<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal">To Carl Johnson.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I read on Carl’s website interesting
information about the movement of our Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy. I favor
Carl’s ideas and insights as he mentioned on his website <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public/<wbr>galaxy.html</a>
I am especially interested in the information there provided:<br>
<i><font color="#0000ff">"Given that our local motion is believed
to be around 20 km/sec toward the Apex, this means that the Sun has a Z-axis
(vertical) component velocity of around 8.7 km/sec upward relative to the
Galaxy Plane (toward the North Galactic Pole). It also has a radially-inward
(toward the Core) component velocity component of around 12.0 km/sec. The bulk
of this local motion is the third component, along the direction of the
revolution motion of the Sun around the Galaxy, with that component being
around 16.0 km/sec. This is in general agreement with currently accepted
figures: (found in Wiedenhoff) "the galactic circular velocity components,
which give [for the Sun] U = -9 km/sec, V = +12 km/sec, and W = +7
km/sec." where "Space motions comprise a three-dimensional
determination of stellar motion. They may be divided into a set of components
related to directions in the Galaxy: U, directed away from the galactic centre;
V, in the direction of galactic rotation; and W, toward the north galactic
pole."</font><span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I hope you read my Emails about the possible
relation between Gravitation (especially the Newtonian Constant) and Lorentz
Transformation of Mass-Energy (LTME). I calculated the velocity “v” in the LTME equation to be 12278 m/s <font color="#9900ff">(12,278 km/s)</font> or v^2 to be: 1,507553E+08<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Do you think that there could be some relation between the magnitudes above and the calculations in the LTME calculation?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I put a paper about the reasoning on the factor Gamma in my Dropbox. Perhaps you and other members could be interested. <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/88c4chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%20FACTOR.pdf?dl=0" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/s/<wbr>88c4chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%<wbr>20FACTOR.pdf?dl=0</a>
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best regards.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Ruud Loeffen.</span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:11 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com" target="_blank">cj@mb-soft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">To Tom Hollings:</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I think we are on the same page, but I really
believe that Gravitational Lensing is POSSIBLE, although I do not think it is
due to any GR effects. My specific issue here is that geometry and logic
should seem to create "perfectly symmetric" patterns of images, same brightness,
same spacing, same spectras. When I have looked at claims of
Einstein Crosses, and very carefully measured the spacing of the images, I have
not seen any which really have precise spacing. I have not had access to
the spectra of the various Einstein Cross images, but some seem to just be
"really poor". </font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">As to the basic CAUSE of possible Gravitational
Lensing, it may be beyond me. I look forward to anyone informing me of any
Einstein Cross which seems to be logically and geometrically impressive, to
confirm to me that the "phenomenon" is credible. Once that is the case,
bring on any arguments regarding mass and such.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Mr. Hollings, you may enjoy a graphic in one of my
web-pages, <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public/<wbr>galaxy.html</a></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">IIt is a sky map showing the locations of the Core,
the location 90 degrees away from that (as a potential direction our "sun
orbiting" might be headed in that <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">200
million year orbit), the ACTUAL direction our Sun is moving (XYZ), etc. I
used that info to determine the Z velocity of our actual sun's motion (currently
upward). I also combined the various velocities to determine our
components due to the Kepler gravitational effect and some other velocities we
experience within our Orion Arm. Around twenty years ago, I concluded that
our Solar system "weaves" radially across our Arm (partly due to the asymmetric
taper spape of all Spiral Arms, where more attraction is "ahead of us" and less
attraction "behind us" in our Arm. Other gravitational effects also exist,
all of which I credit to Newton, and NONE of which I credit to any GR. I
spent a couple years doing the newtonian gravitational attraction calculations,
and came to an estimate that one result is that we "weave" back and forth across
our Arm about every 52 million years (and we are currently near the inner edge
of it. </font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">No one has ever bought into this (yet) but those
calculations suggest that we pass through a very cluttered Arm center-line area
every <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">26 million years. I think it may
be a cause for the Moon and Mars and Mercury to have southern hemispheres which
are very pock-marked. And possibly bombardment on us on Earth 65 million
years ago which might have toasted the latest dinosaurs.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Oh, the <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">200
million year sun orbit figure is mostly due to a (very weak) Kepler
calculation. It may be fairly accurate, but I am uncomfortable with the
logic in relying on Kepler for it.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">And people in this group seem to assume that I am a
"Relativity wonk". RARELY, I see enough logic to support some possible SR
or GR claims, but many of you guys seem to w ant to associate GR with far too
many things. I am currently composing a fairly brief discussion about SR,
which mostly denies almost all the issues it gets credit for. It IS valid,
but for some reason, nearly everyone seems to give even SR all kinds of
credit.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Carl Johnson</font></div>
<div> </div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>