Hi James,

It's always good to see you participating in these contests. I hope that a number of other regulars are working on their entries for this year, as well as new participants.

You probably know this, but the Pound-Rebka experiment at Harvard accurately measured light falling from the top of a tower to the bottom. Sometimes its hard to find data to test our theories against, but I think that this might be a good place for you to look, if you haven't already. Of course their goal was detecting the effect of gravity on the photon and they assumed the constant speed of light, but data is data, and I expect that the numbers they produced will fit into your own equations and can be interpreted in terms of your own assumptions.

Aside from that fact, congratulations on the number of comments you have received on your essay. Are you trying to set the record this year?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Edwin,

    I included the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment right from the start. I address it at my website. It showed only that frequency changes. It could not show whether or not light was constant or if it varied and if it varies which direction it varied in. The experiment, if done before general relativity, could have been used as evidence that light speed varies. I think that even today it could be interpreted as either proving or disproving general relativity. That's enough of what I think. You wrote a very diplomatic message, thank you. :)

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #90

    James,

    The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that, if f waves pass the emitter (on the top of a tower of height h) in a unit of time, f'=f(1+gh/c^2) waves pass the receiver on the ground in a unit of time. If the wavelength, L, has remained constant, we have c'=Lf'>c=Lf, that is, the speed of light has increased. A different conclusion can only be reached on the assumption that the wavelength varies in some way or another.

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Pentcho,

    The Pound-Rebka experiment said nothing about waves or frequency. It had to do with measuring photon energy and its change due to distance above the Earth. And then also motion of a material object. Your analysis or anyone's analysis is attached to discussions of but is not part of the experiment.

    James

    Hi Steve,

    In response to your message concerning my understanding your theory. I do not understand your theory. If anything I say sounds to you to be related to it, it is just coincidental or more likely is your imagination. I don't use spheres for building up the universe or for containing the universe. I work solely from the perspective that empirical evidence consists of information about patterns of changes of velocity. I accept only what properties are inferred from that evidence.

    The two properties inferred from that evidence are force and resistance to force. The evidence does not tell me what force is or what resistance to force is. But, those two are real and for those two one can treat them in a theoretical manner such as saying that electric charge gives rise to force or saying that resistance to force is something called mass. I don't use electric charge in my work because I found it to be unnecessary. Its magnitude without its electric charge interpretation is a universal constant that works wonders to achieve unity.

    Even in the treatment of force and resistance to force, I am restricted to working with one cause for both. I am also restricted to defining both of them in the same terms as is the evidence from which their existence is inferred. No additional assumptions are allowed to enter into their definitions.

    That act is for the purpose of keeping the inventions of theorists at bay. Adding extra forces or separate causes for mass are theoretical additions that I avoid to this day or until forced to acknowledge their need. None of this has to do with spheres or the properties of spinning spheres or your equations.

    I do not know what your theory is about. My chosen path is very different. Take credit for what you have done. Nothing that I have done is credited to learning your theory. I haven't learned your theory. I don't understand your theory. I am not using your theory.

    James

      Pentcho,

      If you wish to converse further about the Pound-Rebka experiment please consider posting here. thank you.

      James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #94

        Hi James,

        Indeed you do not understand it, you know don't be too much frustrated, it is logic, you know only perhaps 50 persons on this earth are able to understand the gnerality of my theory. I don't offense you, I just put your sciences at their rational step. You are a thinker, a kind of philosophe.In fact like the most of persons making the essays here, you need a kind of recognizing, probably that you think that you are special.You know me also I need a recognizing from the sciences community. But no James, you are not special,we are not special, indeed we are all unique and preious, and with a real humility when you listen the wind , isn't it ?

        In fact James, you are too much vanitious and too much jealous perhaps even and too much limited for a real understanding of my gneral works.I am obliged to speak like this.Sorry but I must show you your foundamental errors.

        An ocean of essays for a kind of vanity.....and who is the winner ? who ?

        Each year you make an essay, and now it is the decreasing of light , in fact you make like a lot of people a kind of false general copycats for this recognizing cited above.

        Don't be too much frurstated, each person at his place , no?

        How can you understand a thing if you have not studied the gnerality.You know a theory or rational idea do not fall down from the sky like that. In fact a real searcher learns real sciences and accept the general ideas.if not it is just a probelm of vanity.And frankly the essays shall be better if the vanity was in the pocket.

        I find your ideas , interesting in a pure philosophical point of vue. That is all. You do not really learn the generalities.I invite you to study the maths, the biology, the ecology, the astronomy and the pure thermodynamics, Zemanski have made good works.And put your vanity in the spherical pocket ok James !

        Your ideas are not bad ,but it lacks the generalities of our universal laws.

        Buy better books please !

        After perhaps you shall see the real universal proportions due to rotating spheres.Quantum spheres.....cosmological spheres.....UNIVERSAL SPHERE. IN 3D !!!

        • [deleted]

        • Post #95

        James Putnam wrote: "The Pound-Rebka experiment said nothing about waves or frequency."

        Quite to the contrary, James:

        http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

        David Morin (p. 4): "They [Pound and Rebka] sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

        The receiver at the top measures frequency f', speed of light c' and wavelength L': f'=c'/L'. If the wavelength has remained constant (L'=L), the speed of light has decreased as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c(1-gh/c^2).

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        Pentcho,

        You are informing me of a theoretical view of what the experiment meant. I spoke to what the experiment demonstrates on its own. It only demonstrated that a photon would not be absorbed under very exacting circumstances if that photon changed its distance from the Earth. And also, that adding motion will compensate for it. It does not demonstrate what happens or doesn't happen to the speed of light.

        Frequency, wavelength, and thereby the common reference to red-shift is interpretation by us. If you wish to attach that interpretation to the results of the experiment, it has proven to be theoretically useful. If you wish to attach your own interpretation, then you are on your own. I attach my own personal interpretation and I am on my own. The experiment stands for what it did period.

        I have received no feedback on my derivation of the Universal Gravitational Constant presented in my essay. It follows along with many other results from my breaking severely with tradition and making mass a definable property. If that step makes no sense to the reader, then what is the reader's opinion about my putting it to the test immediately in the mentioned derivation? Is demonstrating that it may not be a 'given' property not worth consideration? Or, is it dismissable as being an error?

        James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #98

        Hi James,

        This is probably going to hook me into a longer discussion than I am prepared to carry on, so I can't promise to stay with it. However, the question of a universal gravitational constant derived from Newton's gravity seems a good place to start.

        You note that Newton's two-body gravity formula (eqn 36) incorporates two terms for mass, while his energy formula (eqn 37) has only one. The reason is that gravity describes a curvilinear relation between spatially separated points of mass changing in time, and force describes a point of mass changing linearly in time.

        Taking the moon in relation to Earth, Newton found that the body is accelerating sufficiently in a curvilinear path to avoid colliding with Earth, yet not so fast as to escape orbit. The energy of acceleration, therefore, is countered by the negatively valued presence of Earth's mass; the inertia of Earth's rest mass, IOW, is sufficiently large to keep the inertia of the moon's accelerated mass falling in a curved path, rather than continuing in a straight line. Galileo had earlier found that objects in a gravity field fall at the same rate whether in a straight line or a curve, so Einstein recognized that it makes no difference calculationally whether the moon is accelerating toward Earth or Earth accelerating toward the moon -- gravity and acceleration are equivalent.

        You speak of an "awkwardness" between eqns 36 and 37, and propose to convert Newton's linear f = ma, which is easy to solve, to a differential equation (eqn 38) which is not only diffcult to solve but to which you want to make Newton's also easy to solve 2-body gravitation relation equivalent (equation 39). I have to ask -- why? It appears to me you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

        Relativity already describes mass-energy relations in terms of momentum. The rest energy equation E = mc^2 is quoted so often that one forgets its derivation: E^2 = m^2c^4 (pc)^2 where p is momentum. The unreduced equation tells us that a relativistic particle of zero momentum contains negative mass. (That's what allows me to speak of "negatively valued" mass in relation to Newton's theory above as a convenient fiction, a relativistic convention.)

        I appreciate that you are motivated by the idea that mass is not a "given." That mass is made of space and time alone. That is what continuous field theories already tell us, though -- energy densities that vary from point to point of spacetime are massless when considered, as you put it, from the POV of a remote observer.

        You're right that a variable speed of light eliminates the gravitational field -- but then, one also loses the measurement standard by which we determine that energy varies point to point. So your result (eqns 61/62) ends up saying that gravity does not vary in time, because the universal acceleration of gravity is constant (though in relation to what, since acceleration describes the rate of change of the rate of change?) and the universe is therefore static. I don't know how you reconcile that with an expanding universe, which is the same problem Einstein had when he introduced the cosmological constant. We believe today that the cosmological constant does not significantly differ from zero.

        As near as I can understand you, James, you have substituted a hypothetical variable speed of light for the variation of energy densities in the spacetime field. I can't see a problem with this, relativistically speaking, and I don't have to check the math to agree with the idea in principle -- yet what is gained? We were always free to see mass as "slow light." This only works in one direction, however -- (initial photon veolcity is always the speed of light, the speed at which photons are created) -- when you start treating nuclear particles (eqns 51 - 55) in terms of positive acceleration, you are contradicting your original proposal to convert Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. You identify no limit nor mechanism by which photons accelerating negatively become mass that accelerates positively. If photon acceleration degenerates to zero (as it must in your model) how does that differ from the singularity of general relativity?

        What am I missing?

        Tom

        Tom,

        "What am I missing?"

        You aren't missing anything. You have been the first ever to put some meat on the bone of conention. Thank you. What is missing, beyond the possibility that I am just plain wrong, are two things. One is the parts I have not mentioned. The other is the host of parts I don't know yet. In discussions of established theory one can very often jump around in discussion by refering to known work. I can't do that. So, I find things to say that sort of work well in their own limited context. I rely on results to say for themselves that "Nonsense cannot produce us." That doesn't prove that my extensive radical changes to theory are correct, but, I think it may say something important to theoretical physicists.

        Thank you for both reading and critiquing the essay. No you shouldn't put in more of your time on this. You have already provided excellent input. I can't accomplish much in forum messages either. I will wait for the next opportunity. In the meantime, you have helped. One last note, just for the purpose of mentioning it, one of the main missing parts that I have avoided introducing is that, in the work presented at my website, mass is not only positive acceleration. It is also negative acceleration. In short, protons have positive acceleration of light and electrons have negative acceleration of light. Polarity is a property of mass.

        The absolute magnitudes of the accelerations of light identified with protons and electrons are not equal. They do though combine into nuetrality. Neutrality is represented by C. I am not making nor can I make the argument in favor of this at this time. Still though, it has had me searching for empirical evidence to support it. I haven't yet found it but I expect my treatment of electrons to be either supported by or debunked by evidence that the speed of light is or is not greater than C in the presence of electrons only. I need greater than C. Ideally, if the electrons formed a dense gas with no other influences from other matter present, the increase in the speed of light would be many times higher.

        You have done enough and I thank you for it.

        James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #100

        Tom

        No doubt this will not be welcomed, but the point being "missed" is, what has light got to do with it? And the answer is: nothing. Light, as in c, just got introduced into the equations because it is a constant (which it is when you define it as such, ie in vacuo), ie it was a measurement tool. It first began as an alternative to distance in expressing timing (section 1 1905)

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        • Post #102

        Hi James,

        I think you hit on the central question of consciousness in physics: "I rely on results to say for themselves that 'Nonsense cannot produce us.'"

        From previous discussions, I take it that you identify "nonsense" with randomness (as I expect most people do). Fact is, though, we don't have any sure means of distinguishing random from pseudo-random. I'm thinking of Einstein contemplating Brownian motion, and correctly predicting the source of apparently random motion as collisions between the Brownian particles and energetic atomic particles. Once one knows how that observed motion is randomized, can one say that it is truly random? Well, aren't the atomic motions random as well? -- what has one explained, if not a painfully obvious tautology that the source of random motion is random motion?

        Thing is, though, if the source of randomness is everywhere, there is no true randomness anywhere. Why so? Imagine, from where you stand right now, that everything around you in your 3-dimensional world is collapsing instantaneously into a 2-dimension plane -- and being sucked into one single point on the horizon while you observe. There are mathematical ways to describe this 3-dimensional reality as a projection of 4-dimensional information onto a 2-dimensional plane (e.g., my topological explanation in ICCS 2006, as a continuous backward-forward projection between S^1 and S^3, and in the holographic principle.

        Then consider the Joy Christian framework that converts random events into determined outcomes; i.e., the extra degree of global freedom that nature imparts instantaneously with each freely observer-chosen measurement event, predicts quantum mechanical correlations as 100% locally real and deterministic.

        Einstein employed what he coined as "Mach's principle" to frame general relativity. Mach -- the true relativist -- had proposed that the motion of all bodies is dependent on the instantaneous state of motion of every other body. Mach's view is pure relativity, because space plays no role. Einstein shows that spacetime -- a physically real, independent phenomenon -- mediates that motion. Einstein's theory is actually modified relativity, because it introduces an absolute global standard of measurement by which we give up instantaneity in favor of local reality.

        So one does not have to accept that "nonsense produced us" if one can accept that random events are purposeful expressions of an infinitely varied and creative universe. With that realization, consciousness inheres in every particle and every system of particles, producing us and everything else.

        Tom

        • [deleted]

        • Post #103

        I must have been logged off.

        Tom

        Hi Tom,

        Nonsense in the context of my message means that I interjected something into physics theory that has no chance of being correct nor of exhibiting signs of meaning or purpose. That there is no logical connection between what I add and previous work that proved useful. Examples of such possible nonsensical changes are to remove electric charge, to remove gravity, to accept light as a variable everywhere even in actual space as opposed to free-space.

        If any one of these changes has no logical connection to empirical evidence and has no correlation with established physics theory then there should be no resulting useful results. There is the extremely unlikely possibility that one might accidentally appear to give a useful result, but not multiple cases for that change nor in conjunction and combination with the other changes that I have adopted.

        It is possible to adopt different useful interpretations. I consider the two choices of making mass an indefinable property and of making it a definable property reasonable conclusions. Both can be expected to produce useful results. At some point though, important differences in results will begin to matter greatly. The major difference, in my opinion, is that the wrong choice interjects disunity into physics theory. That disunity will not be removable until that first choice is changed. If the choice is not changed, then disunity will become intollerable at some point so that physics theory cannot continue to advance.

        That is when inventions are introduced by theorists: "What can I add that will achieve the appearance of unity?" The added invented property will not itself be detectable. The disunited properties that made need of the invented property will then be used to indirectly prove the existence of the undetectable property. Today's theoretical physics has many such invented properties.

        My reason for insisting that all properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be definable in terms of that evidence is that: A direct clear connection to empirical evidence is the best guard against making inferior choices. If you look at my definitions replacing Maxwell's equations First Essay I expect that you might see that replacing electric charge with a fundamental increment of time does produce useful results. The fields are gone. The resulting equatons are expressible in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The last step to be added is to replace energy with force and distance and to replace momentum with force and time.

        If that result is not convincing and still allows for random chance to have produced a 'meaningful looking' result, then the reader should consider all the other meaningful results that are provided in that same essay. I began my essays with that first one filled with results because they point very strongly to something occurring that cannot be nonsense.

        My general meaning of random is no meaning. Even the billiard ball types of example, while being useful simulations for visualizing randomness, are not truly random. In true randomeness there is no way for billiard balls to bounce off one another. That act of bouncing shows that a useful property with meaning has been interjected into the example. Anything concluded from that example is not an accurate appraisal of the consequences of randomnes.

        My choice for the central question or focus point for consciousness is our ability to find, arrange, interpret, and attach meaning to that wild storm of photons, and, to turn that meaning into a useful picture so that we imagine that we see the universe operating, and, to do this lightning quick over and over with a very high degree of accuracy. This act, and any part of it, is not possible without our already having access to meanings stored within ourselves. It cannot be acquired. No new step can have any meaning unless we give it to it.

        James

        Tom,

        Adding to my previous message: I should have made clear that consistent useful results from different chosen paths indicates a strong possibility that there are more than one path to choose. When I said earlier that what I have presented in my essays should attract the attention of theoretical physicists, I meant that the possibility of two or more useful paths puts anyone's chosen path at risk for resulting from the wrong choice.

        I keep pointing to the definition of mass as one vulnerable choice. The others include electric charge, temperature, and mutiple fields. Those multiple fields, I think are the most apparent evidence that theoretical physics has introduced inventions to substitute either for lack of knowledge or to force the appearance of unity. The choice for making mass an indefinable property substituted for lack of knowledge. The same holds for temperature and electric charge.

        At least that is my view. I guess I have said more than enough to turn professionals off; however, the results will keep coming and they will continue to all be clearly linked together through fundamental unity.

        James

        Tom and Frank,

        Things have come to a halt here and that is fine. You two have given me the most worthwhile messages with regard to excellent challenges. I will only be on the Internet intermittingly for the next few weeks. During that time I will write responses because your opinions are welcome again. Tom your last challenging message had good detail to it. I will be showing how some of those potential problems do not occur from my point of view. Anyway, they need tested. Thank you both.

        I have only rated two essays thus far. I will wait until I can be active again before posting any evaluations or resume ratings.

        James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #107

        James

        Just to let you know an historical information. In his articles of 1911 and 1915-16 Einstein already knew that the speed of light was not constant. He was aware that the second postulate of special relativity must be abandoned for non-inertial frames of reference (i.e. for gravitational fields). Einstein knew that the only way that light could bend near a massive object is by changing the speed of the wave fronts (assuming spherical waves). Thus the speed of light has been known NOT to be constant for about 100 years. However, for practical purposes old theorists keep it or assume it to be a universal constant, this is what most people believe today.

        Israel