<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">Chandra,</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">you say: "SR
is not even Physics". Don't understand why.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">If we keep a
little distance to the more mystical foundations of Einstein
("space-time"), then relativity is easy and simple. SR comprises
the following facts:</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">1.)
Oscillations slow down at motion<br>
2.) Fields contract at motion</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">Fact 1.) can
easily be measured and easily be understood with regard to its
cause. <br>
Fact 2.) can also easily be understood </font><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif" size="-1">with regard to its cause</font>; the
experimental proof is indirect but existent.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">All the rest
is quite simple logic (like the constancy of the measured "c").<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">That's all,
and what is your specific reason to deny it?</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="-1">Albrecht<br>
</font></p>
<font size="-1"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif" size="-1">Am 05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri,
Chandra:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB2995628C4093468DADF35ECA93390@BN6PR05MB2995.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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: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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Many thanks,
Grahame, for the excellent complement on the philosophy of
thinking, which I have been developing for over several
decades. I am now in the process of applying that mode of
thinking (Evolution Process Congruent Thinking) to
political economy and the politics of money-driven elected
governments, the model of the West, being imposed on the
rest of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I will read
carefully your thinking on Relativity (SR). I think we are
on the same page. SR is not even Physics. In contrast, QM
has a lot of valuable physics (captured some realities) that
will give us guidance to evolve forward towards a next
higher level theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><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
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities<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"
lang="EN-GB">Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">I have attached at Richard’s request a copy
of the first 10 pages of my book (after index etc); this
comprises the first section of my book, the Introduction.
I believe you’ll see from this my philosophy and my
objectives in undertaking my own line of scientific
research. This is not to identify or define a suitable
model for a photon-formed electron – though that is to a
limited extent an inevitable by-product of my
investigations – but rather to resolve what I have come to
see, over some years, as inconsistencies, incompleteness
or scope for further understanding in the
generally-accepted model of physical reality. [Note that,
whilst holding firmly to scientific principles, this book
is intended to be comprehensible for the most part by
non-specialists; this introduction should be read with
that in mind.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even
say ‘excited’) by your paper presented last year at the
SPIE conference, which you have just circulated (I found
myself saying “yes!” out loud several times whilst reading
it). I’d like to think that the contents of my book are
in the spirit of the outward-looking ‘Perpetual Scout’
scientific approach that you advocate*; I have for some
time been concerned by the attitude of science that
appears to take the line: “We’ve got it all correct to
date, now we just need to fill in the fine detail” (whilst
happily accepting the unexplained ‘fact’ of Special
Relativity and the unexplained apparent serendipity of
Quantum Mechanics). I’m also very enthused by your view
that we need to be thinking NOW about how we can ensure
that we’re still around beyond our parent star’s main
sequence; alignment with cosmic evolution, rather than
trying to force our will on it, seems to be a patently
obvious strategy.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">[* The concept of reverse engineering both
physical reality and the evolutionary process is one that
I believe has been central to my research.]</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Richard, no matter how much I try I can't
find any common ground between our respective
understandings of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’
as applied to material reality. For me the term
‘subjective’ is crystal clear in its meaning: it relates
to a situation, event or scenario as experienced by an
individual or group (possibly a very large group) of
individuals – including ‘experience by proxy’ through
instrumentation. In this situation the sensors of
this/those individual(s) – including possibly
electromechanical sensors – mediate that experience and
thereby provide input to (i.e. variation of) that
experience over and above the actuality of the (objective)
event or scenario being experienced.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to
the object – the situation, event or scenario itself.
With regard to that object it matters not one iota what
people think – even a great number of highly intelligent
people – it will not re-shape itself to conform to their
thoughts. For example, everyone in the world could think
that the earth was flat, it would make absolutely no
difference to the shape of our planet – but it <b>would</b>
make a great deal of difference with respect to their
effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">If a mathematician proposed that one plus one
was equal to two, would you dismiss that as just a
personal philosophy of mathematics? I’m not in any way
suggesting that my view of reality is the right one, or
the only possible one – but I
<b>am</b> absolutely adamant that if we regard subjective
impressions as convertible to objective truth just by
sheer weight of numbers then the future of science is
doomed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">That’s a major reason why I don’t participate
in discussing the pros and cons of various models of the
electron, as you say you’d wish me to – it’s not actually
possible for me to separate ‘my philosophy’, as you call
it, from my perception of what constitutes a better or
less good model. You’ve proposed (below) that I “point
out any defects or limitations in different models” –
surely that’s what I’ve tried to do, totally consistently,
in a logical way that hopefully doesn’t give offence? But
it seems that’s what you object to, since you regard my
approach as simply my [personal] philosophy of science and
therefore (presumably) not acceptable as a valid
contribution to this discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">I’ll continue to participate in this debate,
in the only way that makes sense to me (and hopefully
makes some sense to some others). If that doesn’t work
for you, fine, give it a miss – but I’m afraid I can’t set
aside what I see as facts just to join in a conversation
on any model that, for what seem to me to be very good
reasons, I can’t believe in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM<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] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
realities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> You seem unwilling to present the
first few pages of your book to help give us more
background and context to your particle model and
approach. So I think I’ll pass for now on commenting on
your distinction between subjective and objective
realities, which is more of a statement of your philosophy
of science, and how to know what is “real” in physics.
Physicists try to interpret, understand and predict
aspects of the physical world, based on ideas, concepts,
mathematics, models and objective physical measurements
and observations. I think we are all engaged in this in
one way or another, despite any differences in our
philosophies about the nature of reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I think your model of the electron
and other particles should be separable from your
particular philosophy of science, so that others who may
not share your philosophy of science, as well as those who
do, may be able to decide if your model is useful or
better than other physical models, for “doing physics”.
One way is to look at the models themselves quantitatively
and to compare and contrast one model with other models to
see how well these models (all relating to photons and
particles in our discussion group) stand up to critical
scrutiny as well as to experimental support. I think
that’s partly what this discussion group is about. I hope
you are willing to join in this effort, to point out any
defects or limitations in different models, to encourage
improvement of weaker models, and to acknowledge any
strengths in these or other models, since none of them is
perfect.<o:p></o:p></p>
</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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>