<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
..shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE><!--
/* 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 Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;
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;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have great regard for Einstein (as
I do also for others of his time) - but I don't hold him in the
unquestioning quasi-religious reverence that the mainstream physics community
seems to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Just as one example, I'm deeply
concerned that the one hailed as the greatest genius of the last millenium,
given that he highlighted the root cause of Brownian Motion, was fixated on the
idea that Fizeau's results for speed of light in a fluid were pretty
conclusive evidence in favour of SR (think about it for a second or
two)! This strikes me as remarkably symptomatic of tunnel
vision.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Since every phenomenon claimed as
supportive of SR * is (necessarily) explainable without reference to SR,
what support is there, exactly, for this claimed metaphysical property of the
cosmos? [* In the sense of objective inertial frame
symmetry.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Just a thought,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>========</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:38
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Fwd:
half-photons??</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal>Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I concur that the relativity of Lorentz and Poincare are
more causal and therefore I prefer this approach. It seems to me that SR has
adopted too many assumptions and arbitrary conclusions without offering
explanation for cause of these twists and additions to the theory of
relativity.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>While you and I have followed different approaches to
derive our respective models, we have come to many of the same
conclusions. Much of the difference in our models is actually a matter
of semantics, with a few physical differences.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I think that this is because the data, the information
available, is leading us to the same eventual solution. We each see part
of the puzzle now, but finally when humans can see more of the puzzle, it will
become clearer, more in focus.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Albrecht Giese<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 01,
2017 4:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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>
<P>Hi André, hi Chip and hi All,<o:p></o:p></P>
<P>now as there is so much about relativity here I would like to contribute
also my comment about it.<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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".
<o:p></o:p></P>
<P>So, there are no axiomatic assumptions needed for SR, but SR can be based
on physical facts which are known otherwise. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P>Best regards<BR>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Am 01.11.2017 um 19:29 schrieb André
Michaud:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">Hi Chip,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">As you might expect
from my previous statement, I have an unusual view of time dilation and
length contraction.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">I discussed time
dilation and length contraction a little with Richard I think. At least I
gave him my general opinion.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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 style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">I always tended to keep
axiomatic assumptions at arm's length, not even meaning that they are
useless or always misleading.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">That about summarizes
what I think on these issues.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman , serif',serif">Best
Regards</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif"><BR>---<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif">André
Michaud<BR>GSJournal admin<BR><A
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</A><BR><A
href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</A>
<BR><BR></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>