<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Helvetica;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;
}
@page WordSection1 {margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
COLOR: black
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=#ffffff vLink=purple fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Good to be in touch again, I always
enjoy our discussions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In that respect I'm of course most
interested in your observations below and hope to respond to them in due course
(I see a lot of common ground there - and some interesting debate!). At
the present time, though, my thoughts on this subject are totally focused.
It's all too easy to get caught up in the esoterica of how one expresses this or
that aspect of Special Relativity and the implications for this, that or the
other; my experience of this is that one gets enmeshed in a web of alternate
views, even 'alternate realities', where nothing absolutely definitive can be
said to definitely hold. This sort of discussion can be very enlivening -
but at the moment I'm looking at a very specific (and potentially vitally
important) issue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>So, as is my nature, it's back to
first principles. For me the fundamental question is: is there ANY
evidence for Special Relativity as an objective truth? If there isn't,
then no amount of batting hypotheticals back and forth amounts to a hill of
beans. Hence my request to have any errors pointed out - very specifically
in terms of my logic and my maths relating to: Fizeau's Experiment (<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</A>);
Michelson & Morley's Experiment (<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</A>);
and Maxwell's Equations (<A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</A>);
also more broadly my reasoning on SR 'evidence' generally, as at <A
href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR..php</A>
..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Unless my reasoning and/or maths in
these pieces - specifically in 'Fizeau', 'Maxwell' and 'M&M' - is
fundamentally wrong, then, whatever one wishes to say about deeper implications
of the physics involved, the origins of SR and its continuing uncritical
acceptance (in most quarters, at least) are based on a fallacy (or, more
accurately, a number of fallacies). This means that theories based on SR
as an objective cosmic reality are likewise based on a fallacy. They may
produce findings in line with observation - but then of course they would, if SR
is in fact not an objective reality but the consequence of subjective experience
(which you hint at as a possibility in your text below). More
importantly, we will FAIL to discover possibly extremely valuable aspects of
reality that can only be experienced by stepping outside that illusion.
Consider, for example, the fact of electromagnetic radiation itself: visible
light was identified as such - but we could have gone on forever thinking that
visible light was the whole story (in which case experiments based solely on
visible light would have 'proved' that we were right). A very substantial
proportion of the technology that we depend on today would not
exist.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>So I'd be happy to chat about things
like whether photon-formed particles in motion consist of two complete
revolutions (and what this might mean, and from whose point of view) once I have
this issue nailed down: IS IT, or IS IT NOT the case that the observations on
which SR are founded, and on which basis it continues to be regarded as
objective fact, can actually be fully explained without ANY NEED to invoke
either of the two postulates of SR? It appears to me that those two
postulates are totally redundant to explanation of those observations - and so
the case for SR as a cosmic truth evaporates.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>If the case for SR is fallacious then
we're into a rather different ball game from the one currently being played out
in the global physics arena. It's as well that we know that sooner rather
than later, if we're to develop effective strategies for issues facing our
species and our planet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</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>Cc:</B> <A title=phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</A> ; <A
title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=slf@unsw.edu.au href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] PS: Matter
comprised of light-speed energy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</STYLE>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Hello
Grahame,<BR><BR>Good to see you on another forum. Welcome indeed!<BR><BR>Have
seen much of (and enjoyed) your work in the past, I think you are spot on in
many respects, wrong in others, and completely crazy elsewhere (but in a good
way!). You should fit right in!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">It
is worth noting, for your information, that certain folk, Martin van der Mark
and Stephen Leary amongst them, have signed themselves off this group - so you
will need to include them separately if you want to reach them. Others who
perhaps should be in the group, such as Phil Butler, never were (though Niels
Gresnigt is).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I
note that you and Viv have had a discussion on the nature of "mass". There has
been a lot of this in the past on this forum - mostly arguments about the
meanings of words. It has been this, in part, that has put some folk off to
the extent that they have jumped out. Looking at your discussion there it
seems to me mostly semantics as well. You both agree real photons are
rest-mass less. You both agree they carry energy-momentum. Pretty much the
only thing you disagree on is what the meaning of “mass” should be. I agree! I
disagree too! Professional high energy physicists avoid this by talking about
“the 4-momentum transfer squared”. This is always positive for real photons
(and equal to the square of E/c in the centre of momentum frame). It may be
positive (repulsive) or negative (attractive) for virtual (as opposed to real)
photons.<BR><BR>On relativity I was going to ask you if you had seen my paper
with the derivation of the Einstein Gamma from a localised photon model, but
on trying to catch up a bit (I have been snowed under with exams, marking and
the associated crap that comes with it for a couple of months) I came across
your email of apr25, where I see you have. Interesting comments there but the
derivation does not depend only on the localised photon model - it goes
deeper. The underlying effect, and the reason for the appearance (and hence
derivation) of special relativity, depends on the reciprocal relation of "to"
and "fro". The maths is the same as that leading to equation 21, but the
underlying symmetry is the linear nature of energy and the linear nature of
"field". There is, further, no asymmetry between the spatial and the temporal
(except for the sign in the metric, the 3D nature and the handedness of
course) - so I do not see why you think there is. The relativistic
wave-function scales properly in both space and time, with only the variation
of the single factor R. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Sounds as
though there is an interesting discussion to be had there at some
point.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR>I
agree that we should be deriving relativity, not starting with it as an axiom.
Einstein himself was far more flexible and deeper on this than the frozen
version in current standard textbooks would suggest. Indeed he would have been
horrified to be set up as an AUTHORITY! Especially when the "authorised"
version corresponds just a small subset of his thinking. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I
think I understand the “why” of relativity (although this could be an
illusion!) and have tried to explain this several times and from several
perspectives - but it is hard. I am not the only one though, Carver Meade
certainly gets it, Einstein did (surprise!) wheller and FEynman did, Basil
Hiley does (I've seen a similar use of his to mine). Not sure what the proepr
provenance is - most likely Einstein himself. Proper relativity has little or
nothing to do with the “speed of light” per se. Light has a (local) speed.
Call it “1”. Everything else scales from this. THe fact that it is measured
everywhere and in every frame to have the same value is more a property of the
measurement equipment scaling in the same way as that measured, as I have said
before. There is a form between space and time – the metric where the 1D part
(call it time) has the opposite sign to the 3D part (call it space). The sign
difference is necessary to allow relativistic waves and relativistic locality.
No sign difference no waves, no us. The absolute sign of space, by the way, is
not neutral, as is widely thought. It must be negative to retain the
consistencies of (Lorentz) rotations of rotations, as first pointed out by
Butler. Phil Butler<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and others
(Martin and me as well) produced a paper on this long ago – which was never
published.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Ho hum. The sign of
the 3D part has implications for the intrinsic handedness of the universe (as
should be obvious). There is evidence that we have got it wrong (Hamilton,
Maxwell and 3D computer gamers use a left-handed system). To get a full
understanding one needs to look at all velocities symmetrically about the
speed of light (down to zero and up to “infinity”). This is bound up with the
“interaction with the absorber” stuff that I thought of talking about last
August – though Carver Meade had done a good job in his keynote talk a couple
of years before.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Speaking
of relativity in its standard form and your request to have any errors pointed
out - my pleasure. You are, if not wrong, at least not quite right yourself in
certain respects on this (not your fault - many are! It comes from the (poor)
explanation of what is going on in standard textbooks). Viv has a saying "If I
am wrong I want to be the first to know. That goes for me too - and I know it
goes for you as well so I will try to help!<BR><BR>Here is one example
(between the ****'s) from your "tail" with Viv and Richard:<BR><BR>...
etc</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>