[General] Chip paper and Benefits of our discussions

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi Chip,

Many thanks for sharing your paper - quite a Tour de Force!

I've had a read of it, and whilst duly impressed I don't feel that I'm the person to critique most of it; it's not my specialisation and it would take me a lot of time (more than I have) to work thru the various points you make.  It's apparent even to me, though, that your results hang crucially on the concept of a unique objective rest-frame (aka the aether) in which everything else takes place - please correct me if I'm wrong on this.  This in turn, I believe, requires overturning the widely-held (including in this group) view that phenomena grouped under SR are results of an objective reality - the symmetry of all inertial reference frames - rather than subjective experience.  if colleagues in this group (and elsewhere) who hold that view cannot be persuaded otherwise then I can't see how they could accept your reasoning on all the other various issues, regardless of how compelling that reasoning may be.

This is a topic on which I feel I'm on rather firmer ground.  I believe that you and I are of like mind (with minor differences) with regard to this subject.  It seems to me that, to hold water, your paper must first establish unequivocally that SR is the result of subjective experience rather than objective cosmic reality of the sort that it's widely held to be.  Whilst I fully support your premise in this respect, I don't actually see that happening in your paper.

You refer to John Bell's views, based on his own cogent proof that information must, and does, travel faster than c and his contention that Lorentz-Fitzgerald(/Larmor/Heaviside) contraction goes some way to explaining outcomes of SR; that's part of the picture, but far from all of it.  You've also referred to orthogonality of linear and cyclic motion of energy travelling at speed c in a helical path, almost certainly leading to the Pythagorean formula for time dilation; whilst that's clearly true for linear motion orthogonal to the plane of the circular energy-path, the general case is significantly more complex, be it for a single particle or a multi-body system.

There is a wide field of other experimental observations that also need to be addressed if one is to put SR on the right footing for a paper such as yours: Fizeau's experiment; anomalous aberration of starlight; magnet & coil induction experiment; frame-independence of Maxwell's equations; Einstein's thought experiment on travelling alongside a photon at speed c; and more generally, the reciprocity shown in the (skew) self-inverse nature of the Lorentz Transformation, which appears to fly in the face of the notion of a unique preferred frame but which also (I understand) is consistent with work in the LHC relating to switching between lab frame and 'rest-frame' of relativistically-moving particles.

I have fully successfully addressed and resolved all of these issues (and more - I could talk at length on the limitations of Hasselkamp's experiment as proof of SR!); I believe I have shared various aspects of my findings in this group (I recall at some stage discussing the issue of reciprocity at some length with Albrecht).  I don't see any of these issues being aired in your paper - but without those issues being 'put to bed' I can't see how SR can be considered to have been explained, and without that happening I don't see how followers of conventional SR can take your findings on board.

[As I say, I may have understood, your results may be sustainable in a conventional aether-free-SR universe; that's not how I read it, but if I've misunderstood feel free to ignore all of the above.]

I hope you find these observations useful, my aim here is to support you in making your excellent work as robust as possible - which must surely include 'heading off at the pass' any suggestions that your results are invalid since they depend on a maverick unproven & unprovable interpretation of SR.

With very best regards,
Grahame



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chip Akins 
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Benefits of our discussions


Greetings to All

 

I wanted to start by thanking each of you for the discussions we have on this forum, and by thanking Chandra for creating this forum.

 

The major reason for my gratitude is the productive way this discussion has kept my attention on the fact that we have to consider all aspects of physics. We have to keep in mind the details as we reverse engineer this amazing system which is our universe.  And this forum has done just that for me.

 

I studied physics, off and on, for 27 years, and then began studying intently and doing research regularly for the last 25 years.  But I did not make much real progress in understanding until becoming involved in discussions with a few other physicists and then especially after joining this group.

 

While I am grateful for this group and the discussions we have. 

I now have a specific request of you.

 

It seems to me that I have somewhat accidently stumbled onto what may be an important step for physics.  What I would really appreciate from each of you is for you to read the attached, and tell me why you feel it is wrong, or why you feel it is right.

 

The attached is definitely a work in progress, for every week or so I discover something else which seems to support the approach presented. And I still have a large list of references and acknowledgements to add.

 

Thank you all for your comments and for taking the time to read this.

Your input would undoubtedly be helpful.

 

Warmest Regards

 

Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180110/6affc79e/attachment.html>