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

To those who know physics: If you have a comment, whether negative or positive, this is the thread to please post it. My blog has become in need of a single thread where I present my case and others, who know physics, give me their opinions.

James

Hi Joy,

Thank you for your kind message. I don't expect professionals to put in the time necessary to evaluate my work. I understand why that would be the case. My reference to 'those who know physics' was intended to try to keep at least one thread clear just in case someone 'who knows physics' did wish to say something to me. People like myself have to do their work themselves. The statements I make upfront such as 'no fundamental force of gravity' and 'no electric charge', etc. are on purpose as a flag to professionals. My point being that I do not want to waste professionals' time. It has been the best practice. I just keep producing results. Nonsense cannot produce sense. It is the results that will attract attention if they deserve attention. Working alone is not bad. It is often the setting that promotes creativity. Ideas get followed through with the only obstructions being their own deserved failings.

James

Dear Frank Makinson,

Excellent message! On subject messages are rare.

"Your essay challenges the assumption that the void of space, free space and that of a vacuum measured on the surface of the earth represent absolutely the same condition. The refractive index of 1 is assigned to light propagating in a vacuum on the earth surface. Your essay suggests that the refractive index far removed from the solar system can be less than 1."

This is correct. The removal of the closest matter will cause a change, but, it is insignificant because of the tremendous amount of matter the remains near it. The speed of light will still be increasing with distance from the Earth even through the vacuum. The changes in the speed of light are of the magnitude of changes currently ascribed to the gravitational field. That is not much compared to the speed of light. The refractive index far removed from the solar system will be less than 1.

"I agree with your premise that the speed of light varies as it approaches matter, as the presence of matter changes the permittivity of the medium in which an electromagnetic (EM) wave is permitted to propagate. The question arises, "Where does matter, or more correctly, the influence of matter start and stop relative to an EM wave, or photon?" If it is the square of the distance from an aggregation of matter, a lot of odd spacecraft related phenomena can be readily explained."

The speed of light decreases inversly to the first power of distance from matter. However, the effects decrease inversly to the second power of distance from matter. The effects are due to the rate of change of the speed of light. The effects have no end in the same sense that gravity has no end to its reach. The variation of the speed of light replaces gravity.

James

Here is a result of applying the premises of always present unity and definitions that involve only the properties of empirical evidence:

h=keC

Where:

h is Planck's constant

k is Boltzmann's constant

e is electric charge

C is the speed of light

The magnitudes these items are those of the mks system of units.

This equation makes no sense to current physics theory. The units just don't match. After the units are corrected by removing arbitary indefinable units and all properties mentioned are defined using combinations of units of meters and seconds only, as set by their empirical evidence, the units match and the equation makes great sense. It is evidence of the existence of always present unity among the fundamentals of physics theory.

James

Regarding the equation h=keC:

The equation contains four important fundamental constants. Electromagnetic radiation is represented by its speed. Electric charge is represented by itself. Molecular kinetic energy and temperature are represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's constant represents energy.

Furthermore, relativity theory is represented by the speed of light. Electromagnetic theory is represented by electric charge. Molecular mechanics is represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's constant represents quantum mechanics. The fact that their magnitudes form a near equality challenges the credibility of their orthodox theoretical interpretations. In my work, it reveals new meaning.

James

Pushing 'Regarding the equation h=keC':

The magnitude of electric charge in the mks system of units is the magnitude of the time period it would take for light to travel the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom.

The magnitude of Planck's constant divided by Boltzmann's constant is the magnitude of the radius of the hydrogen atom.

James

Peter,

(...may I also add, that in considering a wave function. when propagation speed slows due to greater interactions with matter (approaching Earth or near the sun) the wave pattern is blue shifted, which yes, may be considered to 'shorten' the photon, but also conserves the energy. the wavenumber and amplitude do not change, i.e. E is constant. (ergo blue light is more energetic than red).)

I hesitated to respond to this. It looks wrong. However, I know enough from reading your messages to presume that it is possible that I may be misunderstanding it. My view is that the energy of the light increases. When you say the energy is conserved and then follow it with (ergo blue light is more energetic than red), it appears to be a contradiction. Could you please address this? Thank you.

James

Azzam,

It seems our approaches are very different:

"... I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. ..."

I read your paper. Picking just one effect length contraction. I read your explanation. I also read in your reply to Peter that: "I proposed the stationary observer of earth will measure the length of the moving train to be the same as if it was stationary. The length of the moving train will not contracted for the earth observer."

Our treatment of time is very different. Also, in my work, the train will length contract. The contraction for the train is a real physical change. The Earth observer will measure that the train contracted.

Our approaches to explaining special relativity type effects are very different.

I also should say more about the effect on refractive index for light as it passes through the moving train. I think that we may not describe it in full in the same way. I will write a separate message addressed to both you and Peter.

James

Peter and Azzam,

Azzam stated that the refractive index for light passing through a moving train on the Earth would be greater than 1. I agreed in general, however, I think that we might not explain it the same way, so, I will explain my view:

Assume that the normal refractive index of the air in the train when stationary is the same as the air outside the train. The train is set into motion parallel to the surface of the Earth. The example problem is that the light enters the moving rain from any direction and passes through it.

The speed of the light enterring the train perpendicular to the train's velocity will move at the same speed of light as it did before enterring the train. Light that enters the train and moves in the same direction as the train's velocity will slow. As the angle of the light's velocity increases from perpendicular to parallel with the train's velocity, the light will show increasing negative acceleration. The light will be slowing and the refractive index will correspondingly be increasing.

James

The magnitude of magnetic permeability for a solid such as glass or steel is equal to the magnitude of the speed of sound in the material divided by the speed of light.

James

Azzam,

Our mathematical treatments of length contraction are different. The equation that I derived for length contraction is analogous in form and effect to Einstein's derivation for length contraction in special relativity.

James

The reason for pointing out these non-equations that work numerically, but, not for their units is: In my essay I introduce the idea that the units of physics went wrong right from the start with the adoption of kilograms as an indefinable unit. That section was followed by an example problem using new units and solving for a physical origin for the Universal Gravitational Constant.

These additional equations are more examples of the results that follow from correcting the units of physics. The current units, no matter what system is used, need to be replaced with units that are definable in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.

Another point that can be made is that it is poor practice to set proportionality constants equal to unity. When new equations are formed to represent new knowledge, they should be formed from previously defined properties and units. The result of this practice is that the new information reveals itself in proportionality constants.

This is the reason, when I have previously referred to the magnitude of electric charge, I qualified my statement by acknowledging that the system of units used must be the mks system. While that system is not a universal system, it does give a firm empirically based definition for electric charge.

James