<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)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I wanted to share with you a thought which occurred to me while researching what I call “Specific Relativity”. If fermions, like the electron and muon are made of confined, circulating energy, which moves at the speed of light, then there is a form of “relativity” which is dictated by that scenario. This form of relativity is a natural consequence. So therefore there is cause shown for this form of relativity, unlike SR.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>We know that E=hf, so that gives us a basis to start to understand that there must be a force which confines the energy in particles, and it helps to define that force.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>In order to accelerate a particle we must add energy. This increases the frequency of the particle, and it increases the binding force within the particle so that E=hf. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Increasing the binding force could easily make it take longer for the particle to decay without any need to resort to “relativistic time dilation” to explain this longer decay time.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If this is the actual cause for longer decay times for fast moving particles then we do not have to assume that the fermion itself has experienced a slowing of its internal clock. But it would experience a slowing of its external time, which is the time it takes to react with other particles.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Just some food for thought.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Phil Butler <phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Stephen Leary <sleary@vavi.co.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; Solomon Freer <slf@unsw.edu.au><br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower??<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Richard,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I'm not sure where you found your empirical evidence that "</span><span style='color:black'>The helically-moving charged photon composing the recoiling electron would continue to make two full helical loops for each wavelength (as in a resting electron) but at a higher looping frequency</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>", I'd be very interested to see that. Or is it just a supposition based on SR frame symmetry?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Either way it seems to me that this proposal creates a major problem for SR (and for the established empirical evidence): if the formative energy of a particle is circulating faster in a moving particle, then the effects of that energy flow (i.e. time effects within the particle, such as particle decay - which can ONLY be down to internal energy flow) will occur *faster* in a moving particle than in a static one; this appears to be totally contrary to observed fact, for example in fast-moving muons. [I appreciate that this evidence relates to muons and you're talking about electrons - but if completely different principles apply in those two elementary particles I think we'll need an explanation for why - and some empirical evidence].</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span 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><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz" title="phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</a> ; <a href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org" title="abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</a> ; <a href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" title="sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</a> ; <a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</a> ; <a href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au" title="slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:43 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John D,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> In Compton scattering, the wavelength of the incoming photon increases, not decreases, as the photon is scattered by the electron. The energy lost by the Compton-scattered x-ray photon is gained by the recoiling electron. The internal wavelength of the circulating spin-1/2 charged photon composing the recoiling electron would decrease corresponding to the increased energy of the recoiling electron. The helically-moving charged photon composing the recoiling electron would continue to make two full helical loops for each wavelength (as in a resting electron) but at a higher looping frequency, corresponding to the shorter wavelength distance along the helix for two helical loops..<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>