<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf [et al.],</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have no doubt that time is a
subjective experience of consciousness - that, as you say, the speed of light is
in fact the speed at which consciousness moves through 'instants' of reality,
i.e. as you put it: "<FONT color=#000000 size=3
face="Times New Roman">Einstein's constant becomes <FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial>[IS, in fact]</FONT> the speed of each observer's
"Now".</FONT>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I first presented this view myself 10
years ago in an article in published the journal of the Scientific & Medical
Network [Network Review, Issue 95, Dec 2007], in the following
words:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P
style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 6px 15px 0px"
class=MsoNormal><B><U><SPAN style="COLOR: #333399">The Role of Consciousness in
Time Perception</SPAN></U></B></P>
<P
style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 6px 15px 0px"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #333399">At any given instant in time a
snapshot of the physical state of the universe is given by the totality of the
leading edges (or wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up
all the particles and free energies in the universe at that time. (In
passing it's worth noting that this may have a bearing on Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle, since the 'position' of a fundamental sub-atomic particle
will at that instant be reduced to a single point in the cyclic path of the
energy flow forming that particle – which will vary in position and direction at
different points in that cycle.)</SPAN></P>
<P
style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 6px 15px 0px"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #333399">As time progresses successive
snapshots will be given by corresponding advances in each of those energy
flows. From the point of view of an eternal observer, unhampered by the
temporal limitation of observing only one instant at a time, each of those
energy flows will form a continuous thread weaving its way through space as it
also progresses through what we call 'time'.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 6px 15px 0px"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #333399">Almost certainly our perception of
three-dimensional space is a consciousness-mapping of some deeper reality, but
since we're built to think in these terms it makes sense to visualise that
succession of snapshots by some spatial analogy. A common model is to
think of a succession of frames from a cine film or video recording, but this
tends to lose the continuity of those energy flows. Perhaps a better model
is that of a four-dimensional spherical crystal, growing outwards from the
centre as time progresses (though of course from the eternal perspective that
crystal simply <B><I>is</I></B>).</SPAN></P>
<P
style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 6px 15px 0px"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #333399">Each instant in time is then an
infinitely thin three-dimensional layer of that hypersphere, like the layers of
an onion. The strands of light-energy snake outwards from the Source at
the centre, weaving their intricate patterns of successive instants of reality
in synchronisation with one another as they shape our ongoing cosmic
destiny. Consciousness, flowing outward from the Source at the speed of
light, experiences successive layers of this amazing hypersphere of light as
instants of being, each perfect in its own way.</SPAN></P></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[If others think this crazy (as they
may), I invite them to consider observations by Planck and <SPAN
class=st>Schrödinger</SPAN> on consciousness, which they both considered to
be the fundamental driving force of the universe.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'd agree also that "<FONT
color=#000000 size=3 face="Times New Roman">the speed of light is constant for
every observer because it is tied to the material which generates the space of
that observer</FONT>" [and, of course, that observer themself]. This is
totally consistent with the logical observation that the 'time-experience' of
that observer will itself be affected by those energy flows and the rate at
which they pass through/around the observer (and any instruments they may use) -
and so the time-experience of any observer/instrument will be tied to its state
of motion ("reference frame") exactly in accordance with the findings of
SR.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I.e. SR is an observer effect caused
by the variation in cyclic-to-linear ratio of energy flows in an observer's
'reference frame' affecting the rate at which consciousness experiences the
passage of time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></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=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:43
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Relativity</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>At the risk of both repeating and sounding crazy</P>
<P>I've been developing a theory of physics that includes subjective
experiences and identifies a background space with every observer <BR></P>
<P>It would then seem that the speed of light is constant for every observer
because it is tied to the material which generates the space of that observer.
If we look at the relationship between observer and the reference frame and
realize the reference frame defines the space for that observer Einstein's
constant becomes the speed of each observers "Now" <BR></P>
<P>I have a paper for the Vigier conference tat explores this possibility
which I will send if interest exists</P>
<P>Wolf<BR></P><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</A></PRE>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 11/3/2017 12:37 PM, André Michaud
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:201711031937.vA3JbwYW009823@mail68c0.megamailservers.com
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
class=userStyles>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
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: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-US><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">I indeed
see what you mean.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-US><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">Since
the constant velocity of light is established in such certain terms as an
absolute velocity, what actually came to my mind was the idea of possibly
establishing the asymptotic speed of light itself as the absolute reference
with respect to which all motion could be
measured.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><BR><BR>I'll have a look at
Albrecht's work.</SPAN></P><BR>André <FOOTER
class=replyforwardcontainer><BR><I>On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:25:40 -0500, "Chip
Akins" <CHIPAKINS@GMAIL.COM>wrote:</CHIPAKINS@GMAIL.COM></I><BR><BR>
<META name=Generator content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<STYLE type=text/css>@font-face {
font-family: Helvetica;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
..MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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 (and Albrecht) and
All<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 think that if Einstein’s
statement “<I>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is
independent of the motion of the source</I>” is true, then the only
reference which makes any sense is the frame of space itself. It is implicit
within the statement that the reference frame for this velocity is space
itself. Lorentz argued that there must be a fixed frame of space for these
same reasons.<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">What we observe is exactly
compatible with this concept, that there is a fixed frame of space, and that
we are not able to measure our motion relative to that fixed frame because
matter is made of confined propagating energy which moves at the same
velocity as light. Then, in a Euclidian three dimensional space, we would
experience the exact transformations Lorentz suggested are required. As a
result we would always measure the speed of light to be the same speed. In
this causal form of relativity there is no room for the supposition that all
motion is relative. For motion is, in such a situation, relative to the
frame of space.<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">The impulse which is momentum
(a specific force for a finite time) is quite compatible, it seems, with
your concept of the importance of kinetic energy in the behavior of
propagating disturbances which make up all particles.<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">One reason I am interested in
the kinetic energy analysis is because it would be nice to better understand
the subject of momentum as it refers to the propagation of energy through
space. I think it would be helpful if we understood the mechanisms which
create this momentum.<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">Albrecht has done some work in
this area, using a novel approach which evaluates the behavior of “extended
bodies” in space, which is also 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">Chip<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"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></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; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> André Michaud
[<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">mailto:srp2@srpinc.org</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, November 03, 2017 11:23 AM<BR><B>To:</B> <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</A>; <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A><BR><B>Cc:</B>
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
Fwd: [General] Relativity<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P>
<DIV>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 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="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">I have been thinking about what you wrote
here:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">"Einstein stated that “<I>light is propagated in empty
space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the
source</I>”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent,
because <B>the<I> velocity c in empty space </I>has no meaning, unless we
use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical
reference for that velocity.</B> A velocity simply must be stated in
reference to something."</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">My own view on this hinges on the kinetic energy
viewpoint that you seem to have taken an interest in.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">On page 14 of my paper on the de Broglie photon
hypothesis, you will find my take on this issue, which relates the "<B>some
other logical reference</B>" that you mention, to the physical presence of
momentum related translational kinetic energy:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">"Now this brings up the old issue of what this
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black" lang=EN-CA>"</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">equilibrium</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"
lang=EN-CA>" </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black">constant velocity of photons
in vacuum (free moving kinetic energy) is relative to in reality. Is it
relative to the medium? To the point of emission? To the point of
absorption? To the observer? To this or that reference frame, or multiple
reference frames, inertial, non inertial, Galilean, moving or not,
etc.?</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">A deeply ingrained habit has developed since the
beginning of the 20th century to hypothesize various reference frames in
attempts to make sense of the experimentally observed data. But in physical
reality, velocity depends on only one criterion: the actual presence of
translational kinetic energy. If translational kinetic energy is present and
if the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows it, there will be velocity
in vacuum, relative to there being absence of translational kinetic energy,
irrespective of any hypothesized reference frame or frames. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">The absolute lower velocity limit</SPAN></U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">, as seen from this perspective, would be an electron
possessing zero translational kinetic energy in excess the energy making up
its rest mass. Of course, such an electron totally deprived of translational
kinetic energy can only be theoretical, because all massive particles are
subject to gravitational or electrostatic acceleration in physical reality
from the moment they start existing. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">The absolute upper velocity limit</SPAN></U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> involving electromagnetic oscillation is reached when
an amount of translational (aka unidirectional) kinetic energy propels
<B><U>an equal amount</U></B> of kinetic energy captive in transverse
electromagnetic oscillation, that is, a free moving photon for example, as
described in this paper. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">The only other possible case</SPAN></U><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> between these two limits involving electromagnetic
oscillation, applies to an amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse
electromagnetic oscillation being propelled by <B><U>a lesser amount</U></B>
of translational kinetic energy, such as the kinetic energy making up the
rest mass of an electron, plus the transversely oscillating half of its
carrier-photon's kinetic energy, both quantities being propelled by the
unidirectional half of the carrier-photon's quantum of kinetic energy. The
velocity of such a system will mandatorily lie between zero and
asymptotically close to the speed of light."</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">This is the one logical possible other reference that I
have identified.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Best Regards</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">--- André
Michaud<BR>GSJournal admin</SPAN><BR><A href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif">http://www.gsjournal.net/</SPAN></A><BR><A
href="http://www.srpinc.org/" moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif">http://www.srpinc.org/</SPAN></A><BR><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><I>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017
19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:</I><BR><BR>Forwarded from Chip
<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: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<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"
<</SPAN><A href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif">chipakins@gmail.com</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black">></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:
[General] Relativity</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 6:46:19 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'" <</SPAN><A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black">></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 <</SPAN><A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black">></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 style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi
Grahame (and Andre)<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">A
while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically
self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically
self-consistent.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Regarding logical self-consistent
issues…<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">In
order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the
“landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to
say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle,
as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which
simply do not agree with SR in all details.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So
we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the
development of a composite view of the causes for
“relativity”.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves
exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed
through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object
emitting the waves.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in
space.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So
there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes
of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Einstein stated that “<I>light is propagated in empty
space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the
source</I>”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent,
because the<I>velocity c in empty space</I>has no meaning, unless we use
the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical
reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference
to something.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Einstein also stated that, “<I>Absolute uniform
motion cannot be detected by any means.</I>” Which is indicated by
experiment as well. So no problem here.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">And he then followed with the assertion that “<I>This
is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no
meaning.</I>” (<I>Paraphrased</I>)<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">This second conclusion is<I>not</I>fully logically
supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with
the assertion that “<I>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity
c which is independent of the motion of the source</I>”. There are
alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and
logical than this.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">First, our inability to measure something does not
necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give
of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept,
because of indirect evidence which stipulates their
existence.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">We
can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is
causal, and yields results which match
observation.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">For example, if light is made of “stuff” that
propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of
confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at
c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of
circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion through space by
using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This
approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be
quite important.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">But if “<I>the concept of absolute rest and the ether
have no meaning.”</I>Then how do we explain<I>“light is propagated in
empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the
source”</I>and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits
light?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM
radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could
propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the
math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not
present<I>physical</I>cause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect,
coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not
being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically
consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a
“fixed” frame.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the
situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter.
These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and
matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed
speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional
Euclidian space.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So
there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed
by SR.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">When we run the math describing the situation where
space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed
velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain
the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown,
precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent basis, and one which
shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the
same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to
be as logically consistent.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Are there ways to present this and related
information which better illustrates the case from a logical
basis?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Thoughts?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Chip<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND: white">If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at</SPAN></SPAN><A href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: purple; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">richgauthier@gmail.com</SPAN></A><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND: white"><a href="</SPAN></SPAN><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-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: purple; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">"></SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND: white">Click here to unsubscribe</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND: white"></a></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>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:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">Click here to unsubscribe</A><BR> </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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</A>
<a href=<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>