FrediFizzx wrote:
....
Well, we do know that a proton is not like an electron. So it stands to
reason that maybe, just maybe their charges don't cancel completely out.
IOW, what we think is a neutral hydrogen atom is still "tilting"
spacetime slightly but always attractively for some reason. That is the
big mystery. And Ken has his GR charge couple concept to try to explain
that.

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

Thanks Fred, when I was studying that problem I went back
to who "invented" charge, I think it was Ben Franklin who did
that on the basis of the experimentally observed macroscopic
electrostatic effects called "repulsion" and "attraction".

He then employed "mathematical physics" by noting,

(-1)*(-1) = (1)*(1) = 1 (repulsion)

(-1)*(1) = -1 (attraction)

and from those, used that to describe repulsion and
attraction. The concept of "charge" has subsequently
been promoted and ingrained into our minds - beyond
a mere mathematical operation to describe repulsion
and attraction - to the extent we commonly regard
it as having some sort of independant existance.

"The only way we have of detecting and measuring
electric charges is by observing the interaction of
charged bodies."
Edward Purcell

Then I looked at Coulomb's force, F = q*Q/r^2 ,
that was "assumed" to be exactly equal for repulsion
and attraction, another thing commonly ingrained
usually unquestionably.
At this point I realized my concepts of "attraction"
and "repulsion" where pretty much based on Franklin
and Coulomb, so I reviewed those concepts from the
PoV of GR.

At the end of the GR_charge_couple note is a deduction
of how attraction repulsion, proportional to a mass
product, that provides for a residual attractive force.
So gravity in this case turns out to be an effect of GR
on Coulombs force equation a lot like an SR effect shows
up as magnetism.

Once a solution is derived for one charge couple it can
be summed for a solution relating the gazillion charges
in the Moon with the bazillion charges in the Earth. I can
get more into that if you want, but it get's a bit mathy.
....


Time is incidental when I am trying to get the two north poles of
magnets together. ;-) It truely takes a dual spacetime (DS) concept to
fully understand photons since the solutions have scalar and
longitudinal photons in addition to transverse photons that we know an
love. Not to mention the "ghost" states. Don't know if you have read
our QVC paper at the link in the sig., but we have a solution for
photons where the wavefunction maps out an energy density volume. And
this seems to be a reasonable conclusion because if you have a
"traveling" EM energy density volume and take it down to where it is
described by photons (quantized), you ought to have a "chunk" of energy
density volume of the original. But photons can't have any longitudinal
"length" in our spacetime so this "volume" must be partly in the other
spacetime of the DS scenario. Enter the duality that Jay uses. I
interpret that as someone in the other spacetime looking at our
spacetime. The E and B fields are all interchanged. Pretty wild, huh?

Well Fred,
I like your and Dr. Inopin's photon model, because of the two
cycles you use. I see each cycle having a quantity of action,
therefore your model automatically incorporates the necessary

Energy = Rate of Action == frequency.

Secondly, consider an electron in an atomic orbital, and let's
look at the process of how it changes to a lower orbital and
so emits a photon, let's assume the electron is in a circular
orbit.

First it would accelerate toward the nucleus from it's 1st orbital
then it would deaccelarate in the 2nd lower orbital (in simple terms),
relatively to it's distance from the nucleus.
That looks like two cycles and two actions, to emit one photon
over a period of time, the cycle being an invariant as is action.
Not easy to understand, but what is.
Regards
Ken