<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-7">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<base href="x-msg://859/"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Colleagues: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> We need to slowly incorporate the foundational problems behind Quantum Mechanics in our discussion platform to succeed in making any serious advancement in physics. Unlike SR, QM is profoundly fundamental
and successful; it treats the material universe from the bottom up quite well. But, the interpretation of the theory is also profoundly confusing because. Which means it is also flawed. The theory was not designed to address the
<b><i>interaction processes</i></b>. The formalism was developed to validate the <b>
<i>measurable data</i></b> (ø*ø). The key interpretational problem arises out of confusion in
<b><i>defining ø</i></b> and <b><i>the processes behind </i></b>the data (ø*ø) emergence. However, the data do corroborate (ø*ø) much more broadly and deeply than SR.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Our conference series (started in 2005; now closed) and this web-discussion series (started a couple of years ago) has been created to promote exploration, understanding and explaining nature fundamentally
better ways than we have been done before. Lee Smolin’s “Trouble with Physics” (2007) clearly articulates that concern. I am now attaching a very recent article, “Trouble with Quantum Mechanics” by Nobel Laureate Weinberg.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> We should slowly start accommodating discussions on QM in our forum. We may start from our structure of electron, then to proton and then to the origin of quantum-ness in energy exchange between quantum
entities; etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Our knowledge of physics is now advanced enough to appreciate that this discipline of knowledge cannot advance following the same old
<b><i>segmented</i></b> ways, Classical, Relativity, Quantum, Cosmology Physics, etc. All successful theories have indicated that there is some field involved at the core that is “cosmic” in nature. Even Newton surmised that after developing his concept of
gravity. The concept of “ether” in some form was born even before Newton. And, of course, Einstein correctly initiated the concept of a unified field theory. We know that he failed after decades’ of attempts. I believe it was because he attempted to preserve
the “working” theories as such, along with their individual sets of founding postulates. We need to start defining a unified set of postulates for single field out of which everything emerges, waves, particles and forces (better, potential gradients).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> We definitely need a single field that is capable of generating and holding both the EM waves and the particles and allow their interactions by virtue of “local deformations generated in the CTF through
their mutual presence”. Thus, allowing for discrete changes happening through all times, giving rise to the evolving universe. [Evolution Process Congruent Thinking.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> We need to develop a new and comprehensive set of postulates for a
<b><i>single field theory </i></b>that will naturally give rise to all the phenomena we observe. Thinking of forcefully unifying all separate (?) phenomena should be abandoned. My re-discovery of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) forced me to accept space as a
stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF) to accommodate Maxwell’s “Epsilon” and “Mu”, giving rise to the same constant velocity of light across the entire cosmic space; and while
<b><i>the waves pass through each other ; they propagate unperturbed </i></b>(“linearity property” of EM waves everywhere). But, to accommodate the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment, one needs to accept that the particles are also emergent property
(localized self-looped oscillations) of the same CTF. But, the CTF must possess many more
<b><i>complex</i></b> characteristics, which can give rise to the various properties of emergent particles. Of course, our group has been dealing with these issues related to finding the emergent structure of the electron out of the CTF (or its equivalent some
other cosmic field). I personally do not believe electrons are made out of photons. Because, the “photon” as Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” is a seriously unsolved problem in QM. Albeit Dirac’s field quantization; photons have not been formally localized.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">So, we now need to start incorporating QM in our discussions. But, let us try to bring in new discussion points, in steps, as logical extensions of the evolving discussions. This will also allow some new energy
in the forum.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></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 [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 08, 2017 8:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Vivian<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">Thank you for the email. But you did not explain anything with which I am unfamiliar.<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">For decades I felt that SR and GR were absolutely correct. Defended them vigorously. And studied them extensively. Especially SR.<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">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.<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">Question… Do you feel that space is a medium through which waves travel?<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">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></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 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>Vivian Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 07, 2017 9:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Hi Chip,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The only rest frame is that of the observer, whatever is his/her position. Given a standard clock, weight and yardstick, an observer (Ob 1) anywhere in space and time will measure those dimensions and always
get the same answer. Another observer with a different velocity in a different gravitational field (Ob 2) who measures Ob 1's time, weight and distances will get a different answer from that measured by Ob 1. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Consider both observers starting out at rest wrt each other. Ob1 stays put and Ob 2 is accelerated to a different velocity and gravitational field. (launching a satellite is an example.) Wrt to Ob1, Ob 2's
velocity increases, its mass increases and its time slows down according to special relativity theory (SRT). According to Ob 1, this shows up as an increase in the frequency of the photons in each individual fundamental particle (proton, neutron and electron).
The increased frequency isn't noticed by Ob 2 because his time frame has slowed down, so he still measures his mass, length and time (MLT) as the same as when he was with Ob 1. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">As Ob 2 gains altitude his potential energy is increased. This also shows up by the frequencies of his individual fundamental particles (FPFs) increasing and his time slowing down. The energy to increase his
FPFs comes from the rocket engines used to raise his altitude. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">When in orbit, the only means Ob 1 can determine anything associated with Ob 2 (and vice versa) is by the exchange of photons. Ob 1 will receive photons from Ob 2 that have travelled from a higher altitude
to a lower altitude. They have lost potential energy (PE) and gained kinetic energy (KE). For a constant (for all observers) velocity particle, an increase in KE means an increase in frequency (and mass through E = mc^2 = hnu). The photon is blue shifted.
Ob 1 will see activities by Ob 2 as occurring slightly faster than Ob 2 will see his own activities. Similarly photons from Ob 1 will be redshifted when detected by Ob 2. These difference are calculable from general relativity theory (GRT) and they match observation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Ob1 views Ob 2 at a different velocity, which gives rise to a Doppler effect -redshift when Ob 2 is moving away from Ob 1 and blueshift when Ob 2 is moving towards Ob 1. The amount of that shift is given
by the special relativity theory </span><span style="font-size:18.0pt">(SRT) doppler </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">correction. Again those calculations match observation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Each observer measures standard MLT dimensions based upon local conditions. All will all get the same answer for their local conditions because the frequencies of the fundamental particles are all adjusted
for </span><span style="font-size:18.0pt">local conditions. All will get different answers for the MLT dimensions of other observers. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">There is no need for a set reference frame. As far as every observer is concerned, his reference frame is the set frame from which everything else can be accurately measured. The SRT and GRT (black holes etc.
excluded) corrections can be used by Ob 1 to calculate what observer 3 (Ob 3) would measure near Ob 3, based upon what Ob 1 sees. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The only absolute frame of reference is angular motion. All observers will, if using sufficiently sensitive equipment or viewing distant objects, detect absolute angular motion. Ob 1 can detect and calculate
his angular motion accurately and accurately calculate the angular motion of Ob 2 orbiting Earth. The frame of reference for angular motion is fixed at no detectable motion. There is no fixed fame of reference for linear motion. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">SRT enables any observer Ob 1 to calculate the local conditions that would be experienced by Ob 3 based upon the observed redshift of photons Ob 1 detects from Ob 3 if there is no gravitational influence or
gravitational influence is known. GRT enables Ob 1 to </span><span style="font-size:18.0pt">calculate the local conditions that would be experienced by Ob 3</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> in a different gravitational field if there no velocity influence
or the velocity influence is known, based upon the redshift of the detected photons. It goes without saying that GR and SR redshifts can be confused if there is no independent means of separating them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hope that helps.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Vivian Robinson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">PS<span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>I fail to see why anyone wants to change SRT. It is fine. GRT is also fine for r >> alpha. It needs refining as r approaches alpha. I suggest that refinement is in my paper </span><span style="font-size:18.0pt"><a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf">http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt">It also needs refining for vast galactic distances as it affects the interpretation of redshift from distant galaxies. Chip you have a copy of that. I must get some time to publish it soon.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 08/01/2017, at 4:32 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Vivian<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have made some very good points. Both in your discussion here and in your written works.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One thing that occurs to me is that if matter is made of confined light speed energy, there is a form of “relativity” which is dictated by that set of conditions. This form of “relativity” is simple, causal, without paradox, based in 3
dimensional Euclidian space, and implies that there is a reference rest frame in space, even if we cannot detect what that rest frame is. This form of relativity shows us specifically how and why things appear relative.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The difference between this form of relativity, and the common interpretations of SR and GR is subtle, but significant enough to make a difference, if we want to actually advance our physical knowledge. No experiment that I am aware of
has ever invalidated this form of relativity either, but both forms cannot be correct. And this form, which I call “specific relativity” is specifically dictated by matter being made of light speed energy. In other words this theory is able to show physical
cause for its basis.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So in this case, experiment is not currently an arbiter which can help us to know precisely which form of relativity is correct. Yes, experiment, all of experiment over time, is the final arbiter, …but without thought, discussion, open
minds, and an eagerness to learn as much as we can, we will remain stuck in our current physical dark ages. Without these things we don’t even know what to look at, or which experiments to attempt to conduct.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">History has shown us time and again that a theory can agree with certain experiments, and still be incorrect. We do not likely have that theory (yet) which agrees with all experiment ever conducted, and all experiment to be conducted in
the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regrettably we humans interpret the results of experiment in a way which validates our favorite theories, instead of looking at all the possibilities. Yep. Me too.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">General
[mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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>Vivian
Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, January 06, 2017 10:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] On particle radius</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Grahame, Richard and All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Grahame, 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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>ONLY</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>reason
for it is that my work doesn't match observation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">All, I note a tendency of contributors to use theoretical arguments, sometimes supported by mathematics. I must state again that the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>ONLY</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Vivian Robinson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 07/01/2017, at 10:30 AM, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"><span style="color:purple">grahame@starweave.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Dear Richard, Chip et al.,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Let's consider a simple thought experiment - call it 'Threading the needle':</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">An aperture is just of sufficient size to permit the passage through it of an electron moving with a relative speed of 0.9c.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Now we consider same aperture, same electron, but now with a speed of 0.1c relative to each other.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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??</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">I'd be glad of any clarification as to how this apparent contradiction can be resolved.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>