[General] SR

[John Williamson]

Hello again Chip my friend,

Having met you and having seen the inquiring mind, the intelligence and the integrity of the gentleman I know you to be this is with a great deal of respect.

I know it is seductive to think that it could be that space is so simple, and I know one can get a long way using it in such a way. I fear, however, and the many other distinguished gentlemen who have tried this route are mistaken in that belief and that taking this standpoint only holds back proper progress. Let me try to explain why I think that.

Firstly, while one observes the universe to be, indeed, 3 dimensional it is not merely so. It is also, indeed true that space, as space has three components, and in this sense it is, indeed three dimensional. Also the space of experience is three dimensional. One can walk round it, see it touch it and taste it and even hear it in a 3D way. The problem comes when one enquires deeper into the nature of things one senses in that, apparently, 3D world. One is forced pretty quickly to realize that there are more 3-component objects through which that experience enters your consciousness. If one now tries to consider not just a static space but changes within that space so that one introduces the concept of flow and a velocity of that flow (or a momentum – though these are different in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian theories), one immediately has three more: (flow) velocity in x y and z (or six more if one distinguishes velocity and momentum). Flow is a (3) vector field, like wind flow, or sound-energy flow, or particle exchange in quantum electrodynamics having 3 components at every point in space (or space-time).  Now in the Maxwell equations, one has such changes to that very flow built in. These changes are expressed there as differentials with respect to the three components of space and to the one component of time. These are four-differentails of a 4-vector flow in the more advanced (but still too simple) field approach coming in as either dA in Jackson, or (dA-Ad) if one goes to the (supposedly) more advanced Lagrangian field theory of electromagnetism as it stands. This advanced stuff is of no matter to understand the essentials. Even in the 3D space concept of Maxwell’s time they were coupled linear differential equations in both space and time. Coupled? How? In that each of the (curl) equations necessarily balances differentials with respect to space with differentials with respect to time. Changes can happen, but any change in space must be balanced by and equal and opposite change in time. Maxwell and his colleagues did not know it, but the essentially 4D coupled nature of space and time were then already in there even then, as we now know to be the case.

For two new 3D things that then arise in this picture there are the fields: truly six-components, but splittable in any given inertial frame into 2 sets of 3. One now has 4 sets of 3, space itself, flow in space, the electric field and the magnetic field. If one looks at, touches or hears a dog that dog is a 3D space-dog, but also a 3-flowing dog  and a 3-crackling electric field dog, give the dog a cobalt space suit and it would be a 3D magnetic dog as well (and magnetism is anyway in there in the basic underlying quantum dog-processes. In fact, I would now say that the thing stopping the dog (and everything else) collapsing to a singularity are the three components of the Fermi-spin dog responsible for the exclusion principle of all the fermions that make up the physical dog. You will realize that I’m going for the quantum dog analogy here partly because the quantum cat analogy has been misused in the past! One now still has a dog, but a dog with FIVE superimposed sets of 3-spaces: space, flow through space, electric field, magnetic field and spin. Now four out of five of these 3D dogs (excluding spin) are, and were, already in there implicit in the Maxwell theory of the 1870’s. If you want Maxwell, you pretty much cannot get away without coupling space and time. This is because, thinking through the maths (as I always tell my students), that is exactly what is in there.

It is tempting to assume that one can just “take on board” the whole of the Maxwell theory as a given simply because folk already largely agree that it is a good thing. If one does, however, one has already taken on board that space and time are inextricably linked, because that is what you have used to get the flow and then the fields in the first place.

You see what you need eventually is not just a collection of known facts, inserted as conditions one at a time, but a coherent theory of how everything works and how everything fits together. If you can just start with space, and then derive such a theory just from that I would agree that that was a good starting point, but the Maxwell theory has BOTH flows in the temporal components with respect to space AND flows in the spatial component with respect to time. The theory one constructs has to, AT LEAST, give the Maxwell equations as a set of coupled differential equations. I have not seen that done from a merely 3D space although many, including Martin and myself have managed it thus far from a 4-D space-time.

Now it is a good thing to put in the “shrinkage” of space as an extra principle, and this does get you some way, but you do not need to put it in if you use 4D space-time because it already comes out in the proper relativistic (4D!) transformations of the field. This is shown, though not very well explained, in my two SPIE papers in 2015.

Even if one were to get Maxwell from a construct involving a 3D space one would not be finished. The theory constructed, from space up so to speak, must also go on to fit in with all the other things one observes, some of which are well-described by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, but not touched upon by Maxwell at all. The main deficiency is spin. Quantum mechanics gets by by adding another 2D space (SU(2) of spin) into the mix. Relativistic quantum mechanics (Dirac theory) derives spin, but pays for it with a garbled introduction of field and no means of constructing relativistic wave-functions even though the underlying theory is supposedly relativistic. Other physical phenomena, such as hadrons, have so far required even more complex bases such as multiple applications of SU(3) (at least 2 of colour and flavor). Just piling these observation in as a given, inevitably and famously, leads to such monstrosities as 11D string theories. These kind of thing describes a few of the things that do happen (mostly just whatever one piled in there as assumptions), but also predicts an almost infinite number things should happen that don’t. No proper understanding in that direction then.

In brief what I’m trying to say is that one needs to be able to construct a proper theory from the set of things you put in and not just assume a pile of extra things as a given, even if those extra things ar "generally accepted". They are still implicit axioms someone has invented and piled in there. Any proper  theory needs to express dynamics, be described by differential equations then, and not just be based on a calculation containing only fixed parameters, put in by hand to deal with this or that “problem”. Solving this is quite a hard problem. Indeed it was posed in 1903 as Hilbert’s 6th problem. It is still supposed to be outstanding, though I’m proposing my new theory as a candidate solution.

This theory is a set of coupled linear differential equations, including the Maxwell equations as a special case. Unlike Maxwell it does now describe the fifth 3D set alluded to above. Maybe it is a basis for describing all of reality as it is. It certainly isn’t as it was (the 2015 papers) because there is (at least one!) subtlety that escaped me then. Still working on the underlying mathematics to see if I can understand just what version of the underlying 4D reality does lead to all of science as we know it. Just and no more. May, with a lot of luck, be there already, but I think not. Hence the remaining mist and fog!

Warm regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 6:20 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Hi John

I will be in blue.

Chip


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 11:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] SR


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 5:24 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SR
Hi John

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You are welcome!

Without knowing it, you have made my point quite well.

You do not have to throw out conservation of energy using a Euclidian space.  You do have to throw out other things, but not the conservation of energy.

No, this is not a question of choice: the conservation of energy is not a thing you can choose to have as an add-on as in chocolate on an ice-cram cone. If you do not let space vary relativistically then the energy frequency relation does not hold for the photon, as it is observed to do. This means that the Euclidean view of space is, quite simply, in contradiction with experiment. Sorry this is incorrect. Put simply, if you want photons and you want conservation of energy, given the basis that E = h nu, you cannot have Euclidean space. This is the thing about science, it cannot tell you what is right, but it can exclude things you know to be wrong.  This is the thing about theories, they often keep us from looking for the real solutions.

Sorry John, you can have Euclidian space and have E = h nu.  There is actually no problem here… once we understand the cause for a more energetic photon being a smaller photon…  It all works perfectly in Euclidian space, and cannot work correctly otherwise.

There are clues in the experimental data which show us what we should hold onto and what we should discard.  But the conventional analysis explains away (or tries to) each of these clues, instead of reexamining all of the information to see just what should be questioned really. So the explanations keep getting more and more complicated, but nature is itself still simple and elegant.

Yes - nature is simple and elegant. Space-time is simple and elegant. Euclidean space is a low velocity approximation with (usually) the wrong metric and (conventionally) the wrong handedness, but there you go. You know space is not the whole story because, where you can see both forwards and backwards in Euclidean space, you cannot see forwards and backwards in time. Time has to be absolutely positive to spaces absolutely negative. Each one of us s at the pinnacle of our time, looking outwards (forwards then) in space and backwards in time. Has to be or you do not see what you do see.

Perhaps one day you will realize that Euclidean space is the space of the universe.  Our perceptions and theories have led us to what we refer to as space-time.
Time is positive and continuous.  Our perception of time, and distance, is altered in Euclidean space due to transformations of matter as it moves in Euclidean space.
Our time is a measure of the rate of interaction between particles of matter.  The rate at which they can exchange energy and change states.

Just offering this to you my friend, so that maybe you will one day have an epiphany, and all of a sudden see beyond the opaque barrier of our current set of concepts.  With your level of understanding, once this happens, things will become brilliantly clear.

I hope so - for me there is still a lot of fog about!
You may be closer than you think.

Warmest Regards

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Hi Chip,

Thanks for your reply. You are right (and proper) in very nearly everything you say - and I agree with 99 percent of it. The one percent is I think you are quite mistaken in thinking that the space of space is, and can be, simply Euclidean. There is indeed a partial analogy between the Doppler shift of e.g. sound in a medium and the relativistic Doppler shift of e.g light. The mathematics is different. It is partially the same, but is at root quite fundamentally different. Look into the "relativistic Doppler shift" or the "transverse relativistic Doppler effect" and you will see what I mean. The underlying cause of the mathematics of reality is not just something you can make up (like Euclidean space), but must (indeed) itself obey and agree with some deeper causal principles.  You can go faster than sound: you cannot go faster than light.  Here by "you" I mean you. You and any material body (an electron, for example, anything with elements that go round and round in circles). Material bodies are coherent and resonant in their own rest frame (manifestly). This means that there MUST be elements of the implicit wave travelling faster than light and slower than light as they "move" in order for that coherence to be maintained in any frame. Light speed is not just any old speed: it is unit space divided by unit time. There IS nothing faster because it is the limit of speed. The limit of space divided by time. This is the root of the harmony of phases, and the reason why BOTH sub-luminal and superluminal wave-speeds are required in the proper description of the universe or of any individual material particle within that universe.  The point is that the wave must BOTH increase in frequency (due to the relativistic energy law), AND the clock must slow down (due to the relativistic law of slowing of clocks). It must do BOTH. There is not just one "time" change (as Grahame partially suggested) but two. Local time (and space) must be (apparently locally) fluid in order to agree with the deeper causal principle of conservation of energy. This is very hard to understand, but it must be understood to understand it! Energy conservation in a matter medium involves bashing molecules around, in light it is referred only to one thing - its frequency. This is not to say that space and time are not fixed within any (inertial) frame, they are. Clocks you carry with you parallel your inner clocks precisely, made, as they are, of the same stuff. Space and time themselves are subject to deeper principles where they relate to material (or energetic) objects. There is really no point at all in arguing within one frame about things outside that frame, but this is what you are doing by forcing your view of space to be Euclidean. In doing this you are already lost in that you have thrown out the conservation of energy.

It does indeed come down to primal cause, and you are quite correct to bring that up. You do not, however, get primal cause by fixing space to have set properties you happen to like and assuming its properties as a starting point! That way lies confusion!

What I have done in setting up my new theory is to look what is in the various theories that work in the sense that they have engineering utility:quantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics. Look at what is in them and then try to reduce that (non causal) set of starting parameters in such a way that the things taken out may be derived from what I leave in. As I say I am down to space, time, root energy and a sharpening of the meaning of the maths in that it should have a parallel in reality. The most important change is the implicit order especially of what we call "division". If one does this then lots of good things happen. No fields in: fields come out. No charge in: charge comes out. No "photons" in: (quantised) photons come out. If this proves true in every respect (I wish, but think I am not there yet), then one gets closer to understanding the nature of reality than if one simply assumes all the things thus derived as further axioms.

Coming back to the argument at hand the point is that, to get conservation of energy for light, and the observed fundamental relationship between energy and frequency for light, one needs to have, as well as the transformation of energy-momentum alluded to by Andre, and corresponding to the transformations of light-in-a-box in terms of energy momentum, also a corresponding change in both the apparent local rate of time and the scale of space. The word "local" is important here and has the meaning of "local" as opposed to "global" in gauge theories. Local means more powerful and more specific. The causal reason is that a particular photon has a precise number of oscillations, its wave train length, which is a constant no matter what frame it is viewed from. For this to be consistent with the conservation of energy, space itself must appear (as observed from another frame) to shrink. It does not, of course, actually shrink if you as an observer accelerate, but it does, reciprocally, shrink if you accelerate it. If one could bat a photon back and forth in a game of photon tennis it would continually blue shift as energy was added to it by the bats bashes. If you could anti-bat it it would redshift. It is this process that allows one to cool e.g. molecular beams. Remember, the meaning of "special" in SR is again not more general, but more specific. It is a subset dealing only with uniform motion, only with constant velocities. "Special" here means "very restricted" not "great". I think those who see it as some sort of barrier to progress overestimate its importance in the scheme of things.

Hope this helps,

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 12:31 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SR
Hi John W, Vivian, and Grahame

For me, sharing the concept that we may have some invalid preconceived ideas embedded in our commonly accepted theory, is the only unselfish thing to do.

It would of course be easier to just watch and listen as each idea is argued.

But is the spirit of attempting to help, and in the spirit of continually learning, participation is of course required.

When we analyze the motion of many of our electron models in a Euclidian three dimensional space, we see that relativistic principles are automatically present.

If the stuff that light is made of moves through space at c, and particles of matter are made of this same stuff, confined and moving through space at c, then relativistic transformations are a natural result. This natural result is framed in a Euclidian three dimensional space.  This set of circumstances shows a cause for relativistic properties of matter moving through space.  The space we used to model this causal form of relativity is a fixed frame where motion causes a change in the confined propagation which creates matter.  That motion which causes the relativistic changes, is and must be referenced ultimately to the space the particles are in.  So if this is the cause for relativity, which seems likely, then all motion is NOT relative. But rather, all motion is relative to space.

Experimentally we get pretty much the same answers in either version of relativity, but the one which is founded on cause seems to be the more likely of the two.

If we use the all motion is relative approach, we must throw out the causal mechanisms we found using the fixed speed of light in empty space, and try to invent new cause. There is only one relativity, and one or the other of these scenarios must be chosen.

There are many experimental indications that light does indeed travel at a fixed speed in empty space. If this is true then there must be a cause. It comes down to a simple matter in the end. Do we prefer to accept experimentally compatible theory based on assignable cause, or do we prefer to accept experimentally compatible theory based on arbitrary mind stimulating conjecture and ignore fundamental cause?

John W.  If we view space and fields using the contemporary framework, and never explore any framework outside that narrow definition then, yes, it indeed does limit our ability to see the range of possibilities.  So yes, it does prevent us from exploring and finding the answers if they actually lie outside that accepted set of boundaries. It often takes us a long time to see that what we have believed is not a reflection of the reality of nature.  Until we really look, we don’t know how profound an impact a simple misconception has had on our body of understanding.


Warm Regards

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:07 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Dear Grahame,

I'm intrigued. Whyever do you think the idea that all inertial frames are equivalent is holding up progress? Comments in red below
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR
Dear Viv,

I'll try just once again:

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured' again!).

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i) there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial reference frames are objectively equivalent;

Agreed, but this is certainly NOT generally accepted. There is merely a statement that IF one takes this as a premise, THEN certain things follow (a good many of which happen to coincide with observed reality). There is, as far as I know, no proof of premise in ANY theory. By definition any logical construct rests on its axioms. One can find a deeper theory which contains another, but it then rests once again on its own axioms, but subsumes the other. There are, as I have said before, a whole basket load of theories which lead to SR, including some that predate Einstein relativity. So what?

There is a good argument anyway to say that there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame (isn't this what you have argued effectively in your redshift argument in the past Viv?).

(ii) there is no evidence to support this assertion (which is not the same as the truism that measured speed of light in all frames is invariant);

On the contrary there is evidence that the assertion is false - in detail. One can easily load a spaceship with instrumentation that can readily distinguish between different inertial frames. This is not a big item for discussion.

(iii) there is no causation offered to support that notion.

Look, any theory rests on a set of axioms for which there is no “cause”. As I said in the previous note Maxwell contains implicitly, space, time, multiplication, division, differentiation, charge, and fields, none of which are given a “cause”. The axioms are merely assumed. This is the way theories work. You make some shit up and then see in how far your shit agrees with observed reality. Ok, I agree that there is a sociological problem, in that in any era there is a general consensus as to what axioms are “true”. If that is what you have been arguing must be challenged all along I am with you 100 percent!

This is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question the veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric does not follow logically from the data showing that this appears to be the case - in fact, as you yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it defines a reference point of any kind.]

There are a lot of preachers preaching, but most of them do not really understand relativity beyond SR at all. Grahame, this is not and has never been a claim of SR. SR is just the simple set of relations - the trigonometry of rulers and clocks in uniform motion, as measured by rulers and clocks (made of light, or slower stuff than light). SR itself does not contain, or need,   "the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric". . One can derive it simply from the properties of confined light, as you say and as I have done years (decades!) ago. So have many others. For goodness sake what is all the fuss about?

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".  Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of scientific inquiry.


Look, I kind of agree with this, but do not agree at all that "other people" think that, or ever thought that, SR is "an objective reality". The whole initial point was, in fact, exactly the opposite: an argument against any particular objective reality. I certainly do not, and never did thing that SR is "an objective reality"even as a fresh undergrad meeting it for the first time. Good grief, why oh why are we arguing about this?

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven, unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for the future of our species.

I think this may be true. In making up a new theory one must always question the bases, of course - but one has to replace them with something that explains all of experiment, and there remains the fact that the analogy of light waves, and the Doppler shift of light as it is observed,is not consistent with there being a medium in the same way that sound is carried by matter for example. One needs to do better than this. As to your specific point: I do not see how the principle of equivalence of inertial frames affects this either way, either impeding or helping it at all. Rotating light, for example is as non-inertial as one can get and remain physical!

That's all.

Grahame

That’s all from me too!
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR
Dear Viv,

I'll try just once again:

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured' again!).

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i) there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial reference frames are objectively equivalent; (ii) there is no evidence to support this assertion (which is not the same as the truism that measured speed of light in all frames is invariant); (iii) there is no causation offered to support that notion.  This is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question the veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric does not follow logically from the data showing that this appears to be the case - in fact, as you yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it defines a reference point of any kind.]

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".  Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of scientific inquiry.

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven, unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for the future of our species.

That's all.

Grahame


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171110/558960b9/attachment.html>