<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Hi Richard,
Chip, Chandra (et al),<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I believe you’ll see from this my
philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my own line of scientific
research.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</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></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>By contrast
the term ‘objective’ refers to the object – the situation, event or scenario
itself.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 <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 style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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 style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</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
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" 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).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] double photon
cycle, subjective v objective realities</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>