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

Your claim:

"The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the change of its frequency."

is correct (you shouldn't have denounced it). It is a tenet of Newton's emission theory of light and is experimentally confirmed:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

Time dilation and length contraction, along with e=mc2, were introduced in 1905. Time dilation and length contraction are the mathematical expressions of the physical effects upon which the derivation of e=mc2 depends. E=mc2 is empirically confirmed to accurately calculate the conservation of mass/energy; therefore, the effects known as time dilation and length contraction cannot be illusions. In special relativity, both time dilation and length contraction result from relative constant velocities. Relative constant velocities do not involve the use of force. Relative velocities in gravitational fields produce special relativity effects. Even if one develops a theory based upon a variable speed of light, length contraction must be included in order to derive a viable alternative form of energy equation to replace e=mc2. My use of the equation e=mc2 represents the total energy term in Einstein's kinetic energy equation.

James Putnam

James,

Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley.

The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?

In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications.

Eckard

Eckard,

"Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley."

The point that I make is not dependent upon guesses or theories or Michelson Moreley. It is dependent upon the success of e=mc2.

"The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?"

It is quite different because it includes relativistic mass and the non-variable velocity c2.

On 'The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' 1905, section 10 'Dynamics of The Slowly Accelerated Electron'

"In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications."

I was being cautious. E=mc2 is falsifiable. Time dilation is also falsifiable. There are three properties involved in making my point. Energy/mass, time dilation, and length contraction. I am saying that the three are inescapably interconnected. All three are theoretically required to be physical. Once mass/energy and time dilation were empirically verified, length contraction became required to be physical.

James Putnam

The flaw in the theory of relativity is as follows:

There are two interrelated fundamental mistakes, Einstein:

-conflated physical existence and the physically existent representation of that (aka light), ie there is no observational light

-attributed distance with duration, ie distance was measured in terms of duration taken to travel it, and the entity used was light

So, the light which Einstein refers to is not observational light but a timing mechanism, which is a constant. The sum effect of these two mistakes is to shift the timing differential from one end of the physical process to the other. That is, there is always a timing delay between the occurrence of physical existence and the receipt of a photon based representation of that. But if these two separate physical circumstances are combined, then this timing differential appears to be a characteristic of physical existence, ie everything has 'its own time' (unless as Einstein incorrectly stated, it is in the "immediate proximity").

The mistakes are easily identifiable in 1905 section 1 part 1. I wrote this argument out properly and posted it on my essay blog.

James,

Thank you for pointing me to §10. While I found an equation for the kinetic energy of an electron: W = mc^2{1/sqrt(v^2/c^2) -1}, I cannot yet see its claimed success.

I agree on that length contraction and time dilation are interrelated. However I thought this was already introduced by Lorentz as an attempt to explain something that worried the experts while it actually was just caused by Michelson's mistake.

Limited speed of wave propagation and accordingly apparent increase of mass can also be attributed to other waves, in particular to acoustic ones. In this case, one can also ascribe the quanta of energy to fictitious phonons instead of photons.

Instead of reiterating objections against inconsistencies of SR, I would like to ask which justified corrections to classical physics were tacitly introduced together with it. Galileo and Newton still postulated that bodies are rigid. Shouldn't we consider this model just an approximation?

Eckard

Eckard,

Sec. 10

He deals with mass right before deriving the kinetic energy equation:

"We remark that these results as to the mass are also valid for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small.

We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. ..."

(Then immedately following the equation):

"This expression for the kineic energy must also, by virtue of the argument stated above apply to ponderable masses as well."

I believe that what you say about Lorentz is correct. However, he proceeded to develop it into his electron theory. Here is an excerpt from 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity' by Max Born:

"Now, it suggeted itelf to Lorentz that the electron also experiences the contraction (1-B)1/2. ...

Lorentz next investigated the question whether the contraction hypothesis is sufficient for deriving the principle of relativity. After laborious calculations he established that this was not the case, but he also found (1899) what assumption had to be added in order that all electromangetic phenomena in moving systems occur just as in the resting ether. His result is at least as remarkable as the contraction hypothesis. It is: A new time measure must be used in a system which is moving uniformly. He called this time, which differs from system to system, "local time". The contraction hypothesis may cleary be expressed thus: The measure of length in moving systems is different from that in the ether. Lorentz enunciated the laws according to which the measured quantities in various systems may be transformed into one another, and he proved that these transformations leave the field equations of the electron theory unchanged."

Eckard: "Instead of reiterating objections against inconsistencies of SR, I would like to ask which justified corrections to classical physics were tacitly introduced together with it. Galileo and Newton still postulated that bodies are rigid. Shouldn't we consider this model just an approximation?"

This is probably best answered by a physicst. My belief is that Lorentz did an admirable job of refuting the Abraham's theory of the electron consisting of a rigid sphere. I am not a physicist, but, I think that whatever proves to be correct for electromagnetism would apply to bodies which are held together by it. My own work uses a variable speed of light as determined locally by the permittivity and permeability, instead of a variable time. Maxwell's speed of light equation applies everywhere. I did find that the contraction hypothesis had to be retained in order to account for electromagnetic effects.

With regard to my first message, my point is that the effects known as time dilation and length contraction cannot be illusions. They are required to be real effects because e=mc2 works. In order to do away with time dilation and length contraction one must do away with e=mc2. If one adopts a variable speed of light theory, such as I have done, the name 'time dilation' goes away and the effect known as time dilation becomes an effect of the variation of the speed of light. The effect remains. In addition, length contraction remains as it and the variable speed of light are both required for an energy equation that successfully takes the place of e=mc2. Meanwhile, the physics world has accepted the constant speed of light 'c'. For that to be correct, both time dilation and length contraction must be real physical effects because e=mc2 requires them to be real. That is what I think.

James putnam

I neglected to credit a source I used: My quotes about Einstein's 1905 paper were taken from Stephen Hawking's 'A stubbornly Persistent Illusion' pages 29&30.

James Putnam

James,

Constant re observer or re space? I can neither imagine twins of identically parallel moving wave rays nor twins of identically parallel moving particles imagine having different velocities just because they are each by chance seen from differently moving observers.

You: "the physics world has accepted the constant speed of light 'c'. For that to be correct, both time dilation and length contraction must be real physical effects because e=mc2 requires them to be real."

I found "The Trouton Experiment and E = mc^2° by Janssen and will critically read it.

Eckard

James,

"Lorentz enunciated the laws according to which the measured quantities in various systems may be transformed into one another". Well, what Poincaré dubbed Lorentz transformation might deserve a deep scrutiny because it led to Einstein's perhaps too easily accepted first postulate while much crowd rather distrusted the second one. The theory of electric and magnetic fields goes in an infinite space beyond the limited to a local perspective and rigidity of bodies mechanics of Galileo and Newton. Therefore I see Galilean relativity not necessarily transferable to electromagnetic fields even if one is tempted to accept such lazy generalization.

Eckard

James/Eckard

Relativity, etc, 'works' because there is a differential, and light, in practical terms, approximates c. Einstein deemed the differential to be a characteristic of physical existence, whereas it is the time delay pending receipt of a photon based representation of it (ie light). The way he developed the theory means that c is time, not observational light speed. Which is indeed variable in speed, depending on environmental circumstances, it is just a moving entity. But Einstein has no observational light, because he has equated the photon based representation of physical existence with physical existence.

He also failed to understand timing, the reference for which is a conceptual constant rate of change. Timing devices, within the realms of practicality, achieve this, otherwise the system is useless. They might not be perfect, but each does not need some standard adjustment to reflect the proper time. By making this mistake, in the context of no differentiation between existence and a light representation of it, he can accommodate the timing differential at the wrong end of the physical process. That is, the actual timing difference in receipt is shifted to a supposed timing difference in physical existence. The background notion of dimension alteration helps to make this seem plausible, because of the implication that timing devices, like everything else, are subject to dimension alteration, which then results in different tick rates.

The other background effect of dimension alteration is that it drew attention to entities which had relative movement, ie since their dimension was changing they had to be treated differently. Again, the real timing differential, when wrongly conceived, assists in substantiating this false notion. Because a sequence will appear to be progressing at a different rate to a recipient of the light based representation of it, if their relative spatial position is altering. Since the timing of receipt changes as the distance changes. It is a simple optical illusion, nothing is changing in the physical existence.

Dimension alteration was originally considered real, but it becomes irrelevant in relativity, and is explained away by the same flawed method that 'proves' his view of time. Time and distance are both calibrated on the duration taken for light to travel, where light is being used as a timing mechanism. There may be dimension contraction of matter/photons when they are subjected to a differential force, but that would have no impact on the essential concept of relativity. It would make the entire circumstance far more difficult to unravel, but the factor which really matters would still be there, ie the timing difference between physical existence and the receipt of a photon based representation of that.

Paul

Paul Reed,

Please do your damage in your own forum. Your messages contain misinformation and misunderstandings.

James Putnam

Eckard,

I deliberately said "...the physics world has accepted the constant speed of light 'c'." because that is what goes into the equations. I leave it to relativists to explain the basis for using 'c'. I don't view the terms of their equations in their way. I find that their equations are a mix of views from both the remote observer and the local observer. The local observer is the one who always measures the speed of light as 'c'. The remote observer measures the speed of light as a variable. These two perspectives sometimes become mixed together in the same equation. For example: Einstein's requirement to hold the speed of light as the constant 'c' resulted in his rest energy expression being from the perspective of the local observer. This is not the case for the rest of his kinetic energy equation or for his special relativity equations. The special relativity equations and his total energy expression in his kinetic energy equation are from the perspective of the remote observer.

I don't know if you or anyone else is interested in further explanation, but, I have worked this out, including the mathematics, and it is available on the Internet or I could attempt to explain it more here if there is interest. There is an example of my approach in my essay for this latest contest. It concerns the calculation of Einstein's rest energy term solely from examining gravitational potential energy from each of the two perspectives. Einstein's rest energy equation is the gravitational potential energy viewed from the local perspective. The local perspective is from the view of an observer traveling on an object that is raised upward through a gravitational field. The remote observer is stationary and views the lifting process from afar.

The transform equations convert between the two perspectives, local and remote. The L in the length contraction equation is the local perspective. The L' is the remote perspective. I don't use time dilation, but, the same could be said for it. I will end it here unless there is interest.

James Putnam

James

"Your messages contain misinformation and misunderstandings."

Really? I do not suppose you could specify what is and why, since all you could do in another blog was declare them to be stupid and metaphysical without any substantiation.

I will just point out one factual error in your latest post: "from both the remote observer and the local observer. The local observer is the one who always measures the speed of light as 'c'. The remote observer measures the speed of light as a variable."

Einstein does not have any observers, because there is no observational light for them to be able to observe. His light is a timing mechanism. When illustrating with examples he has to use lightening, etc. Cox & Forshaw used a light beam clock. Peter used a laser light. The point being that they need something which acts as the timing reference but at the same time leaves the implication that it can be seen. The other somewhat obvious issue would be what is remote as opposed to local? Since an observer is a separate entity from what is being observed, all observers are remote, some are just more remote than others.

Paul

Eckard,

Going back to my original point. It is that: E=mc2 requires length contraction to be real. There are three terms involved: the speed of light, length, and duration. Duration can be referred to as time so long as it is understood that it is the time which clocks keep. Of the three terms two must be variables. Relativity theory accepts time and length to be the two variables. I disagree with their view, but, that does not change the general crux of the problem.

Of the three properties if two are empirically verified, then the remaining one must also be physically real. Two are empirically verified: The speed of light measures locally as 'c'; the rate at which activity occurs slows. The conditions under which the rate of activity slows is, I think, debatable. However, it does slow.

The reason I make the claim that e=mc2 requires length contraction to be true is that I find no other way to derive e=mc2 than by including the mathematical expression for the effect called time dilation and the variation of length. E=mc2 is empirically verified. In order to disclaim time dilation and/or length contraction one must derive e=mc2 without including those two effects. I found no way to do this.

My own solution involves a variable speed of light instead of time dilation, but, the challenge of eliminating length contraction appears to me to be insurmountable. If you find other solutions, I am interested in reading about them. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

James Putnam

James,

Having looked into the paper by Janssen I tend to agree with Larmor rather than Lorentz: FitzGeralds's expectation was again a shot in the dark as was his length contraction hypothesis. Wikipedia confused me with questioning the relativistic mass. I frankly admit to suspect that most people who admire and learned to interpret the famous simple formula E = m c^2 are not aware that m does not mean mass but relativistic mass.

Eckard

But e=mc2 is not true. That is why you are struggling to derive it properly. The factor c, which looks like light speed, is just a meaningless constant. This stems from incorrectly equating the photon based representation of reality received, with the reality it represents, hence deeming light speed as the fastest rate of change possible, and then using it as a calibration reference, but not as light, just a conceptual constant.

The derivation of c in section 1, part1, 1905 is nonsense:

By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity of a particular entity, c is asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which is both wrong because that time involves duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time.

So it should be, when specifically considering light speed:

c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity of light is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity. Light is just another entity, which can be presumed to travel at a constant speed.

The point being that it is not light, just a constant. Einstein has caused readers to think it is light, but is no observational light by which an observer could observe, just a dissassociated "ray of light", an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference".

[Eckard, your point is spot on. All these 'effects' are actually differentials. When they refer to gravitational force causing changing momentum (and possibly dimension alteration), it is a differential in forces incurred. In just the same way that being 'at rest' is a state of moving but not moving differently from the reference used to calibrate the movement, etc, etc]

Other conversations concerning special relativity paradoxes cause me to make certain that the meaning this statement of mine is made clear:

"The special relativity equations ... are from the perspective of the remote observer."

The remote observer is one who is stationary with respect to the background and observes the motion of another observer through the background and whom I refer to as the local observer. It is the condition of being stationary with respect to that background that removes the paradoxes. The equations for time dilation and length contraction apply to any observer having a velocity with respect to the background. Those equations represent how the stationary observer 'views' differences for the moving observer. The remote observer does not experience either time dilation or length contraction.

The local observer will, when viewing the stationary remote observer see the remote observer as changing. However, those changes are not real. They are illusions that occur because of real physical changes that occur to the local observer and to his measuring devices, both to his clock and to his measuring rod. The remote observer does not undergo physical changes.

James Putnam