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

Edwin,

Sorry, that 'Dr.' stood out immediately upon reading your message. It is important to me to make clear that I am not a physicist.

You are very correct about my having good feelings when a physicist says something that gives support to something that I say. It has happened before :) My hesitation to highlighting it has to do with the rest of what I say. I say too much that goes far against accepted theory.

Take for example what I say about defining mass, and all properties for that matter, strictly in terms of the properties of its empirical evidence. Should a physicist ever agree with that point, I would be elated. It is a key point who's acceptance would necessarily throw support to much else I say.

Or, if a physicist ever agreed with what I have stated about electric charge I would also be elated. That point is what establishes consistent clear unity in my work right from its beginning.

Thinking about this prompts me to state that it has been very nice and is greatly appreciated to be able to state my case here at fqxi without having the administrators cast me out.

James

About questions that have been raised about my essay (Tom):

Gravitation and acceleration are not the same things. Their effects can be the same. The point being that we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect. The equivalence principle needs transferred to apply to force.

There is both positive and negative mass in my work. That is because electrons cause the speed of light to slow while protons cause the speed of light to increase as light moves away from either one. There is no degeneration of the speed of light to zero. The equation I used in my essay to show a connection between light losing speed and objects gaining speed is not my equation. I used it because it is known. It is of limited use. It applies only to the example cited in my essay regarding an object approaching the earth. It does not describe accurately all circumstances how the spped of light varies.

My string of force equations and bringing them into alliance is pursued because the forces expressed, whether non-linear or linear, apply to a particular object at a particular point. They must be compatible and interchangeable. I show how to interchange btween them.

Gravity varies with time so long as it varies with the motion of objects. It varies for any mass with relation to all other masses. The existence of G demonstrates a standard for the combination of mass with distance. That is the purpose of the solution for G that I present. It is the standard proportionality constant that fixes all mass changes with distance changes in the manner necessary to keep G constant.

Mass is not made of distance and time. It must be expressible in the units of distance and time. That is because its existence is inferred only from empirical evidence that is itself expressed in units of distance and time. Any introduction of new units is an intervention without justification into that which the empirical evidence is communicating to us. The result of introducing such new arbitrary units is that theory, along with its theorists invented meanings, is interjected into equations that corrupt the information that the uncorrupted empirical evidence would otherwise be free and able to tell us. The introduction of theory is a corruption.

James

Frank Makinson,

I am preparing better responses to your messages. Truth is that enough down time for me has passed that I need to re-read your essay.

James

Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for advice and guidance. I am well behind in reading essays. However, I too did at least begin to see divergent presentations among professionals. Firstly, it is very good to see the increase in professional submissions. This contest is a contest because of professional participation. Anything that professionals say is of interest to me even when it is in opposition to what I think. I do not judge essays by level of agreement with what I think. I judge them, to the best of my ability, by their competence. The essays and other's opinions, in general, can be in opposition to what I think and still win a level 10 rating.

With regard to anything an expert says that appears to fit or relate to what I think, it is of great personal interest. Israel's essay spoke about space as a medium different from how I would explain it, but, he wrote about the variation of mu and epsilon with distance from matter. That is major and sufficient in itself.

I have found no problem with replicating the equations, in adjusted forms, of relativity theory for the purpose of modeling relativity type effects. I say type effects because I want to make clear that those effects, while real empirical effects, are not properly described theoretically by relativity theory. Speaking my opinion, the introduction of relativity theory has been a major impediment to furthering our understanding of the nature of the universe.

The steps I mentioned recently, regarding mass and electric charge, in an earlier message make clear the way for removal of all theoretical inventions including relativity theory. As always I do not assume that you agree with what I am saying. Readers should understand that my statements are my opinion and I am not a physicist.

Thank you for the heads up alerts. I need them. Since my main interest has always been about fixing theoretical physics, my view does not have to be the correct understanding of the nature of the universe for me to appreciate seeing progress toward that end. Your own work is a major, and far more sophisticated professional, effort to advance theoretical physics from its low mechanical status to a level where the most important properties of the universe become included in the 'foundational science'. If your work proves to be the new physics that suits me fine.

James

Regarding the nature of particles of matter and their relationship to the speed of light as presented in my work:

Thus far all of the work that I have completed at my website and have presented in my four essay contests submissions involve the consequences of just photons and the variations of their velocities. The speed component of the velocity of light varies everywhere. There are no other material constituents. Particles of matter are interpretations of variations in the speeds of photons.

The variations of the speed of light are omnipresent. There is no location where the control of the speed of light is not present. Electrons are peaks in the speed of light. Protons are valleys in the speed of light. Neither goes to inifinity nor to zero. Their magnitudes are not equal and opposite. However, if they were to overlap their effects on the speed of light the resulting combined speed would be the constant C at all points.

Their masses are the inverse representation of their effects upon photons. They cause photons to accelerate with both positive and negative changes in speed. The speed of light is never a constant. Yet, the speed of light always measures locally as the constant C due to length contraction of photons.

The activity of the universe is due to two opposing circumstances. The first is that: Light seeks to achieve a universally constant speed of C. The second is that: The seeking process involves delay and that delay prevents the seeking process from achieving its goal.

James

Frank,

I looked at my work for predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom, using the inverse of the masses of the electron and proton, and decided it was too much math to re-create here. It is presented at this link from my website on pages 116-120.

James

Dirk Pons,

Thank you for your remarks. I have been looking through the list of essays. You have been everywhere. The thought crossed my mind that maybe you move at the speed of light. :) I haven't read your essay yet, but I will do that today. I move at walking speed.

James

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