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

Paul,

Please do not disrupt my author's blog with your nonsense. Your message will stay but I will have it stubbed for being both excessively long and irrelevent.

James

Hi Ann,

Wow, you are correct. This abbreviated version is not clearly written and does contain a sign error. I need to explain it.

This paper was not done cut and paste. It was written out while shortening it. Part of the wording that I wrote is not the same as in the original. When I speak of r being very large that should have said when r is equal to the radius of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is large, but the way I reworded it makes it look like I am referring to an r somewhere way out in space. The value of the speed of light is taken to be very close to C in magnitude and is approsimated to be C at the surface of the Earth.

The equation is admitted, in the original write-up, to be a first order approximation both in its derivation and also in its result. For example, I integrate starting from zero as if the mass of the Earth is concentrated at a point. That is of course not true. The point being that even though the integration was done ideally, in practical terms the equation only applies in an approximate manner from r=(radius of the Earth) to some other reasonable distance above the Earth. The word reasonable is meant to suggest that the r must be kept within limits to where the resulting 'approximate' formula remains sufficiently useful.

The formula's intended purpose is too meager to have been worth this confusion that it is causing. The formula is intended to be an aid for general readers to visualize that the speed of light is increasing as distance above the Earth increases.

The magnitude of dv_c changes sign but it is not shown. The incremental change in the speed of light is term dv_c without a sign of its own whether the speed of light is increasing or decreasing. The sign of its magnitude comes out in its solution. Yet I do speak about it being either positive or negative while only showing it as dv_c. The same is true for dr. The incremental change in distance may have either a negative or positive magnitude but whatever the magnitude is, it remains represented by dr.

This is the point: I made a sign error and you are bringing it to my attention. I can't thank you enough for this. I was sloppy in my 'on-the-fly composition (no excuse is intended here, it was sloppy work) of this opening section. the rror is that I should not have placed that negative sign on the right sides of either equations (4) or (5). The negative value of the right side is due to dr. Both incremental changes, dv_c and dr have negative magnitudes for the physical circumstances that are represented by those equations.

I handled dv_c correctly while simultaneously incorrectly handling dr in. Please disregard my incorrect placement of the negative signs on the right sides of equations (4) and (5). The integral that follows as equation(7) is as I described above. It is integrated ideally, but, in practice it only applies when r is equal to the radius of the Earth or greater.

Thank you very much for being careful at a time when I was not being careful.

I can't edit the essay, but, I will write a shorter message mentioning this correction. You have me thinking that this opening section is more trouble than it is worth. Perhaps my correction should just delete it? Thanks again. For anything that you question, I would appreciate having your input again.

James

I am receiving good messages from others. However, before writing responses, there is some corrective action I need to take. The opening section of my essay includes the derivation of an equation intended to represent how the speed of light varies with height above the Earth.

For those who wouldn't mind just skipping passed it, it plays no role in the work that follows. It is not needed. Its purpose was to provide an aid for general readers to visualize how and why the speed of light varies above the Earth. It is an equation of first approximation good only for a limited distance. Its derivation is shown in abreviated form and does not make clear that the equation applies only from the surface of the Earth and upward a significant but limited distance.

The derivation includes a sign error in both equations (4) and (5). This was not a typo. I remember adding that negative sign when writing the first section. It is not included in the original work that is posted at my website. It was a sloppy on-the-spot error. The negative sign should be removed from both equations. This problem was pointed out to me by Ann Smith and I thank her for it. I want to re-emphasize that that equation had a very limited intended purpose that does not affect the work presented afterwards.

I will be writing a second message to follow this one giving some overall explanation about what a reader can expect to see both in my essay and the supporting papers that I referenced. I have decided that this would be a good move based upon a few of the messages I have received. Those messages deserve answers, but, since they come from viewpoints formed in accepted physics theory, I feel my responses should be preceded by an introduction to the viewpoint that governs my work.

James

I am reposting this message because, even though I was logged in, supposedly, its first submission carries the name anonymous and appeared separated from my post above. This is where I intended for this message to show:

My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The fundamentals of theory are redefined and higher level theory is built upon that new foundation. The guiding principle is that: Unity has always existed right from the beginning of the universe, and, that that unity should be clearly seen in physics theory right from its theoretical beginning.

It is presumed that this unity requires that there be a single cause for all effects for all time. In order to establish whether or not there is just one single cause, the theory is developed without introducing other multiple fundamental causes or forces. One is all that is implemented for the whole body of work thus far.

The essay puts forward the variation of the speed of light as that cause for all effects. The general body of work, from which the essay draws, has been accomplished while relying solely upon that cause. For example, there is no fundamental force of gravity, nor is there a property of electric charge. There are no other sources of cause beyond the variation of the speed of light.

The process i followed from the beginning for developing this approach to theory is represented in my essay in the section on 'Mass'. The process begins with: All properties whose existences are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible and definable in the same terms as is that evidence. Distance and time are the properties in which empirical evidence is formed. The evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. Velocity is expressed in terms of distance and time. All other properties are defined using combinations of distance and time only.

This practice prevents the introduction of arbitrary definitions. The first such arbitrary definition was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. It was not defined in terms of distance and time. Its units kilograms are not defined in terms of meters and seconds. therefore, it is introduced as a property that is not expressible in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. This act and its consequences permeate today's physics theory. This new theoretical approach removes both that act and its consequences. Almost all of theory is forced to change.

The body of work is still ongoing and quantum effects must still be accounted for. Some basic problems, such as establishing atomic electron energy levels has been done without the use of wave mechanics. There has been no need thus far to introduce a wave nature. Perhaps it will become needed at some point, but, it does not yet exist in this theoretical work. A mathematical basis for our concept of frequency is developed using only the photon model introduced in the essay. It appears as part of an energy equation that replaces Einstein's energy equation.

While many question remain to be answered, the body of work done thus far is extensive and self-contained using only one cause and only units of meters and seconds. The essay represents, in an introductory manner this new body of work. I can defend only the work that has been completed and presented publicly. There is plenty of that. It includes redefining electromagnetism, relativity theory, and thermodynamics at their introductory levels.

James

Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James

Please continue this conversation over at Azzam's blog.

James

I am copying this message here because it adds to the explanation I have given about my work, part of which is introduced in my essay"

"Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James

Here is a link to more results, from this variable speed of light approach, pertaining to several thermodynamic properties: The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy. Clausius' discovery is explained beyond its mathematical expression. Its physical meaning is made clear. These results, along with the others mentioned thus far, demonstrate the power of continuity of fundamental theoretical unity. One 'given' and that is all that is needed.

James