<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" 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>Richard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm getting the feeling that one of
us is losing the plot - and I don't think it's me. Your use of terms like
"<FONT color=#000000 size=3 face="Times New Roman">rescue your foundering
electron model</FONT>" speaks of a level of desperation on your part - more like
a schoolboy throwing stones than a scientist engaged in civilised
debate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Far from "<FONT color=#000000 size=3
face="Times New Roman">keep hinting about legal action</FONT>", I was simply
observing that scientific rigor should be modelled after that of the courtroom,
where precision and accuracy are of paramount importance and making
untruthful assertions can land one in difficulties. As a case in point I'd
draw your attention to the fact that the "<FONT color=#000000 size=3
face="Times New Roman">critical remark [you] made to [me] several
years ago</FONT>" was in fact, as I stated (below), 5th July (2016) - just over
6 months ago. Following hot on the heels of your double-typo on an issue
that you yourself clearly consider to be of importance, this doesn't speak well
of your attention to detail.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I see nothing in either of your
previous missives that brings us any closer to knowing how you think a photon
can be electrically charged in addition to its
time-varying formative electromagnetic field (or even what that means), nor
on what experimental evidence you base that belief (for my part I have never,
contrary to your apparent belief, proposed that a photon is in any way charged;
as I've stated many times, it's my view, along with that of others, that the
charge on an electron is the external manifestation of the electromagnetic field
of an [uncharged] cyclic photon; the experimental evidence for this is: (a)
the fact that two opposing photons, without any additional charge, do in fact
transform to two charged particles in pair production; (b) the fact that the
charge on an electron travels with the electron [of course] and so must be a
part of the electromagnetic wave phenomenon that determines the path of that
electron, including any preferential direction determined by interference
effects; (c) the fact that an electromagnetic-field construct must necessarily
give rise to electromagnetic field effects around its periphery, since EM fields
do not have an abrupt cutoff).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Neither do I see anything
in your missives that gives any clue as to how you believe that an
increasing frequency of waveform can remain in synch with a decreasing frequency
of helical cycle, in conformity with energy and time-dilation requirements
respectively.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Since it seems that you're unwilling
to vouchsafe any evidence or theory in support of either of these proposed
phenomena, I take it that we're expected to take them on trust simply because
they are required for your model. This is in stark contrast to the
extensive info that I've given which, without definitively proving every aspect
of my model (I've never claimed that) does at least give a degree of theoretical
and empirical-evidence underpinning to each and every one of those
aspects. You'll note also that none of my proposals violates Occam's
directive by introducing new previously-unknown physical entities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm sorry to have to say this as
we've had some interesting conversations in the past. But given this serious
imbalance in information provision and the confrontational nature of certain
posts, I see no point in continuing this discussion.</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>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</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> Monday, January 23, 2017 6:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: On particle radius &
spin</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Thank you for pointing out my two typos where I wrote spin
1/2 and spin -1/ 2 photons when I meant spin 1 and spin -1 photons
, referring to photons detected in linearly polarized light. I’ve got spin 1/2
charged photons on my mind. The main point that I was making however is that
you are proposing that the circling spin 1 photon in your resting electron
model gradually turns into a spin 0 nearly-linearly-moving photon in your
highly relativistic electron model, which would help rescue your foundering
electron model by preserving its spin 1/2 hbar at relativistic velocities. I
don’t think that this explanation will be successful, but that’s just my
opinion. But the criticism is not just applicable to your electron model. John
and Martin’s 1997 electron model as well as Vivian’s model and Chip’s model
may also be subject to the same criticism of having too high a spin at
relativistic velocities. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I am obviously not claiming originality by using hf=gamma
mc^2 in an electron model or in relativistic circulating-photon electron
models. Please give me a little credit here. I earlier wrote that
de Broglie used this same equation when deriving his de Broglie wavelength for
a relativistic electron. But I don’t recollect seeing the related photon
wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) used in constructing other relativistic
electron models composed of a circulating photon-like object, or in deriving
the de Broglie wavelength from a circulating-photon-like-object electron
model. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I think that it’s interesting that you now keep hinting
about legal action in reference to a critical remark I made to you several
years ago, just when your electron model is under severe scrutiny (as every
model here should be). Perhaps you would prefer me to back off from these
constructive criticisms of your model in a friendly forum? Just when we’re
making some progress? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Good luck.</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 23, 2017, at 4:45 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Richard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I really feel that as a scientist you should
be aware of the clear distinction between 'wonder' and 'assert' - whether
used in a scientific discussion or in a courtroom (the two contexts are
actually quite similar, both require more rigor than you appear willing to
apply). You most certainly were NOT 'wondering' when you categorically
stated - wrongly - in your post to the group received 5th July:
"<FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">You have such a strong belief in the
correctness of your own model of physical reality derived from spun-light
models of particles that you offer a series of online classes to teach it to
others for a fee.</FONT>" If you don't consider this assertion, which
is an outright untruth, a 'brickbat' then I'm slightly at a loss to know
what you would consider you'd have to say to justify that
term.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Also, I consider your 'sincere apology' to
be rather hollow when it's followed in the next sentence by the insinuation
that I've been nicking your work. This is (a) patently ludicrous when
'your work' consists in this case of the increase in energy by factor
gamma in a moving electron - a fundamental aspect of photon energy and of
the energy-momentum relation used by ALL in this field; (b) yet another
reversal of the facts, since you yourself purchased a copy of my book
'Tapestry of Light', almost nine years ago - which on pp59-65 clearly
explains the increase in energy required for increasing speed of a particle,
illustrated graphically with a series of right-angled triangles for
increasing speeds showing even for the non-technical the Pythagorean
relationship between speed and energy that you suggest I appropriated from
you (You chose not to study my book published that same year giving the
detailed math behind this view of material particles). So your claim
that "<FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">you know where and I
don't</FONT>", referring to my use of that relationship, is also
untrue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[If we need to go further back than
that, almost 13 years ago my model, including this detail, was
published by the Scientific & Medical Network on their website, and
reproduced in the Italian periodical 'Scienza e Conoscenza' in October
2004.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I wholeheartedly agree that part of the
purpose of this forum is to critique the work of others -
constructively. I emphasise that last word because I don't feel that
erroneous (mischievous?) adverse comments on the work of others fit that
description. I feel also that, if one wishes to query the rigor of
others' work against the benchmark of empirically-verified facts, one really
should take the trouble to get those facts right. In this respect you
may wish to reconsider your statement in your previous last email:"<FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">The detected photons always have either spin
1/2 or spin -1/2.</FONT>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have other things to do than to pick out
your errors, but I will address your other points in your previous email
shortly. I hope you find this constructive criticism
useful.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">-----
Original Message -----<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><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><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday, January 23, 2017 4:41
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: On particle radius &
spin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> If I have attributed to you any statements that are the
reverse of what you have actually said, then I do sincerely apologize. I
don't remember your using the relativistic electron’s photon wavelength
h/(gamma mc) in your electron model prior to me mentioning it or using it
in my work. But if you did I either missed it or forgot it, and would
appreciate your pointing out to me an example where and when you did,
since you know where and I don't. I am in the process of critiquing your
electron model as I have critiqued John and Martin’s, Vivian’s, Chip’s and
Albrecht's in the past, as they are all double-looping models with some
similarities to mine. I think all of us want to be fair-minded in our
critiques. If your model stands up to all the scrutiny that we can apply
to it, that will be great. If we were to give you or anyone here a “free
ride” on possibly questionable issues, we would not be doing our duty to
the scientific research process and this could slow down <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>progress towards better models.
So there’s nothing personal going on here. I would not like to waste my
own time for months or years thinking I had a good scientific model if it
was really full of mathematical and/or conceptual errors and was a dead
end. And such errors, if they exist, come out sooner or later anyway (less
embarrassing if they come out sooner rather than later) unless no one
cares enough to notice them and point them out. My own photon and electron
models have evolved over the past 25 or more years starting with some
initial insights, and I’m sure they will continue to evolve.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> As for your website and online physics teaching, I was
at one point wondering, after looking over your site, if you were
including your own metaphysical approach and physical hypotheses in your
online physics instruction, which seemed directed towards physics
newcomers. You assured me that you were not. So I dropped the subject. I
would not call any of this “hurling brickbats” but I understand that you
could have taken my comments in a different way than I
intended. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>with best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 21, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Oh
Richard,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I
really do wonder sometimes about your lines of
reasoning.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>And ‘disconfirm’ ?? – I
didn’t even know that was a word!<SPAN> P</SPAN>oor old Occam must
be spinning in his grave!<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>What with ‘disprove’,
‘refute’, ‘rebut’ – ‘disconfirm’ must surely be a case of “multiplying
entities (words) beyond necessity”.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>On a
slightly different point: in polite conversation it’s generally
considered courteous for two parties to alternate in asking questions
and responding to the other’s questions; if one just follows the other’s
answers with yet more questions it can seem a bit more like an
interrogation than a discussion.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Having (as you noted)
offered quite a bit of info in reply to your critique of my model, I was
hopeful that you would in turn respond to my simple question; instead
you’ve chosen not to reply to that but rather asked yet more questions
of your own.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Something in me wonders
if that’s an avoidance strategy – but I’m sure you do in fact have a
simple explanation to offer with regard to your curious concept of a
‘charged photon’.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Since your two questions are fairly easy to answer, I’ll do
that now in the hope that you will respond in like manner by making
everything clear about this elusive ‘charged photon’, in a way that fits
with existing knowledge.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>[More seriously, Richard: I had reason a while ago to caution
you about grossly untrue and potentially libellous comments that
you posted regarding<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>
<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>content of my website; now I
find you attributing to me statements that are precisely the reverse of
what I've actually said, and inviting others to find fault with my work
on the strength of that misinformation; I feel you might be wise to
check your facts more carefully before hurling such brickbats, they may
rebound with consequences that you might not wish.]</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>You’ve asked about the wavelength of the helically-moving
photon in my electron model – at least, I think you
have.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>My uncertainty is caused
by the fact that you appear to be switching between two different things
as if they’re one and the same thing.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Those two things are the
electromagnetic wave frequency of the photon that forms the electron and
the periodicity of the cycle pattern of that photon around its helical
path.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In this you appear to be
dealing with the de Broglie Clock Paradox by completely ignoring
it.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>As
you’ve observed, my photon’s constant-radius helical trajectory has a
cycle frequency that decreases as the photon’s speed increases, and so
also its energy.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>As photon energy
increases by factor gamma then cycle frequency decreases by factor
1/gamma.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>This is fully in line
with experimental evidence and also fully to be expected: a clock moving
with the electron would show that helical trajectory completing one full
cycle in precisely the same time as would be shown by a static clock for
an electron at rest.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>This is known as ‘time
dilation’, proposed by Einstein and demonstrated by various experimental
observations, notably that by Gouan</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-GB>è</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>re,
Catillon et al in respect of electrons; another elementary particle with
no substructure, the muon, has also been shown to demonstrate so-called
‘relativistic’ time dilation in terms of its decay rate and so also, one
must infer, in terms of the effect of motion on its underlying
structure.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>[My model of particle
structure proposes that this is in fact the<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>reason</I><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>for such time dilation: energy
takes longer for a complete cycle through/around a particle; since it
must necessarily be energy that propagates effects of time, it naturally
follows that time will propagate more slowly with regard to a moving
particle.]<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Observation and theory
match perfectly.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>In
respect of a rather different matter, the frequency of the formative
photon for an electron, I agree with you again that the frequency of
that photon<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>increases by factor gamma in
accordance with the speed of linear motion of the
photon.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>So, without question –
again I agree with you 100% – the ‘frequency’ of the formative photon
wave, measured against the increased (‘time-dilated’ by factor gamma)
duration of each complete cycle of the helical path of that photon, will
indeed be increased by factor gamma^2.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>This again is fully in
line with existing theory, and such experimental evidence as is
available: time dilation is an established fact, even for individual
particles without substructure, so each complete helical cycle will take
longer by a factor gamma; frequency of the formative wave, as evidenced
by experimental evidence on energy content and also by consideration of
the ‘relativistic’ energy-momentum relation, is indeed increased by
factor gamma for a moving particle; simple multiplication gives the
inevitable result that we both agree applies in my
model.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>What
baffles me is why exactly you think that this self-evident fact is so
unspeakable (“doesn’t make sense”) – not only that, but you invite
others to<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>think
likewise.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><B>This may be because
you appear to turn this relationship on its head (without explanation)
and claim that I’m proposing N = gamma^2 helical turns per wavelength *;
this is clearly incorrect, what I’m actually proposing is gamma^2
wavelengths of the formative photon per (double) helical turn – exactly
the opposite of your claim</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>(and fully in line with theory
and experimental evidence, as I’ve shown above).<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I can’t help feeling
that you’ve been bamboozled by your fixation with SR into believing that
the two are one and the same thing – a feat that takes a pretty extreme
level of belief in something for which, as far as I know, NO
experimental evidence is available (i.e. fixed relationship of photon
wavelength to helical cycle).<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>[Being charitable, it
appears that you’ve totally befuddled yourself over turns/wavelengths
and wavelengths/turns – not a sign of clear
thinking.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[*
Your quote: “</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB>the number N of helical turns per
wavelength … your N=gamma^2 result doesn’t make physical
sense</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>“.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I’d
be most interested to hear how you square the circle of increasing wave
frequency and decreasing helical cycle frequency, in line with theory
and experiment, whilst the two remain
synchronised…<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>As
to the second of your questions below: I thought I’d already explained
this, it seems I need to do so again.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I hope we’re agreed that
spin-1 is applicable for circularly polarised photons, elliptically
polarised photons have a lesser degree of spin (dependent on
eccentricity), plane polarised waves have zero spin.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Even Wikipedia, with all
its failings, appears to have this one right.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>There’s some agreement, too, that electric charge is an
artefact of cyclic circularly-polarised electromagnetic wave
motion.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Since any increase in
energy of a particle such as an electron must be the consequence of a
photon (real or virtual) being transferred from some other entity, it
seems likely that this transfer is in the form of a plane polarised
photon (otherwise the electron’s electric charge might arguably be
increased or decreased).<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>A plane polarised photon
combining with the static electron’s formative photon would have the
effect of ‘diluting’ the degree of circular polarisation of the latter;
this would in turn have the effect of reducing the spin of the
electron’s formative photon (now higher frequency, but elliptical –
frequency doesn’t affect photon spin, ellipticity
does).<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>So
it is that, in my model, the spin of the formative photon reduces as the
linearity of the photon’s path increases – so for the “very large gamma”
that you refer to, the spin of the formative photon tends to zero and so
would not add anything to the constant spin-1/2 that my constant-radius
model gives for an electron.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[As
a footnote: I note that you’ve been soliciting support from others for
your model, including Hodge; no disrespect to Hodge, but since as I
understand it your model rests fundamentally on a wave-form photon, I’m
not sure that agreement from one who rejects the very idea of a photon
being wavelike would help your cause.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Over
to you – I’m really keen to hear your rationale for this charged photon,
with experimental evidence.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Best,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=grahame@starweave.com href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr
Grahame Blackwell</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><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><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Thursday, January 19, 2017
2:09 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: On particle radius &
spin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Graham,</DIV>
<DIV> A small typo correction in my email. The factor of 1/2
(helical turns per photon wavelength) in my email should be a factor
of 2 helical turns per photon wavelength. In the resting electron the
photon makes 2 circular loops per Compton wavelength, producing the
zitterbewegung frequency fz=2mc^2/h. The ratio of 2 helical turns per
photon wavelength remains in my relativistic electron model. This does
not affect the main argument in the email.</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 18, 2017, at 6:34 PM, Richard Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>Hi Grahame (and others)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Thanks for the detailed critique of my electron
model and further information on your model. It’s a lot to reply to
so first I’ll start with one question about your electron
model.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Your electron model still doesn’t explicitly
contain the relationship Lwavelength = h/(gamma mc) for the
wavelength of your helically circulating photon, derived from hf=
hc/Lwavelength = gamma m c^2 . Your photon’s constant-radius helical
trajectory has a continuously DECREASING helically turning frequency
as the energy of the electron increases. Your model's helical
turning frequency decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron
energy, while its turning period T increases directly proportional
to gamma. This implies that the length of one complete helical turn
in your relativistic model is Lturn = gamma Lcompton). This means
that with increasing gamma for your electron model, more and
more of your helically moving photon's wavelengths of value
Lwavelength = h/(gamma mc) = Lcompton/gamma are included on a single
helical turn of length Lturn = gamma Lcompton of your helically
moving photon. The number N of wavelengths per helical turn in your
model moving with relativistic speed given by gamma can be seen
easily to be N= Lturn/Lwavelength = (gamma Lcompton)/
(Lcompton/gamma) = gamma^2 . So if two people observe your electron
model go by with two different high energies (say gamma = 10 and
gamma = 100, the person observing the gamma=10 electron go by will
count 10^2 = 100 photon wavelengths per helical turn of your photon
while the second person, observing the gamma = 100 electron go
by, will count 100^2 = 10,000 photon wavelengths per helical turn of
your model (not counting the factor of 1/2 in helical turns per
photon wavelength due to zitterbewegung double-looping). In my
spin-1/2 charged photon model, the number N of helical turns per
wavelength is INDEPENDENT of gamma and always equals 1/2 helical
turn per photon wavelength (including the zitterbewegung
double-looping factor.) To me (and perhaps to others?) your
N=gamma^2 result doesn’t make physical sense so I want to confirm
with you that this result is in fact implied by your model. This
result alone could disconfirm your model if it doesn’t make physical
sense. Also in your model I still don’t see why the constant spin
1/2 of the orbital motion of the photon would not for very large
gamma simply add to the intrinsic spin of the photon (either spin 1
or spin 1/2), whose spin vector is directed essentially
longitudinally like that of the spin 1/2 orbital motion, to give a
total relativistic electron-model spin 1 1/2 or spin 1 respectively
. Please let me know. Thanks.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>Hi Richard (et al.),<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>I feel I need to address your reference to my
constant-radius electron model with your inference as to its
apparently increasing spin angular momentum with increasing
velocity.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>There is actually
no paradox there – in fact a clue as to the resolution of this
issue is hidden in your own candidate
photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>First I’d like to query that electron model of yours,
based as you say on a “spin-1/2 charged photon”.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I have no problem
with the spin-1/2 bit: as we know, the spin-1 (+ or -)
characteristic of a photon is a consequence of its own circular
polarisation, clockwise or anticlockwise.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>So it follows that
a plane polarised photon, being an equal combination of + & -
circularly-polarised elements, will not exhibit any such spin;
likewise an elliptically polarised photon, consisting of unequal
parts of + & - polarisation, will somewhere between 0 and
+/-1, depending on its eccentricity.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>So spin-1/2 is a
distinct possibility for a photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>I’m not clear, though, on what’s meant by a “charged
photon”.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I don’t know of
any entities arising from Maxwell’s equations that fit that
term.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Indeed, it’s
increasingly apparent that the phenomenon referred to as ‘static
charge’ is itself an artefact arising from the electromagnetic
fields that form a ‘charged’ particle.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I fully agree with
John W & Martin vdM on this* – more than that, I believe it
would be pretty well impossible to explain experimental findings
showing the wavelike nature of an electron without this being the
case.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>[* Also that this
formative photon must necessarily be circularly
polarised.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>If one talks of a ‘charged photon’, presumably the
photon itself is still an electromagnetic
construct?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In which case we
have an electromagnetic construct with an electric charge attached
to it (?) – two quite different electromagnetic constructs
combined within the same entity (if I’ve misunderstood this
completely, please put me right).<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In this case,
what’s the mechanism that persuades that charge to follow the
interference-guided waveform to its destination in the
Davisson/Germer experiment?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I just can’t see
how it would work, on a number of fronts. Surel that
'charge' must itself be wave-lie - so it's just part of the photon
wave?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>The other thing that’s quite puzzling is: when photons
(possibly virtual) are added into the electron to accelerate it,
do they have to be these ‘charged photons’ as
well?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If so, where do
they come from?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If not, why
not? How do 'non-charged' photons combine with a 'charged'
photon to increase its frequency?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>With regard to my own model, as you say it of course
conforms with the energy-momentum relation.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>It also creates
the phenomenon experienced as ‘electric charge’ as an artefact of
the time-varying electromagnetic field effects of its formative
photon.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Those same
effects, internally to the electron, interfere with one another
(non-linearly, of course – so not coherent superposition) to
create curvature in the photon path which, once initiated, is
self-perpetuating; hence the ‘confinement’ of the
photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>It’s clear that the linear momentum of the cyclic
photon, completing one wavelength in a double-loop (as per
zitterbewegung), gives the static electron an angular momentum
equivalent to spin-1/2.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The intrinsic spin
of the photon itself (being circularly polarised) will balance
itself out over one cycle, contributing no additional spin to the
electron.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Additional energy,
leading to motion of the electron, will be plane polarised* – this
is apparent from other considerations, notably in relation to
gravitational effects (which fit very well with this model as
extended electromagnetic effects of ‘massive’ objects), as well as
non-increasing charge.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>[* This isn’t in any way a limitation on the energies
that might accelerate an electron; it’s anticipated that the
structure of any elementary particle would be self-regulated by
interference effects that would mediate the energy exchange
between particles – both particles generally obeying matching
constraints.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Thus energy
exchanges would be in the form of plane polarised
waves.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>This leads to a formative photon for an electron that
becomes progressively more elliptical in its polarisation as the
electron increases its speed.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>It should be
apparent that the increasing linear component of the formative
photon itself thus has a decreasing degree of angular
momentum.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>From this it
should in turn be apparent that: (a) the formative photon should
asymptotically approach plane polarisation as the speed of the
electron approaches c (and the photon path approaches the
unattainable ‘flatline’ state); (b) the decreasing degree of
circular polarisation will match the decreasing proportion of that
photon acting cyclically, as opposed to linearly – so maintaining
the balance between the reducing spin angular momentum of that
photon and the compensating cyclical component of photon motion;
(c) the linear momentum of the photon will contribute an unvarying
element of angular momentum (at constant radius) to the
electron (translating into a constant spin-1/2, regardless of
electron speed), as already noted.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>As electron speed approaches arbitrarily close to c,
its formative photon approaches arbitrarily close to a flatlining
plane polarised form – whilst still maintaining a helical
constant-radius path over an arbitrarily long cycle interval,
matched by an arbitrarily high frequency such that the two combine
to give a cyclic momentum component which gives a constant
spin-1/2 at all electron speeds.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>In contrast to all other models seen, this proposed
electron structure requires absolutely no add-ons or modifications
to known features of a photon; the proposal of self-interference
as a mechanism for ‘confinement’ of the looping photon seems
virtually axiomatic, given the well-verified phenomenon of pair
production from two linear photons with no apparent injection of
any additional props.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Not least, this
model with<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>its invariant loop radius
for its formative photon offers a comprehensive detailed
explanation for ALL phenomena grouped under the heading of Special
Relativity (including, as Albrecht has observed, but not just,
time dilation in accordance with Lorentz
factor).<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>More than this, it offers a cogent and robust rationale
for the phenomenon referred to as ‘gravitation’, including a full
explanation for the highly useful concept of ‘curved spacetime’ as
a tool for calculating trajectories through areas of space subject
to influences from massive bodies in motion.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Not least, it
offers a fully coherent rationale for the phenomenon that we know
as ‘time’, in a formulation that fits precisely with all known
experimental and other empirical findings. To cover
ALL these bases without having to introduce ANY new concepts
would, I believe, warm the heart of William of
Ockham.</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>Just to push the boat out a little further, this model
also gives a sensible explanation of 'quantum indeterminacy' -
without either of the antiquated myths of exponentially-increasing
alternative universes OR 'God playing dice' (I'm with Einstein on
the latter of these).</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>========</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">-----
Original Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228)"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><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><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday, January 16, 2017
2:27 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] Reply to
Chip on particle radius & spin</DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Hello
Chip, Grahame, Vivian, John W, Alex, Hodge and others,</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
Alex, congratulations on your latest “bag model” article on
arXiv. Do you have any suggestions on how we can get on arXiv?
Does your bag model’s radius change by increasing the model's
speed relativistically? Someone in an<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://academia.edu/">Academia.edu</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>article discussion group
I am in asked me if I had heard of your work. I was pleased to say
“yes”.</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
The below diagram (figure 1 in my SPIE article at<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>) represents the
relationships among momentum, energy and velocity for the
relativistic spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron. The
figure also applies to some other helical photon-like object
models of the relativistic electron because the total photon-like
object’s momentum P=gamma mc is the hypotenuse of a momentum
triangle where p=gamma mv is the longitudinal component of the
photon-like object's momentum (and equals the the momentum of the
relativistic electron being modeled), while mc is the transverse
component of the photon-like object’s total momentum P=gamma mc,
as shown by the pythagorean formula P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 .
Since P=E/c for the photon-like object, where the
energy of the helically-moving photon-like object is E=gamma
mc^2 , the 90-degree momentum triangle relating P, p and mc
corresponds to the relativistic energy-momentum equation for an
electron: E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 as is evident if you just
substitute P=E/c into the momentum triangle formula P^2 =
p^2 + (mc)^2 .</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
If the above momentum triangle relationship is agreed for
all our helical models of the relativistic electron , the only
quantitative difference among Graham’s, Vivian’s, Chip’s and my
helical photon models in this regard is the helical radius R's
dependence on gamma, compared to the resting electron’s trajectory
radius Ro=hbar/2mc (shown by the oval’s transverse radius at the
left end of the figure). My spin-1/2 charged photon model
predicts<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>that the helical radius R
is given by R=Ro/gamma^2 = hbar/(2mc gamma^2) as shown in the
figure, (which equals 1/2 in this diagram where the value
used for gamma in the diagram<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>is gamma = sqrt(2)
= 1.414 so also v= c/sqrt(2) = 0.707c in the diagram. The value of
theta in the figure is therefore 45 degrees. Grahame’s electron
model predicts that R=Ro for all values of gamma. Vivian predicts
that R=Ro/gamma which would equal 0.707 Ro in this example.
I’m not sure what Chip’s model predicts for the radius of
the helically trajectory (I think it is R=Ro/gamma) which however
is not necessarily the same as the radius of the helically moving
photon-like object itself. Chip, Vivian and I seem to agree that
the photon radius decreases as R=Ro/gamma for highly relativistic
values of gamma, while Grahame doesn’t as far as I know have a
prediction for the radius of a photon-like object (as distinct for
his prediction of the constant radius of the trajectory of the
photon-like object of Ro for all values of gamma. </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
In Graham’s electron model, the orbital value alone for the
angular momentum is always mc x Ro = hbar/2 even at highly
relativistic velocities. Any additional angular momentum such as
spin-1 or even spin-1/2 of the helically-moving photon would add a
component of this spin at highly relativistic velocities to this
orbital angular momentum value of hbar/2, giving a total
z-component of spin greater than hbar/2 at highly relativistic
velocities, which is contrary to experiment. Chip also doesn’t
seem to take into account the spin of the photon-like object
itself in his calculation of the total spin of his relativistic
model of the photon as the electron’s momentum increases, which
forces him to decrease the radius of his photon model as Ro/gamma
(as I understand him)<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>to keep the total spin of
his electron model equal to hbar/2. But it is clear from the
diagram that the transverse momentum component of the circulating
photon-like object remains mc even at highly relativistic electron
values, so his calculated value of orbital spin should actually
decrease if his R decreases with increasing gamma.</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
I would also like to know if John W agrees with the momentum
right triangle relations here for a relativistic electron model. I
believe that he thinks that the radius of a photon decreases as
1/gamma from various energy considerations. And Hodge? John
M?</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
Richard</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<HR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 13.5pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Figure
1. Velocity, momentum and energy relationships for the
charged photon model moving along its helical trajectory. The
velocity and momentum </SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 13.5pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">vectors of
the charged photon and its components related to the electron
being modeled are indicated.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>