<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=iso-8859-7"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><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:"Bookman Old Style";
panose-1:2 5 6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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-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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:423457188;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-395176328 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1250693506;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2007482958 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1502771022;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1087419730 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1990941112;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1339974988 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Richard and 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'>The three of us have different models for the confined energy propagation within the electron.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:black'>Grahame’s model has no contraction of the radius.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:black'>Richard’s model has the radius contracting at a rate of 1/</span><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'> ã^2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>Chip’s model has the radius contracting at the rate 1/ã.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Grahame’s model the spin ½ hbar property is presumably preserved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Richard’s model the spin ½ property is either not preserved or exotic means must be used to try to calculate this property.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Chip’s model the spin ½ hbar property is presumably preserved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Grahame’s model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to be larger than measured.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Richard’s model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to be very significantly smaller than the maximum size limit measured in high energy scattering.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Chip’s model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to be a just a bit smaller than the maximum size limit measured in high energy scattering.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.25in'><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Grahame’s model, time dilation is experienced internal to the particle.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Richard’s model (I don’t know Richard’s perspective for time dilation for his model)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Bookman Old Style",serif'>In Chip’s model, time dilation is experienced external to the particle, in interactions 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'>There are many other significant differences in these models. We have each explored this problem from different perspectives. <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'>There is really a very slim likelihood that any of these models is really correct in every sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>But we are hopefully in the process toward that goal.<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'>Grahame, If energy added to the electron to accelerate it increases the frequency of the confined wave but does not reduce its confinement radius I think the spin ½ property would be in question. The momentum of a wave is p=E/c so the momentum would increase with energy, holding the same radius against this momentum would increase the spin angular momentum???<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'>Regarding the concept of a reference rest frame in space. I am of the belief that such a frame exists (even though it is quite difficult for us to detect what that frame is). But as Grahame has pointed out, the universe doesn’t care what I believe, or what all humans believe. It is what it is, and we are privileged to learn from it if we choose to do so. But if we want to increase in our understanding we must be willing to evaluate all possibilities, logically, even if that violates the fervent beliefs of our peers.<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 we build our knowledge on a shaky foundation, it will become a shambles. I think that in certain ways physics has had a 100 year wall preventing further significant progress. In my opinion there are two reasons we have not made more significant progress in the last 100 years. Our misunderstanding of the subject of “relativity” and the Copenhagen school of thought with regards to scientific exploration. We stopped looking for causal, deterministic solutions. When we did that we stopped doing real science. If we want to see the full spectrum of possibilities we need to take the sunglasses of relativity and QM off for a while.<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'>Ok, now I am finished standing on my soapbox. Someone else may take a turn.<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><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>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 04, 2016 10:59 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><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>Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Thank you very much for attaching the first eight pages of your book. It gave a very good idea of what is to come later in the book, but it gave no details of your spun-light particle model itself. I have gotten the impression from your article that I also read that a) the spun-light particle is composed of a photon moving circularly or helically (depending on the inertial frame) at light speed, b) the lightspeed of the circulating photon would therefore be the same as measured from any inertial frame, c) the radius of the helical motion of the circulating photon would be independent of the speed of particle, d) an electron would be modeled by a double-looping photon with the above properties, e) the observed frequency of looping of the photon in a moving electron would decrease with increasing speed of the particle due to time dilation, f) the frequency of the photon itself would increase with the increasing speed of the particle due to the particle’s increased energy. I hope you will correct me if any of these are incorrect.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> I think I understand better your distinction between subjective and objective reality: a) All observations or physical measurements by an observer of a phenomenon (like observing and photographing a stick that looks bent in water) are “subjective" by your definition. b) The straightness of a straight stick is an objective fact, again by your definition of "objective", no matter how many people view the stick as bent in water. c) You assume that the objective straightness of a straight stick can somehow be known independently of any measurement or observation of the stick, which would only give subjective, observer-dependent knowledge of the stick. My question here is, how can you ever know if a stick is really (objectively) straight if you (or anyone else or a group of qualified physicists and technicians) cannot absolutely rely on any “subjective" physical measurements of the stick by any conceivable measurement process? My answer: You can’t. Please show me how this is a wrong conclusion. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> It strikes me as unbelievable that you can somehow conclude from your hypothetical spun-light model of particles that there is some frame in the universe that is absolutely at rest, whether this is based on CMB measurements (which are in your view subjective and cannot determine objective fact) or some other measurement process (which would also be subjective). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Your statement <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT",serif'>[Now that science has confirmed that electrons are formed from photons of light-type energy, it’s clear that this waveform is simply the photon wave.]</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT",serif'> </span> seems to imply that you think it has been proved experimentally that an electron is composed of a photon. Do you really think that “an electron is composed of a photon” is experimentally proved by the experimental creation of an electron from two interacting photons?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> You choose to not participate in critically analyzing another person’s electron model that you think is false. You might consider that pointing out a mistake in another person’s theoretical model (whether already published or not) is doing a favor to that person so that they won’t waste their own time (while possibly wasting many other people’s time also who download their faulty article) continuing to believe and hope that their theoretical model of an electron can only be disproved or discredited by experiment and not by serious conceptual or calculational errors in their model, that they themselves overlooked and would not have published with these errors if they had known about them.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> You have such a strong belief in the correctness of your own model of physical reality derived from spun-light models of particles that you offer a series of online classes to teach it to others for a fee. Yet I have not seen any explanation so far about why your particle model (say for an electron) is consistent with the well-known experimental size determination of a highly relativistic electron as less than about 10^-18m , as found in high energy electron scattering experiments at around 30 GeV. Your own electron model would continue to have the same radius at 30 GeV as at rest (around 10^-13 m). Can you explain how your electron model is consistent, rather than highly inconsistent, with this well-known experimental electron scattering result?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>With best wishes,<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><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>I believe you’ll see from this my philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my own line of scientific research. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>[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.]</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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). <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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). <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>[* 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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to the object – the situation, event or scenario itself. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>would</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>make a great deal of difference with respect to their effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>If a mathematician proposed that one plus one was equal to two, would you dismiss that as just a personal philosophy of mathematics? <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>I’m not in any way suggesting that my view of reality is the right one, or the only possible one – but I<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>am</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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? <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>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). <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></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;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><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 style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><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 style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><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 style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><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 style='background:white'><span 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 style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span 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 style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span 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 style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> 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></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span 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 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 style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><mythintro.pdf><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>_______________________________________________</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'><a href="</span></span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>"></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span style='background:white'></a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>