[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

[Jesus Sanchez]

Dear Ruud,

thanks a lot for your Mind-blowing Gravitation. I have not had time at the
moment to check it completely, but just seeing the index (very
interesting!), I am wishing to enter in detail.
I will comment when I finish. Regarding kappa, as commented in the earlier
email I have it considered like a kind of increase of space (see previous
emial) but only if it is multiplied by a mass. Your view is very
interesting (the opposite, let's say), an increase of mass. Let me check
your paper in detail to answer.

Thanks a lot and best regrads,
Jesus

2017-02-13 5:06 GMT+01:00 Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>:

> 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/abf09a5b/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/abf09a5b/attachment.png>