Speed of Light

General reply to thread./07 9:02 AM
1
My Most Dangerous Idea: 'velocity' of light is miscnceived.Viv Pope
Research Associate of the Department of Mathematics, Keele University, UK
Llys Alaw, 10 West End, Penclawdd, Swansea, UK.My most dangerous or disconcerting idea is that Einstein’s dictum that the constant c is the ‘velocity of light in vacuo’ is a misinterpretation of the true facts. The basic observational
fact, as Olaus Rmer discovered in 1676, is that astronomical distances are also times in a constant ratio of units, c. This constant relation between distances and times was later confirmed by the astronomer James Bradley and, in other areas of observation by the likes of Armand Fizeau and A.A. Michelson.The standard orthodox interpretation of this constant relation is that it is the measure of ‘the velocity of light in a vacuum’, as stated by Einstein in his second postulate of Special Relativity. As a point of pure logic, however, from the fact that all velocities are measures of distance-divided-by-time it does not follow that all distances-divided-by-time are velocities. Moreover, an essential characteristic of what is properly called a velocity is that it is a
measure of the motion of an identifiable material object, also that the measure conforms, both in magnitude and vectorially, to the law of the composition of velocities. Neither of these criteria are satisfied by c.Furthermore, if that so-called ‘velocity’ is ascribed to particles of light, as in Einstein’s concept of the ‘photon’, then any idea of that particle being something properly conceived as material becomes untenable. This is because according to Relativity, anything properly called a particle, no matter how small we may be imagine it to be, becomes infinitely massive at the ‘speed c’, whereas the only mass that can be ascribed to a light-quantum in the visible range of the spectrum (i.e., its spectral energy divided by c-squared) is in the
minuscule order of 10-35 kilogram.In any case, as for c being a ‘velocity’, how can that ‘velocity c’ be measured relative to a vacuum? With respect to what datum can that ‘velocity’ be measured when the light is travelling all alone (as imagined) in the void between its source and sink? And if, instead of thinking of light in that way, we think of it as waves, (after Huygens, et al.), then what can possibly wave in a vacuum? (The customary conception of ‘electromagnetic waves as field
vectors in vacuo’ is completely ad hoc and notoriously unempirical.)All sorts of ways can be contrived of answering these awkward questions regarding ‘light velocity’. However, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of relativity theory can be deduced in an extremely simple way without involving this mind-bending
plethora of problems raised by the customary interpretation of c as a ‘velocity’. In the relevant equations, c is the same c regardless of whether it is interpreted as the ‘velocity of light’ or as
no more than a dimensional constant — what Herman Bondi describes as distance-time ‘conversion factor’. So why do we persist in thinking of light as ‘travelling’, when all true evidences are to the contrary? This is where the ‘danger’ comes in. The philosophical consequences of relinquishing the ‘velocity in space’ interpretation of light promise to be socially catastrophic. This is because it entails a truly Copernican ‘flipover’ from thinking of light as travelling in space to the opposite logical alternative of thinking of all space and time as being in the light — not light as it is thought of as travelling in space but light as it is actually observed, optically or instrumentally, in its full spectral range. What does this mean? It means that in relativistic
proper-time, the interacting atoms are in direct quantum contact, regardless of observational distance, that on the quantum-informational level there is no such thing as distance, a
quantum being an irreducible amount of energy transacted in zero proper time. This means that at the quantum-informational level the transactions take place in terms of pure propertime-instantaneous action-at-a-distance [1]. What we perceive as ‘distance’ is then an
observational extrapolation out of statistical numbers of these proper-time-instantaneous quantum events, in a manner similar to the way in which distance is projected by the viewer of a video scenario from informational patterns and sequences of otherwise randomly
occurring screen events, and what we measure as the time-delay of that observational interaction is just another solution of the relative equations.In short, this ‘Copernican flipover’ matches, in physics, the radical shift, in modern information technlogy, from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’. In modern communication, the basic informational units are discrete and unconnected ‘bits’ (binary digits). In physics they are quanta, that is, irreducible units of Planck’s quantum h. These do not ‘travel’ across space, any more than the pixel events do across the video-screen. Like those pixels, the quanta simply occur.What, then, is the danger of this radical switch taking place from its traditional mechanics-based to a modern information-based Physics? That danger may not be so much to Modern Physics as to anyone proposing this resurgent phenomenalism. As it is said, ‘whether
the pitcher strikes the rock or the rock the pitcher, it is bad for the pitcher’.[1] See Immediate Distant Action and Correlation in Modern Physics: the Balanced Universe is a collection of contributions, by an international group of scholars, following a series of workshops held at the University of Wales, Swansea. Eds. N. V. Pope, A. D, Osborne and A. F. T. Winfield, The book was officially launched, at UWE (University of West of England) Bristol, on Thursday 19 January 2006. It is available from the Edwin Mellen press, website: Academic Publishing @ The Edwin Mellen Press

---

Neville Vvian (Viv) Pope

This is Viv Pope again.
Here is something which is of central relevance to the issue of whether light has a 'velocity or is no more than a dimensional constant.Ten Proofs that the Constant c cannot be a VelocityFrom a talk given to a Natural Philosophy group at Cambridge, by Viv Pope.1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.2. Herman Bondi says: ‘Any attempt to measure the velocity of light isnot an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.’[ ] Also, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of Einstein’s Theory, both Special and General, can be deduced much more simply by adopting Bondi’s interpretation of c as a pure ‘conversion factor’ for interconverting measures in metres into time-measures in seconds [ ].These two above arguments were aimed to prove that c need not necessarily be a ‘velocity’. The following eight arguments contend that c cannot, logically, be a velocity.3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.6. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Nils Abramson [ ]. However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms therefore has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between its source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to photograph or otherwise detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected, that is, in vacuo.7. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) put it, ‘the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!’[ ] So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? The whole concept is meaningless.8. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If a powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980 [ ], two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking or interference whatever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around, it would be amazing if visual acuity were possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting around in all directions would be as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity militates against the validity of any such experimentalist claim.9. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers, as Einstein’s Relativity requires and as experiment confirms. Therefore, logically, c cannot be a velocity.10. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as light travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate. If we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum? And if we think of what ‘travels’ as ‘photons’, then if those ‘photons’ travel at the ‘speed of light’, then their mass has to be relativistically infinite at that ‘speed’. The mass of a single photon would be as great as that of the whole universe. To escape this consequence by assuming that the ‘stationary mass’ of the photon is zero — as some physicists have claimed — then how can that ‘zero mass’ be conceived as a ‘particle’? And, anyway, when is a photon ever regarded as stationary, since its alleged ‘velocity’ is c in all observational frames, bar none?From these considerations it has to be logically conclueded that the constant c is not a 'velocity' but simply a constant ratio of conventional measuring units of metres and seconds,in the same way that 39.37 is the ratio of incnches to metres in the measuring of space, and c-squared is the constant ratio between conventional joules and conventional kilograms in the measuring of energy. All else is ot physics but metaphysics.
-----------------------

No, Cavediver, I have never been a staff member of Keele University and have never claimed to be. At the age 79 (in three months time) I am long past being a staff member of anywhere. So, what I am is what has been agreed to call a Reseach Associate of tne Mathematics Department in an unclassifiable Math/Philosopohy (Arts-Science)project at that university. The staff member concerned is Dr. Anthony D. Osborne. If you look up his research record you will see this twenty-five-year-long Association between him and me.
Thanks for alerting me to this possible misunderstanding. Edited by Viv Pope, : Correctin of misspelling

I'm sorry, my dear 'Cave-diver, if my reply disconcerted you in showing you how wrong you were in so hastily assuming that I was some sort of pretentious charlatan claiming to be a staff member of Keele University. Somehow, from your very hostile, ageist tone, I didn't expect that you would just honourably and gracefully concede your mistake.
Anyway, I now I have to annoy you further by pointing out another flaw in your nest of instant assumptions. This is that you couldn't possibly be more wrong in your estimate of my attitude towards Relativity and Quantum Physics. If you had taken just a few moments to study my work instead of just unthinkingly 'shooting from the hip', you would realise that it supports Einsteinian Special Relativity right up to the hilt. You would also see just how much it has to do with both General Relativity and Quantum Physics, though perhaps not in the way you would like.
As for your presumptuous projection into my early years in this study, forgive me but I have to say that you sound like my grandsons trying to imagine what it was like being bombed in a city during the war — not a clue as to what it was like. This is how you appear to me in projecting yourself back into the historical context when I was a telephone lineman in my early twenties, when ‘Relativity’ was little more known to public perception except as a music-hall caricature of egg-headed intellectuality.
Any way, as my work makes clear, it by no means contradicts Einstein's Relativity. It is based on the truism that 'All the keys hang not at one man's girdle.' So, what nature reveals to one thinker at one spot on the planet may well be revealed to another thinker at a different spot and different time, but not necessarily in the same way or in the same theoretical/mathematical format. It is this independent corroboration between different observers/thinkers which ensures scientific objectivity, otherwise if only one thinker thinks in that way with everyone slavishly following him, then that does not augur well for a truly objective scientific progress.
The novelty, therefore, in my work, as many others have seen — note that I didn't just come 'in off the street' with this — lies in its providing for Einstein's famous Theory of Relativity, not only a well-authenticated, much simpler, purely geometrical way of deducing much the same sequences as Einstein’s (as concurred in those days for instance by people like Profs. P. M. Davidson and Sir Herman Bondi), it also provides the philosophical foundation which, as Einstein’s relativist precursor, mentor and inspirer Mach, complained, Einstein's version of relativity conspicuously lacks. I would like to explain this to you in depth, but since it has all been published many times in conference-proceedings, books and papers, over many years (all available for study on Internet), I feel the onus is on you to study it before commenting on it, not for me to repeat it all indefinitely, far less for your sake alone.
So, if and when you do that necessary study, then perhaps you will be in a position to comment on it, and then we may discuss these things more sensibly and maturely. in the interests of dialectical progress.
As for what you say about the 'scattering of light by light’ your argument is very thin on that point, and it by no means answers any of the other nine proofs that light is not a 'velocity'.
It is also relevant to mention, here, what was reported in the New Scientist, recently, that physicists are beginning to see that Einstein's Second Axiom regarding the 'speed of light in vacuo' is surplus to requirements in the formulation of Relativity. That is precisely what I discovered, uniquely, all those years ago.Sincerely,
Viv Pope

To Cavediver, et al.
First of all, I see the difficulties you are having with my texts. This is understandable since my background, after twenty years in telecommunications engineering is that, mainly, of Philosophy. As an Arts subject this falls foul of the notorious divide which still exists in standard education between Arts and Science. My writing style therefore, being in British, mother-tongue English, is undoubtedly different from what is usual in science — especially American science - discourse. It is what some have described as ‘scholarly’ or ‘scholastic’, rather than ‘scientistic’.As for my work, which Cavediver regards as wasted, that view is not shared by everyone. Indeed, scarcely anyone among the many who are long acquainted with my ideas, has ever regarded them as wasted’, not least those who have invited me to give talks and arrange science conferences, as well as soliciting my involvement in editing various books and journals. So, Cavediver, ‘no sweat’ on that score! Rest assured that I dismiss your charging with ‘time-wasting as just silly, and then pass on.So now let’s have done with the ad hominems and get down to business. The fact which makes my contribution to science altogether unique, is that it shows how all that is relevant to the practicalities of relativity and quantum physics can be deduced from purely geometrical premises STRIPPED OF EINSTEIN’S SECOND AXIOM REGARDING THE ‘SPEED OF LIGHT IN VACUO. It is unique, also in providing a firm PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION for both relativistic (Special and General) and quantum physics which, as is well known, these standard theories lack (It is well known, for instance, that Richard Feynman declared ‘Nobody understands quantum physics). This rare amalgam of Arts Philosophy and mathematical physics,in our long time project at Keele, is undoubtedly puzzling to those educated only on the one side of the Arts-Science Educational divide. However, nature knows no such artificial division, which leaves anyone free to experiment as he pleases with explanations of and ideas about the world which don’t necessarily conform to the standard interpretations of physical phenomena presumed by current Orthodox Physics.In that regard, it is relevant to mention, here, that my last paid academic contact was as Tutor-Counsellor to the Open University, the institution whose whole point and purpose was, specifically, to break down the academic Arts-Science barrier. In my subsequent free-range (post-retirement) work my aim has been to extend that liberalising agend by demonstrating an approach to nature which is much broader and more philosophically grounded than that which is now narrowly defined as ‘Physics’.Anyway, I’m wondering, now, whether my language here is being understood or whether, to dyed-in-the-wool science graduates it reads like something out of Chaucer or Shakespeare. Anyway, Press on, eh!In the 1960s Professor Herman Bondi and I were among the first — if not actually THE first — to point out the logical redundancy of the ‘velocity’ interpretation of c. In his words:Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is . . . not an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.This was in Bondi’s book Assumption and Myth in Physical Theory, (Cambridge University Press, 1965. p.28). Both Bondi and I concurred, independently, that Relativity could be much more simply expressed in terms which omitted, entirely, the customary ‘;velocity’ interpretation of the constant, c. For him it was sufficient, as he said to make it simpler and easier to teach Relativity to students, in terms of what he called his ‘K-calculus’ approach to Relativity. For me, this new interpretation of c as a pure constant marked the point of departure for a whole new different paradigm approach to physics which, as Bondi said, he would leave to me to develop ‘with his blessing’.The implications of this wholesale paradigm shift are profound. being of truly Copernican proportions. Indeed they are so revolutionary that Professor Alan F. Winfield has described them on his Blog as ‘dangerous’ (look it up under ‘My most dangerous idea, Winfield, University of West of England. UWE). The late professor W. Honig also declared this paadigm shift as 'immoral’. Why is this so? It is because it bypasses entirely — that is, makes redundant — the whole historical rigmarole connected with ’ether drift’, Michelson-Morley and all in vacuo processes including not only light-conduction in terms of either ‘waves’ or ‘particles (i.e., ‘photons’) but also all ‘force-fields’ of electrostatic and magnetostatic conception together with ‘gravitation’ and nuclear ‘strong’, ‘weak’and , ‘electro-weak’ force-fields. In other words, it solves the ’Unified Field’ problem at a stroke by getting rid of ‘fields’ altogether. In other words, it succeeds where Feynman and Wheeler failed, in consummating what they called their ‘darling theory’ of direct quantum action between distance-separated bodies. A book I was asked (by the Russians) to edit on this so-called Instantaneous Action-at a-Distance, (IAAAD) is entitled Instantaneous Action at a Distance: Pro and Contra (Nova Science, NY), As its title suggests, this is a compilation of papers by scientists internationally discussing direct action-at-a-distance on both the astronomical and quantum-physical levels. It is also roundly discussed in another book, of which I am one of the three editors commissioned by Edwin Mellen Press, NY as the Proceedings of two international Physics workshops at Swansea University, UK. At these workshops were, gathered scientists to discuss this issue in depth. This 'Proceedings' is entitled Immediate Distant Action and Correlation in Modern Physics: The Balanced Universe. (I have to warn would-be readers that the price which the publishers place on these books is, in my view, exorbitant and off-putting for thrifty students) The most recent book on this subject is written by myself in collaboration with Dr. Anthony D. Osborne of Keele University UK. It is entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity (publ. by Phi, UK).Now let me stress, here, that I am not, by any means, trying to sell you these books — they are too expensive, as I say. I mention them only to inform members of this EvC forum of their existence in a bona fide strand of progressive Professional Physics research, of which, it seems, members of this forum are unaware. If the aim of this forum is, truly, to advance the aims of science in the most broadly informed way, unencumbered by outworn and over-venerated traditional precepts, then I will be only too willing to describe to members the details of this alternative paradigm of non-light-velocity physics and to answer any questions that might be seriously raised regarding it. However, I would insist on such discussions being conducted in the proper, dignified language of old-style true rational Science, not of the idiotic, clever-clever yob-culture which is all too often a feature of some of these forums nowadays.Viv Pope.

Yes, this raally is the living and breathing Viv Pope, no more and no less. I do not subscribe to the use of pseudonyms.I have to say that that your choice of quotes from Carl Sagan is absolutely brilliant. For me it says it all! I trust that you won't mind if I use them in future to describe the arrant pigheadidness of the present priests of modern Physics and Cosmology in their resistance - and blockng, even - of new and progressive, logically well-argued jdeas.Viv Pope

You say, Mr ZenMonkey. 'In fear of reaction from the Academic Overlords'. Yes indeed,anyone readig my academic history will see just how that sort of suppression works. Three times, my Post Graduate thesis was rejected by my university, because it trampled over the Educational voodoo chalk line between Arts and Science. Later, the offer, by the Keele Mathematics Department, of my presenting the thesis for a doctorate was blocked by the Keele Philosophy Department on the grounds that they were 'not qualified' to oversee the mathematical content of what was, for them, the strange amalgam of Philosophy and Science. Even the support of Sir Karl Popper didn't prevent the thesis from being blocked by the Philosophers. As he said to me and my wife in an invited tea on the terrace of his home at Fallowfield, it was not the thesis that had failed but its examiners. When the examiners got to know about this they immediately had all record of it removed from the university library. Luckily for me, all my records of it, including a letter I received from Einstein in 1954, as a young telephone lineman,were taken over by the County Archives Department as one of their 'treasured items'. Thankfully, it is no longer socially acceptable to be dragged out and burned at the stake, otherwise that would surely have been my fate a few centuries ago.(Just plain) Viv Pope.

There you go agaion, Cavediver, with your overweeningly arrogant and completely unfounded assumptons. I'm reminded of a thesis I was once told about, called 'Pluto Higgins' theory', which was that everyone was a nutter but him.Your egotism shines through in halogen spot-lights. I just don't figure you as a worthy contributor to the sorts of free-range progressive discussions for which, ideally, these forums were originally designed. You cannot see, for instance, the fallacy of assuming that because one has radically diffsrent ideas about quantum-relativistic physics one knows nothing about the Standard
Model, which assumption is as daft as assuming that because someone isn't a supporter of the Democrats he knows nothing about tbe policies of the Republicans. Sorry to say, such ignorance of plain logic is something I find quite appalling in the context of truly forward-looking science.By the way, your Feynman diagrams are by no means proofs of in vacuo quantum scattering. They are just that - diagrams. And how can you say Viv Pope knows nothing about the mathematics when his thesis is a bona fide MATHEMATICS project under the aegis of the MATHEMATICS department of Keele University. Moreover, how can you maintain also that Viv Pope knows nothing of the mathematics when his books,written in collaboration with Anthony Osborne of that Mathematics department are replete with the Mathematics you say we know nothing about? Again, sorry for saying so. I cannot help thinking that, mathematician or no, you are a rotten logician.
Viv Pope.Edited by Viv Pope, : No reason given.Edited by Viv Pope, : No reason given.Edited by Viv Pope, : Spelling.

Dear Percy (Duty Moderator)Hide any off-topics, certainly!This present topic is still, I hope, about ‘light velocity’. At this latest stage in the argument, it is about the alternative interpretation of 'light-velocity' c as a pure dimensional constant. And — for those who can handle it — the philosophical consequences for future physics of that radical change in interpretation.Just to recap. on that: the issue has now progressed to the stage of comparing two different and incommensurable paradigms of physics. One is the classical one, in which the constant c is conceived in the usual way as the ‘velocity of light’ and the other is the one in which c is no more than a dimensional constant. Just to distinguish those two different paradigms, or mind-sets. the logic of it is this: if c ceases to be the speed of something inscrutably travelling in space, then it reverts to being simply what is seen — i.e., the opposite of dark — that is to say, light in its whole frequency range from deepest infrared to farthest ultraviolet and beyond, even in what, to us, is complete darkness. The mental flipover, for those capable of contemplating it, is then to think of light as just pure quantum information, hence of space and all it contains — in effect, the world in all its dimensions of space, time, mass, energy, momentum, etc. — as being in the light, as opposed to the old, pre-relativistic way, of the light being in space. The stress this places on the intellect is then to think of the light that we see — or detect instrumentally in all those ways known to the science of optics — as a purely informational character-complex of patterns and sequences of quantum pixels, like those from which the viewer projects a video scenario or the way in which depth is projected into a movie or a pointillist painting. In this way of thinking, c is simply the ratio between the conventional units of measure, metres and seconds in the way Herman Bondi describes in his book, as we have already seen.Now, impossible as it will undoubtedly seem to some to think in that conceptually inverted way, it is a way which already exists and has been systematically explored for more than three centuries, since the time of George Berkeley. In its later phase it became the radical relativism of the nineteenth-century physics philosopher, Ernst Mach, whose philosophical vision led, quietly and stealthily, to the twentieth-century formulation of both relativistic and quantum physics (see under ‘Normal Realism’).The way this goes is that, logically, if c is not a velocity then it has to be a constant of pure observation, as in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. In that theory, the basic dimensions of mass, length and time, energy, velocity, etc., do not exist in any absolute way, as in classical physics, but only RELATIVELY to the observer.Unfortunately, Einstein goes only half way towards completing the relativistic revolution that Mach envisaged. This is because Einstein compromised true relativity by his altogether unnecessary inclusion of his Second Axiom of light ‘travelling in vacuo’. This produces a hybrid theory in which everything is relative to the observer but in which light ‘travels’, absolutely, in the old classical way.This is what, right from the start, has made Einstein’s theory so notoriously incomprehensible. It works, okay, for the purposes of practical physics but, conceptually, it is a complete monster of self-contradiction. Not least among its problems is that, other than by all sorts of theoretically contrived means, it is impossible to square Einstein’s ‘speed-limit c’ with quantum physics, which demands that quantum interactions between bodies at a distance have to be instantaneous.So Einstein’s theory keeps physics in that suspended, philosophically indecisive state between absolutism and relativism, unable to proceed beyond where Einstein left off. This is not Einstein’s fault. It is the result of the usual over-veneration, in academic Education, of The Greats. As Carl Sagan says:‘One of the saddest lessons in history is this: if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence if the bamboozle. We are no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves - that we’ve been so credulous.’(from ‘The Fine Art of Baloney Detection’.)Undoubtedly, it is this which has held all progress in our understanding of nature in suspension for over a century. Perhaps it is too much to say that, in Sagan’s words, we have been ‘bamboozled’. All those scientists who devoted their lives to the formation of classical absolutist physics did so in the very best of faith. But faith can be misleading. As Sagan writes:‘You can’t convince the believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.’However, as he adds:‘It is better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.’Are we, perhaps, now too far gone in our present belief in the efficacy of the contemporary Standard Model of Relativity and quantum physics, or is it that, as John Anderson of NASA says, we need a new physics. He writes as follows:‘In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set.’Let those of us in this forum avoid the mistake of conceptual conservatism and freely explore that possibility of the ‘New Physics’ which follows from the Neo-Machian shift in thinking, from ‘light in space’ to ‘space in light’.What needs to be discussed, then, is whether this conceptual flipover is truly the breakthrough it certainly seems to be.Viv Pope.PS.
These quotes from Carl Sagan were subscrbed by one of he members of this forum whose pseudonym I cannot now trace. I would be grateful if he would come forward here. Edited by Admin, : Correct a few missing or incorrect quote characters.

Dear Son Goku (?)
Thanks for pointing this out. I should stress that the argument was not just the usual feeding-frenzy or scrabble for precedence (I trust we are above all that). It was to demonstrate how that idea can be used in a new way, for the purpose I have described on this forum and elsewhere. Neither Minkowski nor Lorentz nor anyone has used that idea in the way Bondi and I have shown. If they had, then we would certainly have known about it. The fact, then, that to all appearances this use of the constant c is, so far, not known, suggests that the way in which Bondi and I concurred is the best and most efficient approach to relativity is unique. If, for a moment I thought, as Cavediver likes to think, that my (and Bondi’s) half-century’s work on this was wasted, then, with so many other ‘fish to fry’, Bondi and I — would have dropped our concern with it like a red hot brick.So let's stick to the point as I described it in my previous e-mail, which is forward- rather than backward-looking. With the greatest respect for these old-world Giants, let's forget Minkowski et al and not let them stand in the way of logical progress, which, surely, is not what those honest researchers would have wanted, any more than the early pioneers of the American continent would have wanted everyone from then on to follow conservatively in their first roughly made and wandering tracks.Thanks for your response,Viv Pope.

Thanks, Cavediver, for your quick response.There is a logical principle of scientific discourse, which is that because a thesis A works satisfactorily, it doesn’t mean that no other theses, B, C, D, etc. can work just as — or even more -satisfactorily in some entirely different way. The fact is that those diagrams and so on that you are exhibiting belong to a tradition of physics which, notoriously, has no clearly defined philosophical foundation, and is therefore epistemologically barren. But if it satisfies you to think in that way, then fair enough! But that does not logically annul all other theses any more than the fact that I prefer coffee prevents anyone else from preferring tea.Anyway, to stick to the real point of this thread, your claim that light can interfere with light in the vacuum of space has been roundly discussed elsewhere — in the PIRT conferences at Imperial College, London, for instance — where it was generally agreed to be on very dodgy ground. Moreover, you seem to have ignored the remaining nine proofs that there is no true evidence whatsoever of light travelling on its own, ndependently of everything else, in the depths of space. This flagrant omission leaves your argument regarding the velocity of light in space wide open to the charge of what logicians call Special Pleading.Viv Pope

Thanks, Percy, for that question, which provides for me the opportunity of explaining, further, what my work (together with that of my colleagues in the Keele POAMS group) is all about.The difference between what we do and what Minkowski did, scientifically speaking, is to show that Einstein’s Second Axiom concerning the ‘constant velocity of light in vacuo’ is both mathematically and conceptually redundant. One might validly argue that this, implicitly, is what Minkowski did, and that may well be true. But neither Minkowski nor anyone else, it seems, has followed-through with the logical implications of this for commonsense-philosophical understanding, far less in connection with the relativist philosophy of Einstein’s mentor, Mach and the commonsense philosophers following G. E. Moore, all in the widest context of that precursor of Physics, Natural Philosophy. I have already talked about the lamentable artificial divide, in academic Education, between Arts and Science — in this present context, between Physics and Philosophy — and how this inhibits progress in common understanding. I have also explained how my work breaks down that Educational barrier. None of this can be claimed for Minkowski, who was undoubtedly as unaware of what was going on in Philosophy as his contemporary philosophers were of what was going on in Physics. For my sins — for which I will no doubt be pilloried — in my work I am trying to combine expertise from the two traditionally opposite disciplines, as stressed in all my numerous books and papers over the last fifty-or-so years. Minkowski never did — or, at least, never succeeded in doing — anything like that, which means that it is still there to be achieved.This broadens the issue from what some traditionalists might narrowly define as ‘physics’, but that, I would say, is precisely what needs to be done to meet the call for a ‘New Physics’, central to which has to be the mental ability to see light in an entirely different light.I trust that answers your question on this particular point regarding Minkowski.

Dear Percy,
My aim, here, is by no means to castigate Cavediver or even challenge him for his belief that contemporary quantum physics ‘says it all’. Surely my style of writing is not so difficult as to conceal what I am saying, from which, if properly read and understood, it should be clear that, so far as Cavediver is concerned, my aim is only to avoid the pikes and caltrops he insists in putting in the way of my suggestion for conceptual progress.Anyway, all that is strictly irrelevant. So, let’s ‘cut to the chase’. You ask me if I believe it is wrong to describe light as travelling from the distant galaxies as having travelled the distance in a certain time, which is the definition of a velocity. Well, let me ask you this: do we ever see the light from those galaxies winging its way towards us over those centuries? Well of course not! So where do we get that idea from? Obviously, unless we presume to be clairvoyant, it comes from seeing the light in the first place. In other words, our first, or a priori knowledge of the existence of those galaxies, their distance from us and so on, is from the information supplied to our senses by light as we see it. All else is secondary, or a posteriori, to that immediate information.
So, from where do we get the idea that the ,light has taken that time to travel? Again, it is from nothing more than the information itself. We know that the optical distance of a body, in metres divided by the dimensional constant. c ( pace Bondi) is a time in seconds, and from that knowledge we extrapolate the time, relative to us, at the source of those quanta when we receive them, which may be millennia in some cases.
But none of that implies that light ‘travels’. All it does is to confirm that optical distance divided by the constant c are times, which is in no way contested. This leaves the onus on the reader to grasp what this implies for the prospect of the anticipated New Physics.
The difficulty of achieving this intellectual flipover is by no means underestimated. But, as POAMS members attest, it can be done.
Viv Pope.
PS,
I hesitate to say this, but I have been told, on the best authority, that for some people, attempts to think in this ’flipover’ way have been quite traumatic, so that it should come with what someone has called a ‘government health warning’. This, of course, has no bearing on the logical truth or otherwise of the argument, but experience shows tbat it’s not for the fainthearted, but for dedicated truth-chasers only.
S

Dear Percy,
the whole thing is laid out in full in the websites, books and things I have liberally mentioned. They are there for anyone who would like to, to undertake a full study of them. I can't see how I can or should write out that whole fifty-year-long project, here, just for those who are too lazy to look it up. Anyway, one's hope is that further discussion on this thread will lead, eventually, to the 'Eureka' experinece on the part of the reader which other students of the Synthesis have reported.Ideally, members should look carefully at that record and ask questions about it. That's what scientific dialectic is all about.Viv Pope

Dear Catholic Scientist
Thanks for your question.The well-known fact of what is commonly called ‘wave-interference' does not necessarily imply that there really are waves. The whole thing can be explained in terms of the Feynman-Wheeler theory of direct quantum interresonance between the source-atoms and the screen atoms, something like what David Bohm called ‘quantum potential’.If you are serious about this, then please read my conference paper: ‘The Tantalising Two Slit Experiment, Imperial College, 2001. This can be accessed on the POAMS website http://www.poams.org in the ‘Seminal Publications and Resources’ section, Item 30. It is also dealt with in the books that are mentioned. I’m sure you wouldn’t expect me to write out that whole argument again, here.Viv Pope.