<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Hi André, </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">I am not sure what you are stating in relation to gravity and the black hole event horizon. Complete atoms and assemblies of atoms have neutral charge. As such there is no evidence that gravitational attraction depends upon a charge difference between objects. You seem to suggest, eg, your table 2, that a quaternary interaction between the charge differences within atoms is responsible for gravity. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">I don’t have time to read through the papers you reference in your JMP paper. However I don’t recall your calculations showing the magnitude of quaternary interactions in generating gravity. It would assist interpretation if you could show how the quaternary interaction generates gravity and how it causes an event horizon.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Cheers,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Vivian</div> <br> <div class="gmail_signature"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 4 February 2020 at 11:26:54 PM, André Michaud (<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div class="userStyles" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hi
Vivan,</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">You
wrote: "<i>The standard model proposes neutrons are made of quarks,
2 down and 1 up. When that theory is used, gravitational force can
become so great that it overcomes the quark/gluon forces and causes
neutrons to collapse. Treating them as point particles, the whole
neutron star collapses down to a point. A black hole requires
gravity to have a singularity at r = a. That means the gravity acts
at distance a, not about the centre of mass. There is simply no
mechanism by which that can occur because it requires gravitational
“action at a distance”. Even Newton recognized that was a problem.
It amazes me that, over 300 years later, modern cosmologists reckon
that is not a problem and that it is alright to invoke action at a
distance because it is supported by some mathematics they don’t
recognize as an
approximation.</i>"</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Isn't
this disregarding the fact that all elementary particles making up
the masses of all nucleons and atoms are electrically charged and
that the Coulomb interaction is <i>de facto</i> in permanent action
between all of them?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There
is no need to resort to "action at a distance" when it is put in
perspective that it is the kinetic energy locally induced in them
that causes their motion, and not the Coulomb interaction as
such.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This is
put in perspective in this recently published
paper:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-CA" xml:lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Michaud,
A. (2020) <i>Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial
Interpretation</i>. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" target="url.value">https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf</a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Best
Regards, André</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<footer class="signatureDivContainer">
<footer class="signatureContainer" style="display:inline;">
---<br>
André Michaud<br>
"GSJournal admin" <ntham@gsjournal.net><br>
http://www.gsjournal.net/<br>
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684<br>
http://www.srpinc.org/</footer>
</footer>
<footer class="replyforwardcontainer"><br>
<br>
<span>On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:25:38 +1000, Viv Robinson
<viv@universephysics.com> wrote:</span><br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Hi
Adam,</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">There are
at two important reasons why black holes do not exist. The first is
they are a mathematical prediction from Einstein’s gravitational
field equations, which, as I mentioned below, he acknowledged they
were an approximation. Second if you extend his early work, you get
a metric in which the Schwarzschild term (1 - a/r), where a is
Schwarzschild radius alpha, is actually exp-a/r, where exp is the
natural log term. 1 - a/r is the first approximation of exp-a/r.
There are other reasons as well.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">The
standard model proposes neutrons are made of quarks, 2 down and 1
up. When that theory is used, gravitational force can become so
great that it overcomes the quark/gluon forces and causes neutrons
to collapse. Treating them as point particles, the whole neutron
star collapses down to a point. A black hole requires gravity to
have a singularity at r = a. That means the gravity acts at
distance a, not about the centre of mass. There is simply no
mechanism by which that can occur because it requires gravitational
“action at a distance”. Even Newton recognized that was a problem.
It amazes me that, over 300 years later, modern cosmologists reckon
that is not a problem and that it is alright to invoke action at a
distance because it is supported by some mathematics they don’t
recognize as an approximation. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">In the
model of nucleons I propose, a proton is a fundamental particle
composed of a rotating circularly polarized photon of the
appropriate energy. A neutron is a neutral proton by virtue of
having an electron, an anti-electron neutrino and a bit more energy
embedded in its structure. Its intrinsic spin difference is
determined by the proton’s rotating photon being circularly
polarized and the neutron’s rotating photon being plane polarized.
You can get more details at my website <a href="http://www.universephysics.com">www.universephysics.com</a>. There
is no suggestion that gravity could ever be strong enough to
compress such structures down to a point. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Whether
you use the quark model and all the neutrons collapse to a point or
you use my model, the gravitational attraction depends upon the
mass of the object. The mass at the centre of Sagittarius A* is
about 3 million solar masses. That gives it a Schwarzschild radius
a ≈ 10 million kilometers. Its neuron star radius would be about
2,000 kilometers. That would still give a sufficiently strong
deflection to photons traveling near that radius would still be
bent strongly by its mass. Whether gravity originates at 10
million kilometers from the centre or from the centre, when an
object is about 50 million kilometers away, it is difficult to tell
the difference between the two fields. To the best of my knowledge,
resolution is currently limited to over 500 million kilometers. As
such current observations can’t distinguish between the two. The
swirling gas/dust cloud would still heat up. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">In
summary, it is just a massive spinning neutron star. Barring some
unforeseen circumstances, it spins in the same direction as the
galaxy and the inner stars rotate. Astronomers have detected
massive objects - neutron stars. It is theoreticians who call them
black holes.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Hope that
helps,</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
Vivian</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<p class="airmail_on">On 4 February 2020 at 3:59:20 PM, Adam K
(<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com">afokay@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div> </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Hi Vivian,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>A vivid email! The second paragraph is
great. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>I’m curious — you say black holes do not exist
with great confidence. You probably also know that the stars and
dust at the center of the galaxy orbit extremely fast around a dark
object called Sagittarius A* which, if it moves at all, does so
within the margin of measurement error of the instruments recording
it. Do you have any theories as to what this object
is? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Best wishes,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Adam</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Viv
Robinson <viv@universephysics.com> wrote:</span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span></span>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<span>Richard and all,</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>As
you all know, standard model practitioners regard their model for
the structure of fundamental particles, quarks, gluons, leptons and
bosons as the most accurate theory ever forwarded by humans. It has
a number of problems, including but not limited to:-</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>It
is almost entirely a description that uses complex mathematics that
are too difficult for mere mortals to follow.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<span>Particles are treated as point particles. Their properties
are attached mathematically with no physical reason for their
existence.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>No
quarks and gluons have ever been independently isolated and
detected.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<span>Effects like Einstein’s special relativity corrections with
velocity (including the Lorentz transformations) and his
gravitational field equations from his general relativity theory
are mathematically superimposed upon particles with no physical
description of what causes them.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<span>Being unable to give the structure of electrons, photons and
other particles Schrödinger, Dirac and others developed wave
equations to explain their properties.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>They
(standard model practitioners) introduced the concept of a quantum
foam in a unified field theory in which all particles were said to
be harmonics in that quantum foam field.</span></div>
<span>It enabled accurate calculations of small scale phenomena
such as the electron's anomalous magnetic moment and the
Casimir effect. </span>
<div> </div>
<div><span>As far as they are concerned, it really has only one
problem. It requires the energy density of the universe to be
10^120 time larger than what is measured. The “average” person
would tend to suggest that a difference between theory and
experiment of a factor of 10^120 was the largest error between
theory and experiment ever forwarded.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>A standard model cosmologist statement has been “<i>Give
us one miracle and we can explain the rest</i>”. Their
interpretation of a "<i>miracle</i>” is something that has no
physical explanation or is not possible according to the laws of
physics. Their “miracle” is the origins of the Big Bang. They throw
in a period of hyperinflation (when the universe expanded faster
than the speed of light) as part of that miracle. To that they have
developed a theory in which luminous matter (that which can be seen
with an optical telescope) makes up 0.4% of the universe, non
luminous matter (gas and dust clouds) make up 3.6%, dark matter
(which holds galaxies together and bends some light trajectories)
make up 23% and dark energy, which is said to be blowing the
universe apart) makes up the remaining 73%. Despite decades of
searching there has not been the slightest hint of the detection of
anything that resembles dark matter or dark energy
particles. </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>To explain the 1:10^60 chances of the universe existing
some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang they introduced another
10^60 parallel universes outside our visible universe. That leaves
them with an error of something 10^180 between their models and
observation. That doesn’t include lack of knowledge of the
structure of quarks, leptons, gluons and bosons. Despite those huge
variations, they have made very little progress in understanding
the structure of the nuclei since the 1940’s (nuclei make up over
99.9% of the mass of the 4% of the observable (luminous and
gas/dust clouds) universe. There is still much they can’t explain
so they try “string theory” which requires a total of 10 spatial
dimensions, even though there is not the slightest experimental
evidence for any spatial dimensions beyond the three we observe
around us. The foolishness of modern standard model practitioners
is they insist they are doing a good job and have a good
understanding of the universe. Is it any wonder that non standard
model practitioners want to come up with other alternatives?
</span></div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>IMHO, it is no good trying to to
replicate standard model failures based on a set of undetected
particles that violate the laws of physics by using another set of
undetected particles that also violate the laws of physics.
Richard, apart from giving an equation with impossible dimensions,
your above presentation does nothing to overcome any of the
difficulties associated with the standard model. Like the Big Bang
theory, the presentation does nothing to explain where the
univon/sprinqs came from, nor how they decayed into the currently
known particles or give rise to the physical
laws. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>As I mentioned in a previous
email, if you really want to advance beyond the standard model, it
would help if you stuck to the three space dimensions, time and
known physical properties. At the moment, the standard model fits
nicely into a primary school teacher’s comments to a student.
“<i>If you can’t get the right answer by cheating, there is no hope
for you</i>.” The standard model has so many undetected particles
and so many errors of many tens of orders of magnitude that it is
hard to believe that adults treat it seriously. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>For example, the Big Bang theory
is valid only if the force of gravity is inversely proportional to
the square of the distance between two masses. A quick look at
Newton’s Proposition 45 of his Principia and observations of the
precession of Mercury’s orbit shows that gravity can be weaker than
inverse square. A look at Einstein’s work on gravity shows that
mass distorting space-time is determined by photon redshift, z.
Mass distorting space means r becomes r(1 + z). Mass distorting
time means t becomes t/(1 + z). Applying gravitational force Fg =
GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2 and correcting for Earth’s motion, gives Mercury’s
perihelion a precession of 42.99 arc sec per century. Einstein
calculated 43 arc sec/century using 1915 values. More recent values
indicate 42.98. Personally I would not like to "make a living” off
their differences. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>Gravity is gravity, whether it
is inside or outside matter. As redshift increases, the force of
gravity decreases as 1/[r(1 + z)]^2, and not 1/r^2. As z is a
function of 1/r, it becomes apparent that as r tends to infinity,
the force of gravity tends to zero. An infinite static universe
will not collapse under its own mass. The gravitational redshift
also accounts for the observed time dilation without needing a
Doppler effect. Together they mean the pillars of the Big Bang
theory have no foundation that can’t be explained by a steady state
universe based on Newton and Einstein’s work on
gravity. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>It is surprising the number of
people who comment on gravity yet appear not to have read Newton’s
Principia or Einstein’s early gravitational work. In his early
gravity work, Einstein commented on the property of space-time that
mass distorts. In the same manner, in his work on photons, Einstein
indicated they had mass mp = hv/c^2. Yet standard model
practitioners indicate photons are massless. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>Standard model physicists have
such tight censorship in mainstream journals they will not allow
alternative viewpoints to be published. That helps explain why so
many people try to come up with alternative explanations. My
suggestion is that you don’t try to match standard model physics.
There was no Big Bang. There are no black holes. (Einstein did not
believe in them. He admits the derivation of his gravitational
field equations was an approximation. Anybody who read and
understood his work would see his approximations. An exact solution
to an approximation is still an approximation.) No quarks or
gluons, or even fractional charge, have ever been detected. And
don’t forget, the standard model requires an energy density to the
universe of about 10^110 J/m^3 for some of their accurate
calculations, such as an electron's anomalous magnetic moment. The
experimentally measured value is about 10^-10 J/m^3. (If my memory
serves me correctly, the energy density of a neutron star is about
10^45 J/m^3.)</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>IMHO, well equipped and
documented experimental results take priority over theoretical
calculations. That is particularly when there is a difference
measured win orders of magnitude, let alone 120 orders of
magnitude. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>I will continue the comment of
my previous email. The universe is composed in three space
dimensions and time with constants e, h, G and c [=
1/epsilon0.mu0)^2]. They are all you need to explain many
properties the standard model can explain, with the universe having
an energy density of about 10^-10 J/m^3. They are all you need to
make sense of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, Einsteins
relativity theories and more.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>So Richard, my comments on you
above paper:-</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>1) “Brownie points” for trying
to come up with something different.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>2) IMHO, replacing one set
of undetected particles and violations of physical laws with
another set of undetected particles and violations of physical laws
does not necessarily constitute the next scientific
revolution.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>Sincerely,</span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"> </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span>Vivian Robinson</span></div>
<p class="airmail_on"><span>On 1 February 2020 at 2:11:06 PM,
Richard Gauthier (<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite">
<div>
<div><span><span>Hello all,</span></span>
<div>
<div><span><span> Here’s the link to my just-published
(on <a href="http://Academia.edu">Academia.edu</a>) new
article:</span></span></div>
<div>
<h4 class="media-heading"><span><span><a href="http://www.academia.edu/attachments/61954870/download_file?s=portfolio" target="_blank">Big Bangs Created by Univon Particles from a
Conscious Quantum Field - Towards the Next Scientific
Revolution</a></span></span></h4>
<div><span><span>It’s also the first article at <a href="http://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research">richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</a> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span>I would appreciate hearing any comments any of you
might have.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span>You are welcome to forward the link to interested
colleagues.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span>Comments are welcome.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span>all the best,</span></span></div>
<div><span><span>
Richard</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<span><span>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at
viv@universephysics.com<br>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<span><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
afokay@gmail.com</span><br>
<span><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at
viv@universephysics.com<br>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at
srp2@srpinc.org<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>
</footer>
</div>
</div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>