<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Helvetica;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.apple-converted-space {
mso-style-name: apple-converted-space
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
..MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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 bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Chip,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>SPOT ON!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>There can only be ONE root cause for
the apparent frame invariance of light speed - and we now have a cogent logical
causal explanation for that effect. We not only have no NEED for an
unexplained metaphysical phenomenon (objective frame invariance of light speed),
we also have no PLACE for it - it actually cocks up the works (to use a
colloquial term) of a perfectly well-explained set of phenomena.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[My recent 'thought experiment' post
was of course intended to play devil's advocate: we take objective SR as gospel,
along with variation in particle size with speed - and we end up with a
contradiction. A classic 'reductio ad absurdum' line of
reasoning.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Einstein considered SR to be
confirmed by a number of observed phenomena (Fizeau's Experiment, M&M's
Experiment, anomalous aberration of starlight, induction of a current in a loop
of wire, apparent frame invariance of Maxwell's Equations); EVERY ONE of those
phenomena which he saw and presented as evidence for objective frame symmetry is
now explainable in terms of well-understood causal factors independent
of Einsteinian SR (for which no causation has ever been advanced).
However, Einstein also made a number of inferences on the basis of that
proposal, such as 'relativistic' time dilation, which have since been shown to
hold true (but have also since been shown to be due to other causes).
On the basis of those verified inferences, and their knock-on implications
for findings (e.g. in the LHC) that have also proved consistent (for now
clearly-explainable reasons), science has been content to stick with what we
might call 'Objective SR' even though simple causal explanations are now
understood for Fizeau's and other experiments (a causal explanation for time
dilation was included in a video that was awarded the Junior Breakthrough
Challenge Prize last year by a distinguished panel of judges acting for a body
that includes Prof Stephen Hawking as one of its key members - but this appears
not to have shaken faith in SR one jot).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>However this is at best post-hoc
rationalisation: "We were told that A is so; if A is so, B will also be so; B is
indeed so - so A must be correct". Any student of logic can tell you that
"If A then B" does NOT imply "If B then A". The problem is that the whole
edifice of science over the past century and more has been built on the premise
that Objective SR is a fact. Four or five generations of scientists (and
latterly the general public) have been educated in this vein, and university
professors have passed on this hallowed 'truth' to their students, down through
the generations. Libraries of books have been written on this
premise. Billions of dollars/pounds have been invested, not to mention
thousands of careers and reputations, in the past century - that's a massive
amount of inertia built up on the basis of a metaphysical belief. That's
also a VERY strong disincentive to anyone rocking the boat by suggesting
that the SR Emperor's clothes are in fact illusory; nobody whose reputation or
career - or massive financial investment - is based on belief in Objective SR
wants to even consider the possibility (fact) that the results on which that
belief is founded are perfectly well explained in terms of causal
effects without resort to an unexplained metaphysical 'property of the
universe'. This is to my mind very little different from belief in an
all-powerful being, of the sort that 'serious scientists' are very ready to
scoff at - or even a belief in fairies or tree sprites.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>That's not to say that results
produced by SR are all wrong - far from it. SR has produced pretty
consistently correct results - if for the wrong reasons; those results have been
of benefit in a wide variety of fields. Regrettably, though, this has only
served to solidify resistance to any alternative perspective and perpetuate the
limitations that Objective SR imposes; for example, it's arguably the
superfluous insistence on a frame-symmetric model that's making it so
difficult to fully understand gravitation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As long as we have a mainstream
scientific community that's not prepared to review SR critically in light of
more recent findings, and will defend SR with any argument that comes to hand
(however tenuous) - and will even reject without serious consideration any
research paper that offers a credible alternative interpretation of available
evidence (since "there's no need for it") - then the chances for science to
get out of this developmental cul-de-sac and move forward are seriously
limited. The implications for the future of our species shouldn't be
underestimated, as the growth potential of humankind depends on a fuller
understanding of the nature of time and space.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>That's the reason for my
persistence, as Richard puts it. It matters.</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> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:52
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] On particle
radius</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Dr Graham
Bell<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">Pardon me for still being on the
soapbox.<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">I find myself asking why it is
that scientists would <U>favor</U> a theory not based on demonstrable cause
and effect.<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 this group we find ourselves
discussing particles of matter and how they are constructed of<U> energy which
is confined and moving at the speed of light</U>.<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">If this is how particles are
made then there is an inescapable, built in, requirement for a specific form
of “relativity”. <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">This form of relativity is
<U>not</U> SR. Both cannot be correct. If we had both this form of
relativity and SR then we would have to apply Lorentz corrections twice to all
motion (y^2). But experiment has shown that we can only apply these
corrections once if we want to get the right answers. <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 (if matter is made of
confined light speed energy) we are left with only </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 16pt">one</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black">
choice for what form of relativity actually exists in our universe.
<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 this form of relativity, I
think the speed of the slit will have no effect on whether the electron can
pass, it is only the speed of the electron which would make a
difference.<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">I am now understanding more of
why we have not been making more progress in our physical
understanding.<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">I guess it is hard for us to see
when we chose to wear the hallowed goggles of ingrained
mistakes.<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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>