<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI"}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
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
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
span.balloontextchar0
{font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif}
span.emailstyle20
{color:black}
span.emailstyle21
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
span.emailstyle22
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
span.emailstyle23
{color:black}
span.emailstyle25
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle28
{color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" dir="ltr" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">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)<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF267316"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> 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<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF727745" style="direction:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> 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<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt; font-family:'Calibri'; color:#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">John:</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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:</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what
</font><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942" target="_blank">A World Without Time</a><font face="Calibri"> 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
</font><a style=""><font face="Calibri">movement</font></a><font face="Calibri">. What clocks do, is “clock up” some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**.
<span style=""> </span>Clocks don’t measure time, they measure <i style="">motion</i>. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is
<i style="">motion</i>. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">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><br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity
is about.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">I’m not. I’m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said.
<br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><br>
<span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Good enough -- an absolute ruler then<br>
<br>
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.
<br>
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable.</span><br>
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this:
<i style="">when the clock goes slower, it’s because that motion goes slower</i>. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is
<em>motion</em> occurring in the clock. Even when it’s an optical clock. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style="">
</span><span style=""> <br>
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span style=""><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">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><br>
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against
gravity. </font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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.</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would
not make it heavier (see Martin paper).</span><br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Agreed.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute
clock, then clocks lower go slower </font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Agreed. But let’s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower.
<span style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 13pt;"><span style="line-height: 14pt;" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">When you measure a change, it’s either because the thing you measured changed, or because
<i style="">you</i> changed, along with your measuring devices. When you <i style="">
don’t</i> measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and
<i style="">you changed too</i>.</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed.
... gota go<br>
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space.</font>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Let’s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style="">
And electrons are made of it</i>. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong?
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">No. You aren’t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the
same. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is
not motion. Motion is motion.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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?</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Motion is space divided by time. OK?
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn’t.
<span style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><font face="Calibri"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US">You get the same number because the second is the
</span><span style="line-height:14pt" lang="EN">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 </span></font><font face="Calibri"><span style="line-height:14pt" lang="EN">cancel</span></font><font face="Calibri"><span style="line-height:14pt" lang="EN"> each other out, and you
<em>still</em> say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. <span style=""> </span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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?
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Yes.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary?
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">No. Einstein didn’t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Is something else primary?
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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>moved</em>. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">I’m guessing that
<a href="http://www.bougainvilleaclinic.com/Dr-Andrew-Worsley.php" target="_blank">
Andrew Worsley</a> discovered it too. <span style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.</font><br>
</font></span><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
<font face="Calibri">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 s</font></span><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">econd
email:</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Calibri">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:</font><br>
<br>
</font></span><b style=""><span style="font-family:; color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font color="#0000ff" face="Courier New"> space
<span style=""></span>time speed <span style=""> </span>valid<br>
</font></span></b><span style="font-family:; color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Courier New">1 fixed
<span style=""></span>fixed <span style=""></span>fixed <span style=""></span>no<br>
2 fixed <span style=""></span>fixed <span style=""></span>varies <span style="">
</span>yes<br>
3 fixed varies varies no<br>
4 fixed <span style=""></span>varies fixed <span style=""></span>no<br>
5 varies fixed <span style=""></span>fixed <span style=""></span>no<br>
6 varies fixed <span style=""></span>varies <span style=""> </span>no<br>
7 varies varies varies no<br>
8 varies varies fixed yes</font><br>
</font></span><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
<font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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. </font>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating
at g. </font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 t</font></span><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">hird email:</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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. </font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style=""> </span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">But the experiment says it does. If it didn’t vary, optical clocks wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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 style="">indefinite.</i> <span style="">
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">True. Because
<em>we are made of light</em>. The speed of everything would be doubled. <span style="">
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font color="#0000ff" face="Calibri">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).</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#000000">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 style=""> </span></font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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.
</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">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. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year
of light. IMHO.</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about?
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#0000ff">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...</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="color:; line-height:14pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="line-height:14pt"><font face="Calibri">Regards</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="line-height:14pt"><font face="Calibri">John D</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="line-height:14pt"><font face="Calibri"></font></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="line-height:14pt"><font face="Calibri">* 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”. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="line-height:14pt"><font face="Calibri">** 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.
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height:13pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:black"><img id="_x0000_i1026" alt="parallel" src="cid:754FCA945DF44AC09CEEE723493E2C26@HPlaptop" border="0" height="196" width="133"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>