<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class="">Hello Grahame, Vivian, Chip, John W, Martin, Andrew and all,</span></span></h1><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class="">Here are forwarded some more thoughtful comments/responses from </span><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(239, 243, 246);" class="">André</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class=""> that I think are relevant to your SR discussions.</span></h1><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class=""> Richard<br class=""><br class=""></span></h1><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class="">André:</span></span></span></h1><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class="">Thank you for forwarding the discussion between Vivian, Grahame and Chip. I must say that over the years, I have come across most of similar comments about SR and various flavors of photon and electron inner structure proposals, either just reading about them or partaking in the discussions.</span></h1><h1 style="margin-top: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I appreciate you sending me such updates. Causes me to think of these issues from a fresh angle. Thank you for your offer to actively join the group, but I prefer to wait until one or other member wishes to exchange with me. As previously mentioned, I am quite happy just contributing my ideas to you, and let you be the judge of whether or not you communicate my thoughts in the meantime if you deem useful in context. As far as I am concerned, I am discussing with you personally, simply because you are interested in my opinion.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I have some comments of my own regarding SR. It seems to be generally assumed that SR is completely electromagnetism compliant. I was once presented with this paper by Richard E. Haskell, as giving the full derivation of all Maxwell's equations in addition to Lorentz force from special relativity and Coulomb's law:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br class=""><br class=""></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal;" class=""><a href="http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf" title="http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf" class=""><span style="color: rgb(66, 139, 202);" class="">http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf</span></a><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I find it very well done and indeed clearly explaining SR and its origins.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Here are some remarks that came to mind as I read it:</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">On page 10, Einstein's first postulate is stated as follows: Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means. The following conclusion by the author regarding this postulate seems to be totally inappropriate to me: "This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning." I fail to see how this conclusion can logically derive so straightforwardly from the stated first postulate.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">In my own book (</span></span></span><span class="a-size-large"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-weight: normal;" class="">Electromagnetic Mechanics of Elementary Particles: 2nd Edition--Richard</span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); font-weight: normal;" class="">), metaphorically speaking of course, as formulated, this first postulate is a totally arbitrary axiomatic assertion not grounded on experimentally observed data about physical reality. Consequently, it is an invalid premise to draw any conclusion about physical reality. Also, I am positive that absolute uniform motion of free electromagnetic energy in vacuum has been detected and confirmed out of any doubt. Its uniform velocity has also been derived by Maxwell from second partial derivatives of the equations of Ampere and Gauss, which themselves were established from experimental data 40 years before.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-weight: normal;" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">His second postulate (on page 10 also) (light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source), is in reality Maxwell's rightfully arrived at conclusion 40 years previously from the second partial derivatives from which he established the speed of light as being c, which is a conclusion that Einstein perfectly understood.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">In reality, this is not an axiomatic postulate as is being assumed, but a well established conclusion derived in direct line from equations themselves established from experimental data by Gauss and Ampere.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">So there is no requirement to "modify our ideas about the nature of time" as stated on page 10 to accommodate the confirmed fact that light travels at uniform velocity c in vacuum.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Then comes the description of two famous different inertial frames each with an observer, moving at different fixed velocities both stuck with the task of seeing the same light as moving at a constant velocity.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">First, naturally occurring inertial motion at fixed velocities of material bodies is impossible in physical reality, so my view is that this set up cannot possibly lead to any valid conclusions with respect to physical reality. If a body is not in immediate contact with another body, it will accelerate, so its velocity will constantly change. If in contact with another body, it will accelerate with this second body and its velocity will also constantly change.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Second, whatever opinion these two observers may have about the velocity of light will not change its actual physical velocity.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">You can see that the squared velocities ratio of the Lorentz factor is obtained from strictly mathematical geometric considerations established at equation (5) involving time to axiomatically associate the Lorentz factor to time with equation (6).</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">You will also observe the same establishment of the Lorentz gamma factor for the so-called "length contraction" with equation (14) strictly from geometric and algebraic consideration, which is not a derivation from physically obtained data, but from a construct obtained by establishing a geometric set up that will produce this relation between the "mathematical" concept of length and the gamma factor.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I must say here that most of my life, I had been convinced that the gamma factor proper had been derived from electromagnetic equations by Lorentz and not from this geometric/algebraic mathematical set up.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">The reason is that I have read so much material since the 50's that I didn't recall where I read about its derivation from electromagnetic equations, or even if this was a false memory. I tried to relocate the source after I derived it myself from an electromagnetic equation (equation 66 in the following paper, derived from equation 51, itself a conversion from strictly electromagnetic equation 34), to compare results, but couldn't re-locate it. I then assumed by default that it was Lorentz who had made the original derivation from electromagnetism and that I just did't succeed in re-locating the source document:</span><br class=""><br class=""></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal;" class=""><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell" title="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell" class=""><span style="color: rgb(66, 139, 202);" class="">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell</span></a><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">You can verify that from the electromagnetic perspective the "gamma factor" derived in this paper has nothing to do with length or time contraction, only with charged particles energy increase with velocity (and with proximity between charged particles according to the Coulomb law).</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I then investigated further and found that all past derivations of the gamma factor had been made from this geometric/algebraic set up that was initially established by Woldemar Voigt in 1887,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br class=""><br class=""></span><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=" title="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=" class=""><span style="color: rgb(66, 139, 202);" class="">http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=</span></a><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">who had epistolary contacts with Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare, who also are credited with developing the method. I finally relocated where I had gotten the idea that one of them had also derived it from electromagnetism.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">It was due to Walter Kaufmann's demonstration that the mass of the electron varied with velocity according to the relativistic equation during his experimentation leading to the identification of the transverse relativistic mass of moving electrons, that made use of the gamma factor developed from the geometry/algebraic method, but that finally no-one seemed to have actually derived the gamma factor directly from an electromagnetic equation, before my own derivation in the above paper.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">If on your side, you know of such a derivation directly from an electromagnetic equation, I would really appreciate a link to the paper, or a reference to the paper if not available online, so I can compare methods.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">All of this is meant to emphasize that this derivation of the gamma factor from an electromagnetic equation confirms that from the electromagnetism perspective, in physical reality the gamma factor is related strictly to energy increase with velocity of charged particles such as the electron, and under no circumstance to time dilation or so-called "length contraction".</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I place the word "so-called" before "length contraction", because there is a real problem with the very concept of length contraction when applied to physically existing bodies.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I occasionally give the following example to bring to mind the immense distances that separate all charged particles within the atoms of which every macroscopic body is made.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">If a hydrogen atom was upsized so that its central proton became as large as the Sun, then the electron would stabilize as far as Neptune's orbit, which would make a hydrogen atom as large as the whole solar system. This means that distances between the charged particles within atoms making up macroscopic bodies are relatively astronomical.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Given that all bodies are made of such empty structures, the very concept of "length" can be seen as meaningless with respect to its physical composition, and that what would be involved when the possible "length contraction" of a macroscopic body is considered, would really minimally be a "distance contraction" between the electronic escorts and the nuclei of the constituting atoms.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">This being said, such distance contraction would apply by structure not only to the length of macroscopic bodies, but also to their other dimensions, which are width and thickness.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Given the assertion that SR is deemed electromagnetism compliant, such shortening of the distances between electronic escorts and nuclei within bodies subjected to "length contraction" should involve a corresponding energy increase within the mass of the body due to the Coulomb law at play as a function of the inverse square of the contracting distances between charged electrons of the electronic escorts and the charged nuclei.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">But, nowhere in SR is there a provision for this energy increase in the contracting mass of bodies moving at relativistic velocities, which is a gaping hole in the SR theory that seems not to have attracted any attention.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">So, if SR does not account for this energy increase mandated by the Coulomb force, this means that SR is not Maxwell equations compliant, because Gauss's equation for the electric field, which is Maxwell's first equation, is a simple generalization of Coulomb's law, which seems not to be applicable to bodies sustaining length contraction according to SR.</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Well, I hope this makes some sense to you, and if you have input about a prior derivation of the gamma factor from an electromagnetic equation, I really would appreciate.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Best Regards,</span><br class=""><br class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">André</span></span></span></h1><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" class="">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class="">Dear Vivian (et al.)</font></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class=""></font> </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class="">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 style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class=""></font> </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class="">Best regards,</font></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" class="">Grahame</font></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">----- Original Message -----<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 128); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;" class="" type="cite"><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-family: arial; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="grahame@starweave.com" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" class="">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-family: arial;" class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="viv@universephysics.com" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class="">Viv Robinson</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</a></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-family: arial;" class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:58 PM</div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-family: arial;" class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] half-photons??</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Dear Vivian,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Thanks for your reply.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">First and foremost I need to say that I haven’t<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">ever</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>“chosen to misrepresent” you; that’s the sort of emotive language that I find quite unhelpful.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>To make assumptions regarding the intentions of others, and then state those assumptions as fact, is always a risky business!<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>[Why on earth would I<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">choose</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>to misrepresent you?]<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every branch of science.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>In this respect Relativity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">is</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>a thing, and it’s fully explainable as such.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">However this explanation stops short –<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">well</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>[I include in this the apparent reciprocity of ‘relativistic’ effects, which can be derived directly from this particle model.]<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">It is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">that</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective equivalence of all inertial states of motion – for which I see absolutely<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">no</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>causation proposed (I'm talking generally here, not just about your work).<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">perceived</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>reality rather than<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">objective</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>reality.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>If one recognises that effects attributed to Relativity are, in the main,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">observer</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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 class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">is</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in fact that strange place that our motion-affected senses and instruments tell us it is – that this train<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">is</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>longer (not just<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">seems</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>longer) for the guard on it than it is for the trackside workman, that your watch<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">is</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>going slow in respect of my reference frame whilst at the same time mine<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">is</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>going slow in respect of your reference frame.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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 class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Best regards,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Grahame</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;" class=""></span> </p></div></blockquote><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>