elas

The following table is a re-arrangement of the table and fractional sequences mentioned in a paper by H Heseilberg (arXiv:cond-mat/0510688 v2 20 Dec 2005). Conducting a search for the fractional structure of particles and atoms reveals that different methods are needed for elementary particles, composite particles, and composites with shells (atoms) but the result (with only two exceptions) are always sequences of Laughlin and Pseudo-scalar fractions; for example: The table of strange mesons can be re-tabulated as follows: The Tables of Electron Binding Energies are to long to reproduce here, but the following illustrates what can be done: The table of isotopes can also be re-tabulated. A section of the table is shown below: I would like to know if this is an acceptable line of research?

Use one of the lists of particles published by the Particle Data Group or the data published in ‘The Elements’ by John Emsley to construct a table showing the increase in mass (force of matter + force of vacuum). Form a fraction by placing the difference in mass values over the higher value (mass value of 3ev followed by 5ev gives a fraction of 2/5). A graph of baryon fractions is shown below. By constructing a theoretical mathematical sequence for comparison with the experimental fractions, we see the effect of ‘vacuum force’ on the ‘elasticity of matter’. On the left we see the relaxed state and on the right we see the compressed state. High compression causes particles to be ejected from elements No.83 and higher. Compression is not the only cause of radio-activity but, it is probably the main cause.

Amongst the latest paper on quarks, published by the Particle Data Group is one that points out that current knowledge is 'theme dependent'. My work is also 'theme dependent' in that it is based on the fractional relationship between particles and atoms. (Some of the fractions have been found by experiment and interpreted using Quantum theory in the majority of papers). While not disagreeing completely with QT I am making the case for a much simpler interpretation based on a 'single elementary particle' and a 'single force'; I do this by re-arranging the particle tables published by the PDG and (for atoms) the tables in 'The Elements' by John Emsley. I have also re-arranged table in two published papers. So far I have produced several un-reviewed papers that you will find listed on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32700 The conclusion I draw is that infinity contains wave systems within wave systems each smaller system being a scaled down version of a larger system. The mathematics of the Standard model are in reality mathematical 'shortcuts' that allow us to predict quantities without knowing why the mathematics give the correct prediction (they are mathematical formulas based on observations not on understanding the science in words). That is why the Standard model does not have an interpretation. My model makes small start on explaining what the quantities are and why particles have their particular properties.

Sorry about the delay in reply, I have not received the usual notification email. I think I am right in saying that current teaching is that the current is generated by particle spin, this can be seen in a graph of the pair of 1s electrons for all isotopes listed in 'The Elements': Graphs of the plots for the red and blue waves are shown on the right (the dark blue diamonds belong to the main graph); although currently referred to as 'opposite spin' this might also be interpreted as 'opposite phrase'. Plots of equal force form lines from right to left. 'The Elements' lists only the main isotopes, so there are gaps that I cannot fill.

The Wikipedia diagram uses positive and negative signs for opposite spins, this is misleading as they could be mistaken for electrons and positrons. A better way of seeing this is to use a graph of 1s electron pairs where the waves generated by particle spin can be clearly seen to rotate in opposite directions but both particles are, of course; negative (i.e. electrons). Most diagrams use lines as shown in the diagram posted by Zephir. To some extent they to are misleading, the correct view is that of waves moving in the direction of the lines: ))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((

Following on from the ruling on postings, I have decided not to separate my proposals on a Linear Force model and Hall fractions as separation makes it impossible to provide an interpretation. For the record, I have listed below the papers on the Hall fractions of isotopes, mesons, atomic structure, baryons and linear force, in that order. (clf7 is a long time downloading). http://69.5.17.59/hfi.pdf http://69.5.17.59/hfm.pdf http://69.5.17.59/hfas.pdf http://69.5.17.59/hftbl.pdf http://69.5.17.59/clf7.pdf

One cause of radioactive decay of atoms is the decrease in wavelength of the atomic wave structure; with distance from the atomic centre. In the case of atoms the Hall fraction (wavelength) decreases rapidly at the larger atomic numbers making it difficult to add and retain particles of a fixed wavelength (i.e. the wavelength of a free electron). The atom not only has to capture the electron but in order to retain the electron the atom has to compact the electron on one axis; so that the compacted electron wavelength fits the outer wavelength (Hall fraction) of the atomic structure. The nucleus plays a different part in that it has to retain the proton that pairs with the electron to form a meson within the atomic structure. However the number of protons a nucleus can hold is not limited by the Hall fractions of the atomic shells, but is dependent on the addition of neutrons which allow the nucleus to add protons without any proportional increase in the volume of the nucleus. The neutrons (and hence the nuclei) are natures form of Bose Einstein Condensate. The narrowness of the outer wavelength of atoms of atomic No.84 and higher is why atoms of very high atomic numbers (created by experiment) have no stable electron shells. The large width of the inner wavelength (large Hall fractions) explains why atoms of low atomic numbers are gaseous (plenty of room for an electron of minimum compaction to move around). For the Hall fractions of atomic structure see: http://69.5.17.59/hfas.pdf http://69.5.17.59/hfps2.pdf and the paper used as the reference work for Hall fractions: arXiv:cond-mat/0510688 v2 20 Dec 2005

Swansont The submission I wish to make can be viewed on: http://69.5.17.59/hfps.pdf I request a return to 'Classical Physics Forum' elas

Hall Fractions and Particle Structure. The mass values (actual not the PDG average) for each quark and lepton experiment listed in the Particle Data Group 2006 tables are used to construct a logarithmic graph. The gap between each group and the mass value of the first particle in the higher mass group is used to find the Hall fraction. The theoretical and actual values are listed in the top left panel, and a graph of the actual and theoretical values is shown in the bottom right panel. This should be compared with the criticism of the Constant Linear Force model transferred to ‘Speculations’. It will then be seen that the gaps in table 1 are due to compaction as explained in the section on atomic structure. This ‘Hall Fraction’ interpretation is based wholly on experimental results. It presents a totally different interpretation to that given by the Standard model which is based purely on theme based mathematical prediction (see PDG note on quarks). The graph shows that the relationship between leptons and quarks is a question of compaction, leptons are compacted outside the nucleus; quarks are compacted inside the nucleus. The full table will be published in a pdf file.

I have constructed a new table using only Hall fractions sequences published by academics. The fractions in col. (a) can also be found in my table of particle structure where the relationship between fraction, mass and radius are tabulated. http://69.5.17.59/hftbl.pdf The table supports my proposal that Tsui fractions represent a measurement between particles, the so-called incompressible fractions are a combination of particle fraction and bonding fraction that can be derived from either axis. Col. (d) shows that all the particles, defined by both axis, in cols (a) and (b) are in reality the same particle in different states of compaction, that is to say there is only one elementary particle. Although Heiselberg's table includes a number of fraction not found by experiment, it should be noted that the calculations in my proposal produce only those fractions that have been found by experiment. (My interpretation is shown in blue type). I have constructed a new table using only Hall fractions sequences published by academics. The fractions in col. (a) can also be found in my table of particle structure where the relationship between fraction, mass and radius are tabulated. http://69.5.17.59/hftbl.pdf The table supports my proposal that Tsui fractions represent a measurement between particles, the so-called incompressible fractions are a combination of particle fraction and bonding fraction that can be derived from either axis. Col. (d) shows that all the particles, defined by both axis, in cols (a) and (b) are in reality the same particle in different states of compaction, that is to say there is only one elementary particle. Although Heiselberg lists a number of fractions not found by experiment, it should be noted that the calculations in my proposal produces only those fractions that have been found by experiment. (My interpretation is shown in blue type).

Norman Albers I am dissatisfied with my earlier reply, so I have done a quick piece on particle/anti-particle collision that is not specific to any one class of particle. I hope that will enable you to understand where I am coming from. http://69.5.17.59/ptclclsn.pdf

The transfer of this submission from Classical Physics to Pseudo and Speculative Physics has lead to a collapse in the number of viewers. This makes any attempt to continue developing the CLF model on this forum rather pointless. Therefore I have decided to finish with a summary of the current position although I will, of course; welcome and reply to, any comments by anyone who does manage to find this forum. http://69.5.17.59/clf8.pdf The last version of the original paper. 1) Explains the concept of the Constant Linear Force model. 2) Proposes an explanation of the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequences of Hall fractions. 3) Uses Electron Binding Energies to show roll of Hall fractions in atomic structure. 4) Proposes a cause of Hall fractions in atomic structure. Not made clear in the above paper is that the CLF model regards atomic structure as a formation of proton-electron mesons with the proton stabilized in the atomic nucleus by the presence of neutrons. This is a vacuum structure; the CLF model does not require any other force than vacuum force. That is to mean that other forces are different states of the vacuum force (see http://69.5.17.59/erp2.pdf) just as all particles are different states of a single fundamental particle. http://69.5.17.59/erp2.pdf This paper compares the CLF model with a diagram taken from ‘The Enigmatic Electron’ by Malcolm H. Macgregor and introduces the proposal that within the fundamental particle force operates on a logarithmic scale. http://69.5.17.59/Brynstrctr.pdf This paper shows that the introduction of linear force into a table published by Klabucar et al. it shows that the difference between strange particles is a fixed quantity of linear force. This indicates that linear force can be used to produce a constant of quanta. http://69.5.17.59/brynhf.pdf Hall fractions of baryon structure – full table. http://69.5.17.59/lnr E.pdf This paper shows how the rest energy of a particle can be derived from the internal quantities of elementary particles using the CLF model. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Requiem to a thought. Welcome to the Silence of this blank page, where once great thoughts marched; only to be slaughtered by mathematicians who multiply light by light and deal in an infinity of probabilities. There was once one amongst them strong enough to declare that “God does not play dice” but traitors declared that “the dice is God” and lead them away from the land of true science into the land of hypothesis where all predictions come true, no one knows why. Try not to return, for the philosophers will heap scorn upon you and pelt you with their magic formulas that, for all their predictive magic, have no beauty that can be expressed in words; and if all else fails they will banish you, as they have banished me; to the silence of these blank pages. But come all you seekers of truth, to this dark hole, in the certainty that all light is temporary and those who worship at the alter of light, will one day see the light vanish. But on these blank pages lies the truth which is that it is in this dark nothingness that God creates a wondrous symphony, full of beauty and order, it is called Universe. For a while its awesome melodies fill this pinprick in infinity. When its last echoes fade away and the great void is again still, it is in this dark nothingness that God rests; there is no dice, no magic, only the wondrous silence of this blank page. elas

A summary of the current situation is on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=8 My thanks to those who have made constructive criticisms.

Norman Albers With reference to the relationship between vacuum fields and the other properties of particles. I have used MacGregor's work to show how the vacuum field relates to electric (SF) and electromagnetic fields. Now go to http://69.5.17.59/Brynstrctr.pdf and there I give a brief comment on the work of Klabucar et al. The point I am making is that the only constant is again found using linear force which is a measurement of the vacuum field; but this time it is the constant that give the quantum difference between particles. Sorry I have not time to go into more detail. regards elas

Norman Albers . It is not clear to me that the quantum assumption, that there are virtual quantum states only, is the only useful interpretation. I will try and explain how I visualize quanta and virtual particles in the CLF model. The value of a quantum varies in proportion to the wavelength. In the CLF model wavelength changes proportionally in agreement with changes to the Hall fraction and radii. I showed that while force equals anti-force at any point in the field; the total linear force and the total linear anti-force differ in value. This difference increases with each reduction in radius (wavelength and Hall fraction). In field structure terms an anti-particle arises from the force and anti-force field reversal of a particle; the difference in linear force (or energy) between particle and anti-particle is the quanta of that wavelength. It is the exchange of these quanta that allows particles to change their charge whilst conserving the total charge. (And incidentally conserving of particle numbers). It follows that charge is related to the difference between vacuum and anti-vacuum. ‘0’ charge particles occur when the vacuum field collapses (no difference between force and anti-force = no charge). The anti-vacuum field ( being matter) cannot collapse; it (matter) must now occupy the vacuum field of other particles. Where there are only gravitons present, the passage of large numbers of ‘0’ charged particles momentarily alters the structure of the gravitons causing the gravitons to become detectable in the form known as ‘virtual particles’. I have read some explanations of the virtual background where it is described as a ‘seething background’; given the vast quantities of photons present in space, the graviton field would indeed be ‘seething’. In all probability the collapsed vacuum force of the photons would, if expanded into electrons and positrons; account for a large part of the ‘dark matter’. What I am trying to say here is that the so-called background vacuum fluctuation is caused by the interaction of '0' vacuum (0 charge) particles with vacuum (charged) particles. Likewise it is the presence of '0' vacuum particles (neutrons) in an atomic nucleus that allows one of the meson pair (proton - electron) to be fixed in the nucleus. It is the matter of the '0' charge particles that does the work. A large part of the problem present in particle phenomenology is due to the practice of trying (and always failing) to use QT to interpret QT. We cannot use prediction to interpret prediction, it is a circular argument. We can use classical physics to interpret QT and use QT to predict the existence of classical entities; the two (classical and QT) are complimentary theories’ not rivals for the same territory. Classical is the reality and QT is the prediction of that reality. swansont Klaynos also said "Fruit and nut... does not imply the nut is a fruit." What does Klaynos call the fruit of the Hickory tree (we can all play with words). I don't see how you get from this statement to your conclusion. Saying something is missing does not mean that the missing part will be without mathematical prediction. MacGregor writes that particle phenomenology is not required to predict but, I now realize that those who use QT to write phenomenology are of a different opinion in that they require prediction. I can't find any post here where I said you were biased against quantum theory. I said you were dissatisfied with it My apologies you did not use 'bias'. I think 'dissatisfied with QT' is not the best description of my opinion; I am dissatisfied that so many people are prepared to enter the realms of string theory and brans but, cannot open there minds to a classical solution. Interpretation requires something other than more predictions. Again, take this issue up via the appropriate channels Unfortunately I do not have the time. My personal circumstances leave me with little alternative than to write replies in haste which is why I so often fail to make a good case. When I have time to do some real work I spend it trying to develop the CLF model but I have yet to assemble the various sections (presently in individual pdf files) into one body, and that is my current priority.

swansont Klaynos dealt with this particular failure of logic already, a few posts back. No he did not, his reply was: If you don't like how speculations are put into speculation forums If my work was in Speculations Forum I would have no complaint. It is in Pseudo-science and Speculation. It is the inability of some people to see the difference implied in the wording that is inexcusable. What part of physics is not mathematically predictive? It's language like this that undermine your credibility. It is the fact that physics is founded (at the most elementary stage) on mathematical prediction that leading experts (not just me) find unsatisfactory Lee Smolin sums up their thoughts as follows: ”the one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that…..we are missing something big Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that: Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory. It is not my credibility that is being undermined. And you haven't answered my question about what false comment I allegedly attributed to you ("the totally false comment you attribute to me"). What was it? You accused me of being biased against QT. I have made just two constructive criticism of QT and given my reasons for doing so, that is not bias. Norman Albers There is a possibility that your brother is wrong. This arises from our failure to properly classify our work. We are not constructing a physics theory we are constructing a particle phenomenology, therefore predictions are not required. As MacGregor puts it “there is little point in building an elaborate theoretical superstructure if the phenomenology is not correct”. Concerning his own work MacGregor concludes with a statement on Particle Phenomenology that starts with: “the end of the path is still obscure…. It is worth reading the preface to The Power of Alpha to understand the place of phenomenology in the scheme of things, - clarity leads to peace of mind. regards elas

Klaynos Ah yes the conspiracy theory that'll make people take you seriously. Clearly you did not bother to read the report by a Nobel prize winner: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/archivefreedom/main.html I am an amateur, I do not expect to be taken seriously. I do expect to be treated fairly. I expect criticism to be constructive, non-repetitive and made by people who know that a theory that uses the average of selected results is less empirical than one that does not, regardless of the mathematical accuracy of any predictive powers that theory may have. They should also know that the allocation of arbitrary values (such as fractional charge) is speculation and the fact that it fits into a predictive mathematical theory, does not make it any less speculative. The problems that arise from referring to a mathematical prediction theory as science are not my personal opinion they are the opinion held by numerous leading physicists and the need for an interpretive theory is a claim also made by several leading physicists not just by me; I should not need to keep repeating the quotes. I have no objection to my work being classed as speculation; I do have a strong objection to it being classified as Pseudo-science and speculation. And just so you know science doesn't care much for qualitative interpenetration Of course not, what according to those I have frequently quoted, are interested in; is interpretation. I repeat just one example: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". Richard Morris. Or take one I have not quoted before: Are there observations today that we theorist have not asked for, that no theory invites - observations that could move physics in an interesting direction Lee Smolin The Trouble with Physics How about the observation and prediction of Hall fractions on the cosmic scale? You will find it in the appendix to my work.

insane-alien 'new ideas' does not mean chuck everything out and start again. it could mean 'new ideas in addition to...' I could not agree more. I have frequently given quotes from leading physicist indicating that what is required is a base theory that can be used to give an interpretation of the current mathematical prediction theories. In short its time to put science back into the currently popular mathematical physics an anecdote from a popular science book is hardly the best source. Most of my quotes are from the introductions to text books written for graduates. Others, such as the works of MacGregor; are written for scientists. MacGregor's latest book attempts to explain mass using alpha quantized lifetimes. I have attempted to explain mass in terms of vacuum field structure. I have shown how my work relates to an earlier work by MacGregor dealing with electron radii. I am continually told to get my work published by those who know full well that there is not a hope in hell of doing so. This is because of an hidden process of censorship that pervades physics at present to the extent that even Noble prize winners are unable to get there work published in the correct category (see earlier reference); so what chance has an untrained amateur? I turned to SFN only to find that ultimately, the insidious process of false classification combined with false indexing, is also present on SFN so when Phi for All writes that he (or she) does not understand what I am complaining about; I find that hard to believe.

swansont Your personal dissatisfaction with quantum theory is just that Quote: The one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that new ideas are needed. Lee Smolin The trouble with Physics Got to: http://www.particlez.org and click on 'why'. Your refusal to separate 'speculation' from 'pseudo-science' and the position in the index of 'Pseudo-science and speculations' together with the totally false comment you attribute to me; says all that needs to be said about bias.

Debating the classical interpretation of particle physics is one thing, proposing a new interpretation is another. QT was started because it was considered impossible to produce a classical interpretation. QT (according to the experts I have quoted on numerous occasions) does not have an interpretation; that is why it is classified as a Mathematical Prediction Theory (if you can compute it you understand it). It follows that I am not proposing a new interpretation; I am proposing an interpretation. When Dirac, Shuecking and Einstien and Straus attempted to show that: M(U)/R(U) = constant There failure was considered a scientific endeavor, it was not dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. When I proposed that a fundamental particle could be constructed using: mr = constant It was dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. You have failed to explain why. When Heiselberg attempted to use QT to explain the cause and relevance of Hall Fractions he concluded that “these approximations should be investigated further”. When I showed that a simple classical explanation was possible using experimentally established Electron Binding Energies; That according to you, is Pseudo-science and speculation. When Mac Gregor tried and failed to unify the four widely different radii values of the electron that was science. When I showed how and why each radii is explained as the different states of a vacuum/anti-vacuum field; that is Pseudo-science and speculation. I would agree that my presentation is poor, but the mathematics and the interpretation are not; science is the search for understanding, it should not be limited to building mathematical castles regardless of their predictive accuracy. If you want your view to be accepted, come up with some evidence that supports it, and not the standard view. How many quantities in QT (such as the fractional charges of quarks) are inserted solely to reach agreement with the mathematical structure of the theory, they are without experimental proof, and as several experts have pointed out the theory is not meant to be understood you should not ask how that particular ‘trick’ is done; if you can compute it you understand it. My mathematics are accompanied by an explanation of how, or why; each particular trick is done. If now, you cannot understand why I feel justified in complaining then, as I wrote earlier there is no point in my continuing.

It is clear that by selecting which points to reply to, and which points to ignore; combined with the authority to transfer submissions to 'Pseudo-science and Speculations' swansont is able to stifle any debate on the Classical Interpretation of Particle Physics. (note the choice of and instead of the alternative choice of or and the index placement of speculative physics well away fro the other physics forums; in order to discourage any refusal to accept the if you can compute it you understand it school of thought). There are times in life when it is advisable to acknowledge the someone else holds all the aces and further debate is pointless, this is one such time. I admit defeat but, I do not think the winner has achieved anything worthwhile in such a hollow tactical victory.

swansont All this "Time is an Illusion" stuff is because there is a "lay" definition of Time and a"scientific" definition of time and people are trying to mash them together.The lay definition is based on our (extremely) falable perceptions. However, the Scientific one is mathematical and is beyond understanding based on our perceptions So illusions and things beyond understanding based on our perceptions are science while an attempt to explain the relationship between such basics as force, anti-force and time are pseudo-science. The statement beyond understanding based on our perceptions is of course similar to all the quotes (by experts) about QT that I have repeatedly submitted to SFN. My proposal is not QT (mathematical prediction theory); it is classical science based on the fact that what little data we have shows that mass X radius = constant. This does for Particle physics what Dirac (1937) Einstein and Straus (1945) and Schuecking (1954) tried to do for the cosmos when each in their time, endeavored to confirm that M/R = Constant (their capitals). Norman Albers Relativity is a classical theory and the proposal that M/R = Constant is made in classical physics terms where the Vacuum Zero Point is a dimensionless point that has a fixed energy. It is this basic energy (equivalent to the background or minimum energy of space in QT) that is the constant referred to in my reply to swansont. Note that the minimum energy level of space deduced using QT is calculated for the situation that exists after universal creation. To find the true or maximum level ZPE it would be necessary to transfer back to the ZPs the energy extracted to create the particles that make up the universe. Note that ZPE is constant because, regardless of whether the energy is within the ZP or in a field around the ZP; it is still the property of the ZP.

Norman Albers Elas, why do you say "partial vacuum"? These days I am seeing the vacuum field as the substrate which manifests radiation and massive "particles". Mass is local structure. But within the substrate, absolute vacuum exists only in the form of Vacuum Zero Points; all manifestations are partial vacuum fields (i.e. vacuum/anti-vacuum fields). Since my last reply swansont has pointed out that I am breaking the rules when referring to my work on other forums. This means that I am limited to saying that the (classical) mathematics of such fields can be derived from the work of Mac Gregor. Have just found: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284 Try replacing magnetic force with vacuum force. That is what I did, many years ago, with the introduction to one of Puthoff's papers to get my starting point. Use Mac Gregor's Enigmatic Electron (Fig. 1:1) to see the relationship between vacuum force and all other forces. PS: What I am really trying to say is that all forces are manifestations of the Vacuum Force The base (VZP) frame is unchanging and therefore timeless - it is always Now. The manifestations are subject to change and time, as we know it; is a method of measuring those changes but, even here; the only real time is Now. The difference being that in the base frame Now is everlasting; in the manifestations frame Now is to short to give it a mathematical value. This fleeting moment is the everlasting moment of reality

Norman Albers I think there is an alternative way of explaining 'spacetime' and would like you to consider the following: there is a "spacetime fabric" There is a historical record in the form of light that travels outward from each point of light generation; the observer sees this as an unstoppable film; only the frame present when the time is ‘now’ is observable. The speed at which each frame travels is determined by the density of matter (gravitons). The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. Because each observer is in a local gravity field, each observer sees light arriving at the same constant speed regardless of the direction from which the light is coming or the relative velocities of observer and the point of origin of the light. (Because the photons are being passed from graviton to graviton at the local rate). The entire fabric of mass and radiation behaves as per this fabric we are discussing Wrong way around; mass determines the structure of the ‘spacetime’ frame. The term ‘spacetime’ is simply part of a professional language; it is the mathematics of the movement of light in a partial vacuum.

Norman Albers I think there is an alternative way of explaining 'spacetime' and would like you to consider the following: there is a "spacetime fabric" There is a historical record in the form of light that travels outward from each point of light generation; the observer sees this as an unstoppable film; only the frame present when the time is ‘now’ is observable. The speed at which each frame travels is determined by the density of matter (gravitons). The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. Because each observer is in a local gravity field, each observer sees light arriving at the same constant speed regardless of the direction from which the light is coming or the relative velocities of observer and the point of origin of the light. (Because the photons are being passed from graviton to graviton at the local rate). The entire fabric of mass and radiation behaves as per this fabric we are discussing Wrong way around; mass determines the structure of the ‘spacetime’ frame. The term ‘spacetime’ is simply part of a professional language; it is the mathematics of the movement of light in a partial vacuum.