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

Thu Feb 9 11:02:27 CET 2017

Jesus, 

Thanks for the comparison. That we use different names or
viewpoints to describe what may be the same things is just a small issue
on the way to a completely accepted theory of everything. 

Cheers

Mike 

On 08.02.2017 21:46, jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com wrote: 

>
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 [1] para Windows 10

Links:
------
[1]
https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170209/17bbb0c1/attachment.html>