[Physics] Response to queries on Electron Vortex.

[Arend Lammertink]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


How can one possibly add up "lenghts", which have no volume, to obtain a volume?

To me, that does not compute at all....


>
> 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.

How do you see such "emitted lengths" relate to the electro magnetic fields?



>
> 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 .

>From the wave-particle duality principle, we know that particles such
as the electron are electro-magnetic in nature and therefore the
electron must somehow cosist of the fluid you are referring to.



>
> 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.

Well, we are all aware that current main stream science states that
time dilates, but in reality that is merely a consequence of the
errors that made it's way into Maxwell's equations. It is these errors
which cause Maxwell's equations to be "incompatible" with the Galilean
transform. Instead of fixing the problem, the Lorentz transform was
invented, which demands a universally constant speed of light:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

So, because of some mathematical freak, we ended up with a theory
which messus up the concepts of "time",  "space" and "medium" to such
a degree no one can make any sense out of it anymore. The result is
that "dark  matter", "dark energy" and "spooky action at a distance",
for example, are considered perfectly acceptable, while the simple
beauty of the aether is rejected and ridiculed.


In a nutshell, we have all been taught concepts which are
self-contradictory, yet we accept them as given even though great
minds of science of the past pointed out the lunacy we find ourselves
in decades ago:


http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TeslaPreparedStatement80stBirthday

"According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing
to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a
semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still
self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent
reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those
of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding
space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that
the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite
effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are
coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is
entirely impossible.

But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies
as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for
them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature
on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing
the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in
the phenomena."



Best regards,

Arend.