[General] half-photons??

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Dear Vivian (et al.)

On looking back over my email (below) just sent, I'm concerned that 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 
  To: Viv Robinson ; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171027/18110a65/attachment.html>