[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

[Ruud Loeffen]

Hello all.

The remark of Tufail Abbas was: "In this context what is your
interpretation of Kappa (8πG/c^2). I mean, what physically it could mean"

I think this is very important question. I made an overview of some
constants inside and outside our solarsystem. This overview also contains
the "kappa" constant:
[image: Inline image 1]
If some body read "Mind-blowing Gravitation"
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqwwl4vhym9exua/Mind-blowing%20Gravitation.%20RMM%20Loeffen%20February%2012%202017.pdf?dl=0>
you will find this overview and it is connected to the Lorentz
Transformation of Mass-Energy. Kappa in the form of 2 times gamma minus 1
over c2 it is related to the increase of matter.

We are all searching for "What physically could it mean". Together we will
find out.

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Jesus,
>
> My further comments are as follows:
>
> ON SOLUTION 1
>
> If photon occupy a definite space that create a space of same size, then
> what is your idea about free space. Is it some photon of zero frequency or
> something similar or something else.
>
> Are you saying that possibility exists that all photons irrespective of
> frequency,  may be all are of same size in volume. If you have any
> proof/logic regarding this, please share for my benefit.
>
> ON SOLUTION 2 AND 3
>
> Since I partly agree with you that number of particles are directly
> related to (a kind of ) space within a region, my intent through commenting
> on this paper is to find out possible leads for solving a related puzzle
> that I am working on. Though I do not agree with warping.
>
> OTHER PARTS OF RESPONSE.
>
> It was all insightful, specially following paragraph is thought provoking,.
>
> >>This is, trying to understand why the Schwarzschild metric equations
> (based in General Relativity) increase the space around the mass (and with
> its corresponding specific value). And why/how the space is
> created/occupied by the photons emitted by the particle (and why with that
> value).
>
> In this context what is your interpretation of Kappa (8πG/c^2). I mean,
> what physically it could mean.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tufail
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2017 20:29, <jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Tufail,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your interest in my paper. I answer below with the double
> **. I expect I answer your doubts, or better, I create new doubts! Do not
> hesitate to contact if any comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot and best regards,
>
> Jesus Sanchez
>
>
>
> >>When the number of particles increases in a region of space, the space
>
> itself increases in that region, making distances longer [5] in that region
>
> of space. When the number of particles decreases in the same region of
>
> space, the distances become shorter (the space reduces or shrinks) [5].
>
>
>
> *Density of particle in a region resulting into increase or decrease of
>
> space, sound like as if ?particle? is cause responsible for effect as
>
> 'space warping?. Therefore particle and space are two different physical
>
> entities out there. Hence it is necessary that there should be a mechanism
>
> or physical law by which these two entities interact with each other, and
>
> we should be interested in discovering this mechanism.. Or otherwise , is
>
> it being suggested/assumed by this paper that particle made of
>
> energy/charge are somehow , one and same?*
>
>
>
> **I agree with your comment and it is really a problem that is difficult
> to understand/solve. If we comment that the 'quantity' of space itself
> depends on the number of particles that occupy it, the 'density' of this
> space should always be the same in all the areas of space. Therefore, no
> warping (gravity) should appear. At this stage, I can see only three
> solutions:
>
>
>
> Solution 1) As you comment, particles and space are different entities and
> their relation is based in a still to be discovered mechanism. In this
> paper, it has not been considered like this. The effects of the particles
> occupying space to the new space created by them, is considered to be 1 to
> 1. This means, the size of a photon creates space of exactly the same size.
> If the relation is not 1 to 1 but it has different factors, this could
> approximate even more equation (1) to the known value of G, if these
> factors are discovered. So this is clear a possibility and the paper should
> be revised if these new factors are discovered.
>
>
>
> Solution 2) The following comment that I have said before, is not true:
>
> 'If the 'quantity' of space itself depends on the number of particles that
> occupy it, the 'density' of this space should always be the same in all the
> areas of space. Therefore, no warping (gravity) should appear.'. Could be
> that this is not true?
>
> Let's say that even being counter-intuitive, or if it is very difficult to
> visualize, it could happen that even not existing an absolute space
> background, the different quantities of particles (mainly photons) create
> distortions in space. These distortions cannot be observed locally as all
> the measurement devices, objects etc... are affected by the same property
> of space in the same area.
>
> But yes, it can be observed from one area to another area with a different
> number of particles that the properties of space are different in both
> locations (distances, lengths of objects, time...). This goes in line with
> General Relativity as also there, space has different properties depending
> on the position (that creates the warping) with no necessity of a perfect
> Euclidean space background. The changes of the metric in space are
> completely internal and caused by internal objects. No necessity of a
> factor that relates the warped space (the existing one) with an absolute
> Euclidean background space.
>
> So it could happen that even if it is difficult to visualize, the number
> of particles (mainly photons) could create distortions of space depending
> on the quantity of these particles that are acting in the different parts
> of space. So their effects are different in one area compared to another
> one creating finally the distortions.
>
> Take also into account that in the solution 1), if the factor that relates
> the number of particles with the 'quantity' of space is a constant,
> solutions 1) and 2) are the same, with a factor of escalation. Solutions 1)
> and 2) are only different if the factors depend in variable parameters.
>
>
>
> Solution 3) The assumption of the paper that the 'quantity' of space and
> the number of particles could be directly (or at least with some factors)
> related, is wrong. In this case, it is clear that the paper is wrongly
> deployed. The result of the value of G or even some parts or calculations
> of the paper could be ok, but at least the interpretation of the
> paper/results would be wrong. This is also totally possible, of course.
> This is the reason we are commenting the paper.**
>
>
>
> >>Remember, that particles in this context mean not only mass particles but
>
> also force carriers, mainly photons that are everywhere in space
>
>
>
> *Mass particles  differs from photons, in the sense that they travels at
>
> speed less than c. Will this difference account for any difference in
>
> type/orientation etc of the space that is associated/created with each kind
>
> of particles. Since the derivation is based only on electron and it's
>
> emitted photons, what further implications should we assume for other
>
> particles.*
>
>
>
> **At this stage and with these calculations, it has only been validated
> -or at least calculated- as you comment, the effects on space of the
> photons emitted by an electron.
>
> The effects of other particles have not been calculated so they are not
> proved or validated.
>
> Anyhow, following the philosophy of the paper, what it is expected is the
> following:
>
> -The effects of mass particles on space are mainly provoked by the
> particles (force carriers) that they (the mass particles) emit. These force
> carriers increase space with their existence and travel provoking the
> warping of space. The issue is that, in general, the force carriers of
> other forces that are not e/m (strong and weak) have very limited
> life/travel so their effect in space is much less than the photons, that
> have almost infinite life in their travel and occupy all the areas of space.
>
> -The effect of mass particles themselves due to their existence,
> increasing the 'quantity' of space, it should exist also but very probably
> is much less than the effect of the 'force carriers' that they are emitting
> continuously. As an example, in my paper I have not considered at all the
> presence of the electron as affecting space, just of the photons it is
> continuously emitting.
>
> -The effect of non-mass particles (in general photons) is as commented,
> increasing the space while they occupy it in their travel. And it is this
> increase of space they create, which provokes warping.
>
> -One question it could appear is why there are particles with mass and no
> charge. These particles should not emit photons (as the neutron or the
> neutrinos for example). The answer here is that they create both positive
> and negative e/m fields, cancelling each other but the photons are emitted
> anyhow (even if their effects are cancelled as e/m). These photons emitted
> occupy space and warp it, as commented.
>
> This can be see clearly in the neutron as it is composed by quarks with
> positive and negative charges (even if the result is zero). Or in the
> neutrinos that have magnetic moment (what means that they have somehow an
> intrinsic charge distribution inside, even if the sum is zero).**
>
>
>
> >>Even with the not intuitive assumptions commented in chapter 1 and the
>
> assumptions considered to perform the calculations, the result is
>
> surprising anyhow?...The added value of this paper is that the theory leads
>
> to a calculation of G using only electromagnetic parameters that is a way
>
> of validating or at least giving some push to the theory.
>
>
>
> *No doubt , this was a great paper trying to find a possible connection
>
> between electromagnetism and gravity and such endeavor should continue.
>
> Values matched, data fits in. In order to further validate the equation of
>
> G, we need to discover the physical significance of each of the parameters
>
> that is used in the equation. *
>
>
>
> **Thanks a lot. Yes, trying to understand the meaning of each parameter in
> the equation (1) could be difficult or at least not intuitive. Instead of
> trying to understand the equation (1) I would recommend to try to
> understand the concepts from its origin.
>
> This is, trying to understand why the Schwarzschild metric equations
> (based in General Relativity) increase the space around the mass (and with
> its corresponding specific value). And why/how the space is
> created/occupied by the photons emitted by the particle (and why with that
> value).
>
> Take into account, that in this paper, the calculation of G results as a
> 'side effect' of making equal both concepts.
>
> Anyhow, if we are able to understand the really meaning of equation (1)
> would be a great advance!**
>
>
>
> *As on date we still don't know, what exactly/ physically does E=mc2 mean,
>
> or atleast their is no consensus in its physical meaning.*
>
>
>
> **Fully agree with that. But that, has not stopped us to get a lot of
> different applications (in medicine, energy...) which could not be possible
> without that equation. With this, I mean, we can and we should go forward
> with the different little (or of course very big as E=mc2) achievements
> even if we do still do not understand them completely.**
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>


-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170213/790f99bf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 68192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170213/790f99bf/attachment.png>