<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Colin:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’m afraid the situation with SR isn’t quite what you think. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>See <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/271?highlightText=abandoned">the Einstein digital papers</a>. Einstein abandoned the constant-speed-of-light postulate when he was formulating GR:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img border=0 width=683 height=384 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D1C7AA.6D2B3150"><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>He said light can only curve where <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22">the speed of light is spatially variable</a> and that special relativity only applies to a limiting case that is nowhere precisely realised in the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img border=0 width=820 height=461 id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image006.jpg@01D1C7AA.6D2B3150"><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I rather think people like Penrose (and Hawking, and Ellis, and Misner Thorne and Wheeler) appeal to Einstein’s authority whilst flatly contradicting the guy. The relativity that is taught is misleading in some important respects, and that has caused problems for <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/#q=electromagnetic+geometry">electromagnetic geometry</a>. Einstein said space <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22">is inhomogeneous where a gravitational field is</a>, and IMHO it is curved where a photon is, as per Maxwell’s transverse undulations. If Wheeler had understood the difference between curved space and curved spacetime, he woldn’t have called it a geon.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>See the attached<i> Other Meaning of General Relativity</i> by Robert Close to understand that we always measure the speed of light to be the same - because of the wave nature of matter. We calibrate our rods and clocks using the local motion of waves, then use them to measure the local motion of waves. It’s a tautology, like Magueijo and Moffat said in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507">http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507</a>. Also see <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html</a> As to why this isn’t common knowledge, I don’t know. But I suspect it’s something to do with peer review, and that overcoming this “inherent limitation” to break out of the corner is the real issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John Duffield<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Poole, UK <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> 15 June 2016 08:37<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Chip et al,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>[Thanks, Prof Chandra, for inviting me to join this group - see also my ref to your recent comment at * below.]</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks, Chip, for your response below, and for your welcome.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>* 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?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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).</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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).</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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.]</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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):</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR..php</a></span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Induction loop is covered by Maxwell stuff & Lorentz stuff, starlight is covered by Lorentz stuff.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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.]</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks to all,</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame Blackwell</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:34 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Welcome </span><span lang=EN-US>Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I am particularly satisfied that you have joined our little group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>By the way I concur with your findings regarding SR.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I have been sharing one concept with the group, with little success.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>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></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Warmest welcome<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Chip Akins<span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <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 <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hello all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> 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></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> all the best<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>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></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Richard, Hi Vivian,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>With regard to your numbered points:</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>4-9 are, I agree, subjects in which we all have an interest (to varying degrees according to our 'specialization').</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>(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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>(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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>----- Original Message -----<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" title="viv@universephysics.com">Vivian Robinson</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Monday, June 13, 2016 2:25 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hello Grahame and Vivian,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>1. To what particles do our approachs apply? All particles or only some?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>7. Electron spin and its relation to single-looped and double-looped photon models.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>9. Any other triangle relationships between space and time, energy, momentum and mass<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>11. The importance of experimentation and its relation to theoretical calculations.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> with best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks, Vivian, for your comprehensive response.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Rather than re-threading between our comments I'll attempt to summarise my response to your response here at the top.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>[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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks again,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message -----<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" title="viv@universephysics.com">Vivian Robinson</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sunday, June 12, 2016 5:20 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Grahame, Richard,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Thanks for your email. You are blue, I am black.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Richard,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Glad you understand at least parts of it! </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>That raises the interesting question - "What is the transformation process that enables a massless photon to be emitted </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>There is </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Those posts can be found at:</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php">www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php">www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php">www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php</a></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>A more detailed rationale for seriously questioning SR as a true model of reality can be seen at:</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><a href="http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php">www.transfinitemind.com/SR.....php</a></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Thursday, June 09, 2016 5:10 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Fwd: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hello Grahame,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> all the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Begin forwarded message:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>From:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Subject:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Date:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>June 7, 2016 at 10:36:34 AM PDT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>To:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Cc:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hello Vivian,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>v</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>. Its rest energy is hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>0</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>. The kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic field, pc, is given by E sin (theta)=</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>v </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>sin (theta) =</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>pc = </span><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>ke ...</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Summarizing, you derived the “kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic field, pc" from the relativistic energy-momentum triangle as KE = pc = </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>ke</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> (as you labeled the vertical side of the triangle in fig. 13) . Then you write: </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>Substituting c/lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'> for f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>and simplifying yields pc = </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hc/lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>where lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>is the component wavelength of the electromagnetic oscillation that is the electron, in the direction of its travel, namely lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>= h/p which is the expression for the de Broglie wavelength.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:-4.0pt;mso-text-raise:4.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>hf</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>ke </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>but this means that </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>ke </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>=KE/h = [ (gamma-1)(mc^2) ] /h . Combining this expression for </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>ke</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> with </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>c/(lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>) = f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>or </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'> = c/ f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> gives</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'> = c/ f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>= c</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>/(KE/h) = c/ [(gamma-1)(mc^2)] / h</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>= </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'> h/(gamma-1)(mc)</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>which is not at all what you obtained: </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>= h/p , when you incorrectly set KE = h</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>f</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> equal to pc . So whatever </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT'>lambda</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;position:relative;top:4.0pt;mso-text-raise:-4.0pt'>KE</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> is (you call it the wavelength of the electron’s kinetic energy), it is NOT the de Broglie wavelength.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>with best regards, </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Richard</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>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><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-US><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>_______________________________________________<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><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></body></html>