[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Jul 6 12:06:06 PDT 2016
Hi Chip,
I fully agree to what John Bell has written about relativistic
phenomena. I had the same ideas 17 years ago when I started to think
about relativity. Then I learned that this way is called (at least in
Germany) the "Lorentzian interpretation of relativity".
So, is it only a matter of words? Should we invent a new word for it? I
do not feel that this would be practical. If the engineers who work on
the GPS system say that they have to take relativity into account,
everyone knows what it means. So, why invent a new name or notion?
We are so far here that even the leading professors for relativity and
gravitation say that the Lorentzian relativity is a possible way as well
as the Einsteinian relativity, so equivalent regarding the results. -
They still say that they find the Einsteinian way mathematically more
elegant than the Lorentzian (where I personally strictly disagree). But
the question again: Should we really invent a new name if everyone, the
follower of Einstein and those of Lorentz, know what one means if he
/she speaks about "relativity"?
Albrecht
Am 05.07.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> 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.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>
> <mailto: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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
---
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/20160706/6a5fe93c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list