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

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

Hi Yuri,

Thank you for your message and thank you for communicating with me in English. I do not know other languages. I admire those who are multilingual. I need to read your message carefully and will do so before responding.

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 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

Successful prediction is not sufficient to prove the correctness of theory. If the theorist has been diligent in using only equations that accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence, then that theorists imaginings, even when imposed upon those equations, will often not prevent accurate predictions. The successful predictions follow from both extrapolations that extend the patterns into areas where they remain valid and interpolations of the patterns which the equations are accurately modeled to mimic.

James

Regrading emergence:

Emergence is a name for an effect or effects that occur from combinations of microscopic parts who's own definitions do not merge to predict an apparently new macroscopic property deemed to be responsible for those unforseen effects. So, the theorist who trusts in the definitions of the theoretical descriptions of the microscopic parts accepts the new unpredicted macroscopic property as a free uncaused bonus.

Since all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe must have been provided for right from the beginning of the universe, the so-called emergent properties are as much due to cause as is any other existing property. The idea that the universe itself is emergent is a philosophical choice. It pretends that explanations are not really necessary. It pretends that beginnings themselves emerge from nothingness for no dedicated purpose. The ultimate escape for the theorist.

Theorists do not know what cause is. Inventing causes is risky business. Empirical evidence could disprove an invention at any time. Removing cause from the universe relieves the theorist of their greatest weakness. There is though a problem that remains. Theory is dependent upon inventing causes throughout its development.

The efficient way to avoid explanations is to declare all properties to be emergent. The inventions of theorists become immune to questions about origins. The irony is that causes, that theoretically no longer require explanation, never had explanations theoretical or otherwise anyway. What was required before was never fulfilled. Emergence masks over the still very real need for that fullfillment.

My conclusion is that emergence is a theoretical 'un-theory'. Definitely not something to be relied upon when pursuing discovery of the nature of the universe.

James

Nature of the universe:

The nature of the universe is all that which has produced all of the effects that have occurred in this universe. Those effects reach their greatest height in the development of human freewill.

Physics does not tell us about the nature of the universe. Rather it offers us a perspective on how to model and make use of mechancal knowledge. There are important missing parts of nature that physics cannot tell us about. Physics cannot tell us about cause, time, space, and intelligence. We learn about patterns in changes of velocity of objects from physicists, and, we learn how they imagine what cause or causes might produce those effects.

Imagination is good. It is an aid to learning and probably even more than that. It is a self teaching tool. Still, there is more to learning than imagination. Leaving physics aside, well really theoretical physics aside, the rest of the nature of the universe requires our attention. The difficulties with including theoretical physics involve its mechanical attitude and its inventions of the mind that fill in artificially for gaps in our understanding.

The knowledge that experimental physics gives us can tell us, if it remains in uncorrupted form, the knowledge of which it has to share and communicate to us. The equations of physics, left in their empirical forms, represent unadulterated learning. Theory is too often an added on obsruction that places a veil over our eyes and prevents us from learning the nature of the universe. Instead we learn what the theoretical physicist imagines.

Yet there are ways for us to learn that the theoretical physicsts cannot interfere with if we choose to make use of them. The irony is that it is physics that tells us this. Not because it intends to. Ideology and philosophy have become too ingrained into theoretical physics to allow easy access to to understanding the nature of the universe and ourselves.

This message will not tell more about it. My essay has to do with revealing the extensive great changes that must be made to theoretical physics. Even though my own work involves using terms that either are theoretical or are borrowed from theoretical physics, that is not the main purpose of it nor for my previous essays.

The main purpose is to say to others that theory is an obstruction to learning and should be removed from physics. This current esay indicates how that might be achieved. The reward is also indicated by the work. The reward is to find a better path to learning the nature of the universe. That path relies as much as possible upon empirical knowledge. The making of mass and force into definable properties is the first step necessary to move forward in this approach to learning the nature of the universe.

James

Anton W.M. Biermans,

Hi Anton,

I neglected to follow through and comment on your essay. Sorry about that. I didn't recall my statement until you refreshed my memory here. I did read your essay. Viewing the universe from both an inside and outside perspective. This message you have written here is well stated. I really should look back at your essay again before commenting on it over at your blog. Thank you for your message.

James