiation arising from the horizons generated by<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">accelerations.) One of the consequences of the new formulas is that<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">just like there's a maximum possible speed, there's a minimum possible<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">acceleration: The speed of light squared and doubled, divided by the<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Hubble constant (the diameter of the universe), which at present is<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">around 6.7e-10 m/s^2. This minimum acceleration seems to solve a<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">number of outstanding problems physics, large and small: explaining<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">cosmic acceleration without needing to postulate dark energy, galaxy<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">rotation curves without needing to postulate dark matter, and some<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">orbital flyby anomalies. Most recently, he's been modelling wide<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">binary stars, and has tweeted some promising preliminary results.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I have a vague hope that some further reading about the particle<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">physics here will let me get a mental model that similarly simplifies<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">the required number of assumptions, getting more predictive power out<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">of a smaller starting point.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thank you for your time,<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">--<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">DataPacRat<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"> <br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Digest Footer<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List, please visit <a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ </a>listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">End of General Digest, Vol 47, Issue 4<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">**************************************<br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>