<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type><BASE
href="x-msg://859/">
<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; mso-ansi-language: FR"
lang=FR>Dear Chip, Vivian, Richard et al.,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: FR"
lang=FR><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>Electron
through aperture: will she, won’t she? Do she, don’t she?<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
interesting to note that Chip is quite definite that the electron will pass
through the aperture, from all perspectives, at 0.1c – whilst Vivian is equally
definite that it will be blocked from both perspectives at 0.1c.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Does this not suggest to the inquiring
mind that there IS an issue to be addressed here?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><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>Chip, it
appears that you may have misread what I wrote.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For myself, I agree totally that the
aperture will not change in size with velocity; however my point is that the
dictates of SR, coupled with a proposed reduction in transverse radius of an
electron moving at speed, demand that this is the case if there is to be no
contradiction.<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>You refer to
“the electron at rest which is barely small enough to pass through this
aperture”; the point that I’m making is that this electron is ONLY small enough
to pass through this aperture because it’s NOT at rest, by virtue of its
relativistically-reduced transverse diameter whilst travelling at speed 0.9c
(taking on board, for the sake of analysis, the proposition that such a
reduction occurs – a proposition with which I myself disagree).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This naturally would mean (following
this line of thought) that if the speed of the electron were reduced it would
then have a larger cross-section and so would NOT fit through that aperture –
this is the fundamental point of my analysis of the logical consequence of such
a proposition in the context of a universe in which SR is an objective
reality.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In such a universe the
same scenario can be viewed from the ‘rest-frame’ of the electron; unless the
outcome is altered just by taking a different viewpoint (i.e. the electron DOES
fit through the aperture in the lower-speed case), it follows that, from the
electron-rest-frame perspective, the aperture has reduced in size due to its
moving more slowly relative to the electron.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since the outcome (fits / doesn’t
fit) must be the same irrespective of viewpoint, we have a contradiction if that
aperture doesn’t vary in size.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This
calls into serious question the fundamental premise of SR as it's generally
believed and applied.<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’m in
total agreement with you that a form of SR does prevail in the universe, but
it’s NOT the totally objective SR proposed and applied in conventional science;
careful analysis shows that the majority of observed effects of SR are in fact
observer effects, coupled with the objective realities of relativistic length
contraction as mooted by Larmor, Lorentz & Fitzgerald (on the basis of
Maxwell's findings), also dilation of ‘personal time experience’ for objects
moving at speed, due to the nature of particle structure.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This has very significant implications
for various aspects of physics, including putting paid to the feared risks to
causality from closed timelike curves or FTL travel - since, contrary to the
conventional SR view, there is a unique universal inertial reference frame
(which I understand to correspond to the frame of Chandra's CTF). (Since
writing this I've received your latest email in which you state: "<SPAN
style="COLOR: black">For decades I felt that SR and GR were absolutely correct.
Defended them vigorously. And studied them extensively. Especially SR.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black">However my opinion has changed simply because
of things learned while studying the cause of SR. Matter made from light speed
energy. If you start from that premise, and construct a theory of relativity
based simply on the results of that premise, the results are, in my opinion, a
more accurate view, with a causal basis.</SPAN>" This could have been me
writing that, this is my position precisely.)]<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>Vivian, I'm
rather surprised at your response. On the basis of your dismissal of my
'thought experiment' it appears that you could have nipped SR in the bud if
you'd been around at the time. I can just see it: "Lightning striking the
SAME length of track SIMULTANEOUSLY in TWO places?! And there
just HA</SPAN><st1:stockticker><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>PPE</SPAN></st1:stockticker><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>NS to be
some guy standing </SPAN><st1:stockticker><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>EXAC</SPAN></st1:stockticker><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>TLY midway at the very instant that it happens?!! PLUS on
top of that there just HAPPENS to be a train passing the spot with someone
looking out the window (with a couple of mirrors so they can see both
flashes)??!!! Sorry Al, it just ain't ever gonna
happen!"<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>[Not banter,
rather commentary on your dismissal of a line of reasoning well-used by Einstein
and others.]</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
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>As for GR,
who knows what you'd have made of the guy in a box who doesn't know if he's in a
gravitational field or if the box is being pulled by some giant being at an
accelerating rate through an area of space totally free of gravitational
field. Ok, the guy could have been KO'd, the 'giant' could be some
spacecraft (presumably no sound or vibration to pass along the cable?) - but in
deep space?? (No grav field).<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>[Maybe at
some time in the far distant future some highly evolved beings might create that
scenario – possibly the same HEBs who might create the aperture that I
hypothesise, maybe out of neutronium, who knows?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In fact that’s all quite irrelevant –
read on.]</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
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>All of the
commentaries I've seen on the railway thought experiment are in agreement that
it’s not necessary to observe that scenario in order to draw logical inferences
from it: hence the name ‘thought experiment’.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is doubly so in a
reductio-ad-absurdum situation such as the one I’ve presented: it’s not
necessary to observe two mutually contradictory events failing to happen
simultaneously in order to be certain that two mutually contradictory events
cannot happen simultaneously.<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 reference to the elephant, observer having different mass and what the
observer sees, this is in fact all quite irrelevant.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The observer in the SR context is simply
a hypothetical witness to events that occur whether or not they're observed: if
a particle passes through an aperture from the perspective of one reference
frame but fails to in another, in respect of one and the same incident, then we
have a contradiction whereby the same electron both passes through a barrier and
collides with it simultaneously.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>One can dress it up with all manner of words, the facts of the dual SR
interpretation of that event remain.<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>As for
experiments: I’m a great believer in experimental evidence, a theory that
contradicts such evidence is worth nothing, as is a theory based on no concrete
evidence; however, as Chip has effectively observed, evidence provided by
results of an experiment is not necessarily proof of one person’s (or even a
thousand people’s) interpretation of that evidence.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Whereas if a theory leads to a glaring
contradiction simply by logical reasoning, then no experimental evidence is
needed to show that theory to be erroneous.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I suggest that “advancing the cause” can
be achieved at least as effectively by (a) considering fully plausible
alternative interpretations of existing experimental evidence; and (b) applying
logical reasoning, in the light of existing evidence, to test theories – as by
conducting one more experiment whose outcomes may or may not be due to assumed
cosmic principles.<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>In short, my
question stands: SR, coupled with a particle whose transverse diameter reduces
with speed, either creates a contradiction or requires that a moving aperture
increases in size with speed of motion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Which is it to be and, if the latter, what is the explanation for
this?<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>Richard,
since writing the above I note that you have reiterated your
reducing-lateral-radius electron in your latest email on this subject.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’d be interested to hear how you
reconcile this with the two contradictory views of events from the two
rest-frames, as embedded in SR (which I know you subscribe to) in accordance
with the above analysis.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since you
have yourself espoused the notion that we should each submit constructive
criticism of each others’ theories, and have regularly done so yourself, I know
that you’ll take this in the spirit in which it’s
intended.<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>Regards to
all,<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</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>================</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><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</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> Saturday, January 07, 2017 12:52 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] On particle radius</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi Dr Graham
Blackwell<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">In my view the aperture will not
change in size with velocity, since the aperture is transverse to the motion,
and is an object made of particles bound together with electromagnetic
forces.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So my thought is that the electron
at rest which is barely small enough to pass through this aperture, when
incident on this aperture will always be able to pass through
it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">If the situation is reversed however, and the electron is
moving, the electron will become smaller with motion and still (even with more
room to spare) pass through the aperture.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So in neither case does the
aperture have to change size.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">But, as you mentioned, I do not
feel SR is accurate. Close, but not quite right.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Chip</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">==========</SPAN></P></DIV></SPAN></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; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=viv@etpsemra.com.au href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">Vivian
Robinson</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> Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:26
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] On particle
radius</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Grahame, Richard and All,</SPAN>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Grahame, </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">regarding your thought experiment below. It is a
meaningless exercise because there is no material from which such an aperture
can be constructed. If you know of one, please let me know what it is. On the
premise that such an aperture could be constructed, the result of the
experiment would be the same, irrespective of the position or velocity of the
observer. An observer at rest wrt the aperture will see the electron pass
through it at 0.9 c. At 0.1 c the electron would be blocked in the classical
sense. </SPAN>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Now what happens when the observer is moving with
the electron? The answer will still be the same. At 0.9 c the electron will
pass through the aperture. At 0.1 c, it will be blocked. When travelling at
0.9 c, the observer will have very different mass, dimension and time frames
of reference. Under the moving observers reference frame, the
electron appear to him to still have the dimensions it has at rest. That
reference frame is different from that of the observer at rest with respect to
the aperture. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"> Everything is measured relative to the
observer. Observers in different frames of reference see the same thing
differently. An observer at rest wrt the aperture sees a small diameter
particle coming towards the aperture. An observer moving with the
electron at 0.9 c will see the electron approaching a larger
aperture. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Regarding your suggestion below that the aperture
has to change dimensions. It doesn't! In the real world, observers looking at
the same scene from a different angle will see it from a different
perspective. One observer looking at the rear end of a bull elephant will see
a bulging body with large legs and a floppy appendage in what is a relatively
harmless posture. Another observer looking at the front end of the same
elephant would see a large body with similar legs, a big head with large tusks
and a dangerous appendage in what could be a very threatening posture. That
does not mean that the elephant transformed from a harmless posterior end to a
threatening frontal end when an observer goes from the rear to the frontal
view. The event is what it is. How it is perceived depends upon the position
of the observer. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">I repeat! The event is what it is. What is seen
is different for different observers. Everything is relative to the
observer. I venture to suggest that is why the theory is called
relativity. At least with the relativity theories, special and general
(black holes and related phenomena excluded), we can calculate what an
observer in a different reference frame will observe. As far as I am concerned
there is nothing wrong with Einstein's special relativity theory. I have not
come across any situation in which his calculations do not match experiment.
Despite what others may say, I am satisfied that special relativity is soundly
based upon the rotating photon model of fundamental matter particles such as
the electron in the manner I described. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Richard G, you are introducing the moving frame
of reference of a "train". Your analogy is not what I was describing. My
calculations apply entirely to an observer at "rest" wrt the the photon
passing it at c. A moving observer will see a different situation. If one uses
the special relativity corrections, it is possible to calculate what the
observer in a different reference frame will observe. When you start with a
moving reference frame to calculate a relativistic effect and assume
it is a rest frame calculation, you will get a different answer than if you
start with a rest frame an calculate the answer. I started with a rest frame
and get the corrections I obtained. Suggesting that I am wrong because you
introduce a moving frame to calculate a similar result and get a different
answer has some problems. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Both sets of mathematics can be correct and
different answers are obtained from different starting points. It is not
necessary to introduce a moving frame of reference to calculate special
relativity effects. As far as I am concerned my calculations from a rest frame
are correct and it is the "rotating photon" model of matter that gives rise to
the special relativity corrections of matter. I have invited you many times to
give me an example of where my calculations do not match observation. I have
made several testable predictions, including the rate at which the radius of a
particle will diminish with velocity. I am wrong when my predictions don't
match observation, If you wish to resume this discussion, the <B>ONLY</B>
reason for it is that my work doesn't match observation. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">All, I note a tendency of contributors to use
theoretical arguments, sometimes supported by mathematics. I must state again
that the <B>ONLY</B> arbiter of scientific knowledge is matching observation
or experiment. IMHO, every action or event that occurs has a scientifically
based reason for happening. If you want to propose something different to
describe an action, you should first explain the science behind the action.
Then use mathematics to establish the magnitude of the science just described.
Follow that with a description of how your new presentation matches some known
properties of whatever you are describing. That should be followed by a
testable prediction of some new property or action associated with that type
of event. Then you have something concrete upon which discussion can be
meaningful. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Forwarding different opinions on aspects of
someone else's work without showing how the work impacts upon observation
makes for good banter. But it doesn't do anything to "advance the cause". I
suggest that if you want to show the value of your work, do it by referring to
experiment or observation. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Vivian Robinson</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 07/01/2017, at 10:30 AM, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: medium Helvetica; WORD-WRAP: break-word; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial>Dear Richard, Chip et al.,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial>Let's consider a simple thought experiment - call it
'Threading the needle':</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" 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 style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" color=#000080
size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>