<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[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:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;}
span.balloontextchar00
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar0;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle22
{mso-style-name:emailstyle22;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle23
{mso-style-name:emailstyle23;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle25
{mso-style-name:emailstyle25;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle28
{mso-style-name:emailstyle28;
color:black;}
span.nowrap1
{mso-style-name:nowrap1;}
span.EmailStyle30
{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 vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi 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'>Regarding the photon exchange conjecture.<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 have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math.<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'>Let’s do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible.<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'>If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see?<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'>With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below the speed of light, we could see our past.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this way. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any longer. This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see our past when we are at the speed of light. All information has been redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy. At this point all “fields” from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense.<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'>Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But for an observer that is of course not the case. An observer could sense our velocity and measure it in his time frame. The fact that time has stopped for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer’s point of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe.<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'>If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the photon is incapable of “looking into its future”. We can also see, from discussion like the above, that the photon cannot “see its past”. At the speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past.<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 feel we have “toyed” with the math of relativity, to try to extract from it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena. I have now run the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation, under the current approach.<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'>Velocity <b>limits</b> our perception of time and of other fields in the universe, as viewed from a “stationary” observer.<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 am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately describes these experiments, running the math on that one now. It will take some time.<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><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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Black holes<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hello everyone,<br><br>In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course.<br><br>In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture.<br><br>The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. <br><br>I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about.<br><br>Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light!<br><br>I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! <br><br>What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. <br><br>Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally.<br><br>Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle.<br><br>Comments below ... (in Red)<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF267316><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk]<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Black holes</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF727745><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield@btconnect.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Black holes</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>John:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what </span><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942" target="_blank">A World Without Time</a><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it’s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It’s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is “clock up” some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don’t measure time, they measure <i>motion</i>. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is <i>motion</i>. </span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I’m not. I’m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>Good enough -- an absolute ruler then</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: <i>when the clock goes slower, it’s because that motion goes slower</i>. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>motion</span></em> occurring in the clock. Even when it’s an optical clock. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it’s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you’re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that’s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn’t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn’t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper).</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn’t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn’t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Agreed. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Agreed. But let’s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>When you measure a change, it’s either because the thing you measured changed, or because <i>you</i> changed, along with your measuring devices. When you <i>don’t</i> measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and <i>you changed too</i>.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space.</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That’s a space. That’s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That’s motion. That’s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Let’s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. <i>And electrons are made of it</i>. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>It’s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>No. You aren’t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Motion is space divided by time. OK? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn’t. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>You get the same number because the second is the </span><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>duration of <span class=nowrap1>9192631770</span> periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>still</span></em> say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Yes. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>No. Einstein didn’t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Is something else primary? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>moved</span></em>. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I’m guessing that </span><a href="http://www.bougainvilleaclinic.com/Dr-Andrew-Worsley.php" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Andrew Worsley</span></a><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> discovered it too. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don’t see time flowing through it. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I’ve read the original German. It’s a change in speed. That’s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example.</span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span style='color:black'><br></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz:</span><span style='color:blue'><br><br></span><b><span style='font-family:"Courier New";color:blue'> space time speed valid<br></span></b><span style='font-family:"Courier New";color:blue'>1 fixed fixed fixed no<br>2 fixed fixed varies yes<br>3 fixed varies varies no<br>4 fixed varies fixed no<br>5 varies fixed fixed no<br>6 varies fixed varies no<br>7 varies varies varies no<br>8 varies varies fixed yes</span><span style='color:blue'><br></span><span style='color:black'><br></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn’t mention radial length contraction. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn’t apply to the room you’re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it’s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn’t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>You must read Friedwardt Winterberg’s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the “coordinate” speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don’t think things are harmonious any more. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>But the experiment says it does. If it didn’t vary, optical clocks wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>But experiment says it isn’t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it’s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is <i>indefinite.</i> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>True. Because <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>we are made of light</span></em>. The speed of everything would be doubled. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before).</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching...</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>Regards</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>John D</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>* the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The “force of gravity”. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There’s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they’re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'><img border=0 width=133 height=196 id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image001.gif@01D05259.D7DBD620" alt=parallel></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>