<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Hello Everybody:
<div>I am finding these discussions very valuable from the standpoint of new concepts and thinking.</div>
<div> I hope, all of you have read the book, “Lost in Math” by Sabine Hossenfelder. It is worth the time. </div>
<div> I have liked the book. However, I find that even this thoughtful theoretician missed the system engineering “mind” of nature”. </div>
<div> Evolving nature has to be dialectical since any stability in a natural complex system must evolve into instability to allow new complex structure to emerge with some stability, add Infinitum. Thus symmetry is essential to “enjoy” a certain degree
of stability in complex systems.But this stability must also evolve into instability for new creation.</div>
<div> This essential creative system engineer behavior of nature is not being considered in our modern physics theories.</div>
<div> We cannot build a unified field theory without incorporating this dialectical harmonic stability-instability.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Chandra.<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 4, 2020, at 8:29 PM, Viv Robinson <viv@universephysics.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"> <style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
<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; ">Good news! We both agree that there are no black holes so we don’t have to worry about action at a distance.</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 5 February 2020 at 11:46:00 AM, 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
Vivian,</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"">From
the electromagnetic perspective, there is no such thing as black holes. They are a conclusion drawn from the SR and GR.</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"">Yes,
un-ionized atoms have neutral resulting charge, but this doesn't prevent all charged particles involved from being permanently induced with momentum kinetic energy as a function of the inverse of the distances separating them. First Maxwell equation at play
(Gauss equation for the electric field). From the electromagnetic perspective, it can only be this permanently induced kinetic energy that applies axially oriented pressure when the particles' velocity is hindered.</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"">Difficult
to explain in such an ad hoc conversation, but it is explained in context in the paper itself. No need really to go to the related reference, but this reference is more explanatory.</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"">The
quaternary interaction mentioned is simply the Coulomb law at play between all charges. So-called gravity is only the momentum kinetic energy induced in each free moving particle being expressed as an axial acceleration of each free moving particle (or massive
bodies) towards the closest large accumulation of matter (all massive bodies being made of elementary charged particles that also are induced kinetic energy by the Coulomb interaction).</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"">Again,
difficult to put in complete perspective in a ad hoc conversation, but described in the paper, with more complete description in the referred papers.</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"">Here
again, no relation with SR-GR concluded event-horizon.</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"">Best
Regards,</span></span></span> <span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">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 Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:37:00 +1000, Viv Robinson <viv@universephysics.com> wrote:</span><br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Hi André, </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"> </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;"> </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;"> </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Cheers,</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 11:26:54 PM, André Michaud (<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a>) wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div class="userStyles" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hi
Vivan,</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US" 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></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US" 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></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US" 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></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US" 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></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-CA" 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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.4236%2Fjmp.2020.111003&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C637164737836221090&sdata=J8%2B5TmigwzqMVTiWMNkyzQ5OMtEa5vilS8V%2F9ph3IiI%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003" shash="LxKYUlD3WFUkLNsKwUIqRV5t2r1dT9TfvdGFT0gRwDHHs9dxumOgVzu/xOaJhawqk4vQh2k6IrYYXQUebsboU4Ai8Yr0nMgYT6QVwl27/J8Tq88T8o7kepTtTosTQRDm+l+ihG4xU8PqlHB7Pf1z9TB8G13DJJpltg3kdluOnUQ=" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scirp.org%2Fpdf%2Fjmp_2020010915471797.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C637164737836231084&sdata=2C7EVwXyJXyfkjPr4HCIuyDPgU0UAHN72zbTBPz49fQ%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf" shash="NFOdjmQ/+knbgjlryh6OjEk0XTWX4NaFyazsaWvukOTWxn/wGg3kEmrC+6PDar5RPJL9zFz8DhAp/d916ju3oSuWbGlSwAEABLFRGNSSFW+lwV9bohh0t64Gf7GgBXDGSkTfUKIpvbWz0Ehqm1O4pBP6vmSuSbrs0/CHYsn1QiU=" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" target="url.value">https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf</a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span><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></span></p>
<br>
<span>---<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/<br>
<br>
<span>On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:25:38 +1000, Viv Robinson <viv@universephysics.com> wrote:</span></span><br>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>Hi Adam,</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>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.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>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. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>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="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universephysics.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C637164737836231084&sdata=j8l2fzw98WFV3ztS%2Bc06b%2FdsFdWNS564g1sJ7JDUGXo%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="http://www.universephysics.com/" shash="kMeK1Vmk7Yi+Kt124b3N4vGw4Y4Eqs7bCwVni8YQaB1vFkO2PZnmDn38idaDZ443L0jQRAcCKnb2/MJR+4QA0nuX9kWq1EVQlyWSDGQMs1pD/Ze8BMThf5g66889F8UVs60/VPjhgZ60IRGxyXAXxygJwEYR3bDBHessr61O8yM=">
www.universephysics.com</a>. There is no suggestion that gravity could ever be strong enough to compress such structures down to a point. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>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. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>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.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>Hope that helps,</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span>Vivian</span></div>
<span> </span>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<span> </span>
<p class="airmail_on"><span>On 4 February 2020 at 3:59:20 PM, Adam K (<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com">afokay@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span>Hi Vivian,</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span>A vivid email! The second paragraph is great. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><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></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span>Best wishes,</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span>Adam</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><span>On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Viv Robinson <viv@universephysics.com> wrote:</span><br>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span><span></span></span>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><span>Richard and all,</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><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></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span> </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><span>It is almost entirely a description that uses complex mathematics that are too difficult for mere mortals to follow.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><span>Particles are treated as point particles. Their properties are attached mathematically with no physical reason for their existence.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><span>No quarks and gluons have ever been independently isolated and detected.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><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></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><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></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;"><span><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></span></div>
<span><span>It enabled accurate calculations of small scale phenomena such as the electron's anomalous magnetic moment and the Casimir effect. </span></span>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><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></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><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></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><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></span></div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><span>So Richard, my comments on you above paper:-</span></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><span>1) “Brownie points” for trying to come up with something different.</span></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><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></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><span><span>Vivian Robinson</span></span></div>
<p class="airmail_on"><span><span>On 1 February 2020 at 2:11:06 PM, Richard Gauthier (<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</span></span></p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite">
<div>
<div><span><span><span>Hello all,</span></span></span>
<div><span> </span>
<div><span><span><span> Here’s the link to my just-published (on <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Facademia.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C637164737836241078&sdata=hfsjXd2TTe4vYOUnv%2BmmNVPTuZWRrCjARYOPBibDD%2B0%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="http://academia.edu/" shash="sYN/UEyj/iVpOZjJiKVaCFAiBq3DcPUhjo79lYqdq8964Aq83m+GUBEP9KwfbCQ7Kv4pP6yq0XG1PZpg/8LdCIJxUkOv3oEujo1G+pDS64OYWE4FyQNVeE422I0OP4qx0Eg115L56EhPDqhI5wCUQeS6GMxxNHWRIYRiaJbZNg4=">
Academia.edu</a>) new article:</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<h4 class="media-heading"><span><span><span><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2Fattachments%2F61954870%2Fdownload_file%3Fs%3Dportfolio&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C637164737836241078&sdata=sqwmALOsN4XQ0%2FQvztoi3QIoQa42YHfe9KB0UWvsO0w%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="http://www.academia.edu/attachments/61954870/download_file?s=portfolio" shash="MsdXSVb8992wcMLPi9gdeGavFUE6loLntKGrzEi1rcZ9+lJIqgkJ1Khj3Xc+cs4aoPge2sRwnQtB+U6EI7PM1yzoqJLBTtEBZNC79FRbB0CY3KtsKCBMmfgP3iQVJw+jLWrjxuiNcDO95W5ujFlJ6EZ4B6z/w10v/W/CLFubGRA=" target="_blank">Big
Bangs Created by Univon Particles from a Conscious Quantum Field - Towards the Next Scientific Revolution</a></span></span></span></h4>
<div><span><span><span>It’s also the first article at <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frichardgauthier.academia.edu%2Fresearch&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637164737836251071&sdata=mZ9WjEd%2BnOLUV85%2FwJpHK9NhGwmEmPwZgJJOpEbTahg%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="http://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research" shash="LLF9FGsOX0HOiAzN+TRP4ilvg91OqxIZeawgQHbwCuq3u0ygpB9VV+n7RZpvmwomBFau7AnCtCHDK+QuNewIPF5z9Pdch/ha6r7dZB2GLCViHIY4S59giFwRuahf5+p6wHscS1RsVaubCYfOsZKOUsNy+DhK1XfExjYF/eBAHp4=">
richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</a> </span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span><span>I would appreciate hearing any comments any of you might have.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span><span>You are welcome to forward the link to interested colleagues.</span></span></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span><span>Comments are welcome.</span></span></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span><span>all the best,</span></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><span> Richard</span></span></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<span><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></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<span><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></span></div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<span>_______________________________________________<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="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fsrp2%2540srpinc.org%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637164737836251071&sdata=eNC3mEKvUiu63bEx0CWw5yVWg2aMui3cASC2BetQaU4%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" shash="LHj2bu3bX5jkSH6nltirdQQZX111TuC7mWvmJBUJb7jtP8m/mMKNFIcj6HasTD9ODnO3H32D4g8aVI+XuQfKA7fm7OYS9Xs9AvyCJrZ3KAIkDlsZGbaYXVqCl74YDh/pR3cRm9rG9NvxI4cUXbWViJsdMPQPECnZz0d7qdkGP6o=">Click
here to unsubscribe</a><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</footer></div>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</span><br>
<span><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fchandra.roychoudhuri%2540uconn.edu%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C2110708681e0430c893e08d7a9f40420%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637164737836281051&sdata=1%2FS1HhSgpkmjP6oau3WOPjDayhG2VauaqH9LYO5btOU%3D&reserved=0"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>