[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

Mon Feb 13 13:55:00 CET 2017

Hello Ruud,

I am in agreement with Jesus regarding interpretation of Kappa.

And your opinion (i.e. increase  of mass) will not be in contradiction,
 if  at the most fundamental level, mass itself is a kind of space ( i.e  a
geometric parameter).

We are indeed getting closer.

Regards,

Tufail

On 13 February 2017 at 16:26, Jesus Sanchez <jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170213/5195e5d0/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/20170213/5195e5d0/attachment.png>