<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi André, hi Chip and hi All,</p>
<p>now as there is so much about relativity here I would like to
contribute also my comment about it.</p>
<p>Einstein has developed SR from the requirement to explain the
constancy of the speed of light c in all inertial systems (which
he called a "principle"). So he has made assumptions about space
and time and with these assumptions he developed his SR on a
purely mathematical basis. <br>
</p>
<p>There was earlier asked the question here whether SR can also be
deduced on a basis of causality. This is clearly true and was done
(prior to Einstein) by Lorentz and Poincare. <br>
</p>
<p>In 1888 Oliver Heaviside deduced from Maxwell's equations that a
field in motion necessarily contracts. (This was later deduced for
all kinds of forces.) Lorentz concluded that if fields contract
also objects must contract. This insight was then titled the
"Lorentz contraction". So, contraction was explained by cause. For
dilation Lorentz and / or Poincare found out that this can be
explained by the assumption that on the lowest level of matter,
i.e. the elementary particles, there is a permanent motion with c.
From both assumptions, Heaviside and Lorentz/Poincare the gamma
factor follows, in the case of dilation very simply geometrically
(Pythagoras). The internal motion in particles with c was later
independently deduced by Dirac and Schrödinger specifically for
the electron and given the name "Zitterbewegung". <br>
</p>
<p>So, there are no axiomatic assumptions needed for SR, but SR can
be based on physical facts which are known otherwise. <br>
</p>
<p>I do not see a specific relation to the Coulomb law. This is not
plausible; among others arguments by the fact that the dominant
force in elementary particles is not the electrical force but the
strong force. <br>
</p>
<p>And how can the increase of mass be explained? I have presented
earlier (in this group and in San Diego) a particle model which
explains among other properties inertia. According to this model
the mass of an elementary particle is universally given by m =
h(bar)/(c*R) where R is the radius of the particle. Now the
relativistic increase is very simple: In motion the quantity R
decreases by the factor gamma and so the mass increases by gamma.
<br>
</p>
<p>We have discussed all this earlier at this place but I thought I
should recall it here in this stage of the discussion.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 01.11.2017 um 19:29 schrieb André
Michaud:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201711011829.vA1ITRa8021858@mail70c0.megamailservers.com">
<title></title>
<div class="userStyles" style=" font-family: Arial; font-size:
12pt; color: #000000;">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">Hi Chip,</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">As you might expect
from my previous statement, I have an unusual view
of time dilation and length contraction.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">Not that I think
that SR is not be self-consistent or that it has
no uses, but I think that its doesn't completely
address high relativistic velocities or very close
charges proximity, in the latter case due to an
issue with the concept of momentum when
translational velocities are hindered.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">I find SR as good
as classical Newton in the non-relativistic range,
which covers all needs at the macroscopic level,
given that zero momentum kinetic energy is the
asymptotic limit from which energy is induced
according to the gamma factor by the Coulomb
force, and I find that it only partially addresses
energy induction in the relativistic range
(momentum correctly calculated, but no account
taken of the related mass increase). </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">I discussed time
dilation and length contraction a little with
Richard I think. At least I gave him my general
opinion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">I do not dispute
either the validity of having derived the gamma
factor from strict geometric and trigonometric
considerations. I find it a clean derivation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">What I think is the
problem is the axiomatic assumption that the
concepts of time dilation and length contraction
logically emerge simply from the fact that the
method brings into play velocities (thus time and
space "seconds and meters") by plugging a
velocities ratio into the otherwise dimensionless
gamma factor. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">We tend not to pay
attention to this particularity, but if you think
about it, these dimensions simplify completely out
of the gamma factor whatever calculation you
involve it in, just like dimensionless constants
such as alpha.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">What I mean is that
time dilation and length contraction are axiomatic
assumptions, not conclusions drawn from prior
experimentally collected and analyzed data,
contrary to the data collected by Kaufmann that
relates the gamma factor to kinetic and mass
energy induction in the accelerating electron.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">I always tended to
keep axiomatic assumptions at arm's length, not
even meaning that they are useless or always
misleading.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">As for how I
understand the manner in which kinetic energy
accumulates in accelerating (and even in
accelerated "meaning stabilized in some least
action equilibrium state") charged particles, I
see this energy as separate from the energy
quantum making up the actual invariant rest mass
of the electron, that is, as its "carrying-energy"
or "carrier-photon", because from my
understanding, it structures as a completely
normal electromagnetic photon, but one that is
stuck with the job of carrying "on its back",
metaphorically speaking, the inert mass of the
translationally inert electron quantum.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">I explain this idea
in the paper titled "From Classical to
Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell". It stems in
direct line from a derivation made by Paul Marmet
from the Biot-Savart equation; a derivation that
demonstrates that the magnetic field of an
accelerating electron increases synchronously with
its velocity, which directly matches Kaufmann's
figures.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">That about
summarizes what I think on these issues.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span
style="line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif"">Best Regards</span></span></span></span></span></span><br>
---</p>
<footer class="signatureDivContainer">
<footer class="signatureContainer" style="display:inline;">André
Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</a></footer>
</footer>
<footer class="replyforwardcontainer"><br>
<br>
<i>On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:58:19 -0500, "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com>
wrote:</chipakins@gmail.com></i><br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css"><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.a-size-large
{mso-style-name:a-size-large;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Andre<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Your
statements are very interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I had taken
for granted the aspect of kinetic energy being imparted
by the Coulomb force, and not looked into it carefully.
I will do that. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Your comment
… “So to me, "relativity" simply relates to the fact
that energy is induced non-linearly (according to the
gamma factor) with velocity of charged particles by the
Coulomb force, or with proximity between charge
particles also due to the Coulomb force. It has no other
implications from my perspective.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Has me
wondering then, regarding your view on length
contraction, time dilation, and how the excess kinetic
energy is stored in accelerated particles in your view?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Warm Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip Akins<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>André Michaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Fwd: half-photons??<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">Hi Chip,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">Thank you for your welcoming
message. I remember that we crossed paths before on
ResearchGate, but I don't recall the specifics.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">You really are going to the crux
of the matter with this question "How do you view and
understand the causes for “relativity”?"</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">Fist time I have to actually
answer it so directly.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">Contrary to most (seems to me,
from decades of interaction with others) my first
contact with relativity was through a book by Henri
Poincare "La science et l'hypothèse", which led me
directly to study the experiments carried out by
Walter Kaufmann that Max Abraham interpreted, both of
whom, I learned much later, got the gamma factor idea
from Woldemar Voigt with whom Abraham had contacts,
and who seems to have been to first to establish the
concept. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">From Kaufmann's experiments with
relativistic electrons in a bubble chamber, the gamma
factor simply gives the exact measure of how much
kinetic energy is induced in accelerating charged
particles with velocity as they are accelerated by the
ambient electric and magnetic fields he used to
control the moving electrons during his experiments,
as demonstrated by his results, half of which converts
to a velocity related momentary mass increment which
is measurable transversally, which is what the
Kaufmann experiments demonstrate,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">Only later did I study Einstein's
SR concept grounded on the idea that the gamma factor
applies to time dilation and length contraction. Since
I already was in agreement with Abraham and Poincare's
views about the Kaufmann experiment, I always stuck
with this view as matching more closely physical
reality.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">So to me, "relativity" simply
relates to the fact that energy is induced
non-linearly (according to the gamma factor) with
velocity of charged particles by the Coulomb force, or
with proximity between charge particles also due to
the Coulomb force. It has no other implications from
my perspective.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="color:black">I know that the very idea that the
Coulomb force induces physically existing kinetic
energy in charges appears strange to most, but I found
that so much can be explained with this idea that I
just can't see how physical reality could be
otherwise. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best
Regards ---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:18:58 -0700, Richard
Gauthier wrote:</i><br>
<br>
Hi Andrew, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">I
forwarded the following from Chip on the discussion
list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Begin
forwarded message:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"Chip
Akins" <<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Subject:
Re: [General] half-photons??</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Date:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">October
31, 2017 at 4:00:37 AM PDT</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">To:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"'Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
<<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Reply-To:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Andre<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I
am delighted that you might participate in
our discussion group. I have read some of
your work and comments on ResearchGate and
find you to be a thoughtful, intelligent
contributor to the process of discovery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thank
you for forwarding some of your thoughts
through Richard. I am hoping you will join
our group so that we can all benefit from
your insights as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As
you have pointed out, the postulate that “<i>Absolute
uniform motion cannot be detected by any
means.</i>” Does not mean that “<i>the
concept of absolute rest and the ether
have no meaning</i>”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For
if matter is made of energy, and energy
always takes the propagating form, whether
as light or confined to create matter, then
it would be very difficult indeed for us to
detect our motion through the medium
(ether). This situation would also cause the
appearance of relativity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So,
there is another view, which is more causal
than Einstein’s, where “relativity”<b>is the
result of the medium of space</b>and the
way energy creates matter and light.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Is
this your opinion as well? How do you view
and understand the causes for “relativity”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">General
[<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<b>On
Behalf Of</b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b>Friday, October 27, 2017
3:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion <<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b>André Michaud <<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">srp2@srpinc.org</span></a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>Re: [General]
half-photons??</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<h1 style="margin-top:0in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">Hello
Grahame, Vivian, Chip, John W, Martin,
Andrew and all,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top:0in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal">Here
are forwarded some more thoughtful
comments/responses from</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#EFF3F6;font-weight:normal">André</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal">that I think
are relevant to your SR discussions.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-bottom:24.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal">Richard</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top:0in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">André:</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top:0in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top:0in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;font-weight:normal"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#428BCA">http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">I
find it very well done and indeed clearly
explaining SR and its origins.</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal"><span
style="background:#F8F8F8">Here are some
remarks that came to mind as I read it:</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">In my own
book (</span></span><span
class="a-size-large"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#111111;font-weight:normal">Electromagnetic
Mechanics of Elementary Particles: 2nd
Edition--Richard</span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">),
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><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal"><span
style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">Second,
whatever opinion these two observers may
have about the velocity of light will not
change its actual physical velocity.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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></span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;font-weight:normal"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#428BCA">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal"><span
style="background:#F8F8F8">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></span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;font-weight:normal"><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="
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#428BCA">http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;background:#F8F8F8;font-weight:normal">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>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#4B4B4B;font-weight:normal"><span
style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">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><br>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">Best
Regards,</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:#F8F8F8">André</span></span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">On Oct 26, 2017,
at 4:32 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">grahame@starweave.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Dear
Vivian (et al.)</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">On
looking back over my email
(below)just sent, I'm concernedthat
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.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best
regards,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">-----
Original Message -----</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;orphans:
auto;text-align:start;widows:
auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">Dr
Grahame Blackwell</span></a></span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" title="viv@universephysics.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">Viv
Robinson</span></a>;<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">Nature of
Light and Particles - General
Discussion</span></a></span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Thursday,
October 26, 2017 11:58 PM</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Re:
[General] half-photons??</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Dear Vivian,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Thanks for your
reply.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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.To make
assumptions regarding the
intentions of others, and then
state those assumptions as fact,
is always a risky business!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.[Why
on earth would I<b><i>choose</i></b>to
misrepresent you?]</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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.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.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Many parallel
situations can be envisaged, in
almost every branch of
science.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.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.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.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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.This causes a
changed perception/experience of
time, distance and object
dimensions precisely in line
with the observations that are
put down to Relativity.In this
respect Relativity<b><i>is</i></b>a
thing, and it’s fully
explainable as such.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">However this
explanation stops short –<b><i>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.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.[I include in
this the apparent reciprocity of
‘relativistic’ effects, which
can be derived directly from
this particle model.]</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">It is<b><i>that</i></b>‘Principle
of Relativity’ – the objective
equivalence of all inertial
states of motion – for which I
see absolutely<b><i>no</i></b>causation
proposed (I'm talking generally
here, not just about your
work).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.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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.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>perceived</i></b>reality
rather than<b><i>objective</i></b>reality.If
one recognises that effects
attributed to Relativity are, in
the main,<b><i>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!</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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>is</i></b>in fact
that strange place that our
motion-affected senses and
instruments tell us it is – that
this train<b><i>is</i></b>longer
(not just<b><i>seems</i></b>longer)
for the guard on it than it is
for the trackside workman, that
your watch<b><i>is</i></b>going
slow in respect of my reference
frame whilst at the same time
mine<b><i>is</i></b>going slow
in respect of your reference
frame.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
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.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.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.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Grahame</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><br>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><span
style="background:white"><a
href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><br>
<span style="background:white">Click
here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span style="background:white"></a></span></span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><br>
<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a
href="</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</footer>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>