[General] half-photons??

[Ray Fleming]

I should clarify my comment in point 7 about spin. In a normal quantum
dipole in space the spin states of the pair of particles are opposite so
that as a pair they have spin 0. Within a photon the spin states may need
to be the same to give the photon spin 1. Either that, or the spin of the
photon must arise differently.

Ray

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
> I want to introduce Ray Fleming who published an article “Photons as
> quantum electron-positron composites" on General Science Journal on the
> composite photon model idea at http://www.gsjournal.net/
> Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%
> 20Particle%20Physics/Download/7100 and was suggested by André (who is an
> administrator at General Science Journal) as possibly interested in our
> discussion group. Here is Ray's reply to my email to him that included a
> copy of my double-helix photon model article. Please copy your replies to
> Ray. Thanks.
>       Richard
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I am interested in participating and am glad to see more research on the
> composite photon approach.
>
> While I was aware of DeBroglie's neutrino hypothesis I was not familiar
> with the section you quote about charged half photon, so thanks for that.
> As DeBroglie states indirectly these charged half photons are necessarily
> Dirac Fermions that in order to follow Bose statistics must be present in
> pairs. Given the quantum electron-positron pair is the most fundamental
> Dirac Fermion pair, your model and mine are simply using different words to
> describe the same thing. I probably should have mentioned Fermi and Dirac
> statistics in my paper, so it would be more clear on that point. In my
> approach the quantum dipoles only trace out a helix when the photon is
> circularly polarized. Note that quantum electron-positron dipoles are not
> positronium.
>
> I will respond to some of the difficulties you bring up.
> 1) It is superluminal. No particles are known to travel faster than light
> speed in a vacuum.
> In the quantum dipole approach the model is not superluminal. The quantum
> dipoles rotate at the speed of light. In my approach each dipole does not
> really go anywhere with respect to the quantum rest frame of space.
>
> 2) It is composite. There is no current experimental evidence that a
> photon is a composite particle.
> As my paper points out, the electric and magnetic fields of the photon are
> not merely evidence that the photon is a composite but they demand that it
> is a composite. It is physically impossible for those fields to form
> without an electric charge dipole.
>
> 3) A photon doesn't radiate energy. Accelerating charges in helical motion
> should radiate energy according to classical electromagnetic theory.
> Quantum Dirac-Fermion dipoles don't radiate regardless of their
> orientation or rotation. This is a non-issue.
>
> 4) Photons don’t produce only electron-positron pairs. Higher energy
> photons can produce pairs of more massive particle-antiparticle pairs also.
> The present composite photon model is oversimplified.
> Photons can be hypothetically made of any quantum Dirac Fermion particle
> pair. I am also exploring the Sternglass model of the unstable resonances
> (particles) as it treats all resonances as rotating quantum dipoles
> (although Sternglass may not have realized they were quantum in nature),
> which is entirely consistent with a dipole photon. Note that I think the
> Sternglass model is highly flawed for heavier particles beyond the muon,
> tauon, and pions, and protons are not composites, at least not in the way
> he describes. His theory needs a lot of work, and that is on my to-do list.
> I am convinced that all unstable resonances are composite particles made of
> the stable Dirac-Fermion particles and their quantum pairs.
>
> 5) Light waves easily pass through each other. The circulating internal
> charges of different photons would interact with each other and disturb
> their photon trajectories, which doesn’t happen.
> Quantum dipoles do not interact with each other, except in a limited way
> through van der Waals forces.
>
> 6) What causes wave-particle duality if the photon model is only composed
> of two helically-circulating superluminal charged particles?
> My paper addresses this. Space is filled with quantum particle pair
> dipoles, as necessitated by Planck's theories, and they are the medium of
> the fields and waves.
>
> 7) How does the composite photon model produce linearly and elliptically
> polarized light, or light with orbital angular momentum as well as spin?
> As mentioned above the orientation of rotation of the dipoles is the
> polarization state. The dipoles have opposite spin states which cancel.
> Each dipole counter-rotates so angular momentum is conserved on the whole.
>
> Note that in a sense, DeBroglie's neutrino model was also correct as
> neutrinos are also equivalent to quantum electron-positron dipoles. In my
> general theory neutrinos differ form photons in that the dipoles rotate all
> the same way instead of counter-rotating such that neutrinos have angular
> momentum and can conserve angular momentum left over from an interaction.
> That, and some interactions attributed to neutrinos are better explained as
> interactions with a quantum dipole that is part of the quantum field of
> space.
>
> Those are a few of my thoughts, I hope they help, but take them or leave
> them as you see fit.
>
> Ray
>
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:31 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Given the obvious convergence of both your model and Oreste`s and the fact
> that they were independently developed, and also the number of issues that
> seem to be satisfactorily addressed, this may well turn out to be the most
> satisfactory model obtainable in the 4D space geometry.
>
> The one issue that I observe remains pending here was never successfully
> addressed either in all other 4D space geometry attempts at describing
> electromagnetic energy as remaining localized, seemingly establishing that
> it apparently cannot be in such 4D representations after so many attempts
> during the past century, is the mutual induction of the electric and
> magnetic fields of electromagnetic energy from which the speed of light
> mandatorily emerges in Maxwell`s wave theory as can be observed from the
> converging second partial derivatives of Gauss`s equation for the electric
> field and Ampere's equation for the magnetic field.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> *On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:10:48 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:*
>
> Hello Andrew, Graham, André, Chip, Vivian, John W, Chandra, Oreste, and
> all,
>
> I finished reading Oreste Caroppo's very interesting superluminal
> double-helix composite photon model article (in English at
> http://fiatlux.altervista.org/Il_Modello_Doppio_Elicoidale_
> del_Fotone_di_Oreste_Caroppo.pdf ). His photon model is essentially the
> same mathematically as mine, but proposed independently. I have also been
> been reading his others writings on Maxwell's Error and its profound
> implications for modern physics (last 150 years since Maxwell's equations)
> (in Italian at http://fiatlux.altervista.org. I use Google Translate.) He
> says Maxwell's error was that he didn't take into account the possibility
> that neutral electromagnetic waves in space could be generated by
> light-speed dipoles of point-like electric charges (whose average charge is
> zero) moving through space, which would basically predict the photon model.
> Oreste proposes that the charges on the superluminal double-helix
> half-photons are +e and -e, while I calculate that they are Q = + and -e
> sqrt (2/alpha) = 16.6 e. But for his proposed charges +e and -e on the
> half-photons composing a photon to work mathematically in his model, he has
> to say that the electric constant k for superluminal charges has to
> increase to be K=k (2/alpha) for charges moving superluminally, and he
> suggests how this might happen physically. But if k is to remain the same
> for the superluminal charges as for other charges, he calculates the
> superluminal charges to be + and - Q = e sqrt(2/alpha) , the same as I
> calculated.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:00 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I am forwarding to you a letter from, and would like to introduce you to,
> Oreste Caroppo, in Italy, who independently developed and published on his
> website the superluminal double-helix model of the photon, what he calls
> the Double-Helicoidal Model of the Photon(http://fiatlux.
> altervista.org/fiat-lux-il-modello-doppio-elicoidale-del-fotone.htmlwhich
> also contains his article in English)and has written extensively about
> it. He considers the model quite a revolutionary development, particularly
> in relation to Maxwell’s Equations. Please see below what he has written
> about what he calls Maxwell’s Error. If you have comments or questions
> about his approach and ideas, please copy your replies to him and also to
> Andréas well as to the group. I hope Oreste will consider joining our
> group “Nature of Light and Particles". Thanks! (My article on the
> double-helix model of the photon is athttps://richardgauthier.
> academia.edu/research.)
> Richard
>
> Dear Richard Gauthier
>
> I thank you for your attention to my studies about photon and physics in
> general.
>
> I have seen reading your work that also you arrived to the conception of a
> structure for the photon based on a double-helix with two identical and
> opposite charges.
>
> These convergences are not an anomaly in the history of science, but they
> are obvious if the men really want to understand the nature, and now the
> photon with a spirit of free thinkers more interested in reality and less
> in dogmas imposed by previous theories of main-stream that have shown their
> incompleteness or fallacy precisely in the inability to make understand the
> photon and not only.
>
> The Double Helicoidal Model of the Photon (MODEC I abbreviate it in my
> writings) can not really be reconciled with Modern Physics, but it becomes
> the key to understanding the mistakes and problems of all modern
> theoretical physics and it helps to find out where physics of our centuries
> have deviated from reality, what I have called "the great original sin of
> Modern Physics", or "Maxwell's Error", without, however specifying, that
> this desire to question, in any case, the exceptional Maxwell's equations
> predictions, indeed the exact opposite as you will be understand,
>
> here two links in English:
>
> -) http://fiatlux.altervista.org/abstract-maxwell-s-error-the-
> great-original-sin-of-modern-physics-with-a-new-unification-the-model-
> explains-photon-.html
>
> -) http://fiatlux.altervista.org/letters-about-maxwell-s-error-
> and-the-double-helicoidal-model-of-the-photon.html
>
> only a mistake in Maxwell of understanding the power of his own
> magnificent Equations that, if not done, would have made possible to
> understand how they could already predict the existence of the photon with
> MODEC structure, and hence the quantization itself, what it is and how it
> descends from classical physics and by the quantization of electric charge,
> and so much else in the direction of correction of Relativity, today
> indispensable, and in the direction of the understanding of the true
> physical significance of Planck Units, and so on.
>
> I have put so much of all my studies online, but much of this is in my
> native Italian language, but, I imagine, it will be easy, for you, to
> translate using online translators.
>
> I would point you to my web site, where I reported a lot, including what
> in my blog you already know:
>
> link to my new web-site: http://fiatlux.altervista.org/
> fiat-lux-il-modello-doppio-elicoidale-del-fotone.html
>
> From the menu you can access the various paragraphs and from there, also,
> to my two pdfs,
> one you already know in English:
> http://fiatlux.altervista.org/Il_Modello_Doppio_Elicoidale_
> del_Fotone_di_Oreste_Caroppo.pdf
>
> and this one in Italian and very interesting also this:
> http://fiatlux.altervista.org/Le_Unita__naturali_di_Planck_
> comprese_attraverso_il_Modello_Doppio_Elicoidale_del_
> Fotone_di_Oreste_Caroppo.pdf
>
> P.S. If you are interested in pure mathematics, and especially in the
> prime numbers, I will also point you to this other my study
> link:
> -) http://lamatrixdeinumeriprimi.altervista.org/?doing_wp_cron=1510264997.
> 3561460971832275390625
>
> -) http://lamatrixdeinumeriprimi.altervista.org/wp-content/
> uploads/2016/11/LA-SCALA-DI-DIO-dei-NUMERI-PRIMI-di-Oreste-Caroppo.pdf
>
>
> It is always a great pleasure to know free thinkers and researchers of the
> truth who want to understand, reveal, with the observation and intellect,
> the mysteries of Nature!
>
> Great regards
>
> Oreste Caroppo
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
> I forwarded the following from Chip on the discussion list.
> Richard
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [General] half-photons??*
> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 4:00:37 AM PDT
> *To: *"'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> Andre
>
> I am delighted that you might participate in our discussion group. I have
> read some of your work and comments on ResearchGate and find you to be a
> thoughtful, intelligent contributor to the process of discovery.
>
> Thank you for forwarding some of your thoughts through Richard. I am
> hoping you will join our group so that we can all benefit from your
> insights as well.
>
> As you have pointed out, the postulate that “*Absolute uniform motion
> cannot be detected by any means.*” Does not mean that “*the concept of
> absolute rest and the ether have no meaning*”
>
> For if matter is made of energy, and energy always takes the propagating
> form, whether as light or confined to create matter, then it would be very
> difficult indeed for us to detect our motion through the medium (ether).
> This situation would also cause the appearance of relativity.
>
> So, there is another view, which is more causal than Einstein’s, where
> “relativity”*is the result of the medium of space*and the way energy
> creates matter and light.
>
> Is this your opinion as well? How do you view and understand the causes
> for “relativity”?
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:*General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:*Friday, October 27, 2017 3:38 PM
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:*André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
> Hello Grahame, Vivian, Chip, John W, Martin, Andrew and all, Here are
> forwarded some more thoughtful comments/responses fromAndréthat I think
> are relevant to your SR discussions. Richard André: Thank you for
> forwarding the discussion between Vivian, Grahame and Chip. I must say that
> over the years, I have come across most of similar comments about SR and
> various flavors of photon and electron inner structure proposals, either
> just reading about them or partaking in the discussions. I appreciate you
> sending me such updates. Causes me to think of these issues from a fresh
> angle. Thank you for your offer to actively join the group, but I prefer to
> wait until one or other member wishes to exchange with me. As previously
> mentioned, I am quite happy just contributing my ideas to you, and let you
> be the judge of whether or not you communicate my thoughts in the meantime
> if you deem useful in context. As far as I am concerned, I am discussing
> with you personally, simply because you are interested in my opinion.
>
> I have some comments of my own regarding SR. It seems to be generally
> assumed that SR is completely electromagnetism compliant. I was once
> presented with this paper by Richard E. Haskell, as giving the full
> derivation of all Maxwell's equations in addition to Lorentz force from
> special relativity and Coulomb's law:
>
> http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%
> 20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf
>
> I find it very well done and indeed clearly explaining SR and its origins.
>
> Here are some remarks that came to mind as I read it:
>
> On page 10, Einstein's first postulate is stated as follows: Absolute
> uniform motion cannot be detected by any means. The following conclusion by
> the author regarding this postulate seems to be totally inappropriate to
> me: "This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no
> meaning." I fail to see how this conclusion can logically derive so
> straightforwardly from the stated first postulate.
>
> In my own book (Electromagnetic Mechanics of Elementary Particles: 2nd
> Edition--Richard), metaphorically speaking of course, as formulated, this
> first postulate is a totally arbitrary axiomatic assertion not grounded on
> experimentally observed data about physical reality. Consequently, it is an
> invalid premise to draw any conclusion about physical reality. Also, I am
> positive that absolute uniform motion of free electromagnetic energy in
> vacuum has been detected and confirmed out of any doubt. Its uniform
> velocity has also been derived by Maxwell from second partial derivatives
> of the equations of Ampere and Gauss, which themselves were established
> from experimental data 40 years before.
>
> His second postulate (on page 10 also) (light is propagated in empty space
> with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source), is in
> reality Maxwell's rightfully arrived at conclusion 40 years previously from
> the second partial derivatives from which he established the speed of light
> as being c, which is a conclusion that Einstein perfectly understood.
>
> In reality, this is not an axiomatic postulate as is being assumed, but a
> well established conclusion derived in direct line from equations
> themselves established from experimental data by Gauss and Ampere.
>
> So there is no requirement to "modify our ideas about the nature of time"
> as stated on page 10 to accommodate the confirmed fact that light travels
> at uniform velocity c in vacuum.
>
> Then comes the description of two famous different inertial frames each
> with an observer, moving at different fixed velocities both stuck with the
> task of seeing the same light as moving at a constant velocity.
>
> First, naturally occurring inertial motion at fixed velocities of material
> bodies is impossible in physical reality, so my view is that this set up
> cannot possibly lead to any valid conclusions with respect to physical
> reality. If a body is not in immediate contact with another body, it will
> accelerate, so its velocity will constantly change. If in contact with
> another body, it will accelerate with this second body and its velocity
> will also constantly change.
>
> Second, whatever opinion these two observers may have about the velocity
> of light will not change its actual physical velocity.
>
> You can see that the squared velocities ratio of the Lorentz factor is
> obtained from strictly mathematical geometric considerations established at
> equation (5) involving time to axiomatically associate the Lorentz factor
> to time with equation (6).
>
> You will also observe the same establishment of the Lorentz gamma factor
> for the so-called "length contraction" with equation (14) strictly from
> geometric and algebraic consideration, which is not a derivation from
> physically obtained data, but from a construct obtained by establishing a
> geometric set up that will produce this relation between the "mathematical"
> concept of length and the gamma factor.
>
> I must say here that most of my life, I had been convinced that the gamma
> factor proper had been derived from electromagnetic equations by Lorentz
> and not from this geometric/algebraic mathematical set up.
>
> The reason is that I have read so much material since the 50's that I
> didn't recall where I read about its derivation from electromagnetic
> equations, or even if this was a false memory. I tried to relocate the
> source after I derived it myself from an electromagnetic equation (equation
> 66 in the following paper, derived from equation 51, itself a conversion
> from strictly electromagnetic equation 34), to compare results, but
> couldn't re-locate it. I then assumed by default that it was Lorentz who
> had made the original derivation from electromagnetism and that I just
> did't succeed in re-locating the source document:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_
> Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell
>
> You can verify that from the electromagnetic perspective the "gamma
> factor" derived in this paper has nothing to do with length or time
> contraction, only with charged particles energy increase with velocity (and
> with proximity between charged particles according to the Coulomb law).
>
> I then investigated further and found that all past derivations of the
> gamma factor had been made from this geometric/algebraic set up that was
> initially established by Woldemar Voigt in 1887,
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=
> 2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=
>
> who had epistolary contacts with Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare, who also
> are credited with developing the method. I finally relocated where I had
> gotten the idea that one of them had also derived it from electromagnetism.
>
> It was due to Walter Kaufmann's demonstration that the mass of the
> electron varied with velocity according to the relativistic equation during
> his experimentation leading to the identification of the transverse
> relativistic mass of moving electrons, that made use of the gamma factor
> developed from the geometry/algebraic method, but that finally no-one
> seemed to have actually derived the gamma factor directly from an
> electromagnetic equation, before my own derivation in the above paper.
>
> If on your side, you know of such a derivation directly from an
> electromagnetic equation, I would really appreciate a link to the paper, or
> a reference to the paper if not available online, so I can compare methods.
>
> All of this is meant to emphasize that this derivation of the gamma factor
> from an electromagnetic equation confirms that from the electromagnetism
> perspective, in physical reality the gamma factor is related strictly to
> energy increase with velocity of charged particles such as the electron,
> and under no circumstance to time dilation or so-called "length
> contraction".
>
> I place the word "so-called" before "length contraction", because there is
> a real problem with the very concept of length contraction when applied to
> physically existing bodies.
>
> I occasionally give the following example to bring to mind the immense
> distances that separate all charged particles within the atoms of which
> every macroscopic body is made.
>
> If a hydrogen atom was upsized so that its central proton became as large
> as the Sun, then the electron would stabilize as far as Neptune's orbit,
> which would make a hydrogen atom as large as the whole solar system. This
> means that distances between the charged particles within atoms making up
> macroscopic bodies are relatively astronomical.
>
> Given that all bodies are made of such empty structures, the very concept
> of "length" can be seen as meaningless with respect to its physical
> composition, and that what would be involved when the possible "length
> contraction" of a macroscopic body is considered, would really minimally be
> a "distance contraction" between the electronic escorts and the nuclei of
> the constituting atoms.
>
> This being said, such distance contraction would apply by structure not
> only to the length of macroscopic bodies, but also to their other
> dimensions, which are width and thickness.
>
> Given the assertion that SR is deemed electromagnetism compliant, such
> shortening of the distances between electronic escorts and nuclei within
> bodies subjected to "length contraction" should involve a corresponding
> energy increase within the mass of the body due to the Coulomb law at play
> as a function of the inverse square of the contracting distances between
> charged electrons of the electronic escorts and the charged nuclei.
>
> But, nowhere in SR is there a provision for this energy increase in the
> contracting mass of bodies moving at relativistic velocities, which is a
> gaping hole in the SR theory that seems not to have attracted any attention.
>
> So, if SR does not account for this energy increase mandated by the
> Coulomb force, this means that SR is not Maxwell equations compliant,
> because Gauss's equation for the electric field, which is Maxwell's first
> equation, is a simple generalization of Coulomb's law, which seems not to
> be applicable to bodies sustaining length contraction according to SR.
>
> Well, I hope this makes some sense to you, and if you have input about a
> prior derivation of the gamma factor from an electromagnetic equation, I
> really would appreciate.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> André
>
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Vivian (et al.)
> On looking back over my email (below)just sent, I'm concernedthat my
> reference to "those who use language in such a way as to bolster their
> arguments" might possibly be misconstrued as a reference to yourself.
> Please be assured that this was not my intention, I certainly don't regard
> you as having done this, I fully appreciate that your usage was to describe
> a particular situation rather than to justify a line of argument. My point
> about precise use of language stands, and of course applies to all of us;
> my point about misuse of words to strengthen an argument was with reference
> to a wholly hypothetical situation which I cannot imagine applying to
> anyone in this group.
> Best regards,
> Grahame
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
> *To:*Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>;Nature of Light and Particles
> - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:*Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:58 PM
> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
>
> Dear Vivian,
> Thanks for your reply.
> First and foremost I need to say that I haven’t*ever*“chosen to
> misrepresent” you; that’s the sort of emotive language that I find quite
> unhelpful.To make assumptions regarding the intentions of others, and then
> state those assumptions as fact, is always a risky business!I have simply
> described my understanding of what you have said as it seems to me – and
> hopefully always made it clear that this is what I’m doing.[Why on earth
> would I*choose*to misrepresent you?]
> Second, with regard to my being “pedantic” over your choice of words: as
> I’ve said, I’m quite relaxed over the use of “crumpled” (though I see it
> quite differently); however I cannot be so casual about your use of the
> word “requires” when your proposed ‘requirement’ is in fact just one of at
> least two options.For me this goes right to the heart of scientific rigour:
> if, for example, a medical researcher stated that onset of a particular
> medical condition ‘requires’ an elevated temperature of five degrees above
> the norm, when in fact under some circumstances this need not be the case,
> the consequences could be catastrophic.
> Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every branch of
> science.I’d go so far as to say that I wouldn’t be able to have a
> meaningful discussion with anyone who used language in such a way to
> bolster their own scientific arguments.Certainly a view of the nature of
> Relativity, or of the structure of photons, that (in my view) misuses
> language in this way would be of absolutely no interest to me.If this makes
> me a pedant then, yes, I plead guilty as charged – and I believe that
> science would be the worse for it if others investigating fundamental
> aspects of our universe didn’t take the same view.
> I agree 100% with your proposal that the circulating-photon model of an
> electron (at a constant light-speed) accounts fully for observed phenomena
> attributed to Relativity; this is a point that Chip and I have both been
> quite vocal about pretty much since we each joined this group (as I
> understand your position on this Chip – forgive me if that’s incorrect in
> any way) and that I’ve been writing about for nigh on 20 years.This causes
> a changed perception/experience of time, distance and object dimensions
> precisely in line with the observations that are put down to Relativity.In
> this respect Relativity*is*a thing, and it’s fully explainable as such.
> However this explanation stops short –*well*short – of supporting the
> proposal that spacetime is of itself, by its nature, ‘relativistic’ – i.e.
> that all inertial states of motion are equivalent, that there is no one
> unique such state of motion that can be termed ‘objectively static’, from
> which all other states of motion may be measured.In fact, it renders such a
> proposal superfluous, since all observed phenomena can be fully explained
> without introducing this additional constraint on the nature of reality.[I
> include in this the apparent reciprocity of ‘relativistic’ effects, which
> can be derived directly from this particle model.]
> It is*that*‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective equivalence of all
> inertial states of motion – for which I see absolutely*no*causation
> proposed (I'm talking generally here, not just about your work).Certainly
> the circling-photon model (on which we appear to be agreed) offers no
> causal explanation for such a proposed phenomenon – at the same time as
> explaining very clearly why such a proposal is unnecessary to explain
> ‘relativistic’ effects.
> So, then: I thoroughly applaud both experimental evidence and mathematical
> rationale in support of any theory – and (as I observed to John W) I have
> never questioned either of these in respect of SR or GR, in fact I have
> endorsed them to the hilt.However, what I am saying, and what is fully
> supported by logical analysis of the circling-photon particle model, is
> that these experiments and math are respectively illustrating and
> documenting*perceived*reality rather than*objective*reality.If one
> recognises that effects attributed to Relativity are, in the main,
> *observer*effects (including mechanical/atomic ‘observers’ such as
> clocks), coupled with objective consequences such as the electromagnetic
> foreshortening of objects in motion (Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction), then
> in my view we have a pretty complete theory!
> Where we come a-cropper is when we (i.e. mainstream science) insist on
> tacking on a wholly unnecessary ‘addendum’ to the effect that reality*is*in
> fact that strange place that our motion-affected senses and instruments
> tell us it is – that this train*is*longer (not just*seems*longer) for the
> guard on it than it is for the trackside workman, that your watch*is*going
> slow in respect of my reference frame whilst at the same time mine*is*going
> slow in respect of your reference frame.
> This distinction between ‘seems’ and ‘is’ may appear to be a bit
> irrelevant, but in fact it’s absolutely crucial if we’re to progress in our
> practical understanding of the universe.From inertia to gravitation, from
> our handling of time to our handling of space (and so arguably for the
> future viability of our species), every new physical theory is required to
> conform to this frame-invariance constraint.Since that constraint on
> physical laws is arguably totally illusory, we are (it very much seems to
> me) placing unnecessary obstacles in our path to future discovery and
> endeavour – ultimately, in our path to the stars.
> Best regards,
> Grahame
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?
> unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?
> unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171126/c5979b69/attachment.html>