Hi Grumpy! Long time no speak! Trust you and sis and family all well as can be.

Haven't much time lately, so as briefly as I can...

As you well know from long familiarity, I am strictly lone/independent researcher into the universal physical reality. I care nothing about the source/person, only the objective issues/observations involved. Yes? Ok, having said that, I will address the facile assumptions inherent in what you understand/repeat from the current orthodoxy texts/interpretations etc...

RC, The problem here is Farsight's claims, not our corrections. The speed of light is invariant in all frames, he claims it is variable and has the temerity to try to claim Einstein agrees with him. None of that is remotely true. He based this claim, evidently, entirely on an out of context quote where he is mixing Einstein's statement about Coordinate speed as being about the speed of light through spacetime. Einstein said a lot of things in his argumentation, often making the arguments of other paradigms(Darwin did the same thing)before explaining how Relativity makes such arguments moot. So if one wants a suitable gem of a quote for your argument, and you are willing/able to ignore every other thing that person ever said, you get what Farside has done. Like sausage often has little bits of good meat, but you don't want to know where the rest of it came from. Einstein also used different kinds of space in his thinking processes and some things that can be said in one are not true in others or in Relativity, the type of space that actually exists. The coordinate speed of light in Newtonian space

**must** be variable by position(as Farsight claims)to explain the bending of light by mass, but lightspeed is constant so that explanation is falsified, nevertheless the light bends, so Einstein's solution to the paradox is that the the straight lines of Newtonian space are false, the real spacetime we live in is bent, not Newtonian at all. Thus Relativity(to grossly oversimplify). Now, Newtonian physics is a close approximation at low speeds, but it cannot explain mass bending light, the procession of the orbit of Mercury and several other little niggles on the edge of our ability to explain the Universe. That was the impetus for the research that led to Einstein's Relativity which has been supported by all evidence for almost 100 years. Farsight is not a danger to that, but we already have more than our fair share of duh in this country, we should correct it where we can, and give refutation of the woo.

Grumpy

Many moons ago I tried to explain the subtle difference betweeb the term 'constant speed' and 'invariant c'.

I explained that the former (constant speed) is moot, since every SR/GR frame which affects the clocking rates in that frame use a different 'timing' value into the equation/measurement construct. So the 'constant speed' is an obvious non-sequitur confusion, not a 'fact'.

I went on to explain that the latter (invariant c) is directly dependent ALSO on the 'in-frame-variable-GR/SR effects' as far as the 'second' measurements are used to measure the lightspeed in variously affected frames.

The real subtle point to be realized is that when the term 'constant speed' is imagined, it is imagined by automatic unconsious reference to the 'invariant c' measured speed which ONLY REPRESENTS a PROPORTIONATE EXRESSION/RATIO that is always the SAME RATIO/VALUE, but is based on CHANGING inputs of 'time' into the equation outputing the ratio of 'invariant c'.

See? If the timing used to calculate 'invariant c' IS CHANGED, then the rate of propagation has to change accordingly SUCH THAT THE RATIO OUTPUT is always the SAME 'invariant c'.

Just saying 'invariant c' does not readily explain what PRODUCES that 'c' as a ratio ONY, not an ABSOLUTE VALUE such as a 'constant speed' would be.

Then IF the Relativist theory OVERLAYS that situation with ABSTRACTIONS like 'space-time' contraction, it is OBVIOUSLY a circuitous and superfluous 'overlay', since the TIME is the only input that has 'changed (dilated/contracted as the case may be) in different GR/SR affected frames.

How can a 'spaceTIME' ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL analytical modeling convenience be able to 'contract' or 'change' in any way in REALITY. Only in 'abstract maths/graphs/equations. But those are NOT REAL THINGS. Only the actual CLOCKING RATES (from which we DERIVE the 'timing' rates/values for INPUTING to the abstract analysis) are REAL THING.

Hece any 'spacetime' contraction' is really a misnomer/confusion, because the only thing that has 'contracted/dilated is the TIMING not the SPACING parts of the RATIO CALCULATION VALUES outputting the same 'invariant c' because the timing and the light-propagation values MUST BE the only things that change to COMPENSATE each others effects on the RATIO calculation that always outputs the 'invariant c' PERFORCE of that complementary relationship/function between changing CLOCK timings and changing light propagation rate.

So, clearly and logically and even in the ratio used by relativity to calculate invariant c, the SPACE does NOT contract. And any abstract attempts to use 'space ONLY' contraction is riddled with oxymoronic circuitous self-referencing 'argument/logic' which feeds on itself to produce all the confusions still plaguing proper understanding what the reality is and what Reativity is REALLY aying about it.

Now I don't agree to every fine point in Farsight's perspective here and elsewhere. That's not what I am interested in. I have my own more complete and consistent overarching ToE which covers all these and more such that no more 'piecemeal' arguments will be necessary to get to the bottom of the physical universal reality as it is.

**I just want the discussion to be re-jigged between you ALL from the reduced and simplified cases I have been suggesting all over here and before elsewhere. That is the only way any consensus can be reached in such easily self-confused 'theory' as this, without playing cheerleader/favorites to sources/personalities. Irrelevant. As the Detective says in your "Dragnet" series: "Just the facts, M'am".**
Farsight

Clocks lower in a gravity well experience fewer ticks because they experience less time to measure. They still see lightspeed as a constant, from every source in the Universe, light does not slow down only within the confines of clocks, nor does light vary by position in spacetime. Gravity can bend it and can redshift it's frequency, but it does not slow it down. Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to

**be** dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang, the other half of the half dimension of time we experience in our Universe. That wormhole would be sized proportional to the mass that enters it and to us would appear almost frozen in time, but under it's conditions would instantly dump it's load into the White Hole(the only one we know of)we call the Big Bang, avoiding any possibility of paradox. But I don't claim to know that to be true, it's just speculation

Logically we should get the fastest rate of time's passage(which is what clocks measure, whatever the type)at zero speed in empty space. This would then logically be thought of as absolute time. But just like uncertainty in the Quantum precludes an exact position, only a probability cloud of possible positions, speed is always relative and no point can be said to be absolutely motionless, in addition, the term "empty space" is an oxymoron, space is never empty, it's a veritable fizz of virtual particles. So there can be no motionless point in empty space so no absolute time, it's all relative. The reason clocks that use light to measure time have fewer total clicks in a gravity well is that they are measuring less time, not because light is going slower.

Lightspeed is a physical property of the Universe, it is intimately tied into time, space and matter. It does not matter how we measure it, our definitions are inventions for our own convenience, they have no effect on the things we are measuring no matter how you manipulate those symbols and ideas. Lightspeed is c, in all frames, from all sources, period. Time varies, space(width, height, depth)varies, gravity(mass)varies, but lightspeed does not vary whatever the metrics used to describe that value. Energy is to mass as the square of c, E=MC^2. It's what makes the stars shine. It

**requires** an absolute value(lightspeed). If your theory requires the variability of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is crap, not science.

Grumpy

Again, I must caution you against facile and un-evidenced assumptions about 'space ONLY' contracting. It is the spaceTIME that is abstractly represented in your maths that is contracting in your modeling. Whereas in reality it is the TIME RATE/VALUES that change, and the light speed measured using those changing 'timing values' will always produce invariant c' because the RATION STAYS THE SAME in ll frames, since if time changes, and speed changes, there is complementary function/relationship inherent in the reality/measurement.

That 'spacetime' contraction facile 'explanations from theory' remind me of another such, regarding the 'Big Bang Origins' GRAVITY WAVES. They say that the tiny starting energy ball 'rang like a bell' with gravity waves as inflation took hold (somehow) etc etc, Can you or anyone seriously explain how a universe containing 'all there is' can have a boundary to REFLECT such waves during such early HYPOTHESIZED stages/scales/processes. There is NO 'bell' to ring with gravity waves. Only interacting energy-space.

**And as Sean Carroll et al have proved by their triangulation method applied to WMAP features, the universal SPACE (not spaceTIME) is FLAT to INFINITY beyond observable universe, since the ANGLES ADDED UP TO ONLY 180 degrees in all directions! **
So space is EUCLIDEAN to infinity at ground state.

**The NON-Euclidean 'geometry' that mathematicians have introduced into the mix merely reflects the DYNAMICAL EVOLUTIONS and interactions/configurations of localized energy-space FEATURE surfaces/densities etc etc PARAMETERS/PROPERTIES of the ENERGY aspect of what I have postulated as the ENERGY-SPACE underlying universal substrate in which, from which and back to which ALL features of all kinds revert back to LOCALLY.** The interactions between all these features of all kinds at all scales over FLAT space ONLY then CREATE THEIR OWN LOCALIZED effects on the groundstate substrate Energy-space, and so we DERIVE THE DYNAMICAL MODELING CONSTRUCTS of NON-Euclidean 'geometry' Not of the FLAT energy-space, but of the evolving/morphing surfaces/densities/gradients/process etc IN/OF that otherwise FLAT EUCLIDEAN energy-space.

I haven't time/liberty to say more, Grumpy. That as rushed so please forgive obvious typos. I will just make quick replies to a couple posts and leave again. Good luck and stay well as can be, hear!

**PS: Oh, and do listen more closely to Maxil when he explains what 'time' is and what it ISN'T, mate. Else we'll never start the discussion from the same REAL page on Relativity and the rest.**