Steven,
Working together on this project aimed toward explaining how a variable speed of light accounts for excessive radial acceleration of the arms of our galaxy needs to have a foundation. That foundation needs to follow from the lead of empirical evidence. Guesses are proposed solutions that do not arise mathematically directly from empirical evidence. Guessing is what theorists do. They will not back up and correct their past errors nor will they go back and fill in blanks in equations that they have left behind. They are in a race to compete in an arena filled with imaginative mathematical speculations. They submit ideas that appear to maybe be workable substitutes for persistent unknowns. They often must adopt empirically unsupported geometric additions that add extra physical dimensions. The soft easy solution of adding extra dimensions are responsible for grossly disfiguring the Universe of today's physics'. The imagined existence of four or more dimensions is a haven for theorists to exercise their imaginations without the risk of empirical refutation. There can be no empirical tests conducted in that nest of geometric extensions.
That is my description of what I say is one example of worst case scientific gamesmanship. Putting that aside for now, I want to avoid moving in that direction. Therefore our differences will have to be contested.
"It is very simple. Your mass is made of photons. ... "
I don't say this. I say that mass is the inverse representation of the acceleration of light. Yes it is the acceleration of photons, but it is not photons.
"Your photons slow down within a light-field (gravitational field), causing photons to pile up on one another, blue shift."
No the photons do not pile up on one another causing blue shift. Each photon blue shifts. I present a model for the photon that shows how this occurs. piling up wouldn't do it.
"All you need to do to envision a variable baryon mass hypothesis, is to assume the potential for mass is the same potential as lights variable velocity."
Mass is the inverse of the potential change of the velocity of light with respect to time.
"If this is the case, then you already have the formula that describes it."
Yes. I offered the suggestion for a principle of Conservation of Acceleration. There is more to be said, but, when the context is right.
"note: I'm going to speak in terms of gravitational potentials instead of light-field, just in case others are trying to tune in."
Good choice.
"So you take a galaxy in mind, and envision the gravitational potentials throughout. There is a higher gravitational potential at the perimeter of the galaxy, which translates to a higher photon speed, and therefore higher mass potential. As the gravitational potential declines, as you move toward the centre of the galaxy, the mass potential declines. Less mass potential equates to less gravity which equates to orbital velocities deviating from predictions."
Taking this as a whole into consideration: A higher gravitational potential always exists at the farthest distance. Photon speed will be higher where mass is less prevalent. Photon speed will decrease with increasing numbers of mass merging together. As photons move toward the center of the galaxy, they will slow their speed. The force we credit as gravity results not from the speed of photons but rather from their rates of acceleration. Those rates of acceleration increase as photon approach the centers of mass. However, it is the rate of change of photon acceleration that is the cause of the force of gravity. This can be usefully visualized as two photons approaching a particle from above and below. The photons may have lesser or greater accelerations. It isn't lesser or greater that determines the force of gravity. For either lesser accelerations or greater accelerations, it is the magnitude of the rate of change of acceleration that causes the effect we call gravity. The greater the magnitude of rate of change of acceleration of photons, the greater the force of gravity is.
"We have already mentioned our differing approaches concerning space, that your theory only considers existence of photons, but mine considers photon existence as well as a second complementary element present in space. However I have quarantined that aspect of my theory for these discussions, because the only function it serves is providing cause for photon accelerations, answering the how and why your light-field effects photon velocity. But we don't need to acknowledge this cause to achieve what we are doing now. We only need to place the correct values for these photon and mass accelerations, within consideration of your light-field (gravitational potential). But at some point, when it is not a distraction from this very interesting pursuit of anomalous galaxy motions, I will ask you the following question. If there is no physical entity of space, then how can a piece of your light-field (gravitational potential) break away and live an independent existence from the mass that emitted it? LIGO's gravitational wave detection. But anyway, not important."
Splicing out a few of your words "I have quarantined that aspect of my theory for these discussions, because the only function it serves is providing cause for photon accelerations, answering the how and why your light-field effects photon velocity." There is no need to provide a cause for photon acceleration. Photon acceleration is the starting point for cause. Before that there is no explanation. There is always that point where there is no explanation. That is because no one knows what cause is. We only know about effects following effects. It is common to credit one effect with causing the next effect, but neither effect is a cause. In order to list an effect that precedes the effect of photon acceleration, you must provide empirical support for proposing it. Thinking that there is a need for it is not justification. There is no need for proposing a 'cause' that will itself then needs a 'cause', on and on. The variation of the speed of light is the beginning. That is the 'given' property until empirical evidence is provided that shows otherwise.
"Because you and I need to focus on understanding each other well enough to agree on how to tackle anomalous galaxy motions. So let us push distractions aside and see if we can work out how to dress a useful formula."
"You Said"
""I do finally address time as being absolute. My basis for saying this is that delta tc that I use in the denominators of various physics equations.""
"I think I understand what you say here, but please correct me if I'm wrong? That t measures rate of change, and rate of change is dictated by the variable speed of C? There is therefore, a theoretical point of no rate of charge, where value of C = zero. Is this absolute t? In this regard, absolute time is entirely equivalent to absolute zero temperature, both classifiable as zero motion."
First I will point out that temperature is a fundamental indefinable property. Physicists do not know what temperature is. Being undefined means it remains unexplained. In my work, I have defined temperature. Its definition followed automatically from the definition of mass. Now moving on to considerations of absolute time. It is not 't' that represents time. The physics letter 't' represents the change of rate of object activity. Object activity definitely is observed to vary. So 't', whatever happens, does not tell us about absolute time. Neither time nor space, as unique fundamental properties, are represented in physics equations. Object length and object activity substitute for space and time. There are no units for either space or time. There are no experiments that have ever been performed on either space or time. There is no evidence of effects upon either space or time. there is no evidence that either space or time cause effects. All empirical evidence consists of behaviors of objects. Objects are things that have velocities that change.
Your response is invited to be forthright. The parts that follow, I will address in another message. Have a good night or morning depending upon when you read this! :) James Putnam
"Here's the thing. I think we can completely disregard this secondary effect, that causes mass to experience weight and additional value of time dilation. For our calculations, I suspect we can treat the value of mass C, and its proportional slowing as it approaches the center of the galaxy, to be entirely proportional to the value that a photon slows as it approaches the center of the galaxy."
"I suspect that the only thing we need to do, is map the proportional slowing of photons as they approach the galaxy center, as prescribed by your formula. Then apply those same proportions to a reduction in mass C. Mass = gravity, so reduction in mass C equates a proportional reduction in gravitational interaction. Which gives us the new gravitational radial velocities to ascribe to galaxy rotation velocities."
"Maybe we should begin with the current value for mass, and from Earths position in the galaxy, and then work in from, and out from here. Because if mass really is a relative property, then this is the only place in the galaxy where we have correctly calibrated values for mass C."
"If we begin our sums by estimating the photons value of C based on "gravitational potential", along an imaginary radial line from galaxy center. But then use this value to down grade the value of Mass C, and in turn then "gravitational potential" towards the galaxies center. Well because the estimated value of gravitational potential we started with was only an estimate, then we dont get the correct answer at the end. We would have to repeat this process several times to approach a correct prediction."
