<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" 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>Dear Richard, Chip et
al.,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm having a bit of trouble
reconciling relativistically-decreasing transverse radius of an electron with
the postulates of Special Relativity (I believe you're not a fan of SR, Chip, so
presumably this isn't an issue to you).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Let's consider a simple thought
experiment - call it 'Threading the needle':</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>An aperture is just of sufficient
size to permit the passage through it of an electron moving with a relative
speed of 0.9c.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Now we consider same aperture, same
electron, but now with a speed of 0.1c relative to each other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>From the viewpoint of an observer
moving with the aperture that electron will now not pass through it (if we work
on the premise that transverse radius of electron decreases with speed);
however, unless we propose that the transverse measurements of an aperture
INcrease with speed (and so reduce with decreasing speed), an observer moving
with the electron will not see the passage of that electron through the moving
aperture as being obstructed. So does the electron pass through the
aperture in the 0.1c case - or doesn't it??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It appears that if we hold on to both
speed-reduced transverse radius of an electron and the postulates of SR, we have
a problem - one that can only be resolved by finding a compelling argument for
an aperture increasing in size with increasing speed (whatever the nature of its
composition). I've never seen or heard of such a proposition.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'd be glad of any
clarification as to how this apparent contradiction can be
resolved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV><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><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 06, 2017 3:53 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE
conference.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Chip,</DIV>
<DIV> I agree with you. But Vivian’s derivation is still incorrect because
there is nothing in his particle model that suggests the particle's radius is
microscopic. Suppose his particle on the train had a radio wave diameter equal
to the height H of the train. His calculation would predict that this particle's
diameter would also contract in the moving train to become H/gamma ..</DIV>
<DIV> In my electron model, the contraction of the transverse radius of
the electron is R=Ro/gamma^2 , but it is through a different derivation than
Vivian’s. In my electron model the wavelength of the charged photon reduces as L
= Lcompton/gamma while the energy of the charged photon increases as E=Eo x
gamma . The result geometrically is that the radius R of the helical trajectory
of the moving electron model has to decrease as R=Ro/gamma^2. Remember
that this radius R is the helical radius of the trajectory of the circling
charged photon. The charged photon itself (in my detailed charged photon model)
has a radius that is inversely proportional to the energy E of the charged
photon, so the radius of the electron model as a whole will actually decrease as
R=Ro/gamma at relativistic velocities (as E increases), even as the radius of
the helical trajectory of the charged photon decreases as R=Ro/gamma^2 ..</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Chip Akins <<A
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</A>> wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; page: WordSection1; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
class=WordSection1>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN>Hi
Richard<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN>Contraction
of an elementary fermion does<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">not mean contraction of objects made of these
particles</SPAN><SPAN>. If the particles are held in atoms and molecules
by the electromagnetic force, then the contraction of the<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">objects</SPAN><SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>would be simply longitudinal even if
the particles themselves are experiencing transverse
contraction.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN>For
several reasons I think that Rv=Ro/gamma may well be correct for the radius of
a moving particle.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN>Chip<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP: rgb(225,225,225) 1pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>General [<A
style="COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><B>On Behalf Of<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></B>Richard
Gauthier<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:39
PM<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Vivian Robinson
<<A style="COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</A>><BR><B>Cc:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion <<A style="COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] Our forum in the
absence of our SPIE conference.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Hello
Vivian, <O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
I’m going to try one more time for the benefit of you and others
reading this. (See relevant snapshot from your article below.) Your model of a
circling light speed photon with a transverse radius of Ro is like a small
light clock on a moving train with an observer traveling with the light clock
on the moving train who sees the light make one round trip of circumference
2 pi Ro with the light traveling at c in time t (the Proper Time
as measured by the person traveling on the train with the light clock.) So 2
pi Ro = ct for the traveler on the train for one “tick” of the light clock.
But an observer watching the train and the light clock go by at
speed v to the right measures the light in the light clock to make one
full helical turn (for one “tick” of the moving light clock.) This light
traveling at c for a time t’ (as measured by the observer watching the train
go by) for a helical distance c t’ which is the length of the helically
curving hypotenuse of the light-clock triangle. In the mean time the train
moves to the right a distance vt’ as measured by the stationary observer
watching the train go by. This helical distance ct’ measured by the
train watcher is given by (2 pi Ro)^2 + (vt’)^2 = (ct’)^2 where t’ >
t since the transverse radius of a light clock on a moving train is not
different from the transverse radius of the light clock on a stationary train,
and the light travels further (taking more time) during one full tick as seen
by the observer watching the moving train. According to special relativity,
space contraction for a macroscopic object is only in the longitudinal
direction of the moving train, not in the transverse direction. There is
nothing in your particle model that implies that this non-contraction rule in
the transverse direction will not also apply to your particle model’s
microscopic transverse radius Ro. When you substitute 2 pi Ro = ct into
the above equation with t’ you get (ct)^2 = (vt’)^2 + (ct’)^2
which when you solve this equation for t’ gives t’ = gamma t which is the
standard time dilation result for an observer watching 1 tick of the moving
light clock during the train passing, compared to the time t measured for 1
tick by the person traveling with the light clock on the train. There is no
contraction in the transverse direction so Rv = Ro not Rv=Ro/gamma as
you found. If your particle radius contracted as Ro/gamma, then the
whole transverse height H of the moving train should also contract as
H/gamma according to your calculation, which it does not according to special
relativity. So your particle’s transverse radius contraction result Rv =
Ro/gamma (equation 7 below) is unfortunately
mistaken.<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
Richard<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
id=cid:image002.png@01D267FE.7D525EB0><image002.png></SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt" type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">On
Jan 3, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Vivian Robinson <<A
style="COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</A>>
wrote:<O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Richard,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I have acknowledged several times the error you
pointed out in my derivation of the electron's magnetic moment. I have
corrected it in my further work, acknowledging you. I have not yet published
that and will do so some time in the
future. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Regarding what you call my error in the
.. <SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(64,56,255)">time of travel of light over the
hypotenuse of a right triangle ..</SPAN>, I am not sure that you read
or understood my paper properly on that part. The "hypotenuse" is not fixed.
It has a forward linear motion as well as its spiralling helical motion.
This is necessary to maintain the photon's axis at constant speed c. It is
that which gives rise to the relativistic corrections. I am satisfied that
it is the electron's structure that is responsible for the special
relativity corrections through the mechanism proposed. If you have another
physical reason for the existence of the special relativity corrections
please let us know. In your opinion my mathematics is wrong. In my opinion
my mathematics is correct and you have misread or not understood the
physical processes involved in my model. Experiment is the best
arbiter. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">You are very wrong about my use of the spin of a
photon in an electron. In that paper I made no reference to the the
photon's intrinsic spin. i have done that in the article I sent this
group last year where I derived the wave equations psi for photons. The spin
I derived of the electron was the angular momentum of the photon caused by
the mass of the photon (m = hnu/c^2) rotating at c on an axis with a radius
r = hbar/2mc, giving angular momentum = half hbar. Due to the reduction in
radius I determined, that value of angular momentum is maintained at all
relativistic velocities. That is one of the reasons "standard model"
physicists insist that spin is not angular momentum as originally proposed
by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. They could not visualise how a point particle (r
< 10^-17 m) could have angular momentum. Despite your opinion, I am
suggesting that is why a "point particle" can have angular momentum. It
matches observation.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As for the rest of what you call fatal errors, I
suggest you refer to experiment. I have made sixteen statements on how the
rotating photon model matches observed electron properties and seven
predictions of unknown or unrecognised properties. I am wrong when those
predictions don't match observation. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Richard, you are as entitled to your opinion
as I am to mine. I suggest you are wrong because you misread my paper.
You suggest I am wrong because I don't use your calculations, or whatever
other reason. Experiment is the only arbiter. I have invited you several
times to point out where my model does not match observation. If you still
insist I am wrong, why don't you point out where my predictions don't match
observation. That is really all you need to
do. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I suggest we end this discussion unless you point
out where my work does not match observation.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sincerely,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Vivian Robinson<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt"></SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>