[Physics] Response to queries on Electron Vortex.

[Tufail Abbas]

Hello Carl,

I would like to response to some of your queries:

>>>>You are declaring that every electron "creates" a vortex.  That process
would require "energy" which apparently would have to come from the
electron (as kinetic energy) and as "Spin of the vortex".

I believe that you would agree their is still lack of consensus regarding
geometrical meaning of energy and mass, or if the consensus is already
made,  atleast I am not aware it. Let me clarify that by a geometrical
description I mean, something which can be expressed in terms of just *length
and angles.* I am thinking purely in terms of lengths and angles, without
any mass and energy. These are the same angles that is subtended by a
distant stars at our telescopes. These are the same lengths that gets added
as volume to Universe as its expands. I do not mean by it any length or
angle that our Universe subtend to the so called 4th dimension.

It is not necessary that lengths being emitted by electrons shall create
new volume at the exact location where it is created.  If the net addition
of length is only along the axis of Galaxy and not on the Galactic Plane
then Gravitation can be  explained as an effect of Hubble Expansion.

The role of vortex movement and geometry can be related with the propeller
or turbine wing construction . Turbines rotates by transferring the fluid
on one side to other side. In my proposal, that fluid is made of *discrete
lengths* being continuously emitted by electrons on either side of its
dominant axis/orientation .

*AVERAGE* length added on either side of electron *PER UNIT TIME *is equal
hence electron can move only move in a circular path. The length of the
*TIME* of this reference frame of electron corresponds to the period in
which *AVERAGING *takes place. And we are well aware that time dilates.

Vortex movement of electron along the orbit around nucleus shall ensure
that  fluid/length on nucleus side is propelled to outer side. Hence there
is no net increase in the volume of atom. The process continues through
series of propellors encountered along the way, until the final propellor
direct the fluid (or length) along the axis of the Milky Way Galaxy. In
this way, our Milky Way Galaxy continues to gravitate by churning out the
fluid (lengths) being created within it, by its constituents (electron, up
quark and down quarks)

>>>>>It would require that each vortex has a specific "direction", whatever
that might mean.

By specific direction I does not mean the direction of the vortex itself,
but the relative orientation of the platform from which the vortex is
created. For example : Tornadoes are produced from the surface of the
earth. They may orient at any angle relative to earth surface. But one part
of the earth will have a relative orientation with respect to other part of
of earth. Howsoever the earth rotates or moves, north pole will always be
out of phase by π radians as compared to south pole. In a similar way
electrons , up quarks and down will have relative  orientation, possibly
orthogonal orientation, howsoever they move through the void.

>>>>>You have asked : has anyone experimentally found any evidence that any
element of "aether" has either mechanical kinetic energy or Spin?

I am sure that you yourself have verified as physicist that photons are
spin 1 particles. Well I may disagree whether photon is a particle or not,
but I certainly agree that photons have spin. Moreover, their is no
disagreement on the fact that photons have kinetic energy.You have several
times motivated us to do 4D maths, according to which photons follow a path
called geodesic. Why can't we say that photons itself constitutes the
geodesic.

I have already clarified that I consider no difference between field and
aether. Now if you say the fields exist but aether do not, then I do not
have any problem with that.  However, the difference between aether and
photon should be same as the difference between steady state flow and
turbulent flow. Or we can think about photons as local surge in steady
state stream of fluid. Steady state flow is that which should cause
gravity. Turbulence of steady flow should be electromagnetic waves

>>>>>Further, if your idea is right, then every electron is "spacially
affected and altered" by that process of creating an aether vortex, but I
am not aware tht anyone has ecver detected such aberrant movment of any
electron, although that might represennt a possibllel  experimental way of
confirming what you say.

I believe that I have already explained how the rotation of electrons
around nucleus is a representation of steady state flow. And jumping
between orbits is possibly the result of turbulent flow. Hence, I do not
envisage any other aberrant movement. If you are expecting some specific
aberration, as consequence of my explaination. Please let me know.

>>>>>Finally, if there is an aether which has some finite amount of kinetic
energgy in every vortex, and also Spin (identifyingn direction) in every
vortex, there should be all sorts of experimental ways to confirm all of
what you say.

Off-course, there should be all sorts of experimental ways to confirm all
that what I say. But I believe that we are yet not there. At the moment our
prime objective is to find a value using existing research, to explain the
physical significance of constants that we already know, in terms of just
angles and lengths.

Path to finding those values is to find the wave-functions defined by the
structure constants (to be discovered) of dominant waveforms that exist
around us. These dominant waveforms are:

Sun,
Sea,
Atmosphere
Earth,
Moon,
Jupiter,
Saturn etc.

Our paper (
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4I3nUFrsnnIZU5tRTdDUVJybldYOXBaOFgtd0NSUjlkOU1F/view?usp=drivesdk
) was just an small attempt into that direction, wherein we have introduced
a concept by which, it may become possible to find and refine the structure
constant of Solar System

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On 31 March 2018 at 20:28, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Interesting thoughts, but I see  problem in your logic.  You are
> declaring that every electron "creates" a vortex.  That process would
> require "energy" which apparently would have to come from the electron (as
> kinetic energy) and as "Spin of the vortex".  It would require that each
> vortex has a specific "direction", whatever that might mean.    But has
> anyone experimentally found any evidence that any element of "aether" has
> either mechanical kinetic energy or Spin?   Further, if your idea is right,
> then every electron is "spacially affected and altered" by that process of
> creating an aether vortex, but I am not aware tht anyone has ecver detected
> such aberrant movment of any electron, although that might represennt a
> possibllel  experimental way of confirming what you say.   Finally, if
> there is an aether which has some finite amount of kinetic energgy in every
> vortex, and also Spin (identifyingn direction) in every vortex, there
> should be all sorts of experimental ways to confirm all of what you say.
> Carl Johnson   _______________________________________________ Physics
> mailing list Physics at tuks.nl <Physics at tuks.nl>
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20180402/fa6071db/attachment.html>