<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>(Mail sent a second time for safety) <br>
</p>
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>you say "The mathematical basis for these two differing forms of
relativity have some striking similarities, but also have some
major and significant differences." Can you please give some
examples of these differences? <br>
</p>
<p>Einstein's SR is a mathematical formalism which (in my
understanding) does not care about the physical causes. But
formally it works. Take the similar case of quantum mechanics.
Also that theory gives us a mathematical formalism without almost
any relation to physics. (True that some persons say that it is
also physics, but that is in my understanding caused by some kind
of brain wash.) <br>
</p>
<p>There is one specific point which causes some logical paradoxes
with Einstein. That is the general use that the Lorentz
transformation is taken as a transformation of an absolute time
scale and an absolute spatial extension. If on the other hand one
deduces relativity by the considerations of Lorentz and Larmor,
one would not have the idea to do so, but rather use this
transformation in a differential form. So to determine time <i>differences
</i>and length <i>differences</i>. If one does this, apparent
paradoxes like the twin case immediately disappear.</p>
<p>Some years ago the director of the German Einstein-Institute has
given a talk at a conference where he addressed just this. His
advice was, to transform time <i>differences </i>and length <i>differences
</i>rather (integral) time and position. That was the right way in
my view, but it seems that this has not reached many colleagues.</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.07.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:009d01d1d7bc$702d1040$508730c0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 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;
color:black;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you, and I understand the perspective
you have voiced.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The purpose is not to invent a new name,
and the notion is not new. But the basis is quite important if
we are to really understand the nature, cause, and behavior
which the real form of relativity in nature imposes on fields,
waves, and matter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Laying the proper foundation may well make
the difference in being able to solve the problems and
understand the puzzles. Things which are considered by us to
be “small” or “insignificant” errors in the general basis, can
easily become major obstacles as we pursue deeper
understanding.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By analogy, a small course error early in a
journey can result in not reaching your destination at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is so much more to this than merely a
difference in terminology. The mathematical basis for these
two differing forms of relativity have some striking
similarities, but also have some major and significant
differences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>; '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>
<p>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I fully agree to what John Bell has written about
relativistic phenomena. I had the same ideas 17 years ago
when I started to think about relativity. Then I learned that
this way is called (at least in Germany) the "Lorentzian
interpretation of relativity".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So, is it only a matter of words? Should we invent a new word
for it? I do not feel that this would be practical. If the
engineers who work on the GPS system say that they have to
take relativity into account, everyone knows what it means.
So, why invent a new name or notion?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>We are so far here that even the leading professors for
relativity and gravitation say that the Lorentzian relativity
is a possible way as well as the Einsteinian relativity, so
equivalent regarding the results. - They still say that they
find the Einsteinian way mathematically more elegant than the
Lorentzian (where I personally strictly disagree). But the
question again: Should we really invent a new name if
everyone, the follower of Einstein and those of Lorentz, know
what one means if he /she speaks about "relativity"?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 05.07.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorentz had worked all this out before
Einstein’s SR. Lorentz based his observations and
conclusions on the behavior of waves moving at a fixed
velocity through a fixed medium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorentz transformations are required if
matter is made of the same light speed energy light is made
of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">John Stuart
Bell said this regarding relativity…, <i>“I would say that
the cheapest resolution is something like going back to
relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like
Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an aether – a
preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring
instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we
could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that
way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of
reference, and in this preferred frame of reference (some)
things do go faster than light.”,” Behind the apparent
Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper
level which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein
position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald,
was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with
relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and
these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur,
and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion
through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of
view.”</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SR postulates that all inertial frames
are completely and symmetrically relative. But there is no
cause given for this basis, it is based solely on
philosophy. The “relativity” that Chandra, Grahame, and I
have been discussing does show a basis and cause. It is
simply based on the inevitable results of matter being made
of the same light-speed energy that light is made of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Such an endeavor can be legitimately
called a scientific pursuit. In contrast to SR. The facts
of the requirements for transformations for rapidly moving
bodies were well known before SR, and SR is not a requisite
for those facts being valid. If we look at these issues from
the causal basis mentioned, many of the perplexing or
puzzling things about SR disappear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, while I would not have stated it in
quite the same way, I must agree with Chandra that SR is not
scientific, is not even physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">you say: "SR is not even
Physics". Don't understand why.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">1.) Oscillations slow down
at motion<br>
2.) Fields contract at motion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Fact 1.) can easily be
measured and easily be understood with regard to its
cause. <br>
Fact 2.) can also easily be understood with regard to its
cause; the experimental proof is indirect but existent.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">All the rest is quite simple
logic (like the constancy of the measured "c").</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">That's all, and what is your
specific reason to deny it?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></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),</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- </span><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><o:p></o:p></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> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
border="1" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part9.9E64F447.DF473388@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender." height="29"
border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt" border="1"
cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part9.9E64F447.DF473388@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender." height="29"
border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</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>