<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
..shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=#ffffff vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Chip et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[Thanks, Prof Chandra, for inviting
me to join this group - see also my ref to your recent comment at *
below.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks, Chip, for your response
below, and for your welcome.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I must admit that I'm most surprised
that, in over a century, there seems to have been little or no attempt to
identify the causation of the phenomena collectively grouped under the heading
of 'Special Relativity'. The two postulates of SR appear to have been
simply accepted as 'just how it is' - a stark contrast to the general
inquisitiveness of physicists wanting to find out WHY things are how they
are.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>* In this respect I must echo your
observation, Chandra, that we appear to have limited our own 'knowledge
horizons' by putting our scientific forbears on a pedestal. Nowhere is
this more true than in respect of Einstein - I have little doubt that the great
man would be horrified to think that we had preserved in aspic his take on
reality, rather than seeking to understand it more deeply. If he'd been
given another century in which to progress his ideas there's no question but
that he'd have been looking for the deeper truths behind SR: do we not owe his
memory at least that much, on his behalf?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The main difficulty with reasoned
discussion of SR is the near-universal view that anyone who questions the tenets
of SR is talking out of his/her bottom - so 'move on to something more
plausible'. Unless we can overcome this inherent limitation we're not
going to discover all sorts of amazing stuff - and we shall all be the
losers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm particularly surprised that
physics appears to have chosen to paint itself into this corner since we've
known for over 80 years that elementary particles are formed from (higher
frequencies of) light. Landau and Lifshits first identified that pair
production in particle accelerators was invariably the direct consequence of
prior production of high-energy photons that then collided to form the e+/e-
pair (Sov. Phys. Vol 6, 1934, p.244); Breit & Wheeler followed up with their
'Process' definition later that year; e+/e- pairs were produced wholly from
photons at SLAC in 1997. With this provenance it seems astounding that SR
has been virtually universally accepted as 'just how it is', with no apparent
attempt to link SR phenomena of matter-light interaction (which is
essentially what they are) to, or explain them in terms of, the fact
that matter particles are themselves manifestations of light in another
form. This is a unique departure from the innate curiosity of physicists,
explainable only by Chandra's observation* of some sort of 'reverence for a past
master' (which IMO does that past master a serious disservice).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Chip, I endorse 100% your finding
that cyclic-photon particle formation provides a full and sufficient explanation
for findings grouped under SR. More than this, given that explanation
there's actually not room for an additional 'objective SR' since this would lead
to a contradiction in terms of absolute speeds (put simply: there's only room
for ONE absolute speed in the universe, this would give two - one subjective,
the other objective).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I understand that the
'experimental evidence' for SR consists broadly of the following: Rel. Time
Dilation (in various forms); Michelson & Morley; Fizeau; Frame-independence
of Maxwell's equations; Induction loop in a magnetic field; Classically
anomalous aberration of starlight. [If there are any others then I believe
they'd be covered by verifying the Lorentz Transformation as a subjective
phenomenon - which follows directly from the cyclic-photon model of elementary
particles.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For those who may not have seen these
links, I've addressed Fizeau, M&M, Maxwell and the broader issue of
experimental evidence of SR generally (including RTD) at the following links
(first three are 1 page each, SR is two pages, minimal maths in all of
them):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR..php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Induction loop is covered by Maxwell
stuff & Lorentz stuff, starlight is covered by Lorentz stuff.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>There's possibly 30 mins reading in
all of these put together, 5 mins if you have time for just one. I'm not
looking for people to agree with me, simply asking that if you find flaws in
logic in any of the above posts I'd be really glad if you'd let me know.
[If you don't, then it's up to you what you make of that.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks to all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame Blackwell</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Matter comprised
of light-speed energy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Welcome
</SPAN>Grahame<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I am particularly satisfied that you have joined our little
group.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>By the way I concur with your findings regarding
SR.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I have been sharing one concept with the group, with little
success.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>That is the fact that, if fermions are made of confined
light-speed energy, then nature has already dictated a specific form of
“relativity” which is NOT SR. There is no escaping this consequence and
there can be no other form of “relativity” other than this particular form
dictated clearly by particles of matter being made of light-speed
energy.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Warmest welcome<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Chip Akins<SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Richard Gauthier<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 14, 2016
6:51 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><BR><B>Subject:</B>
[General] Matter comprised of light-speed
energy<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Hello all,<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> I would like to welcome Grahame Blackwell to
our “Nature of light and particles" discussion group. I believe that he will
make a strong contribution to discussing issues that we all are interested in.
I attach his reply to an e-mail I sent to both him and Vivian proposing
several areas in need of further discussion in relation to the idea that
material particles may be composed of circulating photons. Also are included
some earlier relevant e-mail conversations between Graham, Vivian and myself
on these issues so that these don’t need to be repeated.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> all the best<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>
Richard<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On Jun 14, 2016, at 12:28 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Richard, Hi Vivian,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks,
Richard, for your email. As may or may not be apparent from the
website or any other communication received, I have now signed up to the
group. I'm replying to you specifically in this email as it's a
response to yours, however I should be happy for you
to share my responses with others in the group (simply so others know
where I'm coming from on this as a 'newbie' to the group).</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I
agree in principle with the points you make in your summary paragraphs, with
one notable exception (the primary reason for my interaction in this group):
I specifically do not agree that Special Relativity applies in any way to
photons. SR postulates explicitly that the speed of light is
objectively frame-invariant; my research leads me to the firm view that
this is not the case. For the avoidance of any doubt, my research
further leads me to the firm view that the Lorentz transformation accurately
describes subjective experience of both observers and inanimate
instrumentation in inertial frames other than the one unique objective rest
frame evidenced by my research (probably corresponding to the rest
frame of the CMB). This fully explains such phenomena as the
classically anomalous aberration of starlight. [I should say that I
also have reservations about the existence of gluons, but that doesn't need
to be an issue here.]</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">With
regard to your numbered points:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1&2:
I too have focused in various places on electrons, but regard the
closed-loop photon structure as applicable to all elementary
particles.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">3.
I too have consistently viewed the electron as a double-loop photon,
identified as such in my first book on the subject 10 years ago and my first
paper on the subject published in 'Kybernetes' a little over 5 years
ago. I have described other particles in general as consisting of one
or more closed loops of undefined order and complexity (I explicitly
consider the possibility - though most unlikely - of near-closed-loops:
think of a non-repeating pattern, like a 3D pi; I include this not because I
believe such exist but simply because I don't wish to be
over-proscriptive).</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">4-9
are, I agree, subjects in which we all have an interest (to varying degrees
according to our 'specialization').</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">10.
SR: I recognise time dilation and length contraction as objective phenomena
resulting from 'mechanistic' physical considerations (i.e. not resulting
from, or thus in any way proving, SR); I do not regard these phenomena as
reciprocal, as SR proposes - and looking ahead to point 11, I know of no
experimental evidence for the proposal that they ARE fully reciprocal (so if
we are going to give proper prominence to experimental evidence, I'm not
sure how that reciprocity can be so accommodated). I see all other
observed/measured phenomena attributed to SR as subjective effects resulting
from non-reciprocal time dilation, non-reciprocal length contraction and the
cyclic-photon structure of material particles.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">11.
I regard experimental evidence for any theory as absolutely paramount;
I find recent proposals that theories should be accepted on the grounds of
their 'elegance' (not in this group, I hasten to add) deeply
disturbing. Having said that, I need to make a couple
of points on this:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(a)
For me there is a very strong distinction between experimental evidence and
inferences drawn from that evidence; the indisputability of experimental
evidence does NOT imply indisputability of conclusions drawn from that
evidence - particularly when those experimental findings can be quite
adequately explained in terms of known effects without having to introduce
any new theories (Occam's razor applies);</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(b) If
it should become clearly apparent some time after experimentation that the
results so gathered actually demonstrate something that was not considered
at the time, then those results may be considered to be valid experimental
evidence for that new explanation; this was of course the basis for
inclusion of Fizeau's results (1859) in the evidence for SR (1905) - not
included in Einstein's 1905 paper, but cited by him (and others since) as
strong evidence in support of that theory. [In this context it's maybe
worth recalling the number of practical experiments, as opposed to 'thought
experiments', conducted by Einstein humself.]</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I hope
that's not too wordy, I felt I should honour your work below by defining my
own brief as clearly as possible.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">----- Original
Message -----<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0in; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=grahame@starweave.com href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame
Blackwell</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=viv@universephysics.com href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Vivian
Robinson</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Monday, June 13,
2016 2:25 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Re: [General]
Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Hello Grahame
and Vivian,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
I’m glad that you are both developing a good exchange of views, and only
wish that it could be happening on “nature of light and particles”. This
is just the kind of conversation needed there now. Please Grahame let me
know when you are officially added to the group. Then I propose shifting
our exchanges to there. I know that at least some of the others will be
interested, like John W, Martin, Chip, Chandra, John D and possibly John M
and Andrew and some others, even if only as
observers.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
My view is that we are all looking at the same general issue and would all
like to get at the physical “truth” about the nature of matter as possibly
being composed of light/photons. We have different perspectives on the
subject, but in the end (whenever that comes) the equations we obtain and
what they stand for should be basically agreed (at least provisionally, or
at least agree to disagree) on by all (and not just by us three), if we
can be specific enough on what we are talking
about.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
We seem to agree that our premise or approach is that all physical
particles are composed of light (or light-speed objects). We all agree
that somehow special relativity (at least) applies to particles composed
of light (photons). I think we agree that there is one photon per
fundamental particle like an electron (though it may not have been
expressed explicitly, but rather assumed). A proton could be composed of
many light-speed particles that form quarks or different gluons that
compose a proton, for example. I personally believe in starting with
simpler particles. Once Einstein commented that it would be enough to
understand the electron, or perhaps he said
photon.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
I’ve gone through both of your main articles on particles composed of
circulating photons, but not all parts in equal detail. At least I’ve got
some of the basic ideas on your approaches and your basic calculations. My
view is that if something near the beginning of an article doesn’t make
enough sense to me, it’s not so useful for me to go into as much detail
much further on, because later work in an article generally builds on
earlier work, and I want to economize my
efforts.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
Since I don’t know if or how much either of you have gone through my most
recent particle-made-of-light articles (my August SPIE article on
electrons and my later two on the origin of Eo=mc^2 and the inertial mass
of particles, and the inertial mass of a photon), I attach them below for
future reference. They are also on<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://academia.edu/">academia.edu</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>with other articles at <A
href="https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier">https://santarosa...academia.edu/RichardGauthier</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
There are several different sub-areas where we have similarities and
differences in our approaches. And by no means is it a question of
“majority rules” in our discussions—physics is not democratic as you know.
Let me first list some of the sub-areas which emerge in our
papers:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">1. To what
particles do our approachs apply? All particles or only
some?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">2. Vivian and
I have emphasized electrons but not exclusively. Grahame has not been
specific about which particles.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">3. Vivian and
I have modeled the electron as a double-looping photon. Graham models
particles (from what I have seen so far) as single-loop
particles.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">4. The origin
and nature of rest mass and inertial mass is of interest to all of
us.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">5. The radius
of a particle and how it may or may not change with the velocity of the
particle. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">6. The
trajectory of the photon in a moving particle. I think we all agree that
the total energy flow of the photon has a helical
trajectory.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">7. Electron
spin and its relation to single-looped and double-looped photon
models.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">8. The
relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 and how it
is relevant to modeling individual particles like the
electron.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">9. Any other
triangle relationships between space and time, energy, momentum and
mass<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">10. What parts
of SR are accepted by any of us or not? Time dilation? Maximum speed of
particles with rest mass as less than c?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">11. The
importance of experimentation and its relation to theoretical
calculations.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">before getting
into greater specifics, do either of you want to add, subtract or change
any of the above points?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
with best regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
Richard<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">On Jun 12,
2016, at 2:58 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks,
Vivian, for your comprehensive response.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Rather
than re-threading between our comments I'll attempt to summarise my
response to your response here at the top.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1)
My observation on Einstein and linear photons having mass: I was not
asserting that they don't (though my model indicates that mass is
specifically a property endowed by the circular path of a photon in
particle form, rather than an intrinsic property of a photon
itself; this depends essentially on what one means by 'mass', whether
it's by definition a quality that's responsible for inertia [also
gravitation] - which is how I see it). No, as I thought I'd
clearly indicated, my point was a questioning (as I still do) of your
claim that Einstein himself had declared that photons have mass; I don't
see any reference to that in the historical records. To further
refer to this as 'Einstein's postulate' seems to be an attempt to
ascribe to Einstein a<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>
<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>definitive statement that (to
the best of my knowledge) he never made (because you wish to add his
'endorsement' to your own view?). Certainly one could argue
that he may have believed that, he may have even meant it; that's
something we'll never know - unless you have, or find, evidence to the
contrary. If you have a different definition of 'mass' that
doesn't involve inertia, that could explain our difference in view
(though I doubt that it would overcome my point re Einstein). [BTW
The fact that Einstein refers to a body losing mass when it gives off
energy can be seen as a clear restatement of his mass-energy
relationship, it's not Einstein saying "light has mass".]</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I
have of course seen (some time ago) 'Light is heavy'. I don't
agree with everything 't Hooft says, in particular I don't agree with
his views on SR as expressed to me in a response from his journal
(Basically "There's nothing new to be said about SR unless one's talking
black holes, big bang or similar" - without even reading what
I had to say). I'm well aware that there's considerable agreement
on this subject - as there is on the irrefutability of SR. This in
itself is a strong disincentive to looking deeper. A bit more
reflection on inviolable shibboleths is by no means a bad thing
(phlogiston held sway for over a century; how does it sound to you
now?). In various places you use expressions along the lines
of "This is in agreement with SR"; you'll understand, I'm sure, that on
the basis of my own findings I don't consider this to be a strong
endorsement.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As
for 'coding' and 'decoding' linear photons: the transformation process
is, quite simply, the transformation from closed-loop form to linear
form - and vice versa at the other end. One could say that a
particle is electromagnetic wave energy coded into closed-loop form
('coded' and 'decoded' are simply the opposite way round from the sound
analogy). The mechanism is resonance - broken by some stochastic
process in an emitting atom (or interference from an incoming photon -
stimulated emission), re-established in the receptor atom.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I'm
sorry that you don't seem to understand - or at least haven't in any
way addressed - the point that stands out in my own work as given
at those links: the experimental 'evidence' that has convinced Einstein
and others of the correctness of SR can ALL be explained without ANY
reference to the postulates of SR; in that respect NONE of that
experimental evidence, however correct, can be seen as evidence for
SR. This is hardly a matter of "not understanding" Einstein's work
(thanks for that side-swipe!), it's rather a matter of understanding the
outcomes of experiments he relied upon in ways that he himself
apparently failed to realise.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">[Refs:
(a) for young Einstein riding alongside a light beam at light speed
(note that I didn't propose that he himself used the word 'photon'):
Einstein, A. 'Autobiographical Notes', Paul Arthur Schilp (Centennial
ed.), Chicago: Open Court pp 48-51; (b) Einstein's reliance on Fizeau's
experiment as strong evidence for SR: conversation with Robert Shankland
as quoted in various places, including e.g. in Weinstein, G. 'Einstein's
Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity' (2015), Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, P.8: " "They were enough" said Einstein".]</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As
for your "If you can't derive experimentally observed results from your
logical analysis...", again it seems you've totally missed the point -
the very salient point that I HAVE derived, very
precisely, experimental results from my logical analysis - and
shown those experimental results to be totally independent of SR and so
in no way evidence for SR, much less proof. I can only assume that
you skim-read my work and have responded to what you assumed it was
saying, rather than what it actually said. Your exhortation for me
to conduct yet further experiments based on such false premises seems to
confirm that you totally misunderstood my point.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Once
again I ask: if you are able to point to any logical discrepancy in my
analysis of Fizeau's experiment, Michelson & Morley's experiment or
the implications (not) of Maxwell's Equations (as opposed to implying
that I don't understand Relativity because I've shown that none of these
are in any way evidence for SR) I'd be glad to hear. Otherwise,
since these three are the very foundations of the science community's
present-day reliance on SR as a basis for future research, you may wish
to rethink your invocations of "in agreement with SR" as evidence for
other theoretical observations.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Vivian,
I'm really not interested in point-scoring. My only interest is in
moving science forward. My findings - unless you are able to
refute them - indicate that SR is built on various incorrect
interpretations of experimental data. This implies that scientific
research as conducted today is based on a set of false premises.
If that is indeed the case then it behoves us all<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>to lift science up out of
the rut that it's dug itself into - not just for the sake of science,
but for humankind as a whole. If that's not the case then I'd be
very glad if you could point out to me the errors in my
analyses.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks
again,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0in; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----
Original Message -----<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=viv@universephysics.com
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Vivian
Robinson</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=grahame@starweave.com href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr
Grahame Blackwell</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sunday, June
12, 2016 5:20 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Re: [General]
Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Grahame,
Richard,<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Thanks for
your email. You are blue, I am black.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Vivian
Robinson<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">On
10/06/2016, at 10:35 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Hi
Richard,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Thanks
indeed for forwarding Viv Robinson's paper on to me. I found a
great deal in it that I would agree with, indeed as you say his
model is similar to mine in various respects.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">As
you know, my primary concern with this 'cyclic-photon' view of
electron structure (which must by now surely be self-evident in
principle to anyone who takes the trouble to consider it) relates to
its consequences in respect of Special Relativity - specifically, it
fully explains ALL of the experimentally verified findings of SR
(note that I do not include what I would consider deeply
questionable inferences from those 'gold standard' findings).
For this reason I haven't unravelled all the details of spin,
momentum etc in this paper - though again I see a lot in there that
I find eminently acceptable. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt">Glad
you understand at least parts of it! </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Just
a couple of things that I noted that I have to question.
First, on p.4 Vivian quotes AE: "radiation conveys inertia between
emitting and absorbing bodies" - then states: "Einstein's
above-mentioned statement shows he believed photons have mass"; he
goes further than this and refers to this idea (photons have mass)
as "Einstein's postulate". For me this is a non-sequitur,
putting words in Einstein's mouth that (as far as I know) he never
uttered. For something to CONVEY a characteristic it doesn't
need to HAVE that characteristic itself. For example, radio
waves convey sound between source and destination - but they do most
assuredly NOT themselves consist of<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>longitudinal
pressure waves. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">This
is not a trivial point, it goes to the very heart of 'what IS
mass / what is inertia?' - a subject that you and I have discussed
recently. My perception of inertial mass, backed up by careful
consideration of what's happening when a particle changes its
velocity, is that it's a property of that closed-loop energy
structure, not applicable to a free-flying photon - but transferable
BY that free-flying photon between two of those closed-loop
structures. (Totally analogous to that radio
wave).</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">That
raises the interesting question - "What is the transformation process
that enables a massless photon to be emitted </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt">from a
mass particle, reducing its mass, not having mass itself, reaching
another mass particle and increasing its mass?" With
radio waves it is easy. The sound waves require a capture mechanism
(microphone), coding means (electronics) and transmitter means
(antenna). To convey the signal back to sound waves, the reverse is
required, an antenna (aerial), decoding means (receiver) and a
presentation means (speaker). Quoting Einstein again from an English
language version of the same paper "If a body gives off
energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by
L/c^2. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 18pt">There
is </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt">considerable
agreement that photons do indeed have mass. One of the group, Martin
van der Mark has, in conjunction with Gerald 't Hooft, written
an article called "Light is Heavy, reference below. IMHO, photons
do have mass when travelling a c, although they don't have rest mass.
This is not a violation of special relativity. Further it is the
rotating photon model of matter that is responsible for the special
relativity corrections of mass, length and time. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><A
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">FYI, in
another paper, Richard may forward it to you, I have shown that
treating photons as having mass in Newtonian gravity mechanics
produces a space-time metric that matches all observations that
support Einstein'd general relativity (GR) calculations. It doesn't
predict the existence of black holes. However their supposed detection
is due to the detection of large massive objects, which, using other
standard model physics, they deduce must be black holes. Measurement
is several orders of magnitude away from distinguishing between my
metric and the accepted Schwarzschild metric. I am very confident that
when, in the future those measurements are made, my metric will be
seen to hold. This is another reason why I am prepared to accept that
photons have mass when travelling at c, acknowledging they have no
rest mass. This is in agreement with SR.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">My
other point relating to Vivian's paper is in respect of what appears
to me to be an assumption for which there is no evidence: namely
that, just because a static particle is formed from exactly two
circuits per wavelength of its formative photon, a moving particle
will likewise consist of exactly a double-loop. This appears
in the four lines of algebra leading up to equation 7, which itself
defines a reduced diameter for a particle on the move. It
seems to be an attempt to conform with precepts of SR - but leads to
a conclusion that is itself at variance with SR, namely a change in
dimension orthogonal to direction of motion. There seems to be
a suggestion that this only affects the particle, not the wider
structure, but it's not apparent why that should be so: would not a
change in electron diameter have an impact on electromagnetic
molecular bonding - if not, why not? I see strong reasons why
radius of photon path would NOT change with speed of
particle.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Observation,
not opinion, is the ONLY arbiter of a theory. The ground level
detection of muons in cosmic rays and the ability to use them in
particle accelerators confirms the special relativity shows
experimentally that the conform to the special relativity corrections.
The electron is known to be an enigmatic particle, At high voltages ≈
30 GeV, it behaves like a point particle. At low voltages, it behaves
like a particle with dimensions similar to the it Compton wavelength.
This and a lot more have been written about the electron in numerous
reference books, including The Electron, ISBN 0-7923-1356-9, Kluwer
Academic Publishers (proceedings of a conference); or The Enigmatic
Electron ISBN 0-7923-1982-6 (MH Mac
Gregor). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">A
double loop photon is stable because the photons magnetic and electric
fields reinforce each other in an interlocking manner. I know of no
means by which the ends would then "weld" themselves together as you
indicate. If such "welding were possible, the radius of an electron
would be detected as ≈ 1.93 x 10^-13 m, not < 10^-17 m as is
observed.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">When
you further understand my paper, you will see that I acknowledge that
lateral dimensions, atomic radii etc, are maintained by electric
charge and fields. Electric charge e remains the same with increasing
velocity, experimentally measured and calculated in my paper. Because
charge e does not change the only change in the dimensions of an atom
at high velocity will be the reduction of electron's radius from ≈
1.93 x 10-13 m at rest to 10^-14 m at ≈ 0.9 c. The radius of a
hydrogen atom ≈ 0.5 x 10^-10 m, with a "fuzzy" boundary makes it
difficult to measure such a small change.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">For
my part I've continued to add to what I consider to be compelling
reasons to question century-old entrenched positions re Special
Relativity. You know that I've derived clear mathematical
rationales for ALL verified findings of SR directly from the 'cyclic
<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>photon' model,<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>however
I don't ask people simply to accept my findings against
that 100-year legacy. Rather, I have posted what I consider
absolutely compelling reasons for seriously questioning three of the
most 'robust' arguments for SR: Fizeau's experiment; Maxwell's
equations (frame independence thereof); Michelson & Morley's
experiment. If ANYONE can take the few minutes required to
read those three 1-page posts (with minimal maths, mostly simple
logical reasoning) and then STILL believe that ANY of those can be
considered serious evidence for SR, I'd be most interested to hear
why.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Those
posts can be found at:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">A
more detailed rationale for seriously questioning SR as a true model
of reality can be seen at:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR.....php</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">It
goes without saying that, unless all of thes pieces can be
effectively refuted, physics research today is in a real
sense heading down a blind alley.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">The
refutation of the above is the experimental observations that support
the SR. Nothing else counts. As for specific points, I could not find
any reference to Fizeau in Einstein's 1905 publication "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Regarding Maxwell etc., you state
"He (Einstein) describes himself flying along side a photon of light…"
The name photon was first introduced by Born, Copenhagen Convention
circa (1926) some 30 years after his teenage years ended. Having read
his above paper, I see no reference to him using that "thought
experiment in deriving SR. Regarding Michelson-Morley, your error is
to apply what you call "..in depth logical analysis.." If you can't
derive experimentally observed results from your "logical analysis'
(SR is experimentally verified), this does not reflect
poorly on Einstein or SR. Whether or n to they are serious evidence
for SR is irrelevant. Einstein derived the SR's gamma corrections from
his approach. My approach was to derive them from the rotating photon
model. I make a number of predictions of unknown physical properties,
which can be measured, including the reduction of an electron's
diameter with velocity which is matched by experiment at E > ≈ 30
GeV. it is a simple experiment to repeat the measurements at
intermediate electron energies. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">I agree
with you that physics is indeed heading up bind alleys. Those blind
alleys include aspects of quantum mechanics, all of quantum
electrodynamics and aspects of general relativity. Special relativity
has been experimentally verified and is not one of
them.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">I'd
be glad, Richard, if you could share this with others. I'd
also be pleased to be able to myself share with the group that you
refer to, if that's ok with you & them.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">SR
corrections are established experimentally. Just because people don't
understand Einstein's work, doesn't mean he was wrong. I repeat,
Experiment is the ONLY arbiter of any theory. If you wish to refute
SR, do it experimentally. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Thanks,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Grahame</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----
Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><A
title=grahame@starweave.com href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr
Grahame Blackwell</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thursday,
June 09, 2016 5:10 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Fwd:
[General] Matter comprised of light-speed
energy<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Hello
Grahame,<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
I’m forwarding to you a copy of Vivian Robinson’s
double-loop electron model article (attached at the end), with
some recent comments on it in the “nature of light and particles”
discussion group. I don’t know if you’ve read Vivian’s article,
but his approach is somewhat similar to yours. I would be
interested in seeing any comments you might have on it, and would
pass them along to Vivian and the group if you
agreed.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
all the best,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
Richard<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Begin
forwarded message:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">From:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Richard
Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A>><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Subject:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] Matter
comprised of light-speed energy</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Date:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">June
7, 2016 at 10:36:34 AM PDT<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">To:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Vivian
Robinson <<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</A>><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Cc:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.....natureoflightandparticles.org</A>><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Hello
Vivian,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
Again, thank you for your further explanations.
Unfortunately, you still do not seem to have realized, and
therefore do not accept, that you incorrectly derived
the<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>de
Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma m v) from your electron
model. Since you knew the correct<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>de
Broglie wavelength formula in advance, it is understandable
that you accepted your faulty derivation when it seemed to give
the “right answer”. This can be a lesson for all of us.
Let me be more specific. On p 13 in the middle right-hand
column of your article (attached below for others' convenience)
you write:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The
rotational component of the electron at rest is unavailable for
any interaction, except for exchanging photons in an
electromagnetic interaction. That leaves only the translational
component of the moving electron’s electromagnetic field
available for interaction.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>That is the wavelength
of its kinetic energy. However the electron is entirely composed
of an electromagnetic wave. Its total energy
is E= </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">v</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">.
Its rest energy is hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">0</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">.
The kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic field, pc,
is given by E sin (theta)=</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">v </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">sin
(theta) =</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">pc
= </SPAN><SPAN class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">ke
...</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Summarizing,
you derived the “kinetic energy component of the
electromagnetic field, pc" from the relativistic energy-momentum
triangle as KE = pc = </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">ke</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"> (as
you labeled the vertical side of the triangle in fig. 13)
. Then you write: </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Substituting
c/lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> for
f</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">and
simplifying yields pc = </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hc/lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">where
lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">is
the component wavelength of the electromagnetic oscillation that
is the electron, in the direction of its travel, namely
lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">=
h/p which is the expression for the de Broglie
wavelength.</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: -4pt; mso-text-raise: 4.0pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">But
the correct expression for the relativistic kinetic energy
KE of a particle is KE= (gamma-1)mc^2 which is NOT equal
to pc , which equals pc=(gamma mv)c or pc=gamma mvc .. It is OK
to set KE=</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">hf</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">ke
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">but
this means that </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">f</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">ke </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">=KE/h
= [ (gamma-1)(mc^2) ] /h . Combining this expression
for </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">f</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">ke</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"> with </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">c/(lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">)
= f</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">or
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> =
c/ f</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"> gives</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE </SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt"> =
c/ f</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">=
c</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">/(KE/h)
= c/ [(gamma-1)(mc^2)] / h</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">=
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
h/(gamma-1)(mc)</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">which
is not at all what you obtained: </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">=
h/p , when you incorrectly set KE = h</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">f</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"> equal
to pc . So whatever </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">lambda</SPAN><SPAN
style="POSITION: relative; FONT-FAMILY: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT',serif; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; TOP: 4pt; mso-text-raise: -4.0pt">KE</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
is (you call it the wavelength of the electron’s
kinetic energy), it is NOT the de Broglie
wavelength.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
So your electron model unfortunately does not give a
correct derivation of the electron's de Broglie wavelength
formula, due to a mis-interpretation of the relativistic
energy-momentum equation’s “right triangle”. This led you
to incorrectly equate two different quantities: pc and KE of a
moving electron, resulting in your incorrect derivation of the
de Broglie wavelength. One can reasonably conclude that the
other relativistic mathematical derivations in your model, which
you claim are consistent with known experimental properties
of the electron, should be carefully checked as well;
and should not be accepted by you unless they pass
such checking.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">with
best regards, </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">
Richard</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">p.s.
you might say that I’m just trying to find fault with your
electron model because I have a different one. I agree, and hope
you will return the favor. Everyone benefits in this way, and it
hopefully speeds up the process of finding better models for the
electron, photon and other fundamental
particles. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal
align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Hello Grahame
and Vivian,<BR> I’m glad that you are both developing a
good exchange of views, and only wish that it could be happening on
“nature of light and particles”. This is just the kind of conversation
needed there now. Please Grahame let me know when you are officially added
to the group. Then I propose shifting our exchanges to there. I know that
at least some of the others will be interested, like John W, Martin, Chip,
Chandra, John D and possibly John M and Andrew and some others, even if
only as observers.<BR> My view is that we are all
looking at the same general issue and would all like to get at the
physical “truth” about the nature of matter as possibly being composed of
light/photons. We have different perspectives on the subject, but in the
end (whenever that comes) the equations we obtain and what they stand for
should be basically agreed (at least provisionally, or at least agree to
disagree) on by all (and not just by us three), if we can be specific
enough on what we are talking about.<BR> We seem to
agree that our premise or approach is that all physical particles are
composed of light (or light-speed objects). We all agree that somehow
special relativity (at least) applies to particles composed of light
(photons). I think we agree that there is one photon per fundamental
particle like an electron (though it may not have been expressed
explicitly, but rather assumed). A proton could be composed of many
light-speed particles that form quarks or different gluons that compose a
proton, for example. I personally believe in starting with simpler
particles. Once Einstein commented that it would be enough to understand
the electron, or perhaps he said photon.<BR> I’ve gone
through both of your main articles on particles composed of circulating
photons, but not all parts in equal detail. At least I’ve got some of the
basic ideas on your approaches and your basic calculations. My view is
that if something near the beginning of an article doesn’t make enough
sense to me, it’s not so useful for me to go into as much detail much
further on, because later work in an article generally builds on earlier
work, and I want to economize my efforts.<BR> Since I
don’t know if or how much either of you have gone through my most recent
particle-made-of-light articles (my August SPIE article on electrons and
my later two on the origin of Eo=mc^2 and the inertial mass of particles,
and the inertial mass of a photon), I attach them below for future
reference. They are also on<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://academia.edu/">academia.edu</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>with other articles at<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier">https://santarosa..academia.edu/RichardGauthier</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>.<BR>
There are several different sub-areas where we have similarities and
differences in our approaches. And by no means is it a question of
“majority rules” in our discussions—physics is not democratic as you know.
Let me first list some of the sub-areas which emerge in our papers:<BR>1.
To what particles do our approachs apply? All particles or only
some?<BR>2. Vivian and I have emphasized electrons but not exclusively.
Grahame has not been specific about which particles.<BR>3. Vivian and I
have modeled the electron as a double-looping photon. Graham models
particles (from what I have seen so far) as single-loop particles.<BR>4.
The origin and nature of rest mass and inertial mass is of interest to all
of us.<BR>5. The radius of a particle and how it may or may not change
with the velocity of the particle.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>6. The trajectory of the
photon in a moving particle. I think we all agree that the total energy
flow of the photon has a helical trajectory.<BR>7. Electron spin and its
relation to single-looped and double-looped photon models.<BR>8. The
relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 and how it
is relevant to modeling individual particles like the electron.<BR>9. Any
other triangle relationships between space and time, energy, momentum and
mass<BR>10. What parts of SR are accepted by any of us or not? Time
dilation? Maximum speed of particles with rest mass as less than c?<BR>11.
The importance of experimentation and its relation to theoretical
calculations.<BR> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>before getting into greater
specifics, do either of you want to add, subtract or change any of the
above points?<BR> with best
regards,<BR>
Richard<BR><BR><BR><BR>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>
Thanks, Vivian, for your comprehensive response.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> Rather than re-threading
between our comments I'll attempt to summarise my response to your
response here at the top.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> 1) My observation on
Einstein and linear photons having mass: I was not asserting that they
don't (though my model indicates that mass is specifically a property
endowed by the circular path of a photon in particle form, rather than an
intrinsic property of a photon itself; this depends essentially on what
one means by 'mass', whether it's by definition a quality that's
responsible for inertia [also gravitation] - which is how I see it).
No, as I thought I'd clearly indicated, my point was a questioning (as I
still do) of your claim that Einstein himself had declared that photons
have mass; I don't see any reference to that in the historical
records. To further refer to this as 'Einstein's postulate' seems to
be an attempt to ascribe to Einstein a definitive statement that (to the
best of my knowledge) he never made (because you wish to add his
'endorsement' to your own view?). Certainly one could argue that he
may have believed that, he may have even meant it; that's something we'll
never know - unless you have, or find, evidence to the contrary. If
you have a different definition of 'mass' that doesn't involve inertia,
that could explain our difference in view (though I doubt that it would
overcome my point re Einstein). [BTW The fact that Einstein refers
to a body losing mass when it gives off energy can be seen as a clear
restatement of his mass-energy relationship, it's not Einstein saying
"light has mass".]<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> I have of course seen
(some time ago) 'Light is heavy'. I don't agree with everything 't
Hooft says, in particular I don't agree with his views on SR as expressed
to me in a response from his journal (Basically "There's nothing new to be
said about SR unless one's talking black holes, big bang or similar" -
without even reading what I had to say). I'm well aware that there's
considerable agreement on this subject - as there is on the irrefutability
of SR. This in itself is a strong disincentive to looking
deeper. A bit more reflection on inviolable shibboleths is by no
means a bad thing (phlogiston held sway for over a century; how does it
sound to you now?). In various places you use expressions along the
lines of "This is in agreement with SR"; you'll understand, I'm sure, that
on the basis of my own findings I don't consider this to be a strong
endorsement.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> As for 'coding' and
'decoding' linear photons: the transformation process is, quite simply,
the transformation from closed-loop form to linear form - and vice versa
at the other end. One could say that a particle is electromagnetic
wave energy coded into closed-loop form ('coded' and 'decoded' are simply
the opposite way round from the sound analogy). The mechanism is
resonance - broken by some stochastic process in an emitting atom (or
interference from an incoming photon - stimulated emission),
re-established in the receptor atom.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> I'm sorry that you don't
seem to understand - or at least haven't in any way addressed - the point
that stands out in my own work as given at those links: the experimental
'evidence' that has convinced Einstein and others of the correctness of SR
can ALL be explained without ANY reference to the postulates of SR; in
that respect NONE of that experimental evidence, however correct, can be
seen as evidence for SR. This is hardly a matter of "not
understanding" Einstein's work (thanks for that side-swipe!), it's rather
a matter of understanding the outcomes of experiments he relied upon in
ways that he himself apparently failed to realise.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> [Refs: (a) for young
Einstein riding alongside a light beam at light speed (note that I didn't
propose that he himself used the word 'photon'): Einstein, A.
'Autobiographical Notes', Paul Arthur Schilp (Centennial ed.), Chicago:
Open Court pp 48-51; (b) Einstein's reliance on Fizeau's experiment as
strong evidence for SR: conversation with Robert Shankland as quoted in
various places, including e.g. in Weinstein, G. 'Einstein's Pathway to the
Special Theory of Relativity' (2015), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, P.8:
" "They were enough" said Einstein".]<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> As for your "If you
can't derive experimentally observed results from your logical
analysis...", again it seems you've totally missed the point - the very
salient point that I HAVE derived, very precisely, experimental results
from my logical analysis - and shown those experimental results to be
totally independent of SR and so in no way evidence for SR, much less
proof. I can only assume that you skim-read my work and have
responded to what you assumed it was saying, rather than what it actually
said. Your exhortation for me to conduct yet further experiments
based on such false premises seems to confirm that you totally
misunderstood my point.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> Once again I ask: if you
are able to point to any logical discrepancy in my analysis of Fizeau's
experiment, Michelson & Morley's experiment or the implications (not)
of Maxwell's Equations (as opposed to implying that I don't understand
Relativity because I've shown that none of these are in any way evidence
for SR) I'd be glad to hear. Otherwise, since these three are the
very foundations of the science community's present-day reliance on SR as
a basis for future research, you may wish to rethink your invocations of
"in agreement with SR" as evidence for other theoretical
observations.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> Vivian, I'm really not
interested in point-scoring. My only interest is in moving science
forward. My findings - unless you are able to refute them - indicate
that SR is built on various incorrect interpretations of experimental
data. This implies that scientific research as conducted today is
based on a set of false premises. If that is indeed the case then it
behoves us all to lift science up out of the rut that it's dug itself into
- not just for the sake of science, but for humankind as a whole. If
that's not the case then I'd be very glad if you could point out to me the
errors in my analyses.<BR>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>> Thanks again,<BR>>
Grahame<BR>>> ----- Original Message -----<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> From: Vivian
Robinson <<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">mailto:viv@universephysics.com</A>><BR>>>
To: Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">mailto:grahame@starweave.com</A>><BR>>>
Cc: Richard Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 5:20 AM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [General]
Matter comprised of light-speed energy<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> Grahame,
Richard,<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> Thanks for your
email. You are blue, I am black.<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>
Cheers,<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> Vivian
Robinson<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> On 10/06/2016, at
10:35 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">mailto:grahame@starweave.com</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> Hi
Richard,<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> Thanks indeed
for forwarding Viv Robinson's paper on to me. I found a great deal
in it that I would agree with, indeed as you say his model is similar to
mine in various respects.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> As you know, my
primary concern with this 'cyclic-photon' view of electron structure
(which must by now surely be self-evident in principle to anyone who takes
the trouble to consider it) relates to its consequences in respect of
Special Relativity - specifically, it fully explains ALL of the
experimentally verified findings of SR (note that I do not include what I
would consider deeply questionable inferences from those 'gold standard'
findings). For this reason I haven't unravelled all the details of
spin, momentum etc in this paper - though again I see a lot in there that
I find eminently acceptable.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> Glad you understand
at least parts of it!<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> Just a couple of
things that I noted that I have to question. First, on p.4 Vivian
quotes AE: "radiation conveys inertia between emitting and absorbing
bodies" - then states: "Einstein's above-mentioned statement shows he
believed photons have mass"; he goes further than this and refers to this
idea (photons have mass) as "Einstein's postulate". For me this is a
non-sequitur, putting words in Einstein's mouth that (as far as I know) he
never uttered. For something to CONVEY a characteristic it doesn't
need to HAVE that characteristic itself. For example, radio waves
convey sound between source and destination - but they do most assuredly
NOT themselves consist of longitudinal
pressure waves.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> This is not a
trivial point, it goes to the very heart of 'what IS mass / what is
inertia?' - a subject that you and I have discussed recently. My
perception of inertial mass, backed up by careful consideration of what's
happening when a particle changes its velocity, is that it's a property of
that closed-loop energy structure, not applicable to a free-flying photon
- but transferable BY that free-flying photon between two of those
closed-loop structures. (Totally analogous to that radio
wave).<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> That raises the
interesting question - "What is the transformation process that enables a
massless photon to be emitted from a mass particle, reducing its mass, not
having mass itself, reaching another mass particle and increasing its
mass?" With radio waves it is easy. The sound waves require a capture
mechanism (microphone), coding means (electronics) and transmitter means
(antenna). To convey the signal back to sound waves, the reverse is
required, an antenna (aerial), decoding means (receiver) and a
presentation means (speaker). Quoting Einstein again from an English
language version of the same paper "If a body gives off energy L in the
form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c^2.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> There is
considerable agreement that photons do indeed have mass. One of the group,
Martin van der Mark has, in conjunction with Gerald 't Hooft, written an
article called "Light is Heavy, reference below. IMHO, photons do have
mass when travelling a c, although they don't have rest mass. This is not
a violation of special relativity. Further it is the rotating photon model
of matter that is responsible for the special relativity corrections of
mass, length and time.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301845471_Light_is_Heavy</A>><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> FYI, in another
paper, Richard may forward it to you, I have shown that treating photons
as having mass in Newtonian gravity mechanics produces a space-time metric
that matches all observations that support Einstein'd general relativity
(GR) calculations. It doesn't predict the existence of black holes.
However their supposed detection is due to the detection of large massive
objects, which, using other standard model physics, they deduce must be
black holes. Measurement is several orders of magnitude away from
distinguishing between my metric and the accepted Schwarzschild metric. I
am very confident that when, in the future those measurements are made, my
metric will be seen to hold. This is another reason why I am prepared to
accept that photons have mass when travelling at c, acknowledging they
have no rest mass. This is in agreement with
SR.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> My other point
relating to Vivian's paper is in respect of what appears to me to be an
assumption for which there is no evidence: namely that, just because a
static particle is formed from exactly two circuits per wavelength of its
formative photon, a moving particle will likewise consist of exactly a
double-loop. This appears in the four lines of algebra leading up to
equation 7, which itself defines a reduced diameter for a particle on the
move. It seems to be an attempt to conform with precepts of SR - but
leads to a conclusion that is itself at variance with SR, namely a change
in dimension orthogonal to direction of motion. There seems to be a
suggestion that this only affects the particle, not the wider structure,
but it's not apparent why that should be so: would not a change in
electron diameter have an impact on electromagnetic molecular bonding - if
not, why not? I see strong reasons why radius of photon path would
NOT change with speed of particle.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> Observation, not
opinion, is the ONLY arbiter of a theory. The ground level detection of
muons in cosmic rays and the ability to use them in particle accelerators
confirms the special relativity shows experimentally that the conform to
the special relativity corrections. The electron is known to be an
enigmatic particle, At high voltages ≈ 30 GeV, it behaves like a point
particle. At low voltages, it behaves like a particle with dimensions
similar to the it Compton wavelength. This and a lot more have been
written about the electron in numerous reference books, including The
Electron, ISBN 0-7923-1356-9, Kluwer Academic Publishers (proceedings of a
conference); or The Enigmatic Electron ISBN 0-7923-1982-6 (MH Mac
Gregor).<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> A double loop photon
is stable because the photons magnetic and electric fields reinforce each
other in an interlocking manner. I know of no means by which the ends
would then "weld" themselves together as you indicate. If such "welding
were possible, the radius of an electron would be detected as ≈ 1.93 x
10^-13 m, not < 10^-17 m as is observed.<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> When you further
understand my paper, you will see that I acknowledge that lateral
dimensions, atomic radii etc, are maintained by electric charge and
fields. Electric charge e remains the same with increasing velocity,
experimentally measured and calculated in my paper. Because charge e does
not change the only change in the dimensions of an atom at high velocity
will be the reduction of electron's radius from ≈ 1.93 x 10-13 m at rest
to 10^-14 m at ≈ 0.9 c. The radius of a hydrogen atom ≈ 0.5 x 10^-10 m,
with a "fuzzy" boundary makes it difficult to measure such a small
change.<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> For my part I've
continued to add to what I consider to be compelling reasons to question
century-old entrenched positions re Special Relativity. You know
that I've derived clear mathematical rationales for ALL verified findings
of SR directly from the 'cyclic photon'
model, however I don't ask people simply to
accept my findings against that 100-year legacy. Rather, I have
posted what I consider absolutely compelling reasons for seriously
questioning three of the most 'robust' arguments for SR: Fizeau's
experiment; Maxwell's equations (frame independence thereof); Michelson
& Morley's experiment. If ANYONE can take the few minutes
required to read those three 1-page posts (with minimal maths, mostly
simple logical reasoning) and then STILL believe that ANY of those can be
considered serious evidence for SR, I'd be most interested to hear
why.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> Those posts can
be found at:<BR>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</A>><BR>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</A>><BR>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</A>><BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> A more detailed
rationale for seriously questioning SR as a true model of reality can be
seen at:<BR>>>><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR...php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR...php</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">http://www.transfinitemind..com/SR.php</A>><BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> It goes without
saying that, unless all of thes pieces can be effectively refuted, physics
research today is in a real sense heading down a blind
alley.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> The refutation of
the above is the experimental observations that support the SR. Nothing
else counts. As for specific points, I could not find any reference to
Fizeau in Einstein's 1905 publication "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies". Regarding Maxwell etc., you state "He (Einstein) describes
himself flying along side a photon of light…" The name photon was first
introduced by Born, Copenhagen Convention circa (1926) some 30 years after
his teenage years ended. Having read his above paper, I see no reference
to him using that "thought experiment in deriving SR. Regarding
Michelson-Morley, your error is to apply what you call "..in depth logical
analysis.." If you can't derive experimentally observed results from your
"logical analysis' (SR is experimentally verified), this does not reflect
poorly on Einstein or SR. Whether or n to they are serious evidence for SR
is irrelevant. Einstein derived the SR's gamma corrections from his
approach. My approach was to derive them from the rotating photon model. I
make a number of predictions of unknown physical properties, which can be
measured, including the reduction of an electron's diameter with velocity
which is matched by experiment at E > ≈ 30 GeV. it is a simple
experiment to repeat the measurements at intermediate electron
energies.<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> I agree with you
that physics is indeed heading up bind alleys. Those blind alleys include
aspects of quantum mechanics, all of quantum electrodynamics and aspects
of general relativity. Special relativity has been experimentally verified
and is not one of them.<BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>> I'd be glad,
Richard, if you could share this with others. I'd also be pleased to
be able to myself share with the group that you refer to, if that's ok
with you & them.<BR>>>> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>> SR corrections are
established experimentally. Just because people don't understand
Einstein's work, doesn't mean he was wrong. I repeat, Experiment is the
ONLY arbiter of any theory. If you wish to refute SR, do it
experimentally.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>
Thanks,<BR>>>> Grahame<BR>>>>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>>>>> From: Richard Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>>>
To: Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">mailto:grahame@starweave.com</A>><BR>>>>>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 5:10 AM<BR>>>>> Subject: Fwd:
[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<BR>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>> Hello
Grahame,<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>
I’m forwarding to you a copy of Vivian Robinson’s double-loop electron
model article (attached at the end), with some recent comments on it in
the “nature of light and particles” discussion group. I don’t know if
you’ve read Vivian’s article, but his approach is somewhat similar to
yours. I would be interested in seeing any comments you might have on it,
and would pass them along to Vivian and the group if you
agreed.<BR>>>>> all the
best,<BR>>>>>
Richard<BR>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> Begin
forwarded message:<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> From:
Richard Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com</A>>><BR>>>>>>
Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed
energy<BR>>>>>> Date: June 7, 2016 at 10:36:34 AM
PDT<BR>>>>>> To: Vivian Robinson <<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</A><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><<A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">mailto:viv@universephysics.com</A>>><BR>>>>>>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general@lists...<A
href="http://natureoflightandparticles.org/">natureoflightandparticles.org</A><<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>>><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> Hello
Vivian,<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
Again, thank you for your further explanations. Unfortunately, you still
do not seem to have realized, and therefore do not accept, that you
incorrectly derived the de Broglie
wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma m v) from your electron model. Since you knew
the correct de
Broglie wavelength formula in advance, it is understandable that you
accepted your faulty derivation when it seemed to give the “right answer”.
This can be a lesson for all of us. Let me be more specific. On p 13
in the middle right-hand column of your article (attached below for
others' convenience) you write:<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> The
rotational component of the electron at rest is unavailable for any
interaction, except for exchanging photons in an electromagnetic
interaction. That leaves only the translational component of the moving
electron’s electromagnetic field available for interaction. That is the
wavelength of its kinetic energy. However the electron is entirely
composed of an electromagnetic wave. Its total energy is E= hfv. Its
rest energy is hf0. The kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic
field, pc, is given by E sin (theta)= hfv sin (theta) = pc
= hfke
...<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
Summarizing, you derived the “kinetic energy component of the
electromagnetic field, pc" from the relativistic energy-momentum triangle
as KE = pc = hfke (as you labeled the vertical side of the
triangle in fig. 13) . Then you write: <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
Substituting c/lambdaKE for fKE and simplifying yields pc
= hc/lambdaKE where lambdaKE is the component
wavelength of the electromagnetic oscillation that is the electron, in the
direction of its travel, namely lambdaKE = h/p which is the
expression for the de Broglie wavelength.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> But the
correct expression for the relativistic kinetic energy KE of a particle is
KE= (gamma-1)mc^2 which is NOT equal to pc , which equals pc=(gamma
mv)c or pc=gamma mvc . It is OK to set KE=hfke but this
means that fke =KE/h = [ (gamma-1)(mc^2) ] /h . Combining this
expression for fke with c/(lambdaKE ) = fKE
or lambdaKE = c/ fKE
gives<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
lambdaKE = c/ fKE = c/(KE/h)
= c/ [(gamma-1)(mc^2)] / h<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
lambdaKE = h/(gamma-1)(mc) <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> which is
not at all what you obtained: lambdaKE = h/p , when you
incorrectly set KE = hfKE equal to pc .. So whatever lambdaKE
is (you call it the wavelength of the electron’s kinetic energy), it is
NOT the de Broglie wavelength.<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
So your electron model unfortunately does not give a correct derivation of
the electron's de Broglie wavelength formula, due to a mis-interpretation
of the relativistic energy-momentum equation’s “right triangle”. This led
you to incorrectly equate two different quantities: pc and KE of a moving
electron, resulting in your incorrect derivation of the de Broglie
wavelength. One can reasonably conclude that the other relativistic
mathematical derivations in your model, which you claim are consistent
with known experimental properties of the electron, should be carefully
checked as well; and should not be accepted by you unless they pass
such checking.<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> with
best regards,<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>>
Richard<BR>>>>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>>>>> p.s. you
might say that I’m just trying to find fault with your electron model
because I have a different one. I agree, and hope you will return the
favor. Everyone benefits in this way, and it hopefully speeds up the
process of finding better models for the electron, photon and other
fundamental particles.<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>