<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body>
<p>Ruud,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Mike</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 13.02.2017 04:06, Ruud Loeffen wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div dir="ltr">Hello all.
<div>The remark of Tufail Abbas was: "<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">In this context what is your interpretation of Kappa (8πG/c^2). I mean, what physically it could mean"</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">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:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><img src="cid:fe554d4f52372e18da6f4c75d9ebb9d5@freenetname.co.uk" &_id=155836068558a34c43428d2" alt="Inline image 1" width="431" height="472" /><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">If some body read <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqwwl4vhym9exua/Mind-blowing%20Gravitation.%20RMM%20Loeffen%20February%2012%202017.pdf?dl=0">"Mind-blowing Gravitation"</a> 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 c</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"> it is related to the increase of matter.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">We are all searching for "What physically could it mean". Together we will find out.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Best regards.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Ruud Loeffen.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Tufail Abbas <span><<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Dear Jesus,</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">My further comments are as follows:</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">ON SOLUTION 1</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">ON SOLUTION 2 AND 3</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">OTHER PARTS OF RESPONSE.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">It was all insightful, specially following paragraph is thought provoking,.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">>>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).</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">In this context what is your interpretation of Kappa (8πG/c^2). I mean, what physically it could mean.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Thanks,</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Tufail </span></div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">On 12 Feb 2017 20:29, <<a href="mailto:jesus.sanchez.bilbao@gmail.com">jesus.sanchez.bilbao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="m_2038854071906840263quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div lang="ES">
<div class="m_2038854071906840263m_707780491605456272WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Tufail,<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks a lot and best regards,<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Jesus Sanchez<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<div>
<p><span>>>When the number of particles increases in a region of space, the space<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>itself increases in that region, making distances longer [5] in that region<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>of space. When the number of particles decreases in the same region of<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>space, the distances become shorter (the space reduces or shrinks) [5].<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>*Density of particle in a region resulting into increase or decrease of<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>space, sound like as if ?particle? is cause responsible for effect as<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>'space warping?. Therefore particle and space are two different physical<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>entities out there. Hence it is necessary that there should be a mechanism<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>or physical law by which these two entities interact with each other, and<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>we should be interested in discovering this mechanism.. Or otherwise , is<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>it being suggested/assumed by this paper that particle made of<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>energy/charge are somehow , one and same?*<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>**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:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="m_2038854071906840263quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div lang="ES">
<div class="m_2038854071906840263m_707780491605456272WordSection1">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Solution 2) The following comment that I have said before, is not true: <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>'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?<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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.**<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>>>Remember, that particles in this context mean not only mass particles but<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>also force carriers, mainly photons that are everywhere in space<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>*Mass particles differs from photons, in the sense that they travels at<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>speed less than c. Will this difference account for any difference in<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>type/orientation etc of the space that is associated/created with each kind<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>of particles. Since the derivation is based only on electron and it's<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>emitted photons, what further implications should we assume for other<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>particles.*<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>**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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>The effects of other particles have not been calculated so they are not proved or validated.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Anyhow, following the philosophy of the paper, what it is expected is the following:<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>-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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>-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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>-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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>-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. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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).**<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>>>Even with the not intuitive assumptions commented in chapter 1 and the<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>assumptions considered to perform the calculations, the result is<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>surprising anyhow?...The added value of this paper is that the theory leads<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>to a calculation of G using only electromagnetic parameters that is a way<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>of validating or at least giving some push to the theory.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>*No doubt , this was a great paper trying to find a possible connection<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>between electromagnetism and gravity and such endeavor should continue.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Values matched, data fits in. In order to further validate the equation of<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>G, we need to discover the physical significance of each of the parameters<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>that is used in the equation. *<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>**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.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>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). <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Take into account, that in this paper, the calculation of G results as a 'side effect' of making equal both concepts.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Anyhow, if we are able to understand the really meaning of equation (1) would be a great advance!**<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>*As on date we still don't know, what exactly/ physically does E=mc2 mean,<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>or atleast their is no consensus in its physical meaning.*<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>**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.**<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />_______________________________________________<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">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br /><br /></blockquote>
</div>
<br /><br clear="all" />-- <br />
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><strong>Ruud Loeffen</strong></span>
<div><span style="font-family: monospace,monospace;">Paardestraat32</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: monospace,monospace;">6131HC Sittard</span></div>
<div><a style="font-size: 12.8px;" href="http://www.human-DNA.org">http://www.human-DNA.org</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
</body></html>