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

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

Regarding the nature of particles of matter and their relationship to the speed of light as presented in my work:

Thus far all of the work that I have completed at my website and have presented in my four essay contests submissions involve the consequences of just photons and the variations of their velocities. The speed component of the velocity of light varies everywhere. There are no other material constituents. Particles of matter are interpretations of variations in the speeds of photons.

The variations of the speed of light are omnipresent. There is no location where the control of the speed of light is not present. Electrons are peaks in the speed of light. Protons are valleys in the speed of light. Neither goes to inifinity nor to zero. Their magnitudes are not equal and opposite. However, if they were to overlap their effects on the speed of light the resulting combined speed would be the constant C at all points.

Their masses are the inverse representation of their effects upon photons. They cause photons to accelerate with both positive and negative changes in speed. The speed of light is never a constant. Yet, the speed of light always measures locally as the constant C due to length contraction of photons.

The activity of the universe is due to two opposing circumstances. The first is that: Light seeks to achieve a universally constant speed of C. The second is that: The seeking process involves delay and that delay prevents the seeking process from achieving its goal.

James

Frank,

I looked at my work for predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom, using the inverse of the masses of the electron and proton, and decided it was too much math to re-create here. It is presented at this link from my website on pages 116-120.

James

Dirk Pons,

Thank you for your remarks. I have been looking through the list of essays. You have been everywhere. The thought crossed my mind that maybe you move at the speed of light. :) I haven't read your essay yet, but I will do that today. I move at walking speed.

James

Concerning cause and effect and my work:

No one knows what cause is. Empirical evidence consists of effects. Theoretical physics consists of inventing ideas about what cause may be. Those inventions are injected into the equations of physics. The result is that equations of physics are changed from models of patterns in empirical evidence into models of invented causes and, because the invented causes are multiple, artificial disunity. There is no justification in empirical evidence for final answers about cause or for forcing disunity into the equations.

The cause of effects, as put forward in my work, is the variation of the speed of light. It is a single cause for all effects. It has two speeds of its effects. One is instantaneous and the other is the speed of photons traveling. Both the instantaneous effects and the delayed effects result from the movement of particles of matter. Those particles are peaks and valleys in the control of the speed of light.

Their movement affects the control of the speed of light everywhere. The control of the speed of light is always varying everywhere, but it varies instantaneously due to the motion of particles everywhere. The control of the speed of light is instantaneous. There is no time or place where the speed of light will not measure locally as C. The adjusted speed of light determines the remote speed of photons.

The photons that are most significantly affected by the change in the speed of light are those located very close to the particles. As they move away from the particles they carry that history of the significant movement of the particles away with them. their effect is the delayed effect. Their travel is at the speed of light. They deliver their significant information causing the delayed effect.

James

Regarding time dilation and length contraction and my work:

Clock speed does dilate. Length of objects does contract. In both cases the cause is the speed of light and its effect upon photons. What affects photons will affect matter. Matter is a representation of the variation of the speed of light. The inverse of the magnitude of the variation of the speed of light for a single isolated particle, is the mass of that particle.

Since neither time nor space are available for experimentation nor are they the properties of empirical evidence, they are not involved with relativity type affects. Relativity type affects have to do with the behavior of objects made of matter. Empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocity of objects made of matter.

Matter is the variation of the speed of light as a valley or as a peak in the control of the speed of light throughout the universe. The universe has no place in it where the speed of light is not controlled and does not vary.

James

I have posted some messages in an effort to maybe avoid being judged for the wrong reasons. I don't object to low rating so long as I have reason to believe that it results from disagreement of or correction to what I say. Each essay that I have submitted cannot, by their individual selves, succeed in properly presenting my case. Some messages I have received do appear to be inaccurate understanding. I certainly do not put the reader at fault. So, I add extra messages in my effort to add more information.

Now the main point of this message, I will rate no one low because they disagree with me. That act would be tantamount to my presuming that I have unraveled the mysteries of the universe ahead of all others. I do not presume that. I only presume that I must convincingly argue my own case. If other authors disagree, they are invited to say so. If I disagree with their essays, it is not an indication of my vote. Thus far I have only rated three essays and they each received high marks. None of those authors described the universe according to my view as presented partially in my current essay.

James

Conversations, occurring in other authors' blogs, prompt me to make clear my own conclusions about the nature of time and space:

Time and space are known to us only indirectly. They are not components of activity by objects. They are neither brought into existence nor controlled by activity of objects. Empirical evidence about the behavior of objects tells us only that the objects move, in a myriad of behaviors, through space during time.

There is no universally constant measure of distance, as measured by object length, other than in a local sense. A unit of length measured locally will appear to remain unchanged when observed locally. A remote observer will see that unit of length change.

My work produces a universally constant measure of time. Its value is 1.602x10^-19 seconds. This universal constant measures the same whether observed remotely or locally. It is the only universal constant that is an indefinable 'given'.

James

Regarding time dilation and length contraction. The speed of light equals length divided by time. In order for one of those terms to be a universal constant anywhere, the other two must be variables in order to account for the effects observed as empirical evidence. If the speed of light is chosen, then both time and length must vary. The time involved is clock time and the length involved is length as measured by a measuring rod, either locally or remotely.

If the speed of light is a variable, then only one of the other two terms must also be a variable. If length varies, then time is a universal constant. In this case time is not clock time. The variation of the speed of light involving itself in particle activities causes clocks and everything else to change their speeds of operation.

Now the main point: Two of the terms must be variables. They must be real physical effects. The reason for this statement is that the very real effects of e=mc^2 require it to be true. The conversion, either way, of energy and mass is true and, therefore, either length contracts and time dilates or the speed of light varies while one of the other two varies. The third property is the constant one.

In my work, the choice is that the speed of light varies. That is the third theoretical change that produces the results presented in my four essays. The first two have to do with the natures of mass and of electric charge.

James

Regarding falling freely:

I have posted a form of this message elsewhere:

We do not feel acceleration if it is applied evenly to a body. The nature of the force is irrelevent. Any object would show no significant indication of the force of gravity so long as it is applied very close to evenly. Evenly applied means that every part of the object receives very close to the same force resulting in very close to the same acceleration. The force of gravity does closely approximate the condition of applying a force evenly.

We do feel the effects of a force that is un-equally applied. The effects are un-equal compression causing bodily distortion. A push in the back or a pull on the arms are examples of uneven application of force on the body.

The point of making this point is to suggest that the equivalence principle is not restricted to the force of gravity. If it is a real principle then it belongs to all force. It just so happens that gravity is the one force that is normally very close to evenly applied.

James

Evenly applied force and magnetism:

There is a large magnet and a small piece of steel. The surface area of the magnet facing the steel is very large, flat, and square. The magnetic force, inline with the center of the magnet's surface, closely approximates a constant with distance. No other influences. The steel object, inline with the center of the area of the magnet, is attracted to the magnet, accelerating as it moves closer, until it hits and sticks on the magnetic's surface.

The magnetic force was evenly applied to the steel object right from the start of the experiment. The constant force ensures this to be the case. That steel object will not 'feel' anything nor undergo deformation due to the magnetic force. Once the object is stuck to the magnet it experiences deformation. It 'feels' squeezed by the force. A blindfolded observer, on that piece of steel, can perform no experiment to determine whether the piece of steel is held to a magnet or is undergoing a constant acceleration.

The conclusion, in keeping with the equivalence principle, is that magnetic force and acceleration are the same thing!

James

Tom,

Moving this discussion into my own blog unless Vessilyn chooses to re-open it:

""I understand those things. They do not address the question of why does the freely falling person not feel the force of gravity.""

"Yes they do. No particle or system of particles is in a privileged inertial frame. Think about it."

I have thought about it. Newton's law of gravity should have caused anyone to expect that there would be no feeling of the force of gravity for a freely falling person. That person accelerates downward because gravity is pulling them downward. They do not feel that force because that force is evenly applied to all parts. What is it in the example, discounting all of the relativity theory add-on to this simple example, that would be expected to cause the falling person to feel the force?

""It is not because gravity is no force. The persons feeling is not evidence for that conclusion. I gave the reason why there is no feeling.""

"A person is a system of particles. The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence."

The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence. The internal evidence tells us that the person has no reason to feel the effect of the force of gravity so long as they are falling freely and not partially resisting it in any significant manner. The particles resist falling at infinite speed. However, they do this all in unison. There is no change physically for the freely falling person. They have no reason to feel differently.

James

The question of why a freely falling person would not feel the effect of the force of gravity upon them has nothing to do with believing or denying anyone's theory. The introduction of length contraction or time dilation or space-time or priviledged or unpriviledged frames into the discussion is unnecessary theoretical discourse. The fact is that there is no reason for a freely falling person to feel the effect of the force of gravity. There is no physical effect upon their person. No one's theory is necessary to explain that which is obvious. The freely falling person is not being cruntched up. Any disdain for lack of appreciation for relativity theory has nothing to do wih the problem. No one's theory is needed to explain that which has no existence.

James

The prevelance of repeated efforts to put space-time forward as an explanation for effects observed to occur to objects invites repeated efforts to make clear that neither space nor time have ever been represented in the equations of physics. Both clocks and rods are themselves objects suffering physical effects thereby giving them a regular appearance in physics equations. Rods reach out in space and clocks cycle during time. Rods are not space and clocks are not time. Rods contain cyclic activity and clocks extend across space. Rods are not time and clocks are not space. Time has yet to exhibit physical effects. Space has yet to exhibit physical effects. There is still no empirical evidence for either of these cases ever occurring.

James

Theoretical physics involves choices and guesses about that which we know too little or perhaps know nothing. Incorrect ideas forced onto physics equations cause corruption of those equations and any others that follow from them. Theoretical physics has always been at high risk for introducing misunderstandings and just plain wrong conclusions about the nature of the universe.

My essay in this contest corrects the first error of theoretical physics. That correction also immediately corrects the first error of relativity theory. That first error of physics is the decision to make mass an indefinable property. My correction makes mass into a definable property.

This correction to Newton's equation f=ma returns that equation to its empirical form cleaned of theoretical corruption. It becomes once again a resource for learning that which empirical evidence is trying to tell us about the nature of the universe.

A major theoretical obstruction to gaining understanding is removed and the equation f=ma is released from its bondage of subservience to a wrong unjustified theoretical guess made when we knew very little.

James