Many thanks, it seems that the antiquated rules of the Nobel prize are changing ever so slowly. Very soon they may allow entire groups to be awarded a Prize. The Big N is in danger of becoming irrelevant to real professionals. At present the rules are decidely not cricket. I remember GJE participating in one cricket match with the EDCL team, he was so bored that he fell asleep on his feet, and defied gravity.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 18/01/2016 09:28:21 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: UFT311 Scores a Century

This is a very important paper that will have won over many doubters. I think it will become a classic and even more well read as the current work progresses. A Nobel Prize winner in an objective world applying the ideals of Baconian science where experiment is supported fully supported by theory.

Sent from my Samsung device

Agreed, the key question is to try to find a method of finding the mass. In the new W theory the vacuum is as structure as material matter.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 18/01/2016 09:22:11 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 338(1): Tesla Particles

It will be interesting to see what sort of mass is inferred and how much smaller these particles are than electrons as Horst suggests. It is quite incredible that the “vacuum” has had this “hidden secret” and that we may even start to understand things such as magnetism in a new (and proper) way for the first time as a consequence. Ground breaking is an under statement!

Sent from my Samsung device

Pleasure, I just sent over the first note, 338(2).

In a message dated 18/01/2016 08:36:13 GMT Standard Time writes:

Very much appreciated, this is an interesting research subject and “totally original” as always.

Horst

Am 18.01.2016 um 09:07 schrieb EMyrone:

All very interesting. I will begin the evaluation of these effects, starting with the derivation of tha Lamb shift from the W four potential of the AB spacetime or vacuum. The theory to date infers a mass m(vac) of some kind of particle, which I refer to for convenience as the Tesla particle.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 17/01/2016 19:35:28 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 338(1): The Mass of the Universe from ECE2

From the description I have about Tesla’s physical theory, space is densely packed with particles, being electrically neutral when seen from outside. Each particle is like a small Hydrogen atom, it contains a positive core and a negative hull. These particles can be polarized by electric fields, evoking an electric dipole moment. Another view is that the electric field “is” the propagation of such polarized particles.
Possibly they can be handled like Bosons in the neutral case but I am not sure. Electrons polarize the particles around the “naked, nearly point-like, negative electron core”. This gives a dipole layer around the core so that the outer electronic field is the known Coulomb-field. This structure may be the reason why different experiments give differnt values of the electron radius. I found a description of this in a German journal which I will study in more detail. It is not clear if the charge of a Tesla particle is +/-e or smaller.

According to my working hypothesis, the flow of Tesla particles is described by the ECE vector potential W and the pressure in the “Tesla fluid” is given by the electric scalar potential W0. These are equivalent with the spin connections in free space but both may differ when the Tesla particles interact with matter. The interaction is very weak because the particles are very small compared to electrons and protons, perhaps like Neutrino-matter interaction. In this picture a magnetic field is an effect of a turbulent (vortex) flow of Tesla particles.

Horst

According to Tesla’s theory, these polarization effects create

Am 17.01.2016 um 10:05 schrieb EMyrone:

Fully agreed, I will see if the mass density can be estimated, using the well known methods developed to estimate the contribution of photon mass to the mass of the universe. This can be looked up as part of a lit search in one of the Evans / Morris papers. Instead of the photon mass, the vacuum or Tesla particle mass is used. QED is a hopeless case, not a precise theory at all, as our UFT85 shows very clearly. QED has several adjustables which go under obscure names such as dimensional regularization, a grammatical disaster area. There is a clear need for a theory to replace QED. QCD is also a hopeless case in my opinion, full of obscurites and adjustables. In UFT337 it was shown that the “vacuum” behaves as a “relativistic Tesla particle” if you like. This particle can collide with an electron, and scatter from an electron as in Compton scattering in our very popular series UFT158ff. It could be that two Tesla particles of energy h bar omega collide to give an electron positron pair. Is the Tesla particle a fermion or a boson? If described in the SU(2) basis it would be a fermion, obeying Fermi Dirac statistics.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 16/01/2016 20:02:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: 338(1): The Mass of the Universe from ECE2

Concerning the energy density of the vacuum, there are opposing statements. According to the Lamb shift of the AB vacuum, the effect is very small, indicating a very low “mass density” of vacuum particles. By experiments, spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation has been observed, for example electron-positron pairs. For this process to arise spontaneously in the observed frequency, the energy density of the vacuum has to be extremely high, the so-called quantum vacuum. As far as I know, this has been computed with QED methods, not very trustable in our opinion. It would therefore be interesting how such processes could be explained on basis o fthe AB vacuum. According to Tesla, the space is densely filled with vacuum particles. Perhaps this assumption (together with a radius assumption) could serve for an estimation of the vacuum “mass density”.

Horst

Am 16.01.2016 um 11:13 schrieb EMyrone:

In this note it is shown that the mass of the AB vacuum particle is defined by the scalar part of the spin connection by Eq. (31), i.e. m(vac) = (h bar / c) omega sup 0. So the mass of the universe is made up of these particles of vacuum mass. The mass of any elementary particle is m + m(vac), because the particle is always in contact with the vacuum. So it becomes easy to understand that the AB vacuum transfers rest energy E(vac) = m(vac) c squared to any elementary particle such as an electron. The same mecahnism is repsonsible for all the radiative corrections, notably the anomalous g factor of the electron, the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect. They re all due to the spin connection of the AB vacuum, i. e. its geometry. There is no need to postulate “dark matter”, which has no logical basis in geometry or in relativity theory.

No one understands them, and even fewer the rules of baseball. A cricket match can go on for six days, so most people just fall asleep. I remember an American post doc trying to play cricket with the EDCL team, he could not hit the ball at all. I also remember trying to play baseball in the Hudson valley, with similar results. A bouncer is generally intended to cause annihilation.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 18/01/2016 08:27:08 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: UFT311 Scores a Century

good description (although I do not understand the rules of cricket).
Horst

Am 18.01.2016 um 09:19 schrieb EMyrone:

UFT311 is 102 not out so far in January 2016. It is by Kurt Arenhold and Horst Eckardt and is a precise and important verification of ECE theory with the Osamu Ide circuit – the self charging inverter on www.aias.us. Four runs were scored with a square cut off a bouncer by a string theorist. The ball landed a yard inside the boundary, otherwise it would have been a six. This message is understandable only in cricketing circles. In baseball it was a home run with ball lost in the crowd. It probably landed in someone’s popcorn in an example of inelastic scattering theory.

UFT311 is 102 not out so far in January 2016. It is by Kurt Arenhold and Horst Eckardt and is a precise and important verification of ECE theory with the Osamu Ide circuit – the self charging inverter on www.aias.us. Four runs were scored with a square cut off a bouncer by a string theorist. The ball landed a yard inside the boundary, otherwise it would have been a six. This message is understandable only in cricketing circles. In baseball it was a home run with ball lost in the crowd. It probably landed in someone’s popcorn in an example of inelastic scattering theory.

All very interesting. I will begin the evaluation of these effects, starting with the derivation of tha Lamb shift from the W four potential of the AB spacetime or vacuum. The theory to date infers a mass m(vac) of some kind of particle, which I refer to for convenience as the Tesla particle.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 17/01/2016 19:35:28 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 338(1): The Mass of the Universe from ECE2

From the description I have about Tesla’s physical theory, space is densely packed with particles, being electrically neutral when seen from outside. Each particle is like a small Hydrogen atom, it contains a positive core and a negative hull. These particles can be polarized by electric fields, evoking an electric dipole moment. Another view is that the electric field “is” the propagation of such polarized particles.
Possibly they can be handled like Bosons in the neutral case but I am not sure. Electrons polarize the particles around the “naked, nearly point-like, negative electron core”. This gives a dipole layer around the core so that the outer electronic field is the known Coulomb-field. This structure may be the reason why different experiments give differnt values of the electron radius. I found a description of this in a German journal which I will study in more detail. It is not clear if the charge of a Tesla particle is +/-e or smaller.

According to my working hypothesis, the flow of Tesla particles is described by the ECE vector potential W and the pressure in the “Tesla fluid” is given by the electric scalar potential W0. These are equivalent with the spin connections in free space but both may differ when the Tesla particles interact with matter. The interaction is very weak because the particles are very small compared to electrons and protons, perhaps like Neutrino-matter interaction. In this picture a magnetic field is an effect of a turbulent (vortex) flow of Tesla particles.

Horst

According to Tesla’s theory, these polarization effects create

Am 17.01.2016 um 10:05 schrieb EMyrone:

Fully agreed, I will see if the mass density can be estimated, using the well known methods developed to estimate the contribution of photon mass to the mass of the universe. This can be looked up as part of a lit search in one of the Evans / Morris papers. Instead of the photon mass, the vacuum or Tesla particle mass is used. QED is a hopeless case, not a precise theory at all, as our UFT85 shows very clearly. QED has several adjustables which go under obscure names such as dimensional regularization, a grammatical disaster area. There is a clear need for a theory to replace QED. QCD is also a hopeless case in my opinion, full of obscurites and adjustables. In UFT337 it was shown that the “vacuum” behaves as a “relativistic Tesla particle” if you like. This particle can collide with an electron, and scatter from an electron as in Compton scattering in our very popular series UFT158ff. It could be that two Tesla particles of energy h bar omega collide to give an electron positron pair. Is the Tesla particle a fermion or a boson? If described in the SU(2) basis it would be a fermion, obeying Fermi Dirac statistics.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 16/01/2016 20:02:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: 338(1): The Mass of the Universe from ECE2

Concerning the energy density of the vacuum, there are opposing statements. According to the Lamb shift of the AB vacuum, the effect is very small, indicating a very low “mass density” of vacuum particles. By experiments, spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation has been observed, for example electron-positron pairs. For this process to arise spontaneously in the observed frequency, the energy density of the vacuum has to be extremely high, the so-called quantum vacuum. As far as I know, this has been computed with QED methods, not very trustable in our opinion. It would therefore be interesting how such processes could be explained on basis o fthe AB vacuum. According to Tesla, the space is densely filled with vacuum particles. Perhaps this assumption (together with a radius assumption) could serve for an estimation of the vacuum “mass density”.

Horst

Am 16.01.2016 um 11:13 schrieb EMyrone:

In this note it is shown that the mass of the AB vacuum particle is defined by the scalar part of the spin connection by Eq. (31), i.e. m(vac) = (h bar / c) omega sup 0. So the mass of the universe is made up of these particles of vacuum mass. The mass of any elementary particle is m + m(vac), because the particle is always in contact with the vacuum. So it becomes easy to understand that the AB vacuum transfers rest energy E(vac) = m(vac) c squared to any elementary particle such as an electron. The same mecahnism is repsonsible for all the radiative corrections, notably the anomalous g factor of the electron, the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect. They re all due to the spin connection of the AB vacuum, i. e. its geometry. There is no need to postulate “dark matter”, which has no logical basis in geometry or in relativity theory.

The equivalent of 110,946 printed pages were downloaded during the day (384.318 megabytes of memory) from 2209 memory files downloaded (hits) and 437 distinct visits each averaging 3.4 memory pages and lasting 11 minutes on average, main spiders Cnsat (China), google, MSN and yahoo, site download from cytanet.com.cy (Cyprus). There are more than 3080 documents on the www.aias.us site, in a site download these are all read by computer and stored for study. Collected ECE2 2827, Top ten items 1963, Collected Evans / Morris 1162 (est), Collected scientometrics 307, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 265, Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 255, Autobiography volumes one and two 202; Proofs that no torsion means no gravitation 166, Principles of ECE 148, F3(Sp) 113, UFT311 102, UFT88 94, Engineering Model 92, UFT321 75, Evans Equations 70, CEFE 60, Self charging inverter 48, Llais 41, Lindstrom Idaho lecture 23, Three world records by MWE 9, List of most prolific scientists 8, UFT313 80, UFT314 68, UFT315 64, UFT316 77, UFT317 30, UFT318 93, UFT319 60, UFT320 53, UFT322 56, UFT323 175, UFT324 48, UFT325 52, UFT326 222, UFT327 203, UFT328 229, UFT329 212, UFT330 202, UFT331 161, UFT332 170, UFT333 162, UFT334 162, UFT335 162, UFT336 53, UFT337 13 to date in January 2016. Institute for Plasma Research India AIAS staff; University of Edinburgh UFT146, UFT167; Imperial College London UFT216. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for January 2016.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Fully agreed, I will see if the mass density can be estimated, using the well known methods developed to estimate the contribution of photon mass to the mass of the universe. This can be looked up as part of a lit search in one of the Evans / Morris papers. Instead of the photon mass, the vacuum or Tesla particle mass is used. QED is a hopeless case, not a precise theory at all, as our UFT85 shows very clearly. QED has several adjustables which go under obscure names such as dimensional regularization, a grammatical disaster area. There is a clear need for a theory to replace QED. QCD is also a hopeless case in my opinion, full of obscurites and adjustables. In UFT337 it was shown that the “vacuum” behaves as a “relativistic Tesla particle” if you like. This particle can collide with an electron, and scatter from an electron as in Compton scattering in our very popular series UFT158ff. It could be that two Tesla particles of energy h bar omega collide to give an electron positron pair. Is the Tesla particle a fermion or a boson? If described in the SU(2) basis it would be a fermion, obeying Fermi Dirac statistics.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 16/01/2016 20:02:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: 338(1): The Mass of the Universe from ECE2

Concerning the energy density of the vacuum, there are opposing statements. According to the Lamb shift of the AB vacuum, the effect is very small, indicating a very low “mass density” of vacuum particles. By experiments, spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation has been observed, for example electron-positron pairs. For this process to arise spontaneously in the observed frequency, the energy density of the vacuum has to be extremely high, the so-called quantum vacuum. As far as I know, this has been computed with QED methods, not very trustable in our opinion. It would therefore be interesting how such processes could be explained on basis o fthe AB vacuum. According to Tesla, the space is densely filled with vacuum particles. Perhaps this assumption (together with a radius assumption) could serve for an estimation of the vacuum “mass density”.

Horst

Am 16.01.2016 um 11:13 schrieb EMyrone:

In this note it is shown that the mass of the AB vacuum particle is defined by the scalar part of the spin connection by Eq. (31), i.e. m(vac) = (h bar / c) omega sup 0. So the mass of the universe is made up of these particles of vacuum mass. The mass of any elementary particle is m + m(vac), because the particle is always in contact with the vacuum. So it becomes easy to understand that the AB vacuum transfers rest energy E(vac) = m(vac) c squared to any elementary particle such as an electron. The same mecahnism is repsonsible for all the radiative corrections, notably the anomalous g factor of the electron, the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect. They re all due to the spin connection of the AB vacuum, i. e. its geometry. There is no need to postulate “dark matter”, which has no logical basis in geometry or in relativity theory.

The update shows the usual steady plateau of intense international interest in www.aias.us and also www.upitec.org. This type of feedback was initiated on April 30th. 2004 (UFT307) and this intense plateau of interest has therefore lasted for almost twelve years. It is possible to extrapolate and infer that it will last indefinitely into the future.

BookofScientometricsVolumeTwo.pdf

The equivalent of 200,080 printed pages were downloaded during the day (729.493 megabytes of memory) from 2767 memory files downloaded (hits) and 575 distinct visits averaging 4.2 memory pages each and of 10 minutes duration, main spidering from cnsat(China), google, MSN and yahoo. Extensive site downloads from cyanet Cyprus, dynplus,net and 104.131.65.unknown in the unresolved domain. Collected ECE2 2780, Top ten items 1959, Collected Evans / Morris 1152 (est), Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 253, Collected scientometrics 252, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 250, Autobiography volumes one and two 196, proofs that no torsion means no gravitation 161, Principles of ECE 145, F3(Sp) 108, UFT311 102, UFT88 92, Engineering Model 92, UFT321 85, Evans Equations 68, CEFE 56, Self Charging Inverter 46, Lindstrom Idaho Lecture 23, Three World records held by MWE 9, List of most prolific scientists 8,UFT313 80, UFT314 68, UFT315 64, UFT316 77, UFT317 30, UFT318 92, UFT319 58, UFT320 52, UFT322 167, UFT323 174, UFT324 35, UFT325 41, UFT326 221, UFT327 212, UFT328 227, UFT329 208, UFT330 199, UFT331 160, UFT332 167, UFT333 160, UFT334 160, UFT335 51, UFT336 52, UFT337 8 to date in January 2016. United States Air Force Institute of Technology infinite solenoid; Tufts University UFT169; Joseph Fourier University Grenoble UFT313; University of the Philippines Diliman UFT2; University of Edinburgh UFT145, UFT147, ECE Theory of H Bonding. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for January 2016.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.