[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Tue Jul 5 08:00:08 PDT 2016

Chandra,

you say: "SR is not even Physics". Don't understand why.

If we keep a little distance to the more mystical foundations of 
Einstein ("space-time"), then relativity is easy and simple. SR 
comprises the following facts:

1.) Oscillations slow down at motion
2.) Fields contract at motion

Fact 1.) can easily be measured and easily be understood with regard to 
its cause.
Fact 2.) can also easily be understood with regard to its cause; the 
experimental proof is indirect but existent.

All the rest is quite simple logic (like the constancy of the measured "c").

That's all, and what is your specific reason to deny it?

Albrecht

Am 05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Many thanks, Grahame, for the excellent complement on the philosophy 
> of thinking, which I have been developing for over several decades. I 
> am now in the process of applying that mode of thinking (Evolution 
> Process Congruent Thinking)  to political economy and the politics of 
> money-driven elected governments, the model of the West, being imposed 
> on the rest of the world.
>
> I will read carefully your thinking on Relativity (SR). I think we are 
> on the same page. SR is not even Physics. In contrast, QM has a lot of 
> valuable physics (captured some realities) that will give us guidance 
> to evolve forward towards a next higher level theory.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
> Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective 
> realities
>
> Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),
>
> I have attached at Richard’s request a copy of the first 10 pages of 
> my book (after index etc); this comprises the first section of my 
> book, the Introduction. I believe you’ll see from this my philosophy 
> and my objectives in undertaking my own line of scientific research.  
> This is not to identify or define a suitable model for a photon-formed 
> electron – though that is to a limited extent an inevitable by-product 
> of my investigations – but rather to resolve what I have come to see, 
> over some years, as inconsistencies, incompleteness or scope for 
> further understanding in the generally-accepted model of physical 
> reality.  [Note that, whilst holding firmly to scientific principles, 
> this book is intended to be comprehensible for the most part by 
> non-specialists; this introduction should be read with that in mind.]
>
> Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even say ‘excited’) by your 
> paper presented last year at the SPIE conference, which you have just 
> circulated (I found myself saying “yes!” out loud several times whilst 
> reading it).  I’d like to think that the contents of my book are in 
> the spirit of the outward-looking ‘Perpetual Scout’ scientific 
> approach that you advocate*; I have for some time been concerned by 
> the attitude of science that appears to take the line: “We’ve got it 
> all correct to date, now we just need to fill in the fine detail” 
> (whilst happily accepting the unexplained ‘fact’ of Special Relativity 
> and the unexplained apparent serendipity of Quantum Mechanics).  I’m 
> also very enthused by your view that we need to be thinking NOW about 
> how we can ensure that we’re still around beyond our parent star’s 
> main sequence; alignment with cosmic evolution, rather than trying to 
> force our will on it, seems to be a patently obvious strategy.
>
> [* The concept of reverse engineering both physical reality and the 
> evolutionary process is one that I believe has been central to my 
> research.]
>
> Richard, no matter how much I try I can't find any common ground 
> between our respective understandings of the terms ‘subjective’ and 
> ‘objective’ as applied to material reality.  For me the term 
> ‘subjective’ is crystal clear in its meaning: it relates to a 
> situation, event or scenario as experienced by an individual or group 
> (possibly a very large group) of individuals – including ‘experience 
> by proxy’ through instrumentation.  In this situation the sensors of 
> this/those individual(s) – including possibly electromechanical 
> sensors – mediate that experience and thereby provide input to (i.e. 
> variation of) that experience over and above the actuality of the 
> (objective) event or scenario being experienced.
>
> By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to the object – the situation, 
> event or scenario itself. With regard to that object it matters not 
> one iota what people think – even a great number of highly intelligent 
> people – it will not re-shape itself to conform to their thoughts.  
> For example, everyone in the world could think that the earth was 
> flat, it would make absolutely no difference to the shape of our 
> planet – but it *would* make a great deal of difference with respect 
> to their effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!
>
> If a mathematician proposed that one plus one was equal to two, would 
> you dismiss that as just a personal philosophy of mathematics?  I’m 
> not in any way suggesting that my view of reality is the right one, or 
> the only possible one – but I *am* absolutely adamant that if we 
> regard subjective impressions as convertible to objective truth just 
> by sheer weight of numbers then the future of science is doomed.
>
> That’s a major reason why I don’t participate in discussing the pros 
> and cons of various models of the electron, as you say you’d wish me 
> to – it’s not actually possible for me to separate ‘my philosophy’, as 
> you call it, from my perception of what constitutes a better or less 
> good model.  You’ve proposed (below) that I “point out any defects or 
> limitations in different models” – surely that’s what I’ve tried to 
> do, totally consistently, in a logical way that hopefully doesn’t give 
> offence?  But it seems that’s what you object to, since you regard my 
> approach as simply my [personal] philosophy of science and therefore 
> (presumably) not acceptable as a valid contribution to this discussion.
>
> I’ll continue to participate in this debate, in the only way that 
> makes sense to me (and hopefully makes some sense to some others).  If 
> that doesn’t work for you, fine, give it a miss – but I’m afraid I 
> can’t set aside what I see as facts just to join in a conversation on 
> any model that, for what seem to me to be very good reasons, I can’t 
> believe in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:*Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>
>     *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>     *Sent:*Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM
>
>     *Subject:*Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>     objective realities
>
>     Hello Grahame,
>
>       You seem unwilling to present the first few pages of your book
>     to help give us more background and context to your particle model
>     and approach. So I think I’ll pass for now on commenting on your
>     distinction between subjective and objective realities, which is
>     more of a statement of your philosophy of science, and how to know
>     what is “real” in physics. Physicists try to interpret, understand
>     and predict aspects of the physical world, based on ideas,
>     concepts, mathematics, models and objective physical measurements
>     and observations. I think we are all engaged in this in one way or
>     another, despite any differences in our philosophies about the
>     nature of reality.
>
>       I think your model of the electron and other particles should be
>     separable from your particular philosophy of science, so that
>     others who may not share your philosophy of science, as well as
>     those who do, may be able to decide if your model is useful or
>     better than other physical models, for “doing physics”. One way is
>     to look at the models themselves quantitatively and to compare and
>     contrast one model with other models to see how well these models
>     (all relating to photons and particles in our discussion group)
>     stand up to critical scrutiny as well as to experimental support.
>     I think that’s partly what this discussion group is about. I hope
>     you are willing to join in this effort, to point out any defects
>     or limitations in different models, to encourage improvement of
>     weaker models, and to acknowledge any strengths in these or other
>     models, since none of them is perfect.
>
>           Richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160705/982e9a4e/attachment.htm>