<!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:"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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
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>Dear John W and Chip (and
others),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thank you for your respective
responses to my latest post.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><U>Chip</U>,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Many thanks indeed for underlining
the crucial significance of the distinction between apparent and actual frame
symmetry. Thank you also for your subseqent posts in which you eloquently
delineate the key points in respect of this highly significant
issue</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><U>John</U>,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>You ask: "<FONT color=#ff0000>Good
grief, why oh why are we arguing about this?</FONT><FONT
color=#000080>". No arguing at all. My post was intended to
indicate to Vivian ( and anyone else who might be interested) why it is
that his previous response went no way at all to addressing the issue on which I
and (as I understand it) Chip have been trying to raise awareness. This
isn't arguing, it's reasoned discussion. That's what I understood this
group is all about.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John, I have considerable respect for
your considerable powers of analysis. However even those powers of
analysis won't take you beyond what I regard as a total road-block in
conventional thinking on the matter of SR, without openness to the possibility
that such a road-block exists. You appear to disagree that the concept of
frame symmetry is widely accepted as <EM>de facto</EM>; how else does one
explain the substantial discussion in mainstream circles of topics such
as 'relativity of simultaneity' as if it's a done deal? How else does
one explain why FTL travel or communication is almost universally accepted as a
potential means of 'time travel' - to the extent that papers, books, even a
Chronology Protection Conjecture, have been written by eminent scientists on the
serious presumption that this is so? It appears to me that the notion
of frame symmetry has been absorbed into SR folklore and applied
pretty much universally therein totally unconsciously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Whilst I respect your ability, I
disagree profoundly with your conclusions. I must, however, concur totally
with your suggestion that "<FONT color=#ff0000>there is no such thing as a truly
inertial frame</FONT>" (though I'm not quite sure why you brought it up).
We're all aware that gravitation is unlimited in its reach, so that there's
nowhere in the cosmos that's totally free of gravitational effects. We're
all aware also, though, that it's pretty well universal practice in scientific
analysis to start with an idealised scenario and then introduce the
perturbations in that scenario occasioned by real-life circumstances, from air
resistance to dissipation of energy through sound (just as two examples).
With or without those perturbations, that analysis then stands or falls on the
authenticity of that initial idealised scenario. So this point that you've
introduced perfectly illustrates <STRONG>my</STRONG> point: no matter how
meticulous one is about the fine detail, if the central model is flawed then
meaningful progress on the basis of that model is seriously limited - and
otherwise-possible avenues of investigation will be blocked off, even invisible,
from the perspective of that flawed model.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>So, John, the reason that we
<STRONG>are</STRONG> discussing this (not arguing about it) is because it's (a)
a point of significant interest and concern to some members of this group, and
(b) a potential major growth point for the physical sciences, one that most
definitely shouldn't be ignored or brushed aside.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With very best wishes,</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>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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 09, 2017 12:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] SR</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Hi John W, Vivian,
and Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">For me, sharing the
concept that we may have some invalid preconceived ideas embedded in our
commonly accepted theory, is the only unselfish thing to
do.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">It would of course
be easier to just watch and listen as each idea is
argued.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">But is the spirit
of attempting to help, and in the spirit of continually learning,
participation is of course required.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">When we analyze the
motion of many of our electron models in a Euclidian three dimensional space,
we see that relativistic principles are automatically
present.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">If the stuff that
light is made of moves through space at c, and particles of matter are made of
this same stuff, confined and moving through space at c, then relativistic
transformations are a natural result. This natural result is framed in a
Euclidian three dimensional space. This set of circumstances shows a
cause for relativistic properties of matter moving through space. The
space we used to model this causal form of relativity is a fixed frame where
motion causes a change in the confined propagation which creates matter.
That motion which causes the relativistic changes, is and must be
referenced ultimately to the space the particles are in. So if this is
the cause for relativity, which seems likely, then all motion is NOT relative.
But rather, all motion is relative to space. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Experimentally we
get pretty much the same answers in either version of relativity, but the one
which is founded on cause seems to be the more likely of the
two.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">If we use the all
motion is relative approach, we must throw out the causal mechanisms we found
using the fixed speed of light in empty space, and try to invent new cause.
There is only one relativity, and one or the other of these scenarios must be
chosen.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">There are many
experimental indications that light does indeed travel at a fixed speed in
empty space. If this is true then there must be a cause. It comes down to a
simple matter in the end. Do we prefer to accept experimentally compatible
theory based on assignable cause, or do we prefer to accept experimentally
compatible theory based on arbitrary mind stimulating conjecture and ignore
fundamental cause? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">John W. If we
view space and fields using the contemporary framework, and never explore any
framework outside that narrow definition then, yes, it indeed does limit our
ability to see the range of possibilities. So yes, it does prevent us
from exploring and finding the answers if they actually lie outside that
accepted set of boundaries. It often takes us a long time to see that what we
have believed is not a reflection of the reality of nature. Until we
really look, we don’t know how profound an impact a simple misconception has
had on our body of understanding.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Warm
Regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Chip<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; 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-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>John Williamson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 09,
2017 4:07 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><BR><B>Cc:</B> Mark, Martin
van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[General] SR<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times',serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Grahame,<BR><BR>I'm intrigued. Whyever do you think the idea
that all inertial frames are equivalent is holding up progress? Comments in
red below</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black" lang=EN-GB>
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB> General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame@starweave.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] SR</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Viv,</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>I'll try just once again:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(a) I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose
that there's an absolute reference point in the cosmos. Such a
suggestion would of course be meaningless without a defined set of axes
accompanying it - and even then the concept would be highly problematic.
It appears that you may be confusing this with the point that IS at issue,
since you don't appear to have addressed that point in any way (repeated
yet again under (d) below).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(b) As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with
the abundance of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light
measures identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have
reiterated time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday)
that the experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR,
including the measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please
note my use of the term 'measured'). [The fact that you feel the need to
reproduce such copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me
that you appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at
issue.]</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(c) Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others
in this group do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to
call it) model of particle structure fully accounts for this observed
phenomenon, together with others grouped under 'Relativity'. I've made
this point myself many times, as I believe Chip has also. I agree
totally, therefore, that this structure provides for the causation of
'Relativistic' phenomena, including the invariance of the measured speed of
light (there's that 'measured' again!).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(d) That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the
matter: (i) there is <B>no need</B> for the generally accepted proposal that
all inertial reference frames are <B>objectively</B> equivalent; </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Agreed, but this is certainly NOT generally accepted. There is
merely a statement that IF one takes this as a premise, THEN certain things
follow (a good many of which happen to coincide with observed reality). There
is, as far as I know, no proof of premise in ANY theory. By definition any
logical construct rests on its axioms. One can find a deeper theory which
contains another, but it then rests once again on its own axioms, but subsumes
the other. There are, as I have said before, a whole basket load of theories
which lead to SR, including some that predate Einstein relativity. So
what?</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: red"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>There is a good argument anyway to say that there is no such thing
as a truly inertial frame (isn't this what you have argued effectively in your
redshift argument in the past Viv?).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(ii) there is <B>no evidence</B> to support this assertion (which
is <B>not</B> the same as the truism that <B>measured</B> speed of light in
all frames is invariant);</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>On the contrary there is evidence that the assertion is false - in
detail. One can easily load a spaceship with instrumentation that can readily
distinguish between different inertial frames. This is not a big item for
discussion.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>(iii) there is <B>no causation</B> offered to support that notion.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Look, any theory rests on a set of axioms for which there is no
“cause”. As I said in the previous note Maxwell contains implicitly, space,
time, multiplication, division, differentiation, charge, and fields, none of
which are given a “cause”. The axioms are merely assumed. This is the way
theories work. You make some shit up and then see in how far your shit agrees
with observed reality. Ok, I agree that there is a sociological problem, in
that in any era there is a general consensus as to what axioms are “true”. If
that is what you have been arguing must be challenged all along I am with you
100 percent!</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: red"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>This</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB> is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question
the veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial
frames are objectively symmetric does <B>not</B> follow logically from the
data showing that this <B>appears</B> to be the case - in fact, as you
yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon
particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this
and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a
unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that
it defines a reference point of any kind.]</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: red" lang=EN-GB>There are
a lot of preachers preaching, but most of them do not really understand
relativity beyond SR at all. Grahame, this is not and has never been a claim
of SR. SR is just the simple set of relations - the trigonometry of rulers and
clocks in uniform motion, as measured by rulers and clocks (made of light, or
slower stuff than light). SR itself does not contain, or need,
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>"the claim that all inertial frames are objectively
symmetric".</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: red" lang=EN-GB> . One can
derive it simply from the properties of confined light, as you say and as I
have done years (decades!) ago. So have many others. For goodness sake what is
all the fuss about?</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>I really don't know how else to put this. This issue does not
question <B>any</B> of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% -
<B>apart</B> from your non sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good
[consideration] to challenge". Certainly SR as an observer effect is
beyond question; to claim that it should be accepted without question in its
present widely-accepted form - as an objective reality rather than a
subjective experience, in relation to frame symmetry - is in my view totally
counter to the best principles of scientific inquiry.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB><BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Look, I kind of agree with this, but do not agree at all that
"other people" think that, or ever thought that, SR is "an objective reality".
The whole initial point was, in fact, exactly the opposite: an argument
against any particular objective reality. I certainly do not, and never did
thing that SR is "an objective reality"even as a fresh undergrad meeting it
for the first time. Good grief, why oh why are we arguing about
this?</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it
needs to be put. All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of
self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner with
unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven, unexplained
and now counter to our understanding of the structure of material particles
which renders it totally superfluous. This is not in any way to discount
the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state that it has no
bearing on the point I'm making. To propose "Nothing to see here, let's
consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your last sentence)
is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's arguably
blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific
discoveries. Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break
for the future of our species.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>I think this may be true. In making up a new theory one must always
question the bases, of course - but one has to replace them with something
that explains all of experiment, and there remains the fact that the analogy
of light waves, and the Doppler shift of light as it is observed,is not
consistent with there being a medium in the same way that sound is carried by
matter for example. One needs to do better than this. As to your specific
point: I do not see how the principle of equivalence of inertial frames
affects this either way, either impeding or helping it at all. Rotating light,
for example is as non-inertial as one can get and remain physical!</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>That's all.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><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: red">That’s all from me
too!</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF423681><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>