POAMs / breaktime conversations

0:00 I'll see you soon. What is Ks? What is the spin? Well, let's take, uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh And we simply cash it out in Joules and we get a kinetic energy which when we feed into this formula changes G.

2:30 Now G is the terrestrial G only for Ks is not. That's only for non-spinning bodies or bodies with such small spin that it seems like a spin of the moon or something. The amount of spin that you can get into macroscopic bodies to make this have any effect on curly genes here would be so big that they would disintegrate, an ordinary one would disintegrate. It's only on the magnitude of masses like what we call on Earth. The electron and the proton, that you can get that kind of spin in. Now when you do that, G turns into an equivalent of the electrostatic, the electromagnetic constant. Right? So this becomes, in other words, for Ks equals naught, this is what on Earth we call a gravitational equation, but Ks equals something. Thank you. Key terms include what we call an electromagnetic equation. So we got rid of charge. You don't need that on Mars. That's an essentially terrestrial concept. The terrestrial history, all connected with all the guys like Coulomb and Faraday, etc, etc. But there's none of that on Mars. On Mars we just have this. And I'm just talking about this now, a simple circle motion. The vector job is done by my colleague, Anthony Johnson, and spectacularly, you might say so. Now that equation works for, well it works in principle right through for all the other so-called forces that tow bodies into orbits. It works for all those.

5:00 On Mars it works. It works okay. Ah, wait, let's take a look at this video of Faraday and Maxwell and all that stuff, and then you see this from Mars, is how we get the bottom of all of them. That's it. Voila. I used to be a Terry for a long time ago. You have the time dilation formula. One by us now. We don't talk about what C is, what D is, or N is. And we say, well, Where the hell is it? What are you doing out of sight? The time relation formula. So, we say, okay, that's a general equation for time, you know, in the round, the time ticked by watches, clocks, etc. Let's assume that there's a basic time, a quantum time, a limit or reduction on time. Let's make it that. Well, there's a guy, So, Diophantus, who talked about numbers and things like that, he said that any number can be represented by one number over another number. And so we do that. We don't know what that basic irreducible time is.

7:30 Well, it's not basic. It's not irreducible because we've got a denominator, big N. Which is this back here. So we have a small n there that has to come out. So we have n, a small n or a big n, but these are integers, and they are, you feed that into this formula, you substitute that for t in this, and what you get is this. Yeah, this is n times. That n shouldn't be there. The n shouldn't be here. T over big N is some fraction of T, and then T is some number of those fractions. Okay? And then the digits. And then the digits, yes. This is all what on Mars is recognized as the quantum number, right? So, you do that. This is the same as that. We substitute e over m, or v squared, and that's what you have to do. Why? Well, on Mars it is. Because this is the way they do it. I don't know about Mars really. Oh, it's the same as here. What was energy? These are the martians trying to translate for you as well. You know, e to the half m e squared, so I re-squared the two e over m, and I've got the potential energy of just e over m. It's like that. Without an h, you're not getting dimensions, right? Without something, a dimension of an h? Well, it's dimensionally okay. E over m is... So, you feed that then, you put e over m, substitute for v squared there.

10:00 Now I can't see it. Um, reasonably clear. Is it? So, you swap v squared over t squared for e over m c squared now. On the left we have this, and here we have the controlling variable here now is e, we assume that the name is gone, and so we have that there. Now, where are we going? We're going down here. I divide by Planck's constant, h. Martians will try to interpret in our language, if you understand. So you get mu, which is the frequency, an unknown frequency, is equal to n squared, the big N squared, the mu, the limited mu, or a coefficient of the series, and you have that line. They do a fixed term, one term, and you get a whole mess of, you know, sort of sets of series that you get in hydrogen spectra, you know, and the spectra, the simplicity in hydrogen, of course. And in the end, you come down to this new, this N squared times some coefficient that we don't know, it's an empirical. We find out that empirically, well, you get a series. You get a series of just like what you get in a book on spectroscopy. And this is the Balmer-Rydberg-Cormann-Hitler example. You don't know what this is, but if you put this in as empirically a Rydberg constant, then you have it right here. Straightforward as in the text on the spectra of hydrogen-like ions.

12:30 So, what I try to do is, I don't go into great depth on that. We do go into great depth on it. But that has been derived now, as I said, from, this is in a Martian way of thinking. So you go on. Straight from an interpretation of C as not being a velocity, straight through observationally to Einstein's equation or a Martian exact triple error. And we go from that in Mars, we go straight from there to the Parva formula. Right? Now then, there is something else which I just hoped. You wouldn't be able to show them. I don't seem to have it here. You see, you have this formula. You have this formula here. Starting from there, I'm going to have to crash this because I have the thing with v squared. And here we have, oh, this is like, right now I'm not going to work it. Whatever this is. The grand PR was G.M.M. Loving. And that is an equivalent of the Newtonian and the momentum for Kearney G. So we're talking about what on Earth is called gravitation of a phenomenon, but it's not so unbiased.

15:00 P down there, right, so we put P squared equal to m, m plus or so, that equals gm over r, right, down there. Of course, we've got another equation which on the other page is r is equal to g over r. Now then, so what we do is, we take the three squared there, and we substitute it in there, from which we get 1 minus g over r c squared. What is called an inertial space. Our formula, the Martian formula, now applies to bodies in orbit. This is a time dilation formula for orbits. Now when I came up with this idea, I had a hell of a row with the GPS people. They said, this is what they're doing, this is what they've discovered. And they said, well you shouldn't have discovered that. You're tearing the land off. It's not supposed to be done that way. You've got to do it experimentally and you've got to talk about all the illuminati that have been in our history and everything like that. You just can't do it like that. But in a factor, you can, obviously. I did that, and that was a little bit naive for my colleague, Anthony Osborne. And he talked it up. He worked on it.

17:30 And has now produced, without going anywhere else, I mean the poems of the Martian way of thinking, has gotten now to 100% accurate the prediction for what should happen to these artificial satellites that they've discovered are losing time. And I got it to within 60% with my coming up with street mathematics. I think he's got it down to a hundred percent. Not only that, but on the same time, I'm only just giving you just little snippets of what we've done over 40 years in this thing. Just little moves, which you have read, which would seem Absolutely logical to make. He's created this. He'll bend, he'll bend into this, do the substitutions. And you come up by what I have called a system of pure logical syllogistic, that's without any concept at all. Just, you know, in a way Socrates would have done. You tell me, what is energy? Well, energy could have been, if that is so. You know, it's this simple logic, like I teach logic, that is to say, about this bishop, not a bishop, a priest, a Catholic priest who takes confessionals at the New Zealand Garden Party, and the woman comes up to him, the hostess, and she said, you know, a Catholic priest must have some very, you know, meaty confessions. And he said, well, yes, by the nature of my job. So, she said, well, tell us something. I said, I can't. And, well, I dropped to her. So, she said, well, tell us something, but without telling us the name. Oh, he said, well, he said, I'll tell you honestly. He said, my first penitent was a murderer. Oh, she said, isn't that interesting? So, anyway, she wandered off and she meets the mayor. The mayor comes along and he says,

20:00 So I talked to Father Fitzpatrick there. He said, do you know it? Yes. He said that was his first penitence. Well, you see, that's the kind of reasoning that goes on Mars, which is Isaiah. And by just a simple set of things like that, so he didn't have to know whether this mare, where he came from, was it Birmingham or Oracle. You don't have to know any of that. You see, you just say what this says or what this says or what this says. And you read about all the conceptual packages. So what I'm trying to say is that I think that there is a case to be made, and I'm not... Far be it from me to. To try and insist on it, you can imagine that I've got it, when you take up this new paradigm course that a lot of people think that I'm mad to suggest that. But no, it's a matter of putting out your wares for choice, for features. If you find out that you can get Einstein's formula without any of the, all the stuff that Einstein had to go through, as Cindy was saying earlier on. You know, the way in which these things were discovered, they had to come up with some kind of rationale at the time. And as I think it was Clay who was saying about, or someone was saying about the way Maxwell came to his ideas of electrodynamics. And the idea of electrodynamics and Faraday's idea of a field, well, they weren't great at the time. Well, I would send you and say that sometimes you should look, there should be an outbound and start to look back over them and say, perhaps it had been better if they hadn't thought to turn the fields off, or something, or they need to have done that. I think you're looking to say something. Yeah, why? I do want to say a few things. Firstly, can we all say some things about the school year? Sure, sure. It's all one part of the school year. The first one is I welcome the new thing that we've seen. I'm not sure this new thing has been entirely evolved.

22:30 What you said this morning, there's no logical necessity to suppose that we have so much of that. I thought, well, that's splendid. Yes, we've all agreed on that all the time. Only the old thing seems to tell us that we've got not, that we mustn't think of those things. Now we're only told we don't, that it's possible to do without them, which we've all agreed. So we have a new, there's a new film. Yes. More on that, more on that. I think you've still got a few corners to pick up. Well, my wife has worked very hard on me. That's the first welcoming remark. I had a drilling before I came here this morning. She said, keep your hands unclean and keep your shoulders up. Yes, I mean, let me get on to my second one. I'm done with capturing now. Oh well, here it comes. Here is my criticism and that is this whole business is all poems and the S stands for synthesis and I'm not, I don't really buy this idea of synthesis. We've got here, well... I don't like that kind of talk, but you've explained to us two pieces of work. One is what Anthony Osborne talked about last time about object, or Aristotelian, and the other is... The way that you see special relativity. They don't seem to be synthesized together in a single thing at all. They only seem to have big tongue in common. Oh, yeah. Okay, let me take you a second on that. I was actually invited out to buy . Yeah. I went out to Greece and it was nice to be able to discuss this. On the same spot, the things that stood on. I remarked about this and the guy said, he got dead on that spot. But anyway, so, right, the synthesis bit, he said, this is what he said, and he was right at the time.

25:00 He said, he said you've got two theories, one about relativity and one about the angular momentum synthesis. But now, we did mobilize ourselves to join them together. Now you see, I said something about a joke this morning. What I have to try and get across here is I dished out one whole thing like a joke. But it's more like a shaggy dog story that you couldn't tell someone at the bus stop. You know, the secret, quick development trend, as the poet says. But believe me, Larry, we have addressed that. And I hope you'll see some stuff to show just how we have been. So that does warrant the idea of synthesis. As for the other one, the first one, what can I say? When I was, Mary and I, we were in the mayor's ball, would you believe me? The mayor's ball. I have to say now, this wasn't, it was a dance, not a rap, but anyway, Mary saw me looking down this woman's dress, and she came up to me now, got me by the screw, made my dinner soup, this was reported now, the next day. And somebody said about the incident at the dance, and the guy stood up and said, well, he said, they're Welsh, you know. So I can't apologize, I am naturally volatile. I do the best I can, and when he's working hard on me to try and disguise me as a gentleman. And I've done the best I can. I'm glad you're not distant. I guess I can make a curt remark then, which might be useful to you in your expertise. Over the matter of your bringing up Mars, and it's a joke that Bondi told me years ago in that interview. About Mars?

27:30 About Mars. You see, space travel has become possible, and the people went to Mars. I just described it and they were shown around the market and it turned out to be very polite. People speak the correct English and so on and they took these spacemen along and there was a huge place that looked a bit like all the works of Saturn and they said, well come in here and we'll show you what we're making. So they went in and they saw this stuff and they were like, well what are we making here? So the martian says, what does that mean? He is a martian. So the horoscope says, no, you don't do it that way on earth. So the martian says, well how do you do it? I don't know. So they explain to him. Isn't that funny? That's how we make motion. I saw it about Mars. These spacemen had landed and they were talking to these guys. They were like a groin or something like that. And they were sitting in space and they said, If you think that we're a newie, then you see our mental. But anyway, shall I just, just to, okay, any other, any other questions that, that stem from me, I say, not standing firm in the antilog. There is an eminent pharisee in reasoning which is that trying to refit one thesis by presenting another. You can't do that. You've got to show what, if anything, are the inconsistencies. Or compendictions in their thesis, where they can't do that. They're still going to say, well, I have another thesis, so you've got to be wrong. I'm glad you don't, but that is what you get. Okay, now I would set up some questions if you'd like. This came up at lunch, but I'd like to get your answer to it.

30:00 Sure. Can you be a bird in physics and in half the world in general? Not to open your approach to physics, would you like to do that? Well, yes. I can do just that, if you would understand what I mean. I would play with this idea, having done all of my stuff to be a telephone engineer. You couldn't look out and do a thing with a binocular that's a lightning strike from an acerator. You've got to work it out, the whole logic and everything. And so I found myself in an attempt to understand that as an engineer, I could only think in the way I'd been trained as an engineer. Else I wouldn't have been able to bring home the bus. And meanwhile, I was playing with this, a division like this. I'm reminded of what David Hume was asking. David Hume, the philosopher, was one of the first to subjectivise everything, you know, it's all a dream, is it not? And the students asked him, how can you live like that? But he said, you know, because he said, when I leave this room now, he said, I will leave through the ground floor front door, not through the upstairs window. See what I mean? You know, you've got to live in the world, in the practical world that paints you and does this and that. So, this is for my point. Yes, I've been there. And to be quite honest, in any image, it's a frame. But I can see now that, you know, if somebody asks me to pick something, say television set or radio, I've got to pick, say, the Rosteds and, you know, Carrads and... But with this kind of thing, you think you should apply this to other things. For example, for example, language. For example, for example, language.

32:30 And you can be exposed to many, many different kinds of things, or Arabic as well, and of course Arabic has, you know, the Arabic movement, and we've got a lot more than I said already. Well, that's plain, but what's the point of it? No, no, you know, are you advocating that we should always use the same language? No. You see, in the 40 years that I'm talking about language, the media was saying this. And I had to go across the floor from philosophy into physics. And this was at the behest of John Bell, right, sir. I was out there, I was... I was an editor for a philosophical journal called the Philosophical Newspaper and I got on all right with John Bellamy, which he said, he said, you're a philosopher. I said, why then? How are you guys? You and your friends, why don't you come here and help us? He said, it's lovely. And I said, well, gee, I, I said, how do you manage like that? I said, look it up. He said, it's better than looking down the line. Well, and so it was. Wonderful. But I thought, well, anyway, I did swap over, as he had. He was the philosopher first, the physicist second, he swapped over, and this, so this is what happened. I crossed the fork on philosophy into metaphysics. But I came into physics with a package of an arts degree in philosophy, right, and... In that language, in philosophy, language was central to the extent that many philosophers have been called the language police. You know, the Wittgenstein? Not quite in the way that Tech picked that book, but quite a bit later. But what happens to language? You know, language problems like, you say, put the light out. Yeah, okay, put the light out. Put the cat out. Where's the switch, you know? All sorts of things like that can go wrong. And, you know, yes, language. Language was my first call.

35:00 You see, in physics, for instance, if something exists, x exists, what is it? Is it a proton? Is it something or other? Is it something I once called a non-existent or a coton? Would you believe? And is it one of those things, is it something substantial, material? No. In philosophy and in logic, there's something, what does it mean to a test? X is. X is what? You never say it's what. You know, Y is, is it thread, is it glue, is it heavy, is this or that? So you've got a subject, an X. And a predicate system which could be anything at all. But what bestows existence on that X is not something you can touch or feel or kip or anything like that. It's what is signified by the predicate system. XS means that something is signified by the verb to be, the copula. And anyway, I'm going into it now. You wouldn't like the roof to come down on you, no? But I could discuss that at a great length and would love to do so. We could do it here and now. Yes, sir? I'd like to solicit your comment on the funneling focus on coding mathematics and other... Well, incidentally, can I say just a bit about it? I discussed that when we got into it, you said. Pardon me? I discussed, you know, the note that you wrote that we had discussed. Okay. Before the relativity of existing had been understood, which happened some centuries after the relativity of simultaneity had been understood, that is to say, before existence was seen to be a meaningless, superstitious relic of old thinking, almost everything that the schoolmen of the 20th century studied was said to exist, as it was called. It is difficult for us nowadays to put ourselves into the mindset of those dark ages. Perhaps persist is quite close to what they meant by exist. Or perhaps what I meant was close to real. It seems to have been something mystical.

37:30 That's what you wrote? No. Who wrote that? Not me. Professor Gibson. Oh, did he? Well, interesting, so it didn't matter. We've crossed swords before. Is he persisting? Or is he like... He's persisting at this moment. Well, yes, to some extent, that's true. But as things move on, in philosophy as anything else, I mean, no philosopher has ever claimed to be the Delta God. You know, I mean, you learn. I mean, one philosopher came on the scene, for instance, that rocked me by studies of these things. Dictum, you know, to be is to be perceived that everyone's a fool, that's it. But this guy more white and shifted that whole course of philosophy. So you see this is what I was doing and I became gradually nearer and nearer and nearer to the sort of state of mind that I was in when I went to CERN. And when Doug Bell asked me to do this, I said, you know, use philosophical training to help out with conceptions of things, you know, which I've done. And I must say, though they'll say I said I shouldn't, it's worked to an amazing extent. And just so long as you can somehow or another emancipate yourself. From a scholarly tradition, which is easy for me because I got school at an early age. My mother used to go to school and say, how was our baby doing? They said, he developed with medicine. And I was great at disappearing and learning what I learned from stockyards and things like that while I was studying books. And I'm very glad for that. So I'm more or less working out myself, as in the ways I've shown. And now, thank God... I've got others now with me, the whole team, and it's working to the extent that I could argue about it myself.

40:00 Certainly the language comes into it, you see, definitely the point in the background. And what you said, Leo, about a lot of these things were just, what do we say? Mystical objects, yes, present with us. And one of the most mystical objects in classic time is, as I said, the photon. There are mystical objects around now. They abound. They're not mystic on Mars. They're mystics on Earth. And you then seem to make all the laws that you've done. Well, that's all I ask you to write down. And the rest of us would write that down and be on the way round. Oh, yes. And then it's a matter of what the end of the day wins. I mean, and by winning I mean which presents the neatest, the simplest... Well, yes, it's a little more complicated than that makes it sound because of what you were saying just now about what you must be prepared to do for your scholarly position. But some of us would rather have scholarly positions. There are a number of different ways of doing it, but I think it's more important than doing it without, as you said yourself, without the concepts. We've reckoned that the derivation of the vulnerable formula is good because there are no concepts involved. I'd rather have some concepts. You see, the smoke's rather clean. I want that woman to say today, you know, why should they travel in planes? Why not travel in trains in the region? What's intended? See, I mean, that's okay. You do understand that I'm not trying to say, look, you must develop this. It's up to you. I mean, if you can really understand, all the time, all the time, demand, yes, demand, is that you don't, that people don't dump my ideas on a basis of some misunderstanding of it that they've manufactured themselves.

42:30 You know, I honestly say I'm quite dogmatic. You know you've got it wrong. You've got it wrong with this and that thing. But that doesn't mean to say you have to accept this package, but make it this package, not a mixture of this and some other package and then cut this. But you can't make technical observations without having theories about what might be going on, so you ask the question to carry out some procedure, if it is so, but you can't have theories without having concepts, and the whole thrust of science has been to... Produce more and more predictions about the world with less and less concepts. Okay, so you may say let's get rid of some concepts, some concepts, but not all of them. And maybe we have to bring in new ones. But this procedure is quite rigid. You can't have theories without context, which is how I'm thinking about it. You can't do a fixed experiment without having a theory. Yeah, but Tony, I mean, look at my data for one second. I don't know what you're thinking about. Right. Why do you think that's a lack of a topology? And we go along with that, and we make predictions. We make a prediction which is, well, we avoid that. But we recognize that. I mean, we're not doing some lunatic thing here of making a, constructing a dream world. We are taking full account of every experimental bit of evidence that is chucked at us. And over 40 years, there's been a heap of that, I can tell you. That's a good example. Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to seeing you again next time.

45:00 Summing over all sorts of potentials, so-called, which may be physically real, yet the totality is in the right hands. Yeah, but you see, standing in my temple, yes, God, right? As I said, you know, yes. What we set back is a 10-point idea, and I could use one example to say, you know, I discussed this with you the other day, didn't we, about how difficult it is to make a transition from one concept to another. But, but, but, see, that works. What you're saying is that that concept works in the anterior paradigm, right? Here's all you've got, you see, and not just one. May I bring up something? I did actually make this talk a couple of weeks ago, but it's been very, very slow. Did you speak to the way it comes to mathematics during the degree, starting with the rest of the year and then starting with the whole year? I find it natural. In fact, you have to have an idea of what the linear motion is before you can describe the deviation of the curve. In other words, the build-up of the curve. If you see what's weighing at the start of that point of view, then you can have something more complicated like, you can study the class of the whole group of four, and you can say, assuming that the fourth second I have to observe it, it seems to be not in the vertical plane, then you can make the start point look a bit different, and it seems not to be in the vertical plane. Why don't you have to build up from that? You see, I'm not a reductionist. I start with concepts on a common sense level. I don't do what I sometimes criticize in the beginning with the numbers. You imagine, you make yourself like God as it were.

47:30 How do you think we're numbering every starting off from basics, which are non-observational? I start with concepts at the observational level. The concepts of, let's say, a garage mechanic or an ordinary engineer. There are the mistakes. There are the mistakes. It took somebody as clever as me to realize that you couldn't. Remove the confusion about force, motion, inertia, unless you start it off with an idealization or reduction, which actually never happens at first, but nevertheless helps you to understand what really does happen. You was the fellow who told me this. Because you threw mud at him this morning. You did. You reject. It's not a theory, it's a set of axes and it's circular. But it helps us to think. There's more to politics now than to science. I just wanted to make one statement. This has to do really with Cynthia's talk. What? And also what you've said. I heard around the room several people saying, well, the way we perceive is on the basis of ultimately anesthetic. Or who will come up with the cleanest package? And I think what Cynthia was getting at was a very excellent point. Is that in a point in time when infrastructure is historically, where certain things have been developed in a certain way, based on certain concepts, using history, there does come a time when in seeking unification, between things which are seemingly given paradox, you must choose It may not be what history is telling you. And that's a much more important driving force in trying to do physics than is this, you know, I like this, I like that, the aesthetics.

50:00 Here, here. Here, here. Here, here. And in mathematics as well, if I may add. Some things are intrinsically simpler than others, and you start with the simple and you build up more of the things which aren't necessarily and relatively more complicated. What is simple? It will be brought up on the tradition of counting horses, but they are very complicated to understand. Please, I'm not at that position. I agree. No, no, no. I absolutely agree. You brought up a lot of traditional country horses, country rides, and you want to ride the rides? Well, let me repeat the first thing you said. It's easier to count horses than to count animals, so we can look at this as more than the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse, the length of the horse What kind of guy in the bar thinks that it's common sense to have a two-dimensional river of time? That's what you propose as the simple explanation of relativity. The two-dimensional river of time in which distances are measured by the Pythagorean theorem. Yes, that's your theory. Say I have a time this way, I have a time this way, and I have a time this way, and this one square is equal to the square of this one plus the square of that one. That is what you propose to tell the guy in the bar. Do you want to know why that's common sense? I know I'm being pushy.

52:30 Well, I don't know if you don't mind me being pushy as well, right? It's your Welsh ancestry, Lou. And I tell you this, that the guy in the bar would see it very, very clearly if I told him that for every moving body, that two times, not one, one is the time of the distance that the body travels by my watch, my observable clock, the other one is the time that the body... Why is it common sense that those two times run perpendicularly to one another in a two-dimensional space measured by Euclidean geometry? That's not common sense to me. I find that fantastic. And given that it's fantastic, I emphasize that it's fantastic, and that you can take that as a positive if you get special relativity. But it is fantastic. It is not common sense. It's fantastic from your standpoint. You see, what I'm trying to show you is common sense. And if I were a lot of them, you'd get this. And don't forget that common sense is not an oracle of truth. Common sense can evolve. And I have seen it evolve. I've seen the common sense evolve in these lectures and paradigms of this, what you call, symposium or whatever that we have. And they can cop onto it. Yes, they can. And with some of them, one of them said, I hate to put it this way, I'm not putting it this way. And she said, like Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, where she suddenly saw this and thought, my God, we've got all wrong everywhere. Actually, not the only one. Now, common sense is not set in a stick. Common sense can be bought. Well, a stick of cement, plastic, a stick. Anyway, you see the point is that he's not set for all time. There's no big C, common sense. Common sense he bought. When I was a youngster, my own mother, for God's sake, my father was an amateur astronomer and he predicted all that he had is now common sense now.

55:00 Uncommon sense, he wrote you those things. My mother said to me when she watched the moon landings, she said, look at it, she said, your father was right, he knew it. They did this, and then she said, it is a good job though that they didn't go there when it was a new moon. No, that wasn't all that long ago. And there were people, I remember how my father had to run the gauntlet for saying that people would get to the moon, and it would happen, he said, as soon as the military got cut all of the benefits of it. And it happened just like that, but when he was alive, which is, you know... It wasn't in the paleontological network. It was not common sense. And I'm all for common sense evolving on the basis of being presented with the clearest and most economical case. And I don't see any criticism to that at the present time. We need to strip away theories not to add more and more and more. People tell you common sense means that God is a mushroom and this and that and it's a little bit because of some, that and the other. Anyway, hope you don't laugh. But common sense is not set in promptness. I think the races are very, very important about the nature of time. Well, perhaps you need a mythology in which it says what was the old mythology about the speed of light and time. Yeah, yeah. We got it. Well, I think that we agree. It's a very interesting physical fact about the universe. It's something everyone agrees with. Yeah. It's very interesting. We got it. We got it. Perfect. Yeah. Well, I'd like to read, it's actually the opening slide of my presentation, but I think now would be a good time to read it, in light of what we've just been saying, because it really is an echo of what Paul said, and like Luke said, it's ancient wisdom. Lynn, I'm not stopping you, but we're actually at the end of the official time. I suggest that people eat tea or coffee before Luke stops.

57:30 We're all listening. Go ahead. It's just a few seconds. After a time of decay, the powerful life that has been banished to eternity, there is movement to be not thought of, brought about by the work, the movement is natural, arising and declining, for this reason the transformation of the old becomes the new, the old becomes the new, and the new becomes the new. Both meanings of course are time. Perhaps we should make that an academic theory. Therefore, no harm to the results. It's going to do the same. Can I say this? You're not the first one to have done stuff like that to me. And more of it is coming now. It's something from a strange thing. No, I'm not religious myself, right? But it's coming from religious waters. You know, the light in the sense of the length of the world rather than something travelling in space, and I'm having a lot of that at the moment. And, yes, can I just say something over there? At the Swansea workshop, there was a German guy who came along. He was something like Ronnie Corbett, a small guy who had lost all his voice. You know, Anthony liked coffee. He lived in Croatia, like this, terrible long war, you know, he lived in the university. And then he would just put, eat once, and look at his watch and say, COFFEE! Probably in this instance. Are we having coffee at all?