[Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2

[jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com]

Dear Mike,

Thanks a lot for your link to the paper “How SI Units Hide…”. 
In that paper it is explained how the physics can be better understood changing the set of units from SI Units into a new type of units called TAPU units (relations to Planck quantities). It is, let’s say like a change of coordinates of the set of units.
The important thing is that during this change, in this new coordinate system it is discovered some relation between magnitudes normally hidden (viscosity with mass or velocity), space and acceleration with electromagnetic field parameters (like inductance for example).

I comment you that the papers from myself “Calculation of the gravitational...” and P.R. Silva “Links of Gravity...”, regarding the relation of G with the electromagnetic parameters, are not at all incompatible with that paper “How SI...”. Even, I show you some similarities below. The difference is that in the paper of the TAPU units, the relations are found during this change of coordinates and in the other papers some of them are really the core of them:

-In the paper “Calculation of the gravitational...”, space is considered as composed by particles as photons (the carriers of the electromagnetic field). These photons permeate space and it is the uneven distribution of them which provokes gravity. In the paper “How SI units Hide...” it is explained, in different occasions, how space and velocities are considered to be related to the electromagnetic field (representing inductance or other EM parameters).. 
-In “How SI units Hide...” the mass (gravity) is considered to be an effect inherent to the viscosity of space. This is the same concept as an space composed by particles that permeate it, affecting the masses, as it is explained in “Calculation of the...”.
-In “How SI units Hide...” relations of the different parameters using the fine structure constant and square roots of pi or 2 are commonly repeated (appeared due to the change of the unit system). In the “Calculation of the gravitational...”, you can see that this relation (square root of fine structure constant and 2) appears (coming form completely different calculations) also to relate G to the other electromagnetic parameters.

So the three papers are not incompatible at all. Even, they seem complementary and that they support each other. Main difference is that “How SI Units Hide...” is made in TAPU units and most discoveries are made during the change from SI to TAPU.
And “Calculations...” and “Links...” are made in SI units and the discoveries are made during different steps in a more “traditional” way, let’s say.

Thanks a lot for the paper “How SI Units Hide...”. It has been very interesting to see again how it is possible to arrive to the same conclusions using very different paths/methods.

Thanks and best Regards,
Jesus Sanchez

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:51:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: "carmam at tiscali.co.uk" <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
To: <physics at tuks.nl>
Subject: Re: [Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
Message-ID:
	<28933528.629851486471866826.JavaMail.defaultUser at defaultHost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Mike, I am answering to your
post, but this really is a general post, prompted by reading your link. 

We come across the phrase "The equivalence of
gravitational and inertial mass", mentioned in your link ?How SI Units
Hide the Equal Strength of Gravitation and Charge Fields? quite often, but the
phrase really is meaningless. Let me explain. Inertia is an illusion, there is
no such thing, therefore there is no "inertial mass", just mass. This was brought to my attention quite vividly a few years ago
when I drove a van with a sliding side door. Sometimes I would set off driving
with the side door open, and it would slide closed. The thought occurred to me
?That is inertia at work?. 

A closer inspection however, reveals what is happening. As I
set off, looking at the side door (not good driving practice I know), I could
see that as I set off, the door remained stationary relative to the road until
it closed, then it moved with the van. What is happening here is that the door
(assuming perfect friction free runners), is having no force applied to it and
therefore does not move relative to the road. It is obeying Newton?s
first law and is quite simply left behind as the van moves. This gives rise to
the illusion that there is something resisting movement. There is not. As no
force is being applied, no movement is possible. QED.

 Tom Hollings.
----Original Message----

From: mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk

Date: 06/02/2017 22:28

To: <physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Fwd: Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2






Jesus,

The hyperlinkfor the paper is http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000151

Any questions, please ask.

Cheers

Mike



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170207/fe5da6a8/attachment-0001.html>


Enviado desde Correo para Windows 10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170208/d91b8330/attachment.html>