[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

Tue Feb 14 19:36:56 CET 2017

Ruud, 

Apologies if I am repeating what I sent earlier, but you
will find in my paper on the foundations of physics at
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000151 that the adjusted SI Planck
values (maximum or minimum) of the basic parameters (both
electromagnetic and mechanical) are powers of the Planck mass or inverse
of the Planck charge. Only the fine structure constant is left
unexplained. What this means is that 8 pi G is just a dimensionless
ratio and G can be eliminated from all equations by adjusting the value
of parameters in SI. 

Cheers 

Mike 

On 13.02.2017 04:06, Ruud Loeffen
wrote: 

> 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: 
> 
> If some body
read "Mind-blowing Gravitation" [4] 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
[5]> 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 [1]> 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 [2]
>>
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics [3]
> 
> -- 
> 
>
RUUD LOEFFEN 
> Paardestraat32 
> 6131HC Sittard 
>
http://www.human-DNA.org [6]

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com
[2] mailto:Physics at tuks.nl
[3]
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
[4]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqwwl4vhym9exua/Mind-blowing%20Gravitation.%20RMM%20Loeffen%20February%2012%202017.pdf?dl=0
[5]
mailto:tufail.abbas at gmail.com
[6] http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170214/9a9759bb/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/20170214/9a9759bb/attachment.png>