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

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 James,

Your observation is correct from my point of view. The only point that I will make at this time is that my approach does indicate that the age of the universe is much older than current projections. I will respond more fully at a later time. Thank you for your message.

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 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

Edwin,

Sorry, that 'Dr.' stood out immediately upon reading your message. It is important to me to make clear that I am not a physicist.

You are very correct about my having good feelings when a physicist says something that gives support to something that I say. It has happened before :) My hesitation to highlighting it has to do with the rest of what I say. I say too much that goes far against accepted theory.

Take for example what I say about defining mass, and all properties for that matter, strictly in terms of the properties of its empirical evidence. Should a physicist ever agree with that point, I would be elated. It is a key point who's acceptance would necessarily throw support to much else I say.

Or, if a physicist ever agreed with what I have stated about electric charge I would also be elated. That point is what establishes consistent clear unity in my work right from its beginning.

Thinking about this prompts me to state that it has been very nice and is greatly appreciated to be able to state my case here at fqxi without having the administrators cast me out.

James

About questions that have been raised about my essay (Tom):

Gravitation and acceleration are not the same things. Their effects can be the same. The point being that we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect. The equivalence principle needs transferred to apply to force.

There is both positive and negative mass in my work. That is because electrons cause the speed of light to slow while protons cause the speed of light to increase as light moves away from either one. There is no degeneration of the speed of light to zero. The equation I used in my essay to show a connection between light losing speed and objects gaining speed is not my equation. I used it because it is known. It is of limited use. It applies only to the example cited in my essay regarding an object approaching the earth. It does not describe accurately all circumstances how the spped of light varies.

My string of force equations and bringing them into alliance is pursued because the forces expressed, whether non-linear or linear, apply to a particular object at a particular point. They must be compatible and interchangeable. I show how to interchange btween them.

Gravity varies with time so long as it varies with the motion of objects. It varies for any mass with relation to all other masses. The existence of G demonstrates a standard for the combination of mass with distance. That is the purpose of the solution for G that I present. It is the standard proportionality constant that fixes all mass changes with distance changes in the manner necessary to keep G constant.

Mass is not made of distance and time. It must be expressible in the units of distance and time. That is because its existence is inferred only from empirical evidence that is itself expressed in units of distance and time. Any introduction of new units is an intervention without justification into that which the empirical evidence is communicating to us. The result of introducing such new arbitrary units is that theory, along with its theorists invented meanings, is interjected into equations that corrupt the information that the uncorrupted empirical evidence would otherwise be free and able to tell us. The introduction of theory is a corruption.

James

Frank Makinson,

I am preparing better responses to your messages. Truth is that enough down time for me has passed that I need to re-read your essay.

James

Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for advice and guidance. I am well behind in reading essays. However, I too did at least begin to see divergent presentations among professionals. Firstly, it is very good to see the increase in professional submissions. This contest is a contest because of professional participation. Anything that professionals say is of interest to me even when it is in opposition to what I think. I do not judge essays by level of agreement with what I think. I judge them, to the best of my ability, by their competence. The essays and other's opinions, in general, can be in opposition to what I think and still win a level 10 rating.

With regard to anything an expert says that appears to fit or relate to what I think, it is of great personal interest. Israel's essay spoke about space as a medium different from how I would explain it, but, he wrote about the variation of mu and epsilon with distance from matter. That is major and sufficient in itself.

I have found no problem with replicating the equations, in adjusted forms, of relativity theory for the purpose of modeling relativity type effects. I say type effects because I want to make clear that those effects, while real empirical effects, are not properly described theoretically by relativity theory. Speaking my opinion, the introduction of relativity theory has been a major impediment to furthering our understanding of the nature of the universe.

The steps I mentioned recently, regarding mass and electric charge, in an earlier message make clear the way for removal of all theoretical inventions including relativity theory. As always I do not assume that you agree with what I am saying. Readers should understand that my statements are my opinion and I am not a physicist.

Thank you for the heads up alerts. I need them. Since my main interest has always been about fixing theoretical physics, my view does not have to be the correct understanding of the nature of the universe for me to appreciate seeing progress toward that end. Your own work is a major, and far more sophisticated professional, effort to advance theoretical physics from its low mechanical status to a level where the most important properties of the universe become included in the 'foundational science'. If your work proves to be the new physics that suits me fine.

James