The Variability of the Speed of Light by James A. Putnam

Hi Tom,

Nonsense in the context of my message means that I interjected something into physics theory that has no chance of being correct nor of exhibiting signs of meaning or purpose. That there is no logical connection between what I add and previous work that proved useful. Examples of such possible nonsensical changes are to remove electric charge, to remove gravity, to accept light as a variable everywhere even in actual space as opposed to free-space.

If any one of these changes has no logical connection to empirical evidence and has no correlation with established physics theory then there should be no resulting useful results. There is the extremely unlikely possibility that one might accidentally appear to give a useful result, but not multiple cases for that change nor in conjunction and combination with the other changes that I have adopted.

It is possible to adopt different useful interpretations. I consider the two choices of making mass an indefinable property and of making it a definable property reasonable conclusions. Both can be expected to produce useful results. At some point though, important differences in results will begin to matter greatly. The major difference, in my opinion, is that the wrong choice interjects disunity into physics theory. That disunity will not be removable until that first choice is changed. If the choice is not changed, then disunity will become intollerable at some point so that physics theory cannot continue to advance.

That is when inventions are introduced by theorists: "What can I add that will achieve the appearance of unity?" The added invented property will not itself be detectable. The disunited properties that made need of the invented property will then be used to indirectly prove the existence of the undetectable property. Today's theoretical physics has many such invented properties.

My reason for insisting that all properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be definable in terms of that evidence is that: A direct clear connection to empirical evidence is the best guard against making inferior choices. If you look at my definitions replacing Maxwell's equations First Essay I expect that you might see that replacing electric charge with a fundamental increment of time does produce useful results. The fields are gone. The resulting equatons are expressible in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The last step to be added is to replace energy with force and distance and to replace momentum with force and time.

If that result is not convincing and still allows for random chance to have produced a 'meaningful looking' result, then the reader should consider all the other meaningful results that are provided in that same essay. I began my essays with that first one filled with results because they point very strongly to something occurring that cannot be nonsense.

My general meaning of random is no meaning. Even the billiard ball types of example, while being useful simulations for visualizing randomness, are not truly random. In true randomeness there is no way for billiard balls to bounce off one another. That act of bouncing shows that a useful property with meaning has been interjected into the example. Anything concluded from that example is not an accurate appraisal of the consequences of randomnes.

My choice for the central question or focus point for consciousness is our ability to find, arrange, interpret, and attach meaning to that wild storm of photons, and, to turn that meaning into a useful picture so that we imagine that we see the universe operating, and, to do this lightning quick over and over with a very high degree of accuracy. This act, and any part of it, is not possible without our already having access to meanings stored within ourselves. It cannot be acquired. No new step can have any meaning unless we give it to it.

James

Tom,

Adding to my previous message: I should have made clear that consistent useful results from different chosen paths indicates a strong possibility that there are more than one path to choose. When I said earlier that what I have presented in my essays should attract the attention of theoretical physicists, I meant that the possibility of two or more useful paths puts anyone's chosen path at risk for resulting from the wrong choice.

I keep pointing to the definition of mass as one vulnerable choice. The others include electric charge, temperature, and mutiple fields. Those multiple fields, I think are the most apparent evidence that theoretical physics has introduced inventions to substitute either for lack of knowledge or to force the appearance of unity. The choice for making mass an indefinable property substituted for lack of knowledge. The same holds for temperature and electric charge.

At least that is my view. I guess I have said more than enough to turn professionals off; however, the results will keep coming and they will continue to all be clearly linked together through fundamental unity.

James

Tom and Frank,

Things have come to a halt here and that is fine. You two have given me the most worthwhile messages with regard to excellent challenges. I will only be on the Internet intermittingly for the next few weeks. During that time I will write responses because your opinions are welcome again. Tom your last challenging message had good detail to it. I will be showing how some of those potential problems do not occur from my point of view. Anyway, they need tested. Thank you both.

I have only rated two essays thus far. I will wait until I can be active again before posting any evaluations or resume ratings.

James

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your message. My current Internet connection is minimal and unreliable. I will read your messages. My responses will be intermittent. Perhaps days apart for the next two weeks. I have solutions that pertain to putting mass as the acceleration of light that have not yet been presented here. One has to do with predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom using only the masses of the proton and electron. When I have a reliable connection I will say more about this. Thank you again.

James

Hi Israel,

Please give the quotes along with your interpretations of them pointing out specific words and their usage. Just want to respond knowing that we are communicating accurately. Thank you.

James

Israel Omar Perez,

Thank you for your reply. I will read your essay.

James

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your message. Most of my time was spent helping my brother renovate an old farmhouse into something much more like a country cottage. He will be soon retiring there. It is a yearly event. The location is forty miles from the nearest small town. I receive roaming service in the small town, but receive nobody's service at the farm.

I see that Dr. Perez preceded my name with Dr. I am sure it must have been inadvertent. Although I deliberately avoid giving out information about my education and work experience, I do regularly state that I am not a physicist. I do not want readers to perhaps be misled by its omission.

James

Hi Vijay,

Thank you for your kind message. I followed your link "As a PicoPhysicist, I say your proposition 'presence of matter causes light to slow as it approaches the matter' is a derivative conclusion from 'unary law' in PicoPhysics." I am not certain from reading it how it applies to what I say about the variation of the speed of light. I have read your essay today and will comment on it at your forum. It is interesting to learn what others think and it was interesting to read your view. I look forward to reading exchanges between yourself and others at your forum.

James