[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 11:11:15 PDT 2016


Hi Albrecht

 

Lorentz had worked all this out before Einstein’s SR. Lorentz based his
observations and conclusions on the behavior of waves moving at a fixed
velocity through a fixed medium.

 

Lorentz transformations are required if matter is made of the same light
speed energy light is made of.

 

John Stuart Bell said this regarding relativity
, “I would say that the
cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was
before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there
was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring
instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect
motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a
preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference
(some) things do go faster than light.”,” Behind the apparent Lorentz
invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz
invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and
Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity
theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions
and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not
detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of
view.”

 

SR postulates that all inertial frames are completely and symmetrically
relative. But there is no cause given for this basis, it is based solely on
philosophy.  The “relativity” that Chandra, Grahame, and I have been
discussing does show a basis and cause. It is simply based on the inevitable
results of matter being made of the same light-speed energy that light is
made of.

 

Such an endeavor can be legitimately called a scientific pursuit. In
contrast to SR.  The facts of the requirements for transformations for
rapidly moving bodies were well known before SR, and SR is not a requisite
for those facts being valid. If we look at these issues from the causal
basis mentioned, many of the perplexing or puzzling things about SR
disappear.

 

So, while I would not have stated it in quite the same way, I must agree
with Chandra that SR is not scientific, is not even physics.

 

Chip

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

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.natureoflightan
dparticles.org]On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
<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
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virenfrei.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160705/98503784/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list