<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>BODY {
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></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>Dear Vivian (et al.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>On looking back over my email
(below) just sent, I'm concerned that my reference to "those who use
language in such a way as to bolster their arguments" might possibly be
misconstrued as a reference to yourself. Please be assured that this was
not my intention, I certainly don't regard you as having done this, I fully
appreciate that your usage was to describe a particular situation rather than to
justify a line of argument. My point about precise use of language stands,
and of course applies to all of us; my point about misuse of words to strengthen
an argument was with reference to a wholly hypothetical situation which I cannot
imagine applying to anyone in this group.</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"
dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=grahame@starweave.com href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame
Blackwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=viv@universephysics.com
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Viv Robinson</A> ; <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> Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:58
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General]
half-photons??</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Vivian,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Thanks for your reply.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>First and foremost I need to say that I haven’t <B>ever</B> “chosen
to misrepresent” you; that’s the sort of emotive language that I find quite
unhelpful.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To make assumptions
regarding the intentions of others, and then state those assumptions as fact,
is always a risky business!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I
have simply described my understanding of what you have said as it seems to me
– and hopefully always made it clear that this is what I’m doing.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[Why on earth would I <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">choose</I></B> to misrepresent
you?]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Second, with regard to my being “pedantic” over your choice of
words: as I’ve said, I’m quite relaxed over the use of “crumpled” (though I
see it quite differently); however I cannot be so casual about your use of the
word “requires” when your proposed ‘requirement’ is in fact just one of at
least two options.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For me this
goes right to the heart of scientific rigour: if, for example, a medical
researcher stated that onset of a particular medical condition ‘requires’ an
elevated temperature of five degrees above the norm, when in fact under some
circumstances this need not be the case, the consequences could be
catastrophic.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every branch
of science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’d go so far as to
say that I wouldn’t be able to have a meaningful discussion with anyone who
used language in such a way to bolster their own scientific arguments.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Certainly a view of the nature of
Relativity, or of the structure of photons, that (in my view) misuses language
in this way would be of absolutely no interest to me.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If this makes me a pedant then, yes, I
plead guilty as charged – and I believe that science would be the worse for it
if others investigating fundamental aspects of our universe didn’t take the
same view.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>I agree 100% with your proposal that the circulating-photon model
of an electron (at a constant light-speed) accounts fully for observed
phenomena attributed to Relativity; this is a point that Chip and I have both
been quite vocal about pretty much since we each joined this group (as I
understand your position on this Chip – forgive me if that’s incorrect in any
way) and that I’ve been writing about for nigh on 20 years.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This causes a changed
perception/experience of time, distance and object dimensions precisely in
line with the observations that are put down to Relativity.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In this respect Relativity <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> a thing, and it’s fully
explainable as such.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>However this explanation stops short – <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">well</I></B> short – of supporting the
proposal that spacetime is of itself, by its nature, ‘relativistic’ – i.e.
that all inertial states of motion are equivalent, that there is no one unique
such state of motion that can be termed ‘objectively static’, from which all
other states of motion may be measured.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In fact, it renders such a proposal superfluous, since all observed
phenomena can be fully explained without introducing this additional
constraint on the nature of reality.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>[I include in this the apparent reciprocity of ‘relativistic’ effects,
which can be derived directly from this particle model.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>It is <B><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">that</I></B>
‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective equivalence of all inertial states
of motion – for which I see absolutely <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">no</I></B> causation proposed (I'm talking
generally here, not just about your work).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Certainly the circling-photon model
(on which we appear to be agreed) offers no causal explanation for such a
proposed phenomenon – at the same time as explaining very clearly why such a
proposal is unnecessary to explain ‘relativistic’
effects.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>So, then: I thoroughly applaud both experimental evidence and
mathematical rationale in support of any theory – and (as I observed to John
W) I have never questioned either of these in respect of SR or GR, in fact I
have endorsed them to the hilt.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>However, what I am saying, and what is fully supported by logical
analysis of the circling-photon particle model, is that these experiments and
math are respectively illustrating and documenting <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">perceived</I></B> reality rather than
<B><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">objective</I></B> reality.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If one recognises that effects
attributed to Relativity are, in the main, <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">observer</I></B> effects (including
mechanical/atomic ‘observers’ such as clocks), coupled with objective
consequences such as the electromagnetic foreshortening of objects in motion
(Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction), then in my view we have a pretty complete
theory!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Where we come a-cropper is when we (i.e. mainstream science) insist
on tacking on a wholly unnecessary ‘addendum’ to the effect that reality <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> in fact that strange place that
our motion-affected senses and instruments tell us it is – that this train
<B><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> longer (not just <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">seems</I></B> longer) for the guard on it
than it is for the trackside workman, that your watch <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> going slow in respect of my
reference frame whilst at the same time mine <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> going slow in respect of your
reference frame.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>This distinction between ‘seems’ and ‘is’ may appear to be a bit
irrelevant, but in fact it’s absolutely crucial if we’re to progress in our
practical understanding of the universe.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>From inertia to gravitation, from our handling of time to our handling
of space (and so arguably for the future viability of our species), every new
physical theory is required to conform to this frame-invariance
constraint.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since that constraint
on physical laws is arguably totally illusory, we are (it very much seems to
me) placing unnecessary obstacles in our path to future discovery and
endeavour – ultimately, in our path to the stars.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P></DIV><!--[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></BODY></HTML>