"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:ddd9f847-9967-4f25-a1f6-9808b1ee5f07@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Hi Ken,

Do you think an electron can exist in complete isolation? This thought
experiment is just some electron all by itself in a universe devoid of
everything else but the electron.

Well I suppose electrons and protons are
within intergalatic space as a consequence
of solar winds of stars. Is that the type
isolation you mean?

Close, but I just went all the way and did a thought experiment where only a
single electron exists to directly address the assumption that a single
charge is not real. If an electron has mass, to me it is absolutely real and
can exist all by itself, even in a universe where it is the only particle of
matter.

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are
only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of
a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge
is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

The main problem I see with the K-N metric is that it sates an
infinitesimal
test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central body
has
charge and "that" if it does not. What if the test particle is neutral?
The
same thing happens, because it's the charge of the central body that
curves
the space. There should not be an electronic influence on the motion of
a
neutral test particle, no matter what is the charge of the central body.
A
neutral test particle should not go "this way" and then "that way," even
if
the charge of the central body changes, but it does according to the K-N
metric.

IMO the K-N metric is implausible, it's weak
theoretically and there is negative empirical
evidence to it's reality.
However I'm open minded if someone uses it.

I've never heard that there is negative empirical evidence about the K-N
metric. Could you talk about that some more?

What do you feel about the
plausibility of just the Kerr metric that doesn't incorporate charge?

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently
show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H
that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references.
The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data
itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get
the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the
non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

I wish folks would realize that the overwhelmingly accepted value of R_H
agrees with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, not QED theory. And if
anyone doesn't believe me, just search the Internet. There are tons of R_H
values quoted on tons of sites, and I would say 99.9% of them are the
non-relativistic R_H. By overwhelming majority, people accept a
non-relativistic R_H as the correct value. But then, if you directly point
this out to them, each one of them would probably argue with you.

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

I believe at an instant in time, yes, an orbital-based current loop is
present, with the N-S orientation of the magnetic field dictated by the
instantaneous orientation of the plane the electron is instantaneously
in.

Ok, thanks, then I'll continue to think
in those terms.

If you believe in an orbit theory approach towards the motion of an electron
in, say, a hydrogen atom, do you believe the motion of the electron stays in
one plane?

If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

I agree. Whatever is truly going on inside the hydrogen atom certainly
effects the spectrum, naturally, and what is going on doesn't produce
relativistically effected spectral lines. If it did, we would see these
effects in the spectrum, and from the fact that a non-relativistic
looking
R_H is the best fit to the data, I think we have to conclude there are
no
relativistic perturbations in the spectrum. If there were, a
non-relativistic R_H would not be the best fit. Simple

Bohr/non-relativistic

Schroedinger theory would not be the best explanation for the observed
R_H,
but it is, at least for now. If you do not believe me, please see the
many
links that show a non-relativistic R_H provides the best fit.

I'll assume you're correct Steve, you
certainly have the benefit of my doubt.

Using the model I suggested above, place
a rotating phonograph record in the XY
plane, then in a direction from the center
of it, extend a Z-axis upward.
At any point on the z-axis denoted P(z),
the relative motion of a point P(c) on the
circumference of the "record" will be zero.

Yes, to the point P(c), it looks like the point P(Z) is sitting still. But
that's because given the physical setup you described, it is sitting still.

In that case a wave emitted in the z-axis
direction doesn't need a relativistic term,
because relatively to any P(z) the center
(where our p+ is located) and the P(c) (where
our e- is located) are a rest relative tp P(z).

I'll set an Electric field vector "E" radially
between the p+ and the e- and a magnetic field
vector "B" tangentially to the circumference.
Then the direction of emission of the EMR is
C=ExB. ( C(k) = E(i) x B(j) ).

If that description is plausible, then I think
SR effects are nullified, and a non-relativitic
Rydberg constant is possible.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

I think it's more complicated than just symmetric equations. I think there
is a physical reason why R_H is non-relativistic.

Hi Ken,

Do you think an electron can exist in complete isolation? This thought
experiment is just some electron all by itself in a universe devoid of
everything else but the electron.

Well I suppose electrons and protons are
within intergalatic space as a consequence
of solar winds of stars. Is that the type
isolation you mean?

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are
only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of
a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge
is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

The main problem I see with the K-N metric is that it sates an
infinitesimal
test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central body
has
charge and "that" if it does not. What if the test particle is neutral?
The
same thing happens, because it's the charge of the central body that
curves
the space. There should not be an electronic influence on the motion of
a
neutral test particle, no matter what is the charge of the central body.
A
neutral test particle should not go "this way" and then "that way," even
if
the charge of the central body changes, but it does according to the K-N
metric.

IMO the K-N metric is implausible, it's weak
theoretically and there is negative empirical
evidence to it's reality.
However I'm open minded if someone uses it.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently
show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H
that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references.
The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data
itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get
the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the
non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

I believe at an instant in time, yes, an orbital-based current loop is
present, with the N-S orientation of the magnetic field dictated by the
instantaneous orientation of the plane the electron is instantaneously
in.

Ok, thanks, then I'll continue to think
in those terms.

If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

I agree. Whatever is truly going on inside the hydrogen atom certainly
effects the spectrum, naturally, and what is going on doesn't produce
relativistically effected spectral lines. If it did, we would see these
effects in the spectrum, and from the fact that a non-relativistic
looking
R_H is the best fit to the data, I think we have to conclude there are
no
relativistic perturbations in the spectrum. If there were, a
non-relativistic R_H would not be the best fit. Simple
Bohr/non-relativistic
Schroedinger theory would not be the best explanation for the observed
R_H,
but it is, at least for now. If you do not believe me, please see the
many
links that show a non-relativistic R_H provides the best fit.

I'll assume you're correct Steve, you
certainly have the benefit of my doubt.

Using the model I suggested above, place
a rotating phonograph record in the XY
plane, then in a direction from the center
of it, extend a Z-axis upward.
At any point on the z-axis denoted P(z),
the relative motion of a point P(c) on the
circumference of the "record" will be zero.

In that case a wave emitted in the z-axis
direction doesn't need a relativistic term,
because relatively to any P(z) the center
(where our p+ is located) and the P(c) (where
our e- is located) are a rest relative tp P(z).

I'll set an Electric field vector "E" radially
between the p+ and the e- and a magnetic field
vector "B" tangentially to the circumference.
Then the direction of emission of the EMR is
C=ExB. ( C(k) = E(i) x B(j) ).

If that description is plausible, then I think
SR effects are nullified, and a non-relativitic
Rydberg constant is possible.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Apr 30, 11:42 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
messagenews:ddd9f847-9967-4f25-a1f6-9808b1ee5f07@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.co

Hi Ken,

Do you think an electron can exist in complete isolation? This
thought
experiment is just some electron all by itself in a universe devoid
of
everything else but the electron.

Well I suppose electrons and protons are
within intergalatic space as a consequence
of solar winds of stars. Is that the type
isolation you mean?

Close, but I just went all the way and did a thought experiment where
only a
single electron exists to directly address the assumption that a single
charge is not real. If an electron has mass, to me it is absolutely real
and
can exist all by itself, even in a universe where it is the only
particle of
matter.

That's an extreme idealization, but I'll
work it.
An electron has no charge in isolation.
See Purcell's book, "EM" pg. 8, "The only way"
...to detect charge...is by interaction.

That makes "charge" relative. The electron
acquires mass by having a structure of at
least 3 charges, 2(-) and 1(+) confined
in a small space.

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there
are
only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at
the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A
characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics
(mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square
of
a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for
the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way
charge
is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

The main problem I see with the K-N metric is that it sates an
infinitesimal
test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central
body
has
charge and "that" if it does not. What if the test particle is
neutral?
The
same thing happens, because it's the charge of the central body that
curves
the space. There should not be an electronic influence on the motion
of
a
neutral test particle, no matter what is the charge of the central
body.
A
neutral test particle should not go "this way" and then "that way,"
even
if
the charge of the central body changes, but it does according to the
K-N
metric.

IMO the K-N metric is implausible, it's weak
theoretically and there is negative empirical
evidence to it's reality.
However I'm open minded if someone uses it.

I've never heard that there is negative empirical evidence about the K-N
metric. Could you talk about that some more?

Yes, the K-N metric is intimate with
"frame-dragging". NO repeatable experiment
can confirm "frame-dragging", inspite of
very expensive attempts to do so, such as
GP-b. That, IMO, accumulates a negative
empirical plausibility.

What do you feel about the
plausibility of just the Kerr metric that doesn't incorporate charge?

Zilch, see this paragraph,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
I rearranged the CS based on MST, and
the "frame-dragging", as defined by the
K-N metric, vanished.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not
apparently
show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data
and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an
R_H
that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of
references.
The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data
itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would
get
the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the
non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

I wish folks would realize that the overwhelmingly accepted value of R_H
agrees with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, not QED theory. And
if
anyone doesn't believe me, just search the Internet. There are tons of
R_H
values quoted on tons of sites, and I would say 99.9% of them are the
non-relativistic R_H. By overwhelming majority, people accept a
non-relativistic R_H as the correct value. But then, if you directly
point
this out to them, each one of them would probably argue with you.

ok

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

I believe at an instant in time, yes, an orbital-based current loop
is
present, with the N-S orientation of the magnetic field dictated by
the
instantaneous orientation of the plane the electron is
instantaneously
in.

Ok, thanks, then I'll continue to think
in those terms.

If you believe in an orbit theory approach towards the motion of an
electron
in, say, a hydrogen atom, do you believe the motion of the electron
stays in
one plane?

Yes, apart from some exterior applied
polarization that MRI uses. That is done
daily by applying strong B-fields.

If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

I agree. Whatever is truly going on inside the hydrogen atom
certainly
effects the spectrum, naturally, and what is going on doesn't
produce
relativistically effected spectral lines. If it did, we would see
these
effects in the spectrum, and from the fact that a non-relativistic
looking
R_H is the best fit to the data, I think we have to conclude there
are
no
relativistic perturbations in the spectrum. If there were, a
non-relativistic R_H would not be the best fit. Simple

Bohr/non-relativistic

Yeah, looks plausible.

Schroedinger theory would not be the best explanation for the
observed
R_H,
but it is, at least for now. If you do not believe me, please see
the
many
links that show a non-relativistic R_H provides the best fit.

I'll assume you're correct Steve, you
certainly have the benefit of my doubt.

Using the model I suggested above, place
a rotating phonograph record in the XY
plane, then in a direction from the center
of it, extend a Z-axis upward.
At any point on the z-axis denoted P(z),
the relative motion of a point P(c) on the
circumference of the "record" will be zero.

Yes, to the point P(c), it looks like the point P(Z) is sitting still.
But
that's because given the physical setup you described, it is sitting
still.

Of course! That's why I set it up that way.

In that case a wave emitted in the z-axis
direction doesn't need a relativistic term,
because relatively to any P(z) the center
(where our p+ is located) and the P(c) (where
our e- is located) are a rest relative tp P(z).

I'll set an Electric field vector "E" radially
between the p+ and the e- and a magnetic field
vector "B" tangentially to the circumference.
Then the direction of emission of the EMR is
C=ExB. ( C(k) = E(i) x B(j) ).

If that description is plausible, then I think
SR effects are nullified, and a non-relativitic
Rydberg constant is possible.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

I think it's more complicated than just symmetric equations. I think
there
is a physical reason why R_H is non-relativistic.

Yes, that's why I suggested, C=ExB above.
Is it time to discuss how the "rest mass"
of the e- enters into the Rydberg constant?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:64dd342c-f448-4455-bd61-8798060641fe@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 30, 11:42 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in

messagenews:ddd9f847-9967-4f25-a1f6-9808b1ee5f07@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m...



Hi Ken,

Do you think an electron can exist in complete isolation? This
thought
experiment is just some electron all by itself in a universe devoid
of
everything else but the electron.

Well I suppose electrons and protons are
within intergalatic space as a consequence
of solar winds of stars. Is that the type
isolation you mean?

Close, but I just went all the way and did a thought experiment where
only a
single electron exists to directly address the assumption that a single
charge is not real. If an electron has mass, to me it is absolutely real
and
can exist all by itself, even in a universe where it is the only
particle of
matter.

That's an extreme idealization, but I'll
work it.
An electron has no charge in isolation.
See Purcell's book, "EM" pg. 8, "The only way"
...to detect charge...is by interaction.

Hi Ken,

I'm not worried about detection. Do you think an electron physically has a
mass and a charge? Note the subtly in the statement that "The only way"
...to detect charge...is by interaction" does not at all exclude the
electron from actually having a charge, even when not interacting with
anything. These words even directly imply to me the electron does have a
physical charge, because if not, what exactly is it that is detected when
detected? Please do not fall into this detection/measurement-centric
point-of-view that if something can't be detected, that absolutely means
something about the "truth" of the external world. It does not, not in my
opinion.

This is just like the UP that talks about not being able to concurrently and
accurately measure the position and momentum of some particle like an
electron. Look at how these words directly imply the particle actually has a
definite position at the instant of measurement, because if it didn't, then
what was it that was trying to be measured in the first place? It is
illogical to try and take a positional measurement of a particle if you
don't think it has a position. If QM physicists believe an electron never
has a definite position, why would they imply it is this definite position
that is trying to be measured, with, of course, measurement error, but you
can't have measurement error around nothing. You know, we are not gods. The
external world is what it is, and whatever is its state has nothing to do
with us trying to measure that state at an instant in time. At the very next
instant in time, our past measuring will absolutely change this next instant
in time's state, but at an instant in time when a measurement is made, the
state is what it is, and definite, at least in my opinion.



That makes "charge" relative. The electron
acquires mass by having a structure of at
least 3 charges, 2(-) and 1(+) confined
in a small space.

I believe like mass, the amount of charge an electron has, is effected by
motion, so yes, it is "relative." Your ideas are coming close to mine about
the structure of an electron, but my "internal pieces" look to be much
smaller than yours.



In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there
are
only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at
the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A
characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics
(mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square
of
a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for
the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way
charge
is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

The main problem I see with the K-N metric is that it sates an
infinitesimal
test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central
body
has
charge and "that" if it does not. What if the test particle is
neutral?
The
same thing happens, because it's the charge of the central body that
curves
the space. There should not be an electronic influence on the motion
of
a
neutral test particle, no matter what is the charge of the central
body.
A
neutral test particle should not go "this way" and then "that way,"
even
if
the charge of the central body changes, but it does according to the
K-N
metric.

IMO the K-N metric is implausible, it's weak
theoretically and there is negative empirical
evidence to it's reality.
However I'm open minded if someone uses it.

I've never heard that there is negative empirical evidence about the K-N
metric. Could you talk about that some more?

Yes, the K-N metric is intimate with
"frame-dragging". NO repeatable experiment
can confirm "frame-dragging", inspite of
very expensive attempts to do so, such as
GP-b. That, IMO, accumulates a negative
empirical plausibility.

What do you feel about the
plausibility of just the Kerr metric that doesn't incorporate charge?

Zilch, see this paragraph,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
I rearranged the CS based on MST, and
the "frame-dragging", as defined by the
K-N metric, vanished.

Well, here you and I will have to disagree. Frame-dragging effects
physically occur, or they do not, regardless of a mathematical derivation. I
have not heard, has GP-b significantly observed these mass-based
frame-dragging effects? If they can confidently state (statistically
speaking), no, there are no frame-dragging effects due to earth's rotating
mass, then apparently you are correct, and that would be an immense blow to
GR, and I would have to seriously rethink things myself.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not
apparently
show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data
and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an
R_H
that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of
references.
The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data
itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would
get
the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the
non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

I wish folks would realize that the overwhelmingly accepted value of R_H
agrees with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, not QED theory. And
if
anyone doesn't believe me, just search the Internet. There are tons of
R_H
values quoted on tons of sites, and I would say 99.9% of them are the
non-relativistic R_H. By overwhelming majority, people accept a
non-relativistic R_H as the correct value. But then, if you directly
point
this out to them, each one of them would probably argue with you.

ok

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

I believe at an instant in time, yes, an orbital-based current loop
is
present, with the N-S orientation of the magnetic field dictated by
the
instantaneous orientation of the plane the electron is
instantaneously
in.

Ok, thanks, then I'll continue to think
in those terms.

If you believe in an orbit theory approach towards the motion of an
electron
in, say, a hydrogen atom, do you believe the motion of the electron
stays in
one plane?

Yes, apart from some exterior applied
polarization that MRI uses. That is done
daily by applying strong B-fields.

I had thought there was more or less direct observational evidence (like
taking a picture, I think) that electrons orbit in shells. If indeed an
isolated hydrogen atom in its ground state, for example, has its electron
orbiting forever in a plane, that would spell the end of QM, and my own
ideas, for that matter.



If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

I agree. Whatever is truly going on inside the hydrogen atom
certainly
effects the spectrum, naturally, and what is going on doesn't
produce
relativistically effected spectral lines. If it did, we would see
these
effects in the spectrum, and from the fact that a non-relativistic
looking
R_H is the best fit to the data, I think we have to conclude there
are
no
relativistic perturbations in the spectrum. If there were, a
non-relativistic R_H would not be the best fit. Simple

Bohr/non-relativistic

Yeah, looks plausible.

Schroedinger theory would not be the best explanation for the
observed
R_H,
but it is, at least for now. If you do not believe me, please see
the
many
links that show a non-relativistic R_H provides the best fit.

I'll assume you're correct Steve, you
certainly have the benefit of my doubt.

Using the model I suggested above, place
a rotating phonograph record in the XY
plane, then in a direction from the center
of it, extend a Z-axis upward.
At any point on the z-axis denoted P(z),
the relative motion of a point P(c) on the
circumference of the "record" will be zero.

Yes, to the point P(c), it looks like the point P(Z) is sitting still.
But
that's because given the physical setup you described, it is sitting
still.

Of course! That's why I set it up that way.

In that case a wave emitted in the z-axis
direction doesn't need a relativistic term,
because relatively to any P(z) the center
(where our p+ is located) and the P(c) (where
our e- is located) are a rest relative tp P(z).

I'll set an Electric field vector "E" radially
between the p+ and the e- and a magnetic field
vector "B" tangentially to the circumference.
Then the direction of emission of the EMR is
C=ExB. ( C(k) = E(i) x B(j) ).

If that description is plausible, then I think
SR effects are nullified, and a non-relativitic
Rydberg constant is possible.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

I think it's more complicated than just symmetric equations. I think
there
is a physical reason why R_H is non-relativistic.

Yes, that's why I suggested, C=ExB above.
Is it time to discuss how the "rest mass"
of the e- enters into the Rydberg constant?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

In all of the QM theories, usually the rest mass is replaced with the
reduced rest mass. Of course, this is only for equational simplicity. A
hydrogen atom is physically a 2-body system, and one that looks to be, even
in "simple" hydrogen, undergoing a complicated nonlinear dynamic motion.
Here comes Chaos Theory to the rescue....

Steve

That's an extreme idealization, but I'll
work it.
An electron has no charge in isolation.
See Purcell's book, "EM" pg. 8, "The only way"
...to detect charge...is by interaction.

Hi Ken,

I'm not worried about detection. Do you think an electron physically has
a
mass and a charge? Note the subtly in the statement that "The only way"
...to detect charge...is by interaction" does not at all exclude the
electron from actually having a charge, even when not interacting with
anything. These words even directly imply to me the electron does have a
physical charge, because if not, what exactly is it that is detected
when
detected? Please do not fall into this detection/measurement-centric
point-of-view that if something can't be detected, that absolutely means
something about the "truth" of the external world. It does not, not in
my
opinion.

The above is like asking if an isolated electron
has velocity.

What do you feel about the
plausibility of just the Kerr metric that doesn't incorporate
charge?

Zilch, see this paragraph,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
I rearranged the CS based on MST, and
the "frame-dragging", as defined by the
K-N metric, vanished.

Well, here you and I will have to disagree. Frame-dragging effects
physically occur, or they do not, regardless of a mathematical
derivation. I
have not heard, has GP-b significantly observed these mass-based
frame-dragging effects? If they can confidently state (statistically
speaking), no, there are no frame-dragging effects due to earth's
rotating
mass, then apparently you are correct, and that would be an immense blow
to
GR, and I would have to seriously rethink things myself.

I think GR is ok either way.

If you believe in an orbit theory approach towards the motion of an
electron
in, say, a hydrogen atom, do you believe the motion of the electron
stays in
one plane?

Yes, apart from some exterior applied
polarization that MRI uses. That is done
daily by applying strong B-fields.

I had thought there was more or less direct observational evidence (like
taking a picture, I think) that electrons orbit in shells. If indeed an
isolated hydrogen atom in its ground state, for example, has its
electron
orbiting forever in a plane, that would spell the end of QM, and my own
ideas, for that matter.

I think it's more complicated than just symmetric equations. I think
there
is a physical reason why R_H is non-relativistic.

Yes, that's why I suggested, C=ExB above.
Is it time to discuss how the "rest mass"
of the e- enters into the Rydberg constant?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

In all of the QM theories, usually the rest mass is replaced with the
reduced rest mass. Of course, this is only for equational simplicity. A
hydrogen atom is physically a 2-body system, and one that looks to be,
even
in "simple" hydrogen, undergoing a complicated nonlinear dynamic motion.
Here comes Chaos Theory to the rescue....

Steve

Ok, let's consolidate our focus.
What are the outstanding problems?
Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:e1cb0b4c-8a2e-4c30-a991-539f340a7213@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
....
The above is like asking if an isolated electron
has velocity.

Hi Ken,
What's wrong with asking that? I believe conceptually, one can consider a
non-rotating inertial frame, and think about an isolated electron in this
inertial frame. In this frame, this single electron can have a velocity, or
not. I apologize that I didn't describe the conditions of the thought
experiment more clearly. But regardless of what frame is used, if it is
agreed that an electron has mass (I hope everyone thinks it does!), then
it's valid to ask if this mass is always (and I mean always) isolated into a
volume of space. If so, that is tantamount to saying an electron is always a
particle. I certainly think it is, always. It looks like you do to? So, I
was asking if you think an electron is a particle, and that you also believe
it has a charge, and that charge is also "in" the particle. Then it's
completely logical that an electron as a particle can be alone all by itself
in some frame. The charge of this isolated electron is simply its own
physical charge, and need not be related to any other charge for it to
physically exist. Quantifying how much this charge is, yes, that can only be
done using another charge, but that's true for mass too. But the issue of
quantifying some physical characteristic has nothing to do, to me, with
whether or not the physical characteristic actually truly exists.
Absolutely, we need to perform experimentation to see if out hypothesis
about the existence of some physical property is true or not true, but
nature does not give a damn about what we think. We may say a proton is made
up of quarks, for example, and that might be correct or it may not be. If we
got it right, great, but if we got it wrong, that's not going to change the
true physical makeup of a proton. It is whatever it is, and our belief about
it, right or wrong, does not change what it truthfully is. What we know or
do not know does not change the true physical makeup of the external world.
We are not gods.

I think GR is ok either way.

For "central body" GR, if you don't think incorporating the effects of the
angular momentum of a central body in the way Kerr did it is correct, and
you also don't agree with how charge was incorporated by Newman (I don't
either), the only thing left is Schwarzschild's theory. If you say zilch to
that, then the only theory left is Newton's theory. I hope you at least
agree with Schwarzschild's theory.

Does anyone following this thread know of these images I am referring to? I
believe we now can image with great enough magnification, that we can see
the outer orbitals of atoms arranged in a lattice. The images show
symmetrically arranged "bumps," that definitely look like the outer orbitals
are spherical.

After the true 2-body effects are accounted for by using the reduced mass of
the electron, then the main other effect that Schroedinger did not
incorporate, and that Dirac/Sommerfeld did, was relativistic effects. These
were only specially relativistic, though. According to current belief, this
is all that's needed to completely describe the unification of QM with
relativity theory (the SR part of it) for modeling atoms, specifically for
deriving binding energy equations. I think there are more complicated
relativistic effects going on in an atom, even in the simplest of atoms,
ground state hydrogen.

And I am not referring to any mass-based GR effects.
These are physically present, but due to the small masses involved, they are
extremely small, orders of magnitude smaller than the electronic forces.

On May 1, 7:06 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
messagenews:e1cb0b4c-8a2e-4c30-a991-539f340a7213@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com

...
The above is like asking if an isolated electron
has velocity.

Hi Ken,
What's wrong with asking that? I believe conceptually, one can consider
a
non-rotating inertial frame, and think about an isolated electron in
this
inertial frame. In this frame, this single electron can have a velocity,
or
not. I apologize that I didn't describe the conditions of the thought
experiment more clearly. But regardless of what frame is used, if it is
agreed that an electron has mass (I hope everyone thinks it does!), then
it's valid to ask if this mass is always (and I mean always) isolated
into a
volume of space. If so, that is tantamount to saying an electron is
always a
particle. I certainly think it is, always. It looks like you do to? So,
I
was asking if you think an electron is a particle, and that you also
believe
it has a charge, and that charge is also "in" the particle. Then it's
completely logical that an electron as a particle can be alone all by
itself
in some frame. The charge of this isolated electron is simply its own
physical charge, and need not be related to any other charge for it to
physically exist. Quantifying how much this charge is, yes, that can
only be
done using another charge, but that's true for mass too. But the issue
of
quantifying some physical characteristic has nothing to do, to me, with
whether or not the physical characteristic actually truly exists.
Absolutely, we need to perform experimentation to see if out hypothesis
about the existence of some physical property is true or not true, but
nature does not give a damn about what we think. We may say a proton is
made
up of quarks, for example, and that might be correct or it may not be.
If we
got it right, great, but if we got it wrong, that's not going to change
the
true physical makeup of a proton. It is whatever it is, and our belief
about
it, right or wrong, does not change what it truthfully is. What we know
or
do not know does not change the true physical makeup of the external
world.
We are not gods.

Hi Steve
You're getting into the philosophy of relativity
and truth.
...

I think GR is ok either way.

For "central body" GR, if you don't think incorporating the effects of
the
angular momentum of a central body in the way Kerr did it is correct,
and
you also don't agree with how charge was incorporated by Newman (I don't
either), the only thing left is Schwarzschild's theory. If you say zilch
to
that, then the only theory left is Newton's theory. I hope you at least
agree with Schwarzschild's theory.

I haven't been able to verify how a rotating body
can transmit information as to the direction of
rotation via gravitation.
The K-N metric (IMO) contains wishful thinking.
...

Does anyone following this thread know of these images I am referring
to? I
believe we now can image with great enough magnification, that we can
see
the outer orbitals of atoms arranged in a lattice. The images show
symmetrically arranged "bumps," that definitely look like the outer
orbitals
are spherical.

Yes, there was an article about photographing
electrons a few months ago.
...
After the true 2-body effects are accounted for by using the reduced
mass of
the electron, then the main other effect that Schroedinger did not
incorporate, and that Dirac/Sommerfeld did, was relativistic effects.
These
were only specially relativistic, though. According to current belief,
this
is all that's needed to completely describe the unification of QM with
relativity theory (the SR part of it) for modeling atoms, specifically
for
deriving binding energy equations. I think there are more complicated
relativistic effects going on in an atom, even in the simplest of atoms,
ground state hydrogen.

Yes, if one considers magnetism as an SR effect
that should be true.

And I am not referring to any mass-based GR effects.
These are physically present, but due to the small masses involved, they
are
extremely small, orders of magnitude smaller than the electronic forces.

Ok, let's forget classical GR for now.
Regards
Ken