<!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>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Hi
Richard,<?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>It seems to
me you’re getting a bit carried away here!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>It also seems to me that you need to check your facts more carefully (aka
‘academic rigour’) before making unwarranted assertions about a colleague’s
activities in a general forum like this; you may land yourself in hot water
otherwise!<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>More on that
in a moment; first your other points deserve due
consideration.<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’d agree
that your first paragraph does truly reflect my perspective on the various
aspects that you mention, with the riders that: (b) the invariant measured
speed, <I>c</I>, from every inertial frame is due to the true relative speed
being moderated by speed-related influences on the observer or instrument in a
moving frame; (e) the observed frequency of looping is reduced in a moving frame
due to the longer path length (full circle + linear displacement, acting
orthogonally to each other); neither (i) linear component of path length nor
(ii) reduced looping frequency are apparent to an observer moving with the
particle, (i) due to observer’s own motion, (ii) due to time dilation in
observer/instrument (which is almost certainly itself due to a corresponding
effect in the structure of the observer/instrument).<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>Your point
about the bent stick raises an interesting question.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That question, it seems, is: can we
trust our own senses?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If not then
we may as well make (what appears to be) a bonfire of (what seem to be) our
scientific papers and spend (what we experience as) our time soaking up (what we
perceive as) the sun’s rays on (what gives the impression of) a beach somewhere
(whilst acknowledging that the concept of ‘somewhere’ may itself be an
illusion).<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>Of course we
do trust our senses, and they don’t generally let us down – as long as we use
them alongside that other sense: commonsense. I don’t, for example, spend time
each morning standing at my bathroom wash basin convinced that I’m facing my
chiral twin embedded in the wall behind that sheet of
glass.<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
because we use our commonsense to help us make sense of the information we
receive from all our other senses; and this is where science really comes into
its own.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I know why I’m seeing that
image, in terms of laws and principles that have been figured out in relation to
the physical level of our reality: science helps us (or should) to understand
<B>why</B> things happen the way they do.<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 say
“physical level of reality” because reality exists for us on various levels –
quite possibly an infinite number, as we dig deeper.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For example, if you study a simple rock
pool on the beach (as I encouraged young children to do in my schoolteaching
days 40 years ago), you can see: the simple physical reality of the water, the
sand, the pebbles; or the geological reality of the rock formations and crystal
inclusions of the enclosing rock itself; or the biological reality of the marine
life in the rock pool – anemones, shrimps, small fish, various seaweeds.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I tasked the children with writing a
report on what they found in their own chosen rock pool, and it was always a
real education to me to see the totally different accounts from, say, three
children who’d all been studying the same rock pool (but
not).<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>This is
highly relevant to ‘the stick question’.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In analysing any situation we need to decide – often unconsciously – at
which level we are operating in that situation.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>With regard to the stick, we need to be
operating at a level where ‘straight’ and ‘bent’ have meanings that we all
understand and agree upon: those two concepts then have objective meaning at the
level of our discussion – we may subjectively see a stick as bent when it is in
fact objectively straight, but our perception doesn’t alter the objective
straightness of that stick.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If we
spot an anomaly in our observations then we would apply simple scientific
techniques to identify how that anomaly has arisen; that information then
becomes part of our ‘commonsense database’.<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>A major
shortcoming with regard to SR, it seems to me (and apparently others in this
group) is that 100 years ago various anomalous features were identified – but
never conclusively explained.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In
contrast to the usual investigative approach that we associate with good
science, those features were all lumped together as the result of some
mysterious property of reality – but no attempt was made to track down the
reason for that mysterious property.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In this respect I totally understand Chandra’s statement that “SR is not
Physics” (since no scientific method appears to have been applied to identify
its root causes, present company excepted).</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>It’s true
that identification of an objective reality at the physical level will, in all
likelihood, show it to be a subjective experience at a deeper level.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It appears, for example, that our
concept of ‘locality’ may well be an evolutionary adaptation to enable us to
survive and thrive in an intrinsically alocal universe.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This doesn’t invalidate the concept of
an ‘objective truth’ at the physical level: we simply need to be sure in our own
minds about which level we’re working at.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Description of the Mona Lisa as an assemblage of pigments doesn’t
invalidate the objective truth that, at a different level, it’s a graphical
representation of a human face.<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>This brings
us on to your “It strikes me as unbelievable …”.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m afraid I can’t be responsible for
the shortcomings of your belief system, which apparently has no difficulty in
believing a ‘scientific’ principle for which it appears no conclusive proof, and
certainly no explanation, exists.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Whilst I agree that all measurement is necessarily subjective, it’s
incumbent on every scientist to consider the totality of all available such
measurements in the light of their own reason and come to some logical
conclusion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That is how science is
done.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>With regard to the CMB, the
salient feature of that particular phenomenon is that, irrespective of
measurement of its fine detail, it <B>does</B> define a unique reference frame
in apparent contradiction of SR (as pointed out on the Smoot website) –
objectively.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That unique reference
frame exists independently of any observer.<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>With regard
to your question as to whether I believe my own statement about electrons being
formed from photons: yes, I do believe that it’s clear that the waveform in an
electron is simply the photon wave [of the formative photon] – which is what I
said.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>By association this must mean
“clear to me”, since I’m the author of that statement, I wouldn’t presume to
assume that it’s clear to everybody in the world.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As for “proved”, I didn’t actually say
that: the question of ‘proof’ is not clear-cut; one man’s proof is another man’s
maybe.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The fact that
electron-positron pairs are formed purely from photons (as identified by Landau
& Lifshits in 1934 and demonstrated experimentally at SLAC in 1997) – and
that colliding particle-antiparticle pairs ‘annihilate’ one another to generate
a pair of photons of corresponding energy content would, I believe, constitute a
fair degree of proof for many people.<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>It’s most
assuredly not the case that I’ve refused to offer critical comment on others’
electron models.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’ve given a fair
degree of time to discussing why I believe the radius of an electron (i.e. of
its formative photon loop) is invariant under motion, and to indicating why I
feel that a model founded on principles of SR is starting from the wrong
place.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I don’t expect everyone to
agree with me – but neither do I see any point in offering further criticism of
a model that I believe is ill-founded (any more than I would with regard to
critiquing an engineering project, e.g. a car engine: once I’d observed that in
my view the basic design was fundamentally flawed, it would be neither helpful
nor polite to seek to find fault with the details of that design).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If, despite my observations, the author
chose to circulate their model anyway and others chose to read it, that’s their
right and in no way my responsibility.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>I’m not sure how you can possibly make it such.<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>And so we
come to your assertion of the profit motive on my part.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m not sure where that came from (!), I
can only assume that you’re referring to my ‘Science of Oneness’ course that ran
for a short while three years ago and hasn’t run again since (because I’ve been
concerned with pursuing my research and writing my book).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It was most assuredly <B>not</B> about
“[my] model of physical reality derived from spun-light models of particles that
[I] offer … to teach .. to others for a fee”.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perish the thought!!<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This course was about the intrinsic
interconnectedness of things, a subject that I happen to believe in quite
strongly. (The clue is in the title!)<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>The course
included such diverse topics as: The Anthropic Principle; quantum tunnelling in
enzymes; nucleosynthesis in stars; co-operative relationships between certain
plants and insects (to defend against predators); Lovelock’s Daisyworld;
consciousness – all except the last being drawn from peer-reviewed science.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I did, not surprisingly, include a
reference to my own work on photon-formed particles (also peer-reviewed
journal-published), with the rider that this was my personal take on this
subject.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I hope you can see how
silly your assertion looks in the light of this actual (as opposed to assumed)
course content.<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 feel as if
I should be annoyed, but actually I find it rather funny.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I would, though, caution you against
letting your imagination run away with you in this way, it could get you into
trouble.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(That’s a bit of that
constructive criticism you keep asking for!)<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></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> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 4:59
AM</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> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Your statement <SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">[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></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>With best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Hi
Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I believe you’ll see from
this my philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my own line of
scientific research.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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!<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Best
regards,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><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><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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><SPAN
id=cid:C7E3EB98-0897-4DEF-AB28-164A34AD313F@hsd1.ca.comcast.net.><mythintro.pdf></SPAN><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">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><A
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><a
href="</SPAN><A
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">"></SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Click
here to unsubscribe</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></a></SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<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><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>