Perihelion of Mercury - What is the Best Version of Variable Speed of Light?
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 09. 2022
- For technical details, feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo - Email.
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - Věda a technologie
Prof. George Smoot, UC Berkeley: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."
Here Michel Janssen describes countless ad hoc adjustments made again and again until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:
"But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Janssen, M. (2002) The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard. In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vols. 1-10, pp. 1987-2006). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Einstein was a jerk and his theory of relativity is garbage.
Many adjustment and many approx but at the end we have a really precise expression so the theory is solid. But we can find exactly the same with a free particle lagrangian, with the gravitational potential inside the speed of light. So GR is not the unique way to describe relativistic gravity, metric tensor is not mandatory I think...
@@mathoph26 time is universal
@@jaydenwilson9522 I have just heard recently that the perihelion of mercury was found 30 years erlier Einstein by Paul Gerber... so Einstein would have just to fit the coefficient (16 pi G something) to find the shift at second order. No magic insight.
The formula of Gerber for the newtonian potential is not fine for me but at least he was apparently the first to have the perihelion shift to his defense
Absolute speed of light is synonymous to time dilation:
All variability of speed of light, which is stated as 299,792,458 m/sec, is hidden inside variability of sec. Actually, 299,792,458 m/sec is the definition of a local second: how long it takes for the light to cover the distance of 299,792,458 m in this area.
Thank you for the video.
Regarding the slide that shows that the refraction index is equal to exp(1/2), that last step is not correct, so we do not have the unexpected results that the refraction index is constant. It looks like you made the incorrect assumption that the sum of m/r is dominated by the mass of the sun. While this assumption looks reasonable at first glance, it does not match the value for G. If we evaluate the sum of m/r based on G, we get 3e26 kg/m. For comparison, the mass of the sun divided by the distance to Mercury is of the order of magnitude 1e19 kg/m.
Ragnar
Another thought provoking & fun video, thank you for sharing!
Mercury's perihelion, it's been a problem solved and empirically proven for about 100 years? Albert chose the curved space, constant c light speed option, rather than the flat space, variable speed c option for GR, that Eddington verified via eclipse experiment, and that the maths and observed planetary measurements prove, in the separate case of mercury's orbit?
Albert's choice seems valid as spacetime curvature and the constant c may yet explain fermion containment, along with photon capture and emission, and perhaps particle mass-energy densities, spin, entropy, electric charge and particle magnetism too? Perhaps his GUT feeling about entanglement and gravitoelectromagnetism requires more research and observations to simplify present interpretations and models?
that's too little, only that? no way, add more, more stuff, it needs to explain literally everything! more stuff!
thanks for being honest about the problem of a theory you like.
one thing that didn't make any sense for me with the standard understanding of GR was that how an accelerating mass will feel the gravitational pull of the universe.
just the fact that an observer moving at the speed of light will be causality disconnected from the universe behind it, so the observable universe would shift by half of the diameter of the visible universe in front, and thus should feel an acceleration forward, not backwards, or am I missing something?
if my understanding is right, then this disprove the existence of gravitational waves (the QM field ones, not the astronomical ones from neutron stars binaries and blackholes)
Is the exponential version merely due to (1+x) being an approximation to e^x? If so that seems pretty flimsy ... even worse than string theory.
I agree with you 👍🏻, I also don't think that this is solid arguments for the so called perehilion shift of mercury's orbit
Whoa! Hal Puthoff! The man who knows how to negate the effect of gravity on moving vehicles!!!¡¡¡!!!
What if a condensed liquid metallic Hydrogen core of the sun is not uniform but has at it`s centre an off set region. A stable but not exactly centred ( because it is effected by Mercury ) area trying but failing to keep pace with planet Mercury motion?
For those of us that believe in a cold core plasm powered star.
if mercury's gravitational effect could affect the sun in such fashion, you'd see rather exotic artifacts on the surface of the sun. i mean, if mercury is able to warp the core of the sun, would it rather much more easily and apparent warp the superficial layers and eliosphere of the sun
@@mark970lost8"if, you'd seem exotic artifacts on the surface of the sun" what about so called Sun spots?
There is no objective understanding in mainstream physics why the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum and is independent of the motion of the source or the observer. This is very odd; you would expect the speed of light to be relative to the motion of the light source and the observer. If we think of a person observing sunlight or electromagnetic waves of any kind, it is as though their own motions come to naught like a jogger running on an imaginary treadmill. Throughout the whole universe only the speed of light appears to be absolute in this way!
There is one way to explain this paradox and that is if the Universe is a continuum of continuous energy exchange or continuous creation formed by the spontaneous absorption and emission of light with an uncertain future unfolding photon by photon relative to the atoms of the periodic table: czcams.com/video/xt7ktEihsYE/video.html
what causes the shift?
sun rotation ?
mercury close proximity to the sun?
mercury high speed?
How is deep space imaging not phase disrupted due to time invariance if vsl has any non unity scaling
Rescaling functionality, a generic and fundamental property mapping. Rescaling is implied by a steady-state model with virtually "contracting" objects and time scales, wherein...
"...objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax." CTMU
Requantization = red shift, time-frame dilation, "dark" matter & energy, and favorable genome selections. It's weird knowing this stuff whilst paid scientists have no clue, just like how "experts" had no clues about Heliocentrism during the last dark age.
Few words about the 2 papers. In Krogh's paper, we have an assumption about the speed of light with the exponential... Justifying by De Broglie waves... Not clear, not fundamental for me.
We need to have a very general equation with operators, the Poisson or d'Alembert equation involving c is more interresting and fundamental than a direct assumptions of the exponential behaviour...
Then in the other paper of Puthoff, which is a bit more fundamental for me, it treats about the Lagrangian involving the speed of light. It is interesting but we need to add a complicated term to the rest/kinetic energy involving second derivative of speed of light... why not but it looks like a bit DIY... That being said a Lagrangian description, followed by compleating the 4 tests of GR is pretty good.
The substitute for G in the exponent with Dicke's equation is the problem. No equation is equal to the same in the powers. Excepting a few simple.
Can you explain muons with variable speed of light theories? Thankyou.
Who needs an explanation for an amount of energy (a virtual particle, which you call muon), which is never the same and also can not be seen? Can you explain how clocks should run mutually slower? I know you can't, because you can't measure anything riding on a moving muon, because you aren't small enough. Even if you were, there's still no muon.
@@nichtvonbedeutung Sorry I should clarify my question. Could you explain muon tomography with a variable speed of light theory.
Muon tomography is a real thing. Im just wondering... I have nothing against Unzickers views, his views seem plausible to me. Im just waiting for an explanation in unzicker style. Im not aggressive...
A component of big G has a variable if I remember... maybe his G had a difrente value?
Within a short period of studying UFO phenomena it becomes evident that we're seeing profound validation of classical relativity, in multiple ways such as gravitational lensing effects around these craft, missing time (often misinterpreted as suggesting a memory-wiped abduction, but more likely caused by exposure to compressed spacetime), as well as wavelength-shifting effects. Furthermore we see substantial corroboration of the virtual-photonsphere of QED in the form of Casimir radiation and absorption as a function of adiabatic compression and expansion of the latent vacuum potential - the familiar orb-like glows or black holes we see surrounding these craft emanating not from them but the interface between curved and flat space (often misattributed to ionisation effects, yet these radiation and absorption modes are seen to persist even in space). These things are self-evident and almost uncontroversial given the terabytes of HD video evidence freely available on CZcams.
What *is* more challenging, i admit - yet equally compelling - is the 'central physics claim' of Bob Lazar, that alien tech resolves gravity with the strong nuclear force, this also essentially reducing to a curvature of spacetime, albeit much stronger and usually at much smaller scales; he then asserts that its wave-like nature is thus amenable to being extruded out via amplifying waveguides into an effective warp-bubble enveloping a craft. This much-stronger 'gravity A' force (as opposed to our more familiar 'gravity B' form) thus presenting the missing link that makes extreme spacetime manipulations possible at practical energy densities, and thus craft exploiting such techs highly scalable (the smallest UAP seen flaunting such techs are insect-sized - not even on the table with Alcubierre-type solutions). If we dismiss every other detail of Lazar's claims, this singular proposition would still stand out as a potential diamond in the rough that may be key to bridging QM and relativity..
Ok thanks, will check those out. It's thought that the 50-60 year old data available to the QCD crowd is not fully public, as to why they are so keen on their theory of gluons & quark confinement. Perhaps it is though, it would require some research.
Somehow, perhaps through this viewers more familiarity with relativity, and some recent studies, the near perfect sphericity of protons and electrons is often dismissed as being unimportant by the QCD proponents.
I would argue that spacetime has mass, that the vacuum, empty space is mass. The spacetime within the atoms that make up the planet Mercury is denser than that of the open space that surrounds it but they are one and the same nonetheless. A gravity map is a spacetime density map, is a time-dilation map, is a speed of light map, is a mass distribution map. For me, your frustrations are not borne of physics, they are the result of a misunderstanding of how various branches of physics are applied to the cosmos.
spacetime is made up nonsene created by shills to hide the real knowledge. Time is only a measurement, space be absence of the aether... they are teaching you garbage and lies.
@@toymaker3474 If time is only a measurement, then what is it a measurement of ? Space is the aether, or the vacuum or spacetime or empty space, the name does not matter.
perihelion of mercury anomaly of 43 arc seconds is NOT due to GR; it is due directly to Galactic Torque.
If Machs principle is right then applying Dickies equation to my relativistic slide rule means that G is T^2/L^3/4 due to cancellations. Currently B = .9629739833588 r = 4.6559e26m making G = 1 now and was 137 times stronger 380000 years ago when B was .99999833588 and r = 1.96e24m. G increases massively on each end of the eon particularly at the end (when all mass L^3/T^2 is gone) as B approaches zero which would provide a reason for the collapse into the next Big Bang (Roger Penrose theory). My proton calculation is G m^4/s^3/c so the strong force is G when it was massive and now frozen inside the proton in time (B=1)
I do not get the point. Why don't you write it up more nicely, say on viXra?
I derived the Newton law by using calculus of variation and minimizing the total energy for variable speed of light. The assumption was that the square of the gradient of the speed of light is the energy in the gravitational field.
not the Lapacian of c^2 but the (gradient of c)^2 ? It is interresting
@MathOph MC^2 is linear with respect to C. MC is constant when C varies. I do not remember how I came to the conclusion that MC remains invariant. Now, I am working on a discrete holographic theory of space-time without any origin that enforces relatively of movements and sizes, and gravity comes out of it beautifully.
@@farhadtowfiq6767 this is really interesting, I am trying few stuff also with Poisson's equation and Lagrangian, I will try to derive mercury's perihelion shift but it is not usual calculation I do... but this is a really interesting topic and the communaunity here shares the results and ideas of VSL theories, it is a very positive state of mind to progress
Search on CZcams: "Mass displacement field : R-field journal."
or "Simple quantum explanation of gravity without mass or math"
@@alexandrekassiantchouk1632 Quantum physics and Relativity theory both are garbage. Photon does have mass just like any other particle.
@@rajeev_kumar I already argued that point with Dr. Vivian Robinson, if that would be the case, then Snell's law would not work.
@@alexandrekassiantchouk1632 Working of Snell's law for light is far more complex and astonishing than it superficially appears. There might be some advanced mechanics (not quantum mechanics) is in action which has not been figured out yet. The validity of Snell's should not be that surprising though as this law satisfies principle of least action and nature chooses such laws in its design that possess some special mathematical properties.
I really have to ask why does a planet's elliptical orbit around a gravitational object (sun) have ANYTHING to do with variable light, when true variable light is lesser photinos acting with less-than-light-speed, have nothing to do with geology or planetary, lunar, or satellite orbital patterns.
Could light speed be a variable as a wave and a constant as a particle?
Light isnt always a particle. We create particle effects via measurement. I think thats your end answer. If something doesnt observe time, how can you measure it at any specific point in time without bringing it into your time reference?
Light cant exist without time eh? Without time how could light be observed seperate from the ENTIRE universe?
Its as simple as why scientists saw mostly red shift in the universe. They could only see what hasnt been expanding faster than our light cone.
QCD apparently works quite well when sub-nuclear, it's massless tethers that hold stuff together posited as being Oriental finger-trap like magnetic flux tubules attached to bolo-ball like quarks?
Dirac though thought of the cosmic and protonic simultaneously and came up with anti-particles, is the property of the anti-gluon(s) asymptotic serfdom?
The presently being discovered rotating helical universal filaments that exhibit red and blue shifts relative to their spinning contents, that include strung-out spaghettified groupings of galaxies and their contained supermassive black holes, are the filamental contents in free fall or directed like serfs by and through the magnetic flux tubes, as the recent indications are the universal filaments, that can be billions of light years in length, are also magnetized?
What role then, would entropy, either the Boltzmann, Von Neumann, Gibbs or Shannon's play in the universal helical filamental development- the universe is analogous to a saddle shaped ADS coffee cup where the galactic milk so to speak is still swirling about before it's full dispersion, or is it rather a spherical container that might itself be rotating, swirling up its own galactic filaments via its bounding shell's inertia and momentum?
So, do spheres contain spheres all the way up and down or do magnetic flux tubes tether all spheres all the way up and down and is the latter scenario a spring driven thing like a yo yo? The common people would like to know!
I severely disagree with QCD "working well". See my video on QED and Consa's papers. QCD falls with QED.
One thing is certain for us ephemeral observers, is that our universe exists at least for arbitrarily short lengths of time from singular individual to singular individual. We accomplish more things, get more done, while working cooperatively, together in groups. The development of languages and note keeping, either mental and passed on via the vibrating winds from our vocal chords, or chiseled on stone tablets or encoded on the latest digital media devices, preserves and passes on those imaginative ideas falsifiable or otherwise via experiments, that always take place in the past, except for those future ones that take place in our imagination first! Is there no free will?
I'm still trying to get the head around Roy Kerr's paper from a few weeks ago, so thoughts about any similarity between proton-neutron confined magnetic flux tubes (or vice versa) vis a vis universal confined helically rotating magnetic flux tubes channeling galaxies and their allegedly infinitely dense supermassive black hole centroids about the universe, to and through galaxy cluster nodes, is put on the back burner until Kerr's ideas, alternative to Schwarzchild's, are given time to gestate...
If only Karl S. had the chance to meet Wilfred Owen before 1916 expired, or both had the extra one to three year's time to see those subsequent Eddington-Einstein eclipse results, that made the front page of the New York Times! Adios for a bit, or byte! Hopefully some clearer ideas will emerge from some presently disrupted & disorganized thoughts about the near future, in the near future
Anybody ever play with varying the rho value of space/ether?
Yes, excellent comment! I don’t know how much Unzicker has done that explicitly other than considering mu as density. Aether density rho certainly appears in the compressible fluid equations. I am curious see when Unzicker begins to shift direction more towards PDEs (that are being approximated by those infinite sums). He already utilized Green’s function and discussed some nonlinear PDE equation involving c and w, which didn’t seem to contain density though.
See the pqper of Tupper & Page (1968)
what if you raise all of Dicke's equation to the power of e to get e^(1 + (2GM/rc^2)) which would give e^(1 + 1/2) = e^(3/2)
rather than treating Dicke's equation as two components consisting of one constant (1) and a set of variables (2GM/rc^2), what if the whole formula is meant to be viewed as one component in others words = (1 + 2GM/rc^2) instead of 1 + 2GM/rc^2
you'll have to forgive me it's been awhile since I delved as deep into calculations as Jan Preuss did in the video..
I know we don't want a constant here, but maybe this will change the results for S
As soon as light is launched into the vacuum Aether, light is riding in Aether at a constant velocity c wrt the portion of Aether it propagates. At great ‘distance’ either, a receding observer, a source or both the observer will experience a red shift. More details below.
Aether has no physical properties, only electrical. So it cannot be regarded as elastic solid, fluid or wind. Matters displaces vacuum also displace Aether.
Aether vacuum has a measurable permittivity of 8.8541878128*10^-12 F/m, hence, the existence of Aether.
Light speed in Aether vacuum is c and will decrease from c as it enters a vacuum space liter with electron ion (of plasma) subatomic particles atom molecule. And a pronounced decrease as it entering gas water and glass … except gravity field.
Aether attach and drag with all physical maters, however, Aether in the deep and empty cosmic space drag with everything else - averaged - and attenuated by 1/r^3. In the interstellar space or r approaches infinity, Aether can be regarded cosmic stationary, and under the conditions stated that c is regarded as universe constant.
To earth, Aether is dragged by the upper atmosphere, more so in sync with the lower atmosphere and landscape. Albert Michelson, commissioned to search for “Aether wind” return with little to no Aether wind for the reason stated above. Instead, we should sending Maxwell to search for Aether the vacuum space.
As soon as light is launched into the cosmic vacuum space, light is riding in Aether at a constant velocity c wrt the portion of Aether it is propagating. While at great ‘distance’, either, a receding observer, source or both that will experience a red shift and at relative velocity.
To a vacuum vessel moving in deep space, the portion of Aether inside drag with the vessel, Aether outside the vessel attached to vessel exterior drag by it and Aether at distance r from boundary drag is attenuated by 1/r^3.
pretty impressive but u missed one key thing.... the light is NOT moving... the "speed" of light is nothing more than the rate of induction of the aether. (medium) magnetism and dielectric and aether are ALL the same things. just at different states like air/ stream/ water are all the same thing. READ steinmetz!!!!
Too complex and reliant on pre-defined "substances". Only a metaphysical model can suffice, of which I'm intimately familiar. PM if you care at all, but I don't suffer disagreements well.
@@toymaker3474 You're correct. If the "edge" of the universe appears to "recede" at rate "C", then "C" is "pure stasis", while objects and time-scales must virtually "contract", forming ambient, overlapping images which subject-to parallel processing = coherent model of space-time rooted entirely in absolute logical necessity rather than predefined "substances".
@@xxxYYZxxx their is no such thing as space time. time is result of magnetic hysteresis
@@toymaker3474 Space is generic information, and time is generic cognition (generic information processing). While space and time may not be "things", calling them "no (such) thing" adds no substance to the analysis.
I have one question. Is gravity the only factor that can slow down speed of light?
Einstein is wrong -- gravity duznt slow light -- the nearness of mass slows light -- ie c becomes c'.
Plus, the aetherwind adds to the apparent speed of light -- ie c' becomes c'+V or c'-V.
Yes, in VSL.
@@atheistaetherist2747 I agree that Einstein was wrong. Just because light bend at sun’s boundary, g isn’t the only factor present. The boundary is rich in electrons and ions (plasma) can contaminate the Aether there resulting permittivity rise from e0 to >e0 with permittivity taper towards e0 towards the cosmos.
This contamination have caused dark bands in our spectroscope to carry a blue shift during calibration. A naive cosmologist didn’t know such error study his galaxies in the night sky soon declare an expanding universe.
That gave us two naive scientists.
@@philoso377
Yes, i had forgotten about refraction -- but -- refraction-bending in mass & diffraction-bending when very near mass & bending when not very near mass are all due to the nearness of mass, ie all are due to the slowing of light near (eg in) mass.
But i would not say that slowing of light has much to do with g -- it has to do with the nearness of mass -- & of course g has to do with the nearness of mass -- but g duznt explain the slowing -- slowing has a different cause.
When we say g i suppose we mean the escape velocity -- which is affected by g -- which is what Einstein meant -- but he was wrong.
if photon is massive, it can also be slowed down.
Maurice Levy and Paul Gerber both reduced Mercury’s precession to exactly match their theories around 1890-1900. Einstein’s GR ‘solution ‘ irrelevant.
Search on CZcams: "Mass displacement field : R-field journal"
@@tomgreen4409 The book,” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon as “link.”
Not clear at all what “shift” in mercury’s orbit means. How does it shift exactly? In which plane…etc.
Is possible that c is changing with life of universe and mass curve spacetime too but not change c?
For those interested, I made a video presentation on my channel challenging and I'd go as far as to say debunks relativity theory based on the fraudulent evidence put forward as proof of the theory (the classical proofs; perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational redshift, light ray deflection and gravitational waves. Space Audits #08 for those that want to check it out.
The so called "speed" of light is the rate of induction depending on the historesis of the Aether.
amazing how no one can explain how light speeds back up after passing through glass without violating the law of conservation of energy. Maybe the light is NOT moving and something else if happening.
We also can't explain why a foton immediately travels at the speed of light at the moment of creation. It just seems to be a characteristic of space and time
I think I know how to fix the perihelion result. It is actually not due to relativity at all. It is actually a quantum mechanical effect due to the Born Rule and conservation over the universe.
Do you mind elaborating on that?
@@TheMachian Assume that Feynman paths define space and that for a given particle the sum over all space created by Feynman paths remains constant (it is a very large *modular* space). Recalculate Born's rule and you will find a tiny adjustment needs to be made. That adjustment induces forces because not all particle positions in space are possible. John Smith made a video on this 5 years ago that physicists have so far not understood. It seems rather trivially true to me.
@@TheMachian Here is the video link: czcams.com/video/LubYNL8-UnE/video.html
"I have spoken to Einstein and he admitted to me that his theory was in fact no different from the one of Parmenides." - Karl Popper
@@KabelkowyJoe Absolute motion is impossible. This was proven by Parmenides, further demonstrated by Zeno, and Scientifically verified by the Theory of Relativity. This is to say, motion is relative to the perception of the passage of time, and the passage of time is an illusion.
I think the speed of light is truly constant. It just has the wrong name. It is not primarily the speed at which light propagates, but an essential property of the cosmos.
The speed of light is nothing more than the rate of induction of the medium.
Let me guess, you got that from ken wheeler.
@@hectordurazo3849 actually, us army satcom school (something you have never done) and reading a lot of steinmetz. ( which is clearly something you have also never done)
I rly don't understad what is about this 'halo'? 🙂 For me it's obvious that speed of light is variable, depend of medium. As vacuum isn't really vacuum, when you gain speed this 'vacuum' will have more density. Which slow speed of light proportionally.
But (this is my thesis) when you move in some kind of 'isolated' rocket. That will 'compress' a little this rocket, because of resistance of 'vacuum'. (remember that we don't have any "perfect stiff body" and every construction it's some of jelly 🙂)
This compression means that light inside slow from this 'compression', BUT.. will for observer, moving faster. (less distance to travel)
So from this perspective, we can believe that speed of light is constant, but it's NOT.
There isn't exist this mega dumb entity called "spacetime". (btw... space and time are indirect dimensions, like 'speed'.. can't exist without others)
I have created a new theory which solves the mystery of Mercury's path and 5 other old mysteries of space. One simple and logical idea of "The Phantom Light" will be a big thing in 2023 if proven right.
Real physics have now the fluid dynamics with complex evolution.
Judging ONLY from the variation of their speed, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in presence or absence of gravity, just like the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets). Actually, this is a proven truth but no one cares (post-truth science):
Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."
James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity: "Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2."
Can you suggest anywhere in our universe where gravity is not present ? Is there anywhere on our planet that is not subject to the gravity of the Sun, Sag A* and the Andromeda Galaxy ?
This is only if you assume that photons are "particles" and not wave packets on the space medium. Special Relativity is only wrong in its relativist-subjectivist interpretation of the Lorentz transform. The Poincare view is clearly the correct one and there is an absolute rest frame and that is where the medium for these photons resides. The failure of Galilean "relativity" is precisely because photons are not ballistic projectiles. And photons underlie the whole material reality. This is why clocks slow down and radial lengths contract in gravitational potential wells. Any type of clock will reflect the behaviour of photons in the local environment.
@@johnsmith-fr3sx Photons are just sparkly ripples just like the rest of particle physics. If it were possible to remove every photon in our universe, what difference would it actually make to reality ? I would suggest that the universe, our reality, would hardly notice. More that that, if every particle in the Standard Model was removed, our universe would barely notice. There would be no thought, metabolism or 'things' but I don't think that any of those things existed before the CMB was born anyway. We, particles and radiation are just a consequence on the life journey of the universe, nothing more.
@@johnsmith-fr3sx A 'photonic' or 'electronic' being cannot metabolise, think or reproduce, all of these functions require 'empty space' to give shape and a framework for these functions to exist.
@@johnsmith-fr3sx In String Theory, it is the Brane that constitutes reality, and for Bohmian Mechanics it is that which the Pilot Waves are made from. It is our ego that deludes us because QM is fundamental to life and 'things' and so we assume, we take our limited experience and make it that of the universe.
the speed of light varies as you move through space. regardless of the interpretation you take this is demonstrated.
so when you're considering all of the mass in the universe you need to correctly account for this, but it's not accounted for by Dicke's equations.
near an object exerting an appreciable gravitational influence c is what you expect it to be. but further out, near the rest of the mass of the universe it's virtually zero. this is necessarily true and exceptionally obvious. so why isn't that being factored in?
1. Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light.
2. Mach was correctish. The mass of our local cosmos affects gravitational mass & inertial mass. But i would not go as far as to say that the mass of our infinite eternal universe affects mass & gravity. Its a more local thing. The reason for this is that gravity has a speed of propagation, hence changes in gravity have a speed of propagation, & that speed is very fast (say over 20 billion c) but not infinitely fast.
3. The nearness of mass slows the speed of light. Hence the mass of our local cosmos affects the speed of light. And, the mass of non-local cosmoses affects the speed of light here in our local cosmos, ie the mass of our infinite eternal universe affects the speed of light here in our cosmos, its not just a local thing. The reason for this is that light is slowed due to photaenos emitted by mass, & the density of photaenos in our local cosmos includes photaenos emitted by non-local cosmoses, no matter how distant, no matter how much time the photaenos have taken, ie no matter how old the photaenos are. Except that i need to contradict myself here -- there must be a limit of some kind here -- ie photaenos can't be eternal, otherwise we would have an infinite density of photaenos here in our local cosmos.
4. Anyhow, (2) affects G, & (3) affects c - but, c duznt affect G -- & G duznt affect c. Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light.
Ok I found the solution to your problem with the perihelion. It's absolutely wrong to use the exponential and the reason also explains why the VSL with the exponential doesn't work. If you're interested just reply to me. I'd like to make a paper about some ideas about the VSL based on Mach's principle and Dicke's refraction index.
Feel free to contat me at ChannelInfo-> email, I shall be interested if you have a solution.
@@TheMachian ok just let me write down everything in a from of a paper and then I'll send it.
It is to your credit Alexander that you are able to acknowledge the flaws of modern mathematical physics in this open manner. So kudos for that. But the obsession with mathematics is still misleading you. I say you need physical models, or you are wasting your time. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist (& discoverer of a new framework for science).
Mathematics is needed as a language of sound logic and self-consistency.
Yes! The solution is a MODEL, as per Heliocentrism as the historic paradigm. The alternative to a valid, straightforward, generic scientific model is POLITICS, and so the "authorities" can't ever resolve the issue without simultaneously nullifying their own positions of power. The CTMU already provides the irreducible and generic space-time model, aka "Conspansive Matrix".
"Where the numerator and denominator of a fraction are both multiplied by a given number, the value of the fraction does not change; it is independent of distinctions involving the size of the multiplier. Similarly, the intrinsic proportionality of a self-contained system is independent of distinctions involving any external measure. This implies that with respect to a self-contained universe for which no external measure exists, no distinction can be made between the expansion of the system with respect to its contents, and the shrinkage of its contents with respect to it." CTMU
"Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion or mutual absorption among the contents of the universe (“cinvariance”), and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax. Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." ibid
The "requantization" function implied by "Conspansion" is the formal description of "changing light speed". The same basic "requantization" is implicated in "red shifts", "time frame dialtion", "dark" matter & energy, and "favorable genome selection", all of which arise via cross-temporal feedback guided by a fundamental self-selection parameter: systemic self-utility.
"Were the perceptual geometry of reality to lack a conspansive dual representation, motion of any kind would require a fixed spatial array or ectomorphic “background space” requiring an explanation of its own, and so on down the tower. Conspansion permits the universe to self-configure through temporal feedback." ibid
There's two choices now: the modern day equivalent to Heliocentrism, aka CTMU, or the Politics of endless dead-end pet theories and ever-expanding research budgets until the inevitable collapse of society. With politicized cosmology at least we'll know what to expect - it's clowns all the way for eternity.
wait! wait!!!! variable? I thought it was a constant!!! if the speed of light is a variable what does this to relativity?
this is not math, it's numerology
@@tomchristianson858 Is that math includes normalisation in the outcome?
just what are the assumptions behind the calculations for Mercury's precession? A 2 body problem? A 3 body problem? Problematic, but tractable with a good computer. But there are at least 8 more planets in the ecliptic of the Solar system, not to mention everything that is out there in the Kuyper Belt or the Oort's cloud. It has been published but not proven beyond reasonable doubt, that objects with masses larger than Earth's orbit the Sun within Oorts's cloud, and not within the plane of the ecliptic. The periodic ice ages here should be a clue. Milankovich cycles every 41000 years point to a direction. 41000 years ago we were in caves, eating what we could hunt. Think, no equations, just think
The real model is astoundingly simple, but it's at-least entertaining to watch intelligent folks taking stabs.
"Because quantum-scale objects are seen to exist only when they are participating in observational events, ....,their worldlines are merely assumed to exist between events and are in fact syntactically retrodicted, along with the continuum, from the last events in which they are known to have participated. This makes it possible to omit specific worldlines entirely, replacing them with series of Venn diagrams..." CTMU
The problem as I see it, is that it's not clear if the "reformers" like Unzicker are serious about developing the correct model, as the correct model isn't a theory of physics, nor does it require a degree in physics to comprehend, just like Heliocentrism isn't a theory of physics and literally children can grasp it.
I can not follow the mathematical calculations but I believe to understand that you are trying to justify your postulation that the speed of light can be possible. I would have thought that that is proven by light going through glass and water where we I believe are sure that light is slowed down meaning light speed is of cause variable. What we specify as the speed of light in vacuum should in my opinion be called maximum possible speed and not speed of light.
Space is not a pure vacuum so we can not be sure that far away stars are as far as is stipulated.
Light doesn't "slow down", it just bounces around quite a bit when passing through water or glass or space dust.
@@xxxYYZxxx The question about that explanation is how do the photons manage to jump exactly the same so that they come out in the same direction?
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 The inquiry sounds like selection bias. Of course whatever was measured had the same directionality, or it wouldn't have been measured. Bottom line is photons or any singular, fundamental particle do not behave as solid objects with definitive world lines,
" Because quantum-scale objects are seen to exist only when they are participating in observational events .... their worldlines are merely assumed to exist between events and are in fact syntactically retrodicted, along with the continuum, from the last events in which they are known to have participated. This makes it possible to omit specific worldlines entirely, replacing them with series of Venn diagrams..".
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 If you followed along, the properties of Venn diagrams are essentially reflexive. If a circle representing an attribute has subsequent circles embedded within it, it's not implied any "time" was required for the attribute to be inherited. A photon 1 billion years old interacts with a telescope just as it would have to a nearby surface, namely by directly transmuting the attributes of its origin to whatever it happens to interact with, regardless of how long it takes. Like a cosmic Russian doll, the entire space time continuum can be (virtually is) modeled as a nesting of Venn diagrams, each an "ambient image" in a static universe with virtually "contracting" objects and time scales... the parallel processing of which explains ... everything. 😁
@@xxxYYZxxx I think your theorizing how photons travel is getting a bit lufty. Photons are electromagnetic waves. It has experimentally been seen that they move in a very direct line . It is easily possible to messure that they get slowed down and in sertain cooled gasses even extramly so. If they are there all the time along the way is as impossible to say as you can say that there arde trees if the centre of a forrest if nobody looks let alone if a tree makes a noise if it falls and nobody look. Who knows if it was there in the first place or just appeared when some body looked.
I don't believe quantum elements are as strange as some people say. I believe we just don't understand what is actually happening. We know that photons are a combination of electromagnetic and kinetic energy and no mass. We know that mass can be changed into energy and visa versa. There are probably states in between I would think. We know an electromagnetic wave can be keept local as a standing wave. I believe partickles are possibly some kind of standing waves. There is too much unexplaned in the current models to be the full explanation. It hasn't convinced me at least even though it is probably getting close.
Ein Schüler aus der 9a
All of this is complete crap. It is math based on measurements which are of unknown mechanics. You will get no true answers by measure and guess methods. The problem is that you do not understand why the thing you are measuring works as it does. Create a model in software (throw out all the math crap) because programs either work or they do not. You don't need to look at an equation and interpret "what went wrong" because it works 100% the same every time you run it. You must look deeper in why the variable speed of light exists. I am slowly writing my book. It will give you the answers.
Which view of Mercury perihelion Variable Speed of Light is Correct ?
- How About Neither ! You are close. Yet neither established ways are correct. Now here is where God comes in handy. For inspiration . For Creator Inspiration .
variable speed of light theory seems like a waste of time
This is boring
Finally right reaction. Get the bonus - check 4-min story "Simple quantum explanation of gravity without mass or math".
This is maybe a good proto-theory but until he can compare to experiments it will remain boring
It's challenging to consume. Calling this "boring" is like calling Mt. Everest "exhausting" - you've made zero contribution to the existing narrative yet somehow felt compelled to express the thought anyways.