James
"For tomorrow on into Sunday, my wife and I will be babysitting two young grandchildren. I don't stop thinking, but, they do not understand me working on my computer when I could be playing with them. :)."
Delightful!
"I am looking at things step by step. I want to establish how the speed of light varies for the Milky Way galaxy. I know from my previous work that the speed of light slows as it moves toward the center of the galaxy by the same magnitude of acceleration that a freely falling object experiences. So the almost constant radial acceleration of stars with respect to distance tells me how the speed of light varies as it slows as it moves toward the center of the galaxy. There is no prediction involved in this step."
It must be that convention agrees with the same gravitational contour towards the galaxies center that we do. However they ascribe to Redshift (photon lengthening) but constant C, and we ascribe to redshift being due to the variability of C. But my point is that both predict the same observation of redshift, just different interpretations of what is happening. Therefore convention is likely to have made this direct observation, measure of gravitational redshift of photons streaming out from our galaxies center? Do you know of such a measure being made?
It is the conventional view that frequency corresponds to a photons energy content. They observe a photons frequency increasing as it descends a gravitational field, and so conclude its energy content is rising. However, it is our hypothesis that photons slow as they descend a gravitational field, and that a photons energy content corresponds to its velocity. So the photon is losing energy.
I know you don't like the term "energy content". But I don't know how else to ask the question. But what I would like to ask you, is do you have a formula that represents this alternative view and context? It is important that we have this formula for a photons decrease in energy as it approaches lower gravitational potentials. It must be that this delightfully turns convention on its head, exactly ant-correlated.
I note that we measure blueshift of a photon descending a gravitational field, and that blueshifted light appears to possess more energy, and not less. If we are right, then we have to put this down to an effect of relativity which the universe put in place to trick us.
"Before I can move on to predictions, I need to learn why the speed of light varies as it does. I can't model until I know this. If the cause happens to be dark matter, then the model is already owned by orthodox physics."
You say you need to know "why" the speed of light varies. I don't know why you feel this is important to progress the prospective model? I think that the basis for our model, is the formula I have requested above. Develop the formula that represents a photons energy content as being equivalent to its variable velocity, which decreases as it descends a gravitational field. I think that the same formula will transpose to mass potential, that is to say that mass potential will decline as it descends a gravitational field. If this very simple approach models an array of anomalous galaxy motions, then we'll have something nobody else has achieved. I think it could be this simple.
Back to your question, "why the speed of light varies?". It wasn't long ago, I recall you saying that photon motions don't require a cause. Have you changed your position on this? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of your questioning? I am aware that your approach can be summed up entirely with one component of Einstein's GR, and that is Tuv. And that the Light-Field describes patterns of changing velocities in Tuv only, and so you don't need considerations of Guv to do this. I understand why you did this, and I also am of the opinion it cleared a great deal of unnecessary theorist clutter that stands in the way of most people, and so enabled the extraordinary progress you have made. I think it was a master stroke for you to do this, very clever and inspired. I think this will prove to be an entirely effective method, because you are right, that to describe the world you only need to model the changing pattern velocities of photons. Because that is how the material universe works. But having said that, despite the extraordinary success of your approach, I don't think it can answer, "why the speed of light varies?" or indeed, "why light moves at all, in terms of cause?". And there are other things I believe your approach is incapable of addressing, like the how and why of atomic and cosmological structures we witness in this universe, the physical order and complexity. My approach describes a relationship between Auv and Tuv, to achieve these answers, via an evolving state. But what I find fascinating, is that your approach is entirely compatible with mine in describing Tuv, the matter aspect of the world. And so I feel little compulsion to convince you of the merit of Auv, in playing a role in animating the world. But I'll answer your question "why the speed of light varies? My answer is that Auv provides an energy potential that conforms to a variable space energy density, gravitational potential. Variable energy potential of the space born field, conforms to variable C.
"I have spent years developing new physics. I have made a few errors along the way. That experience made it clear to me that there must always be no errors. The opposition thrives on errors. Not errors in established physics. Those are unrecognizable to physicists in general. If you have visited my profiles anywhere on the Internet you will have seen that I do not qualify myself to do what I do. It doesn't matter to the opposition. Good results do not matter to the opposition. However, no one can stop the work or its public presentation. Credit that to the Internet. My point is that errors must be avoided. It takes time, thought, and extra work. Please be patient. You have been leading on providing empirical evidence. Your ideas may be correct. I hope so. With regard to geometry in physics, it is an integral part of physics and always has been, but, it went out of rigorous professional control with and after Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Today, unrealism rules theoretical physics by means of Topology. That is what I think. Do you see it in more favor?"
You've been at this for a lot longer than I have, but I've been up against enough opposition to take your meaning. They are for the most part, a different breed of intellect to you and many here at fqxi. Their priority is to take their understanding from sources they view as being sanctioned by authority. And although these people can be highly intelligent, and take on enormously complex and abstract learning, this approach does not hone a person's ability to "rationalize for oneself." Their thinking can take on a certain type of rigidity, that doesn't lend itself well to viewing of puzzles from a number of differing perspectives. Flexible thinking is something that needs to be practised, and understanding a curriculum generally doesn't involve this type of skill. So in my opinion, that is the difference between you and most of the people you try to converse with. Its not about smarter. Its just that you have practised a flexibility of thinking which most haven't. Its just an uncommon discipline. But maybe that does equate to smarter.
I think "unrealism" is perhaps the perfect word. But I still think Einstein's work advanced science, even if it was equal parts distraction. I see my approach, simply as ironing out a few kinks in his work. This non-Euclidian space geometry thing has to go! People think they are dazzled by the brilliance of it, but what they are infact, is baffled by the BS.
If we can find empirically derived numbers that match the various anomalous galaxy motions, then surely a few heads can be turned. I think we are looking in a very interesting place.
