<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=gb2312"><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:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@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:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
span.MsoPlaceholderText
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:gray;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
span.emailstyle17
{mso-style-name:emailstyle17;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John D.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>I think that you are not being precise enough when you say that the speed of light is not constant. There are two definitions for ways of measuring the speed of light. In one of them the speed of light is constant and in the other the speed of light is not constant. If the speed of light is measured locally (using a local clock and ruler), then the speed of light is always constant. If you adopt a single clock to measure the speed of light in different gravitational potentials, then the speed of light varies. </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>Even your interpretation of the amount that it varies depends on one other choice. This point will be illustrated with an example. When light is bent by passing near a large mass such as the sun, the angle is twice what might be expected from the classical model of the light feeling gravitational acceleration and ¡°falling¡± as it passed the massive body. The factor of 2 can be explained two different ways. I will not go into the details here because they are covered in chapters 2 and 3 of my book. However, the key difference between these two choices lies in the handling of the gravitational effect on volume. The Shapiro experiment showed that the sun has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space beyond what would be expected from Euclidian geometry. If the photon passing through this volume is given credit for having traveled a greater distance, then the effect on the radial coordinate speed of light is different than if this effect on space is ignored and all the bending is attributed to a slowing in the coordinate speed of light. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>On another point, I am not sure that I understood your comment about the analogy to the sheer wave speed of sound. Sound wave analogies break down when you get into sheer waves. Spacetime does not need to be a rigid medium like a solid in order to be able to support transverse waves. When we are dealing with waves propagating at the speed of light, effects occur which are not analogous to waves propagating at far less than the speed of light. The fact that gravitational waves are transverse waves without spacetime being a rigid body is one of these differences. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'>John M.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#C00000'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><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>From:</b> General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Duffield<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:43 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John M:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Take care with constants. </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>In mechanics a shear wave travels at a velocity determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.5in'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> v = ¡Ì(G/¦Ñ) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.5in'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>The G here is the <i>shear modulus of elasticity</i>, the ¦Ñ is the density. The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and slower if the density increases. You can¡¯t directly apply the concept of density to space, but in electrodynamics the velocity equation is remarkably similar: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.5in'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> c = ¡Ì(1/¦Å<sub>0</sub>¦Ì<sub>0</sub>) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>People are taught that the speed of light is constant, but it simply isn¡¯t true. See the second paragraph <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22">here</a>. If the speed of light was constant in the room you¡¯re in, optical clocks wouldn¡¯t go slower when they¡¯re lower, and your pencil wouldn¡¯t fall down. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><img border=0 width=1366 height=768 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D0A8D6.89752D50"></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><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>From:</b> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br><b>Sent:</b> 17 June 2015 02:07<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Hello John W. and All,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>In your response you said,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#C00000'>Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi epsilon zero) ... thus eliminating (in principle) yet another natural constant altogether: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>This is very interesting since this implies an alternative to my charge conversion constant </span><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>¦Ç</span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>. </span><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>¦Ç</span></i><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span></i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>¡Ô</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> (<i>G<b>/</b></i>4¦Ð<i>¦Å<sub>o</sub>c</i><sup>4</sup>)<sup>1/2 </sup>= <i>L<sub>p </sub><b>/</b>q<sub>p</sub></i> ¡Ö 8.61 x 10<sup>-18 </sup>m<b><i>/</i></b>C<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>(1/4¦Ð<i>¦Å<sub>o</sub></i>)(1/</span><!--[if gte msEquation 12]><m:oMath><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:windowtext'><m:r>¦Ç</m:r></span></i></span></m:oMath><![endif]--><![if !msEquation]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;position:relative;top:3.0pt;mso-text-raise:-3.0pt;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'><img width=13 height=27 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image002.png@01D0A8DD.AA560FB0"></span><![endif]><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext'>2</span></sup></span><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext'>) = <i>c<sup>4</sup>/G</i></span></span><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><span lang=EN-GB style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext'>G</span></i></span><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext'> = 4¦Ð<i>¦Å<sub>o</sub>c<sup>4</sup></i></span></span><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:windowtext'>¦Ç</span></i></span><span class=MsoPlaceholderText><i><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext'>2</span></sup></i></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>I admit that I think that my charge conversion constant is perfect. Therefore, I would like to make a comparison to your derivation that eliminates the constant </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>1/4¦Ð¦Å<sub>o</sub>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>John M.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue'><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>From:</b> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:47 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Philipp Steinmann<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons<o:p></o:p></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'>Dear John M and everyone,<br><br>Indeed it is useful to think about the relationship between things. I also agree with John M that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of the same thing. As I have said before, Martin and I developed a toy theory of these a decade or two ago which gave the right numbers (with zero extra background mass/energy) but has not developed further than a a few pages in our "appendix" due to lack of time or energy due to the demands of our day jobs. <br><br>At the end of the day, replacing one universal constant with another, related one is zero net progress. In Martin and my 1997 paper we calculated the charge in terms of Planck's constant (or vice versa). This is one fundamental constant less. The basic idea was that the oscillating electric field of the photon became uni-directional due to the folding of the photon path into a double-loop.<br><br>The hope with the new theory, which incorporates the experimentally observed properties of the four-dimensions of space and time from the outset, is that one can use it to calculate BOTH from first principles. I have tried this within the framework of an emission/absorption model in the new classical field theory - and obtained an answer - but it is currently a couple orders of magnitude out. This is one of the areas I hope to get some help from with within the group - especially those with specialist knowledge of Atomic physics - which is where I think the answer lies. Martin and I are anyway onto this - and he is already brushing up on his understanding of Atomic physics (amongst one or two other things!) to help to try to get a handle on this.<br><br>Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi epsilon zero) ... thus eliminating (in principle) yet another natural constant altogether: one of the essential assumptions in deriving this was precisely that there was zero net energy in the vacuum fluctuations. As is observed.<br><br>Regards, John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><hr size=3 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF276175><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 Macken [john@macken.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles<br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Hello John W and Everyone, </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the following sentences:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#C00000'>This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What is the underlying nature of quantized charge?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>It has occurred to me that I can make a contribution to answering this question. Attached is several pages from chapter 9 of the revised version of my book. In this I propose a ¡°charge conversion constant¡± and show the implications of this towards explaining the properties of a photon. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>I would appreciate hearing if anyone can find a single case where using the charge conversion constant gives an unreasonable answer. Also, the paper implies that the spacetime field is the new aether. Can you find any reasons why this is not correct?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>John </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>