<!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"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm so very glad that you also see
the illusory (subjective) nature of (perceived) inertial frame symmetry - if
there are two of us then that doubles the possibility that ultimately scientists
everywhere will see the illusion of the false barrier that they have imposed on
themselves! For me it is like one of those 'optical illusions' - a picture
that at first looks like one thing but is actually something else: once you see
the true picture then you cannot NOT see it!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>My book is available in hard copy
only at present (I have plans to convert it to e-book format, but that will take
some while), at:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://transfinitemind.com/atomsindex.php">http://transfinitemind..com/atomsindex.php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[I haven't put it on Amazon as they
want most of the payment for doing almost none of the work!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>It is deliberately written in a form
that's accessible to non-technical readers, with more technical detail for those
who can handle it. Just as Relativity itself has been popularised, I
believe that this insight into the mechanisms behind Relativity should also be
available to all - without any loss of scientific stringency.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With regard to gravitation: In my
book I show in detail how gravitation can be fully explained as an artefact of
the gross electrical charge on every material particle. I say 'gross' as
opposed to 'net' since, for example, a neutron which carries a net zero charge
actually carries a combination of positive and negative charges in its
constituent quarks. If one takes every subatomic particle right down to
its formative electromagnetic (photonic) energy, then in general that energy
will be a combination of clockwise and anticlockwise circularly polarised
components (as every photon is). If, as seems very likely, one of these
gives rise to positive residual charge and the other to negative residual
charge, then it follows that the total gross (unsigned ) charge on any material
charge will be directly proportional to its total energetic content - and so
also to its total mass. The fact that, for example, a proton has far
greater mass than an electron but equal net charge is then explained by the
principle that the proton is formed from almost equal proportions of clockwise
and anticlockwise polarised photonic energy, giving positive and negative
charges that largely cancel each other out - so giving a net charge that appears
small in relation to its mass.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This is all explained in my book,
also in my video at:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdTIb06zEQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdTIb06zEQ</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(Presented in a non-technical style,
but fully authentic scientifically with simple supporting maths.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>There's also an article on my website
at:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://transfinitemind.com/gravworks.php">http://transfinitemind.com/gravworks.php</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(You'll need to login.
Username: xxxxx , password: xxxxx)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>My fundamental premise re gravity is
that the unit attractive force between unlike charges is marginally greater than
the unit repelling force between like charges - that marginal difference is what
we refer to as 'gravitation' [Note that this is NOT the difference between
positive and negative, but the difference between attraction and repulsion; I
see very good possible reasons for this]. I show mathematically how this
would generate the appearance of equal and opposite attractive/repelling effects
(proportional to net charges) plus a separate 'gravitational' effect
(proportional to masses), less by many orders of magnitude. I propose that
these are in fact mutual interference effects between non-linear time-varying
electromagnetic fields, the spatially extended fields of the electromagnetic
waves (photons) forming material particles of which we perceive/experience only
the localised 'cores'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The mathematics involved are quite
simple; I don't attempt to show mathematically how those electromagnetic fields
produce precisely the values of g as measured - any more than others have
attempted to illustrate how material particles produce exactly the charge
effects that they do. Neither do I seek to express this in the tensor
calculus of GR, not least because that calculus implicitly assumes frame
symmetry (Chip appears to consider my maths lacking because of this - one might
similarly berate Copernicus for not framing his heliocentric view of our solar
system in terms of the mathematics of epicycles.) In my view the
mathematical rationale that I have laid out provides a full and coherent
proof-of-concept for this perspective on gravitation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I describe how this would create a
'texture' to the fabric of space, varying dynamically with the motion of massive
bodies - hence gravity is a 'spacetime' phenomenon. That 'texture'
consists of varying densities of electromagnetic field according to proximity of
massive bodies - that variation in density (with its associated tiny
predominance of attraction over repulsion) gives the effect of 'curvature', i.e.
gradients in the fabric of spacetime.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In an article I published around 10
years ago I refer to electromagnetic energies (light and massive particles)
moving in some sort of 3-dimensional 'substrate' beyond our direct perception;
this would correspond, of course, to what has been referred to as the
aether/ether. In fact, my earliest article, written almost 20 years ago
(before I had worked out the fine detail) was titled 'Return to the Luminiferous
Aether'. [This may correspond to what's referred to in some esoteric
literature as 'subtle matter' or 'subtle energy', I can't say.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Absolutely definitely my view of
gravitation is based on a fixed frame. Of course this is out of harmony
with the concept of frame symmetry - but I also explain that of course, since
frame symmetry is a perceptual illusion, an objective reality like gravity is
not actually required to be frame symmetric (contrary to popular
opinion)!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<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=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">Albrecht Giese</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 09, 2017 7:50 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Grahame,</P>
<P>so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my understanding.
<BR></P>
<P>Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it is in
the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only available as a hard
copy?</P>
<P>One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this is the
case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes something like an
ether? <BR></P>
<P>Best regards<BR>Albrecht<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:BC12E9C8F2864ED5AD7AAAA553BAC217@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'd agree with all that you say
here. I'd add just one reminder, of what we've talked about
before.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For the 'unique absolute rest
frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny in the light of experimental findings
of SR, it's not only necessary to show that an observer in a moving frame
would be led to believe from observation that their frame is static - it's
also necessary to show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME
degree of (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely
static frame as would be seen from that static frame in the observer's frame
(those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static
frame, they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their
OWN motion).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>To show that the moving observer
perceives themself as static is relatively (!!) easy; to show that they
perceive an actually-static frame as subject to relativistic effects takes a
little more thought - but it can be done, and shown to be so. [This is
what I have referred to previously as 'reciprocity'.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In addition, of course, it needs
to be - and CAN be - shown how EVERY experimental finding that's considered
to be evidence for frame symmetry can be fully explained without any need
for, or reference to, frame symmetry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>No paradoxes - just a little more
thought than most physicists appear to have wished to put into explaining
the 'how' of Relativity (which is what I always thought physics was actually
about - explaining the 'how'?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>All of this is shown in detail in
my latest book, published last year.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">Albrecht Giese</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Chip,</P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to understand
relativity in general and dilation in particular, if one assumes that
there is an absolute frame of rest, and that the motion with respect to
this frame causes (among other phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific
property of relativity that every observer in any inertial frame can
assume that his frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the
physical world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the absolute frame
at rest.</P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a proper use
of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why it is this way. It
is a bit of work to make these calculations, but it is possible and one
may say that this work is a necessity to understand special
relativity.</P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>Albrecht</P>
<P> </P><!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[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]--></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>