Variable Speed of Light - A Summary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 сен 2022
- Why we need a new paradigm in cosmology. 8:21: Forgot to cut one second :-)
See also:
arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518
arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ 
Наука
There are two effects in the nonlinearity of gravity: the variable speed of light and the variable gravitational "constant". It is not clear from the video if the "problem" of fitting VSL to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury accounts for both.
The part I don't understand is what proof is there that the mass of the universe is directly related to the speed of light?
Gravity never really stops it just gets weaker. This means there is a three dimensional matrix of gravity pulling at everything from every direction. This is why inertia is a thing.
Obviously it's much more to it than that but...
That being said when in interstellar space gravity is weaker and Einstein's space/time should be larger and less dense thus by his own rules light should move faster in those places. Everywhere else will be in the gravitational and magnetic field of matter.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."
A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.
Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
If we consider conditions in space time could influence speed of light, then we can not with certainty say that universe is expanding ever faster now, as the evidence we rely on reflect conditions playing in reverse as we look further back. Therefor with a smaller universe, the relative red shift could be closer than a possible blue shift that hasn’t had the time to catch up to the red shift witnessed today, is only evidence from the expansion part of a collapsing universe. The news of the ultimate collapse of the universe, might just arrive at the same time as the actual end. Gravity is faster than the speed of light.
"space" and "time" are constructs of the human mind. Space is the absence of matter. Time is a measure of change. "Space" and "time" are useless to explain anything on a fundamental level because they don't have any properties in themselves. It's abstract concepts.
Great video!
I would be highly interested to see a video where you discuss, interview or exchange ideas and views about VSL with John Duffield (from the blog “The Physics Detective”). Any chance something like this might happen? :)
Feel free to propose, he has a great blog.
Thanks for a facinating perspective. Both Mars and the moon might be better sites for testing whether an eliptic orbit induces a shift in G. Both bodies have greater orbital ecentricities than the earth and both lack oceans. There is at least the possibility that the gravimetric data you would need is already availible; as both bodies have been extensively analyzed for gravimetric orbital stability.
Thank you, I have to watch it.
After we bound the speed of light to meters it then became constant lol
This is a great summary. I haven't gone through all of your material on the topic of a VSL, so you may have already mentioned this certain paper, but I was curious of your opinion of an experiment by Michelson where he measures a variable speed of light. This was done in the early 1930's, and compiled into a paper from 1935 titled: Measurement of the Velocity of Light in a Partial Vacuum, by Michelson, Pease, and Pearson. They used an evacuated steel tube that was one mile long. They used mirrors to increase the light's path to 8 to 10 miles.
The results were very interesting. They measured a varying speed of light. It varied with respect to tidal forces, and with the sun, that is, large masses moving about affected the local speed of light.
How would one devise an experiment to test the variability of the speed of light in vacuum?
Again thank you Mr Unzicker 👌. According to Dicke's formulation and Shapiro delay, we should talk about mu eps dependent on gravitation rather than VSL but... at the end it is the same effect observed (but the light is deflected not accelarated). I have few ideas, I need to find the correct Lagrangian first. Mach's principle is really interresting to link G and c but I cannot understand it for the moment.
Do the recent detections of gravitational waves weaken VSL theory? Would the existence of gravitational waves be completely incompatible with VSL?
A treasure worthy playlist! What other topics are you willing to post after VSL?
Dr. Unzicker, why not to consider spacetime as an embedding object rather than a physical object? Consider the example of H.S. Snyder of a 5 dimensional spacetime as a reference to a 4D object from 1947 and his non-commutative relations. Sam Vaknin raised a very important issue in 1982 that even language e.g. math, requires time. We can't really get rid of time. We can imagine a reality without space but not without time. Time should be the foundation of physics.
What doubt is there that gravitational waves can exist? Wouldn't, in example, 2 mutually gravitationally orbiting massive objects together necessarily cause a wavelike variation of gravitational force vector on a 3rd object?
C is not constant. It changes as the impedance of space changes in proximity with a gravitational field.
You might be able to use the data from the Gravity B probes. You will have to account for frame dragging though.
Frame drag (Lense-Thirring Effect) is a very ether-reminiscent concept. Should the drag field effect show a polar vortex clearing things out along the spin axis, should the effect be strongly scattered around the spin plane? The probe was set to experience frame drag near the equator and there LTE presumably induced rotation of the satellite in the same direction as any effect that could end up leaving the same satellite face always aimed at the planet. The probe had a polar orbit which I think means it crosses from pole to pole so it may see the effect at every angle to the equator and it will be turned one way then the other in a full orbit rotation. I'm thinking drag should tend toward inducing counterclockwise spin near the equator in response to clockwise planetary spin, and clockwise near the poles toward locking phase with the polar planetary viewpoint, leaving drag minima at 45-degree angles off the pole and equator. Also called Gravito magnetism (gravity induction, a moving particle effect), I think. It's a solid hint suggesting long-distance gravity flux lines with atomic-scale cross-sections in couplings, i.e. stuff not allowed by the beautifully-curved nothingness of space and gravity-independent light-speed. A lot of people thought it was a waste of money. I call it the lens stirring effect.
What exactly are w (omega, m^-2) and K (kappa, kg-1*m^-2) in your equations? Which video should I look into to? Thanks!
Also, is other time derivative a partial der. and other a material der.? (Noticed a notation change between those governing equations.)
I linked the papers in the description now. A few formulas are unpublished.
@@TheMachian Thank you! Since you linked the same paper twice, maybe you intended to add links of two papers, right?
Isnt there simply an equivalence principle of VSL and relativity .. i mean take muon decay for instance... wouldn't it be equivalent to say that feom the muons perspective it reaches the surface without any shrinking of distances if from its perspective it is just experiencing less time (slower LS) with the earth approaching at near the speed of light? Im not getting the differences.
VSL does not change the SR predictions, while GR results need to be reinterpreted. No big deal thus.
There still needs to be a solution . From Strong to Electric to Gravity. Though one fact is this variable speed of light is correct. It has to be! There CANNOT be an arbitrary # that controls all of the action at all times in the universe !
From experience and experiment, the world doesn't work that way.
We have clues. I am looking into the solar system bodies and their gravitational coefficient . Many fertile objects for consideration.
Light must be varied by time/distance. Or time/distance by light.
If you could see the whole mountain, why would you need to climb it? If VSL is the answer to why things fall, then you are trying to start with the conclusion and draw conclusions from it. It simply doesn't work. You must derive VSL from first principles. When you do that, everything becomes crystal clear. One step at a time is the only way to approach this problem. Even then, you need to know where to start. I suggest thinking about why time dilation is more than just an illusion to the outside observer. Why would the vibration of a guitar string slow down as the guitar approaches the speed of light? Hmm? That is where the path starts.
Special relativity demands that no reference frame can be a preferred reference frame, whether gravity picks the preferred frame or not, and this enforces flat perfectly empty space with no quantum scale gravity field energy particles. That in turn makes the comforting somnambulant beauty of curved nothing a foregone conclusion. In a sense, subjectivity in relativity arises from the "original sin" of seeking a heavy heaping of the taste of a preferred horizontal reference direction in horizontal light by MM, but even still it seems clear only the relativistic mover "sees" distortion. I can't recall if MM considered the moon's location, but I doubt it as that could be taken as crediting astrology. Still, we have vertical tides in arguably more sensitive tests of trying to sit still for a long time while brimming with the desire to spread the gospel of Einstein. The stress-energy tensor for relativistic mass is directional. In a preferred frame of rest riding along with the gravity of a controlling mass, acceleration in any horizontal direction seemingly has the same resistance (I tested this without water, j/k), time doesn't slow when deciding to move in one horizontal direction vs. speeding up when deciding to move in the opposite direction. Relativistic inertia and time dilation seem redundant and how to separate the two? Try gravity rain, where if you speed up your front gets hit by more of it per second. An unstable version of this sort of "windshield bug" effect noted by Feynman doesn't apply to a realistic model of gravity quanta lacking unstable (un-renormalizable) gravity loops, but that's a whole different chapter. Non-renormalizability comes from supposing gravity quantizes like light (all positive energy graviton, smaller graviton means higher energy, no need for a vacuum energy dipole composite graviton with effectively negative energy at its core and on its face), and assuming gravity energy flows with infinite fineness for particles to enjoy. Matter and gravity energy are not so equationally simple and non-visualizable as that, and renormalizing has diminishing returns and must create increasing errors when extended below some imagined sub-nuclear scale effect.
There is something deeply fundamental about the Huygens principle, as if it's at the root of all of physics. Like a signal or a liquid spreading through a graph (hypergraph?), following certain rules...
Dear Alexander, I wonder. Let us take Mach's G as shown at 0:35. I would think that the equation should be verifiable through astronomical observations. The Universe is not uniform in mass distribution in space. Did anyone try to check the movement of objects in distant space by using G from Mach's equation and Newton's law?
Not very easy to show, the effects are minute! As I said later, direct evidence could come from the gravimeter data.
Just wondering if VSL can explain gravitational lensing
it is one of the most direct effects. A lens is by definition VSL.
Superb video as always. Quick remark on grav wave: even if we are not sure they exist (weak noisy signals in Ligo and so on), if we consider a VSL d'Alembert equation (instead of static poisson equation) that relies c (or the vacuum refractive index) and the masses: a gravitationnal wave can be interpreted as a propagation of the variation of the refractive index. As a mechanical wave in solid médium for exemple. So with dynamic VSL we can find it.
I have considered this possibility, too. But it would manifest differently in the detectors.
@@TheMachian Yes maybe I did not check how the detection works
9:45 " ...but at the same time there are serious doubts about the very existence of gravitational waves."
Dr. Unzicker, please write another book- The LIGO Fake.
I really had something like this in mind. But as i said, I have lost one, or better, two important coworkes without the work could not be done reasonably.
There's a great Sky Scholar video about how gravity does not bend light. What "bends" light is the lens effect of light passing through the photosphere of a star. Beyond that influence, light does not bend. In other words, it refutes gravitational lensing.
The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
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)."
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
The speed of light is limited by the material/medium it is moving through,
per the multiplier: 1/sqrt(epsilon-zero * mue-zero), namely light can slow down and then accelerate again!
Does VSL say anything about the famous Twin Paradox? Is Time Dilation still compatible with VSL, or is time dilation just an apparent effect that no longer has biological meaning?
VSL does not change special relativity.
Any 'constant' that references c is just a ratio depending upon the gravity/spacetime density at that position. A gravity map is a spacetime density map, is a mass distribution map, is a time-dilation map, is a c map. I think that you are correct about QM being a study of Cymatics which leads to the question, what is it about the fabric that produces the persistence found in parts of the Standard Model ?
I prefer to say the local rate of magnetic and electrical induction.
@@whig01 Understood. In my view, EM is just a small consequence and so I can't share your opinion. I would say that the movement and density variance in spacetime creates the induction and not the other way around. Thank you for engaging with me, it is a debate at this point, not a statement.
lol spacetime. take a step back from the edge and learn to think for yourself. Light is not a wave or a particle
@@toymaker3474 I agree, it's a sparkly ripple just like all the other EM variants.
@@AmbivalentInfluence then you would understand 'spacetime' is made up nonsense just like virtual particles.
“I consider this extremely important,“ said Mr. Tesla. “Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether."
and to make you think a little harder... we do not see the "light" we only see the illumination.
btw what other EM variants? im only aware of the magnetic and dielectric fields ( which is technically just the same thing just in different states like water, gas steam)
I am not a physicist and unfortunately am not able to really follow Dr. Unzicker's thoughts. Nevertheless, hearing the term "variable speed of light" makes me wonder whether this might not cause issues when "speed of light" is understood as "the speed at which information propagates". If information can propagate at variable speeds wouldn't this lead to paradoxes or problems of cause-consequence? Or in other words, situations where the future can come before the past? Or are these issues resolved by the "proportionally shrinking" measuring device? Or are these no issues of the VSL therory at all?
Why not put a spotlight on the Michaelson Morley interferometer experiments that falsified a rigid Aether, and instead showed, in an Oxford basement that the Aether that light waves in was causing light to travel 22 km per second faster in the direction the solar system is traveling, relative to the Galaxy.
Dayton Millars 25 years of far more accurate and extensive interferometer experiments showed this to be faster at high Altitude.
A superfluid substrate that has the properties of a fermionic condensate as per Dirac Sea hypothesis, fits this.
Laminar sheaths near massive bodies such as planets and stars.
Dirac's relativistic wave formula that didn't ignore the negative energy roots, suggested that below the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, the fermionic sea of a superfluid condensate, not waving in the 1, 2, or 3 spacial dimensions we perceive, of the neutrino, photon and electron/positron respectively.
The Structured Atom Model is also rocking boats at the quantum scale. We may have a standard model Full of junk particles that are merely composites of the 3 basic variants I mentioned above.
I mean, how for example do you get Muons, as fundamental indivisible particles, decaying into electrons , photons, and neutrinos?
Alpha particle emission from a helium Bose Einstein condensate is 9.97 times the speed of light.
2990637811 m/s
Based on the KJ/mol and binding kinetics
Hallo Herr Unzicker,
die Tabelle bei 5:18 verstehe ich leider nicht. Warum sind nicht-ganzzahlige Potenzen für t in der vierten Spalte angegeben? Wegen der fehlenden Beschriftung ist das leider schlecht nachzuvollziehen, habe das schon im Buch nicht verstanden.
Liebe Grüße
Ich sehe gerade außerdem zum ersten Mal (beim extremen Zoomen), dass da noch Minuszeichen sind, die sich hinter dem t-Strich verstecken :D Dadurch wurde einiges klarer…
Verzeihung, die Minuszeichen sind hier wirklich klein... hier finden Sie es auch: arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3518.pdf
@@TheMachian Danke :) Wird sowieso mal Zeit, dass ich die ganzen Papers durcharbeite :) Tja, wie das eben immer so ist, wenn man neben dem Studium noch arbeitet und auch nicht-physikalische Hobbys hat ;-)
Neat summary. The black hole bit, no pun intended (a tongue in cheek zero to a photon's 1?), using the proton mass and radius to realize the Schwarzchild curvature at 10 ^-54, seems absurd at first glance but is a significantly larger number than the Planck area and volume?
Also, the electron's mass-energy density at an estimated 10 ^21 kg/m^3(?) a 4 orders of magnitude higher density than neutrons, should result in black holes? Regardless or because of the persistence of their charge, mass and spin? They and protons are everywhere with one for each, they are older than the first light of the CMB, and make up everything you can hang your hat on, and behave like Wilczekian time crystals? From this view the persistence of neutron stars might be looked at as a conundrum, seeing unbound charge-less neutrons only hang around for about 15 minutes before they decay, thought they're as dense in kg/m^3 as the 6 km stars they comprise en-mass? Their time gradients only differ?
Photon spheres or white holes reportedly, appear to envelope black holes, if they don't always create relativistic jets? Could these oscillate or do a spherical resonance dance in lock step down at the de Broglie wavelengths?
All these numbers are better understood with Dirac's LNH.
@@TheMachianOk, must read up on that, the coincidences may be chance but maybe not.
@@TheMachianOne other recently observed "big" phenomena from a recent study are large scale magnetic structures; what looks like a flux tube or filament encloses our solar system. So space or spacetime is magnetized at large scales it appears, as individual fermions have their magnetic properties too. Is cosmology ready for a solar system, galactic or larger scale magnetization hypothesis, or does one already exist?
5:01 So you're suggesting that there's this voltage like field, which I'll call j, such that j=Sum[m_i/r_i,{i}], and thus ∇²j=-4πρ. As you say j=Sum[m_i/r_i,{i}], you inherently assume that j goes to 0 at infinity. You also suggest G=c²/4j. So the gravitational constant would become astronomically greater outside the universe? Am I understanding this correctly?
Not sure I got the question. Why should the sum mi/ri go to infinity? Thelarge the distance, the more massses enter the game... Thus G should, if there is any visible change, decrease. Feel free to email.
@@TheMachian That sum would only go to infinity near a point source. If you looked infinitely far away from all matter, the sum would be 0, and thus G would be infinite.
@@TheMachian Sounds like evidence for G=0 in a black hole (and nowhere else).
@@Laff700 Why would the sum be zero ever? why would you add up empty vacuum in the first place.🤔
This is a poisson equation, static equation to rely field and source. The sum is a rough approx... we can solve it properly with the right boundary condition at universe limit in spherical coordinates and there is no divergence. The fact is that required rigor and Green functions that fit the BC.
I thought you'd be interested in knowing that PBS Space Time recently posted a video about Variable Speed of Light in case you missed it
Page 2:55. I disagree with the cartoons depiction.
Background:
Aether is everywhere in space where matter isn’t. Aether is regarded as homogeneous fluid of constant “density” unless contaminated with fine dust. It adhere to matter/particle’s surface enabling electrostatic field to build up in space and pulling particles together to form atom. That is to say e field/charge cannot flood the local space in absence of Aether.
With that said, the cabin in Einstein’s rocket is filled with Aether move in sync of rocket speed. We should see straight light beam without bending.
That also explains why we have a null in M&M’s experiment.
I would say that speed of light can be vary, but c must be maintained comstant.
I have been thinking that more and more it makes sense for old light to slow as it travels. Just like waves in a pond or a bullet from a gun. It would explain a great deal about the Hubble effect and why everything seems to be spreading out from our perspective. It is not us affecting anything, but our observation of light having travelled further has a larger redshift. Over 1 light year we may not be able to tell but over 10 billion years, their is time for even tiny changes to be seen. As you point out vsl reduces the need for dark matter because things aren't spreading like we assumed due to redshift. It is the light changing through it's travels. Through different density of space, and all the gravitational forces it endures during it's travel to our observation.n
Dirac's observability problem with the LNH was ignoring F(E/G) for protons in favor of F(E/G) for electrons, to hypothesize an electron horizon for the universe rather than a rough figure for the size distribution of the matter lighting up a typical galaxy. Using electrons is not a great fit to galaxy spacing but then again it is not a ghastly fit either. Galaxies and their size variations (especially the flat ones that seem least messed-with) were pretty much unknown at the time. The accompanying idea with LNH of intergalactic space being dominated by electron horizon effects is kind of a stretch, however. It is kind of painful to bring these biased counterpoints out here, but I can't avoid trying. Intergalactic magnetic flux is weird to some people, but gravity dominates intergalactic space, and any magnetism is just going along for the gravity ride there. If spin and cooling in interstellar hydrogen and other elements can omni-retro-reflectively focus gravity primarily along the galactic axis, and secondarily along the galaxy equator plane, it solves a lot of galactic evolution issues. Pressure in stars also substitutes effectively for cooling there at some point with vortices, I suppose.
Wanted to add that LNH has been described elsewhere as a "variable gravity" theory. To me it implies nucleon size roughly relates to galaxy size and to get there simply involves a vector gravity field defined by radiated Planck-scaled energy dipole energy rotating at a rate tied to the so-called "Large Number." For the Large Number I chose a proton-based quantity instead of an electron-based quantity, since the subject was essentially trying to unify gravity and charged particle (electrostatic) field effects. With dipole rotation you can derive a "cosine gravity" where G is multiplied by a cosine of distance in deriving the radiated path-in-line component of rotating vector gravity. Essentially the variability is not in the individual quantum field vector magnitude but in the effect of a radiated vacuum dipole angle super-gradually changing along the propagation path. It makes for galaxy-enveloping dark matter effects including huge lensing rings. There's a potential for a sufficiently strong isolated (thus maximally coherent) gravity source lens effect to be showing a Fresnel-like concentric wavy fringe-like aspect that, so far, I have only seen suggestions of in the most distant dark matter mappings.
Is this certain? A recent Canadian study has shown that our solar system is enveloped by a larger magnetic structure, perhaps a flux tube?
Side note: I think Dirac picked, for a fundamental particle size scale, the size of a hydrogen atom including the bulk of the lowest energy s-orbital as opposed to picking the size of a basic hydrogen ion (a proton, 10^-15 meters) and basic ionic mass self-energy component. He upscaled neutral hydrogen atom size by the charge force ratio between electrons, which is ~1,836 X 1,836 times larger than (~10^36) the same ratio between protons. The result was supposed to represent an "electron horizon" but confirmation of the relevance of the result to anything cosmologically observable was lacking. In my mind it's best re-engineered as a rotational momentum inter-dimensional-energy equipartitioning concept between maximally different ubiquitous observable object scales. One extreme observable size is self-gravity-dominated and the opposite extreme observable size scale is self-charge-dominated. As an energy balance it's: radius(galaxy)/radius(ion) = force(ionic_charge)/force(ionic_gravity); d1/d2=f2/f1. When arranged to partition rotational self-energy: (d1)(f1)=(d2)(f2) meaning diameter(galaxy) X force(ionic_gravity) = diameter(ion) X force(ionic_charge). So, I could call this notion an inter-dimensional (size-rescaling) rotational energy balance with a dimensionless basis. The only way to visualize this rescaling is with gravity carried by a matter-radiated energy dipole rotating at a galactic-scale rate, which fortuitously explains DM halo size scale in addition to galaxy size as if inserting a cosine of galactic distance as a co-factor for radial gravity, linking it to quantum gravity and cementing gravity fundamentally as a *force*. It's also as if spiral galaxy spatial luminance demonstrates a maximally pure expression of a full quantum gravity wavelet. Despite whatever Dyson fans may think about observing quantum gravity, it doesn't require building any accelerators at all, let alone impossibly big ones.
A Plack scaled lattice of vacuum energy density gravity-biased dipole cells would be filling a normal vacuum at normal temperatures, this would be the fundamental basis for a Dirac Sea. At a sufficient distance from matter the higher energy positive component may begin to disappear and the basic dipole cell may grow in size, it seems. It's as if the basic Planck particles of the Dirac Sea are compressed to a minimum size everywhere except near an outside edge where light is sparsest, extremely far from all matter. Maybe it's worth looking at how gravity information flows when the cell size grows in the largest cosmic voids.
@@CACBCCCU "rotational momentum inter-dimensional-energy equipartitioning concept between maximally different ubiquitous observable object scales."??? What are you talking about here? It seems like you are vomiting a giant load of word-salad.
How does the variable speed of light explain why things fall when you drop them?
The same way as optics does. Index of refraction etc.
@@frun That explains the deflection of light beams; but falling toast isn't made of photons.
@@nathanielhellerstein5871 Watch ruclips.net/video/bVqT8rj9k9I/видео.html
By supposing gravity is as if there is a force-like effect, one that gets sub-atomically intimate about it as if Planck-scale light quantization energy concerns are irrelevant, and as if conceivably conveyed by something other than the inverted somnambulant comfort of gently bent nothing supposedly enveloping all energy. F=ma, a=g.
Light falls under gravity because it is positive energy by which it has a momentum vector that is proportional to variable lightspeed. Coincidentally a quantum of light also has an effective cross-section inversely proportional to its energy, thus its momentum is shifted in the same way by the quantum fineness of Planck scale gravity energy flow regardless of frequency. There is no obvious refractive index rainbow-like effect however apparently bluer light of smaller stars is sifted out and captured better by gravity lensing than red light in some cases for some mundane reason. Large diameter (galaxy-enveloping) gravity lensing seems to be an effect that should be dominated by dark matter halo effects that I would suggest are best explained by Planck-scale gravity field dipole propagation rotating the dipole from initial normality at a rate defined by a pseudo-energy balance, involving proton cross-section (~10^-15m), rescaled supposedly distance-independent proton-proton Electrostatic/Gravity force ratio (~10^+36), to derive a common galaxy scale (~10^+21m = 10^(+36-15)m, in a pseudo-ratio, or energy equipartitioning of sorts, of forces and distances F(proton charge) times d(proton size) = d(Galaxy size) times F(proton gravity). Dirac could've called it the proton wave effect horizon, which fits nicely, because among other things one full dipole rotation returns everything to the same horizon. Essential to the idea here is that stable opposites must attract up to some contact point for both forces (E and G) in free space, the notion of a false vacuum and a resolving limit defining energy in the true vacuum allows one a palette in granular shades of true/false vacuum in gray to model charge flux lines, an everting/inverting surface form of dipole (sideways-surface-rolling donut seen face-first) is naturally intriguing to represent a push-pull effect in a single zero-mass field carrier at Planck scale (gravity, a primary energy quantization) and normal scale (a 2nd. vacuum energy quantization).
Was genau ist r_i in der Summer m_i/r_i?
Abstand von der jeweiligen masse m_i
@@TheMachian der Abstand der Masse m_i wovon?
Danke für die rasche Antwort übrigens :-)
#1 F. = ( m M ) ÷ ( 4pi r^2 G )
#2 c = 2.9979 E8 is the standards by which we scientists communicate.
Those who insert c^2 as a constant in their equation has one thing in common, misunderstanding of gravity. We all believe that g,G is an intrinsic force native of all matter - false.
However, the force that we call gravity is an extrinsic force not native of matter but from within the Vacuum-Aether space. Mark only knows to use c^2 but failed to understand or explain where/how c^2 get in his. That is no more than a declaration.
Maxwell and I knows that Vacuum is filled with Aether which has no mechanical but electrical properties, represented by e0 and u0, and that 1/(e0*u0) is c^2. The force resides in vacuum is Aether force, U, after the term universe. It is an extrinsic force with respect to matter. Since extrinsic it must be scaled with total mass, sum mass of the universe, over a distance.
Since it is an extrinsic force, it can’t be blocked by shielding made of matter which is consistent with our experience. On the other hand, intrinsic and native force can be influenced, shielded and or blocked.
And by the way, don’t expect c to be variable without first tempering with e0 by littering a region of particles into the Aether space.
Hope this helps.
G force? Illusion.
U force? Real.
This sounds more like an advertisement for his book and ideas imho
What's wrong about advertising one's ideas? Happy to send you a pdf btw.
To be honest, it would be a total crime to not advertise this book!
Did anyone ever measure variable speed of light depending on gravity? E.g. on earth vs between satellites?
The classical tests are practically measurements of c, see Shapiro time delay.
@@TheMachian Efecto Shapiro NO establece que la velocidad de la luz sea variable, Ese efecto solo se produce por la dilatacion gravitacional del tiempo
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."
If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: ruclips.net/video/xsVxC_NR64M/видео.html) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.
Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
Pretty razzle dazzle. You're right, I don't believe you.
So anyway, is gravitational light shift from a satellite signal still supposed to mean time rate is shifted at the satellite as suggested by GPS know-nothings, or are you admitting the possibility light is blue-shifted/red-shifted in being sped-up/slowed-down with stronger/weaker gravity, with no consequent need to bend time or space or even change the actual wavelength? I doubt you have the independent scientific backbone for that.
Isn't this what is called Lorenz relativity? Ie it's the speed of movement that makes things slow down (and never up) but in relation to what? Either? However it actually works for GPS satellites and it's much simpler to calculate than using Einstein (although you get the same result) it also doesn't have the twins paradox where people are handwaving about references frames and acceleration as if the aging stopped when the final speed was reached. Ether was never found so i guess they did send probes in x, y, z direction to see if speed in some direction actually made the clocks on board speed up.. Or if it's movement / speed through gravity waves? That should also be easy to test. Does the gps clocks shift less on say Mars? Call me stupid but when the entire cosmology community have clearly been just curve-fitting for 100years we should have an open mind and explore possibilities which the group think hsd rejected in the past.. And perhaps some new ones 👍
@@rogerkamben389 Lorentz transform (including Lorentz time rate shift) is subjective special relativity and special relativity demands zero gravity or flat space, for example by confining all motion to being so close to sea level as to be indistinguishable from sea level. There is a claim that cosmic ray creation-decay rates are evidence for special relativity, but the most convincing evidence is supposedly from particle accelerators sitting flat on the ground. In any case confirmation of SR as anything but subjective to the relativistic object is absolutely lacking for any macro-sized object the size of even a single cell. Twin paradox makes sense with particles but not automatically with objects subject to normal things like generating stress fissures with oxidizing, so it remains infinitely more subjective than real and essentially it takes an infinite time to test to minimize accelerations yet it must be a nondestructive test.
General relativity is curved nothing, practically indistinguishable from popular monotheism in demanding a universal invisible unitary entity that envelopes and guides all matter.
@@rogerkamben389 I have no idea who gets credit for this theory of flat Euclidean space and gravitationally bent light other than Euclid maybe? But seriously, despite that it's the only alternative to GR, practically no one ever mentions it in the media except to make up nonsense about it, like gravitationally bending light must cause the light to shed light energy, meaning free exchange with between light and gravity quanta is a-priori impossible.
@@rogerkamben389 "Does the gps clocks shift less on say Mars?"
Look, I suppose there is no time rate shift apart from supposedly relativistic doppler (Lorentz time rate shift) which has nothing to do with gravity just as Maxwell's equations with their constant "c" have nothing to do with anything but practically flat space. Some NC genetics prof named Kypreos argues that satellite data shows a 1-way Lorentz where a preferred frame is controlled by the controlling planet, but I don't like to focus on SR, though I understand a dubious simple measurable time rate modification makes it fit with GR. You could say my natural gravitational nature and inertia abhor concern for special relativity effects. The idea that keeping GPS working depends on a theory of gravity instead of periodic full-loop recalibration by the military (who prefer to keep it dithered in one or more ways, by the way) is ridiculous but common.
@@rogerkamben389 Equations are of course infinitely simpler with constant "c," but there is a cost at some point, and I believe the cost is rapidly becoming clear, despite the efforts of media authorities, and that point comes with recognizing quantum gravity with gravity focus by cooled matter.
Fwiw, most concrete objections to quantizing gravity (Feynman) avoid rotating dipole complications and natural saturation mechanisms. Although I might describe gravity impact as a micro-tensor, no creation/annihilation of empty space is required for example.
Anyway, my point should be seen as keeping the invisible stuff as stuff essentially too small to see instead of something else, because anything else is common mainstream expert nutbaggery. That takes a whole lot of study, but regardless I'd like to make some things crystal clear even to public physics dilletantes.
Science will dig up an Einstein paper for any new theory. They'll say Einstein disproved dark matter and black holes, but we were all too dim to understand his "genius".
I explained this better with a device
@@manicmadpanickedman2249 Was it a bidet?
@@CACBCCCU compared to the real thing ...maybe you could wash your buttocks In it uncomfortably but not in the real thing that would wash your buttocks away.... electromotive is potential is 100%>over the effect .... a generator does not turn backwards all of the sudden .... it spins down slowly and stops ..... they try making the comparative to an elastic but hence "elastic" it stores kenetic energy and has a "restorative force" as you had to empart direct energy and convert to a lower form ..... they are right and also wrong ... gibbs / helmholtz resonance .. longitudinal waves and waves of latitud..... lambda .... arc .... trajectory ..... 3d mass/volumetric..... tesla valve .... pit fall .... revelation.... pendulum bifocal concetric convert ... water mode 0.... skating ⛸️ figures 8 or more hence water = counter spacial flux... as dynamic principles and attributes and indexable...ie enertial plain .... square of gravity... null point and or concentric enertial system/fake gravity ie ...enertia ² .... boss enstine condensate ..... precipitation over anticipation ac to al .... water is indexable ... it can have" properties"/attributes.... as it stands 1or 0 the fall is 1 occurrence the mass is resisted by electromotive generator.... mass is a dc or direct/converging point in counter space ie bi-focal / 1 dc occurrence and the alternative course of action.... if you are spontaneous then the effects that you add is also spontaneous because it is felt by exchange/propagation in counter space .... electricity is not thermal and is not kenetic... it is potential that is transferable.... kirshcoff ... Bernulli ....Pascal .... the tarot..... masons lodge sign/symbol..... the flower of life ... sand filled pendulum mass does not effect interval.... water turbine not the same as wind.... water resisted is still same in prospect to the alternative frame ... ie prepectualy unstable things can and do exist..... but "they must be created" by external means ... but since restorative force can exist in potential also that means that you get more in transfer... there is more potential in the enertial plane because it is mirrored of the infinite counter spacial plane ie motion is felt through its systemic occurrence ... time is one potential... you are all potential ... lol riddles I love
@@CACBCCCU alpha omega theta psy epsilon
@@CACBCCCU lambda 2
Dark energy is alpha particles
Try out the idea that nucleons transform from gravity energy reflectors into retro-reflectors of external gravity energy as a nucleus cools. This is how gravity in a string theory begins to gel with experience and entropy growth restraint. Cold focus in gravity flow is not general relativity by a long shot, but it's very gravity flux-line friendly and supports a scaffold for intergalactic magnetic flux.
Suppose gravity quantizes as a 0 net mass composite true/false vacuum energy dipole (vector field carrier). With that, empty space has the appearance and symmetry of superimposed dipoles heading in every direction at nominal lightspeed. Pairing as spin 2 bivectors capable of generating micro-tensors on impact with the negative energy pole is straightforward. A sufficiently small amount of pitch momentum can contribute to a dark matter halo effect on return of a rotating dipole to its initial orientation. Anyway, emergent focus in gravity flux at the nucleonic level has all sorts of entropy-restraining aspects to it, fully supporting everything interesting from crystal nucleation to the efficacy of lock-and-key topological homing mechanisms in biological molecules in solution. Warmer molecules spinning together on the same axis could only accentuate the effect, directing field spin energy highways. Spin focus supports flux lines carrying all the details of a large molecule substantially coherently (in-phase), fundamentally facilitating vortex nucleation, flux line visualizations absorb the effective complexity of molecular movie streams. Even simple electron charge flux may become a holographic stream of dynamic toroidal electron-based images where the toroid itself is deformable by its surroundings.
Here's a thought for you. Above 15,000,000K and above c, spacetime is too hot/energetic to vibrate in ways that support the Standard Model. Similarly, at temperatures below 0K, spacetime is too dense/cold/viscous to support EM. This would imply that c and 0K are state change boundary values and not absolutes. QM is the play and spacetime is the theatre, the performance is off during a fire or an ice age. 'h' then becomes the smallest consonant of dialogue and nothing to do with the bricks and cement. Just a potential perspective.
Can't you people understand? there is no such thing as a "spacetime"!
@@nightmisterio I would say that there is. You can call it empty space, the vacuum, Brane, Pilot Waves, doesn't matter, it has physical properties either way.
@@AmbivalentInfluence That which has physical properties is, by definition, 100% subject to natural laws just like everything else that's thinkable -- i.e. an object. Therefore, if there exists a 'space-time' substance within which everything else moves, a substance that we measure and define as not absolutely nothing, then it is so only relative to a presumed simpler thing ad infinitum until we get to a model that relates nothing to something. The human brain is a purely relational machine. It requires opposites in order to deduce and model anything. True or not, it's all we have because it's what we are, and it hasn't let us down discovering so far -- and it's literally impossible to think in any other way, so alternative pictures are entirely moot. For all intents and purposes, the way we are constituted to know shows us the truth. Logically, space-time as modeled from Einstein is not a simple relation, and will, therefore, always generate incoherence. Corollary: we cannot accept the concept of space-time as a fundamental fact. There are alternative models that account for everything without space-time. One chief hallmark of incoherent concepts is unfalsifiability, and before the most fundamental picture is imagined, generally the simpler of competing models generates less incoherence, and so on until a paradign shift occurs.
@@johannpopper1493 There is a man called Nassim Haramein who believes that spacetime is made from tetrahedrons, which then begs the question what are they made of. I disagree with him because mass, gravity and time are analog values which implies that spacetime is elastic. It is this elasticity that produces gravity IMO. I truly hope that my thoughts do provoke a paradigm shift, but then so do many, many others.
@@AmbivalentInfluence Fascinating. Ok, in that type of model, perhaps the elasticity is the addition or subtraction of tetrahedrons. Plato, for example, offered the theory that objects, including what we might call space-time today, had to be composed of the simplest shape -- a triangle -- as an epistemological claim. Well, a tetrahedron is simply a triangle considered in three dimensions. In other words, it might be the only way people have the capacity to think about reality. That said, one could always ask what something is made of ad infinitum, although you might also take the Greek formal approach to substance instead and say it is not the subjective whatness, or matter, that is real, or directly known, but only the configuration thereof -- i.e. we know objects not by material qualia striking our hypothetical senses by analogical picturing smaller than what can be sensed, but by what can be measured directly and indirectly; that is, the most real part of any object is its terminal form that differentiates it from every other object, and that applies to compounds, components, and whatever common medium exists between complex component shapes, like, for example, a fundamental tetrahedron white noise. If this picture has predictive value, then it will last as well as exhibit conherence because of its simplicity, or isomorphism, with respect to how we can think about objects.
Dr. Unzicker, here is a simple contradiction in special relativity: it says, a moving clock would tick more slowly than the stationary clock. But Lorentz Transformation tells that the time of the moving frame t' is shorter than the time of the stationary frame t: t' = t/gamma < t. The period of the moving clock p' as an interval of the time of the moving frame should also be shorter than the period of the stationary clock p: p' = p/gamma < p. Thus, the frequency of the moving clock f' should become faster than the frequency of the stationary clock f: f' = 1/p' = gamma/p = gamma*f > f. That means, the moving clock should tick more quickly than the stationary clock. What do you think?
One can derive spiral galaxy profiles, including rotating polar fermi bubbles, by leveraging frame drag effect maxima, both polar and equatorial, by a quantum focus effect of cooled matter (modeled as self-intersecting quark triplets flattening to form corner-cube octets for a gravity action information quantum omni-retroreflection surface). You can get typical galaxy size by using a basic particle-based force ratio, a "Large Number" to upscale said basic particle size. In other words, 10 to the -15 meters times 10 to the 36 power is too close to a typical spiral galaxy size to ignore. This is a "variable" (field vector angle) gravity theory where the variable forms a large complex-valued stationary wave with a radial component in the form of a cosine (or a cosine squared if replacing a dipole vector model with a bi-pole bi-vector field model) and any variable gravity (including with more conventional situations like with a significant change in altitude) should be taken to create a variable lightspeed.
By having the core of a galaxy equatorially radiating vacuum energy dipoles, each of which is further confined to slowly rotating its field vector (a dipole pitch rotation) within said equatorial plane with the same handedness in rotation direction and confined to said plane, the imaginary (sideward) component (a horizontal sine wave or a sine squared wave) matches a galactic velocity cross section with a clockwise rotating ring region surrounded on its inner and outer sides by counterclockwise rotating regions, which is exactly what the most recent viewpoint reconstruction for such an image shows for the Milky Way. This spiral galaxy is a fairly clean quantum gravity radially-stationary wavelet spinning around massively in opposing directions.
Huh??
Variable speed of light is fundamental to isotope physics and the binding kinetics
"Hunting the Snark", or "shoes and Strings and Sealing Wax, of Cabbages and Kings.." etc. Non sense.
What does lensing around masses predict by any model of space and light speed? 1. All comets produce lensing. 2. All meteors produce lensing. 3. Since our sun produces lensing, all stars, every last one, no exceptions, produces lensing. 4. All solar system planetary moons produce lensing. 5. All planets of our solar system produce lensing. 6. Every last spiral galaxy named, by the thousands, produces lensing. Lensing is everywhere and everything with mass does it. Okay, it this what we observe? No. Okay, those models are false because they explain nothing we observe. Literally, they pick a couple of galaxies of the whole universe doing something is proof of their model, which is probably something like 1E-10000 % of the bodies of the universe. That is not a model, that is noise. So then what does explain lensing and why it is so fantastically rare? Well, the coronas of stars and the structures of galaxies sometimes have water or a high refractive index mineral like coesite to do it. Most of the time they don't have this dust and so most of the time it does not occur.
7. And planes passing overhead produce lensing. 8. Starlink satellites and all the others produce lensing. 9. The Space Station produces lensing. 10. Birds passing overhead produce lensing. If you gripe oh shit man, the mass is too small, hey, we are talking about affecting photons here, and not many of them either. 10. In fact, we don't need stars for lensing. We would have lensing around buildings looking out to the horizon, and around mountains, and on and on. Locally, we need to start seeing lensing. Literally, the claim is photons from a source affected by a mass produce lensing, get to it and do it in a lab with lasers.
I am really glad that someone is considering already discarded ideas again. But the way I see it, you don't have much to support VSL theory and good evidence against it. It would make me really happy if physics finally started to progress again but I think we might get another big boom only with AI.
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.
I want to point out that math is not real in and of itself. If it describes a real object then the model that it represents can be considered real. So because I see you starting out with pure math using measurements with unknown causes, I will simply say you are living a fantasy. Can you give me a physical representation of the maths? I actually can for gravity which closely resembles Newton's equation for universal gravitation. The only difference is that Newton's equation assumed instant gravitational travel. I'll save my fingers the typing as I know you will assume I could not possibly have the answer. I am writing a book about how the universe works and would not mind your input on it. It is a book of logic rather than science. Science does not really lead us to answers. It is simply the checking of a measurement that may or may not give evidence to our guesses. Physics until now was a inductive reasoning exercise. My book is a deductive book of logic. Things MUST be true if my premises are correct. My first two premises are that mass exists and space exists. EVERYTHING is based off of these two axioms and I build upon each layer of logical conclusions with 100% correct fact (If the premises are correct).
So I watched the painfully wrong video and as I assumed it is based on nothing but non-verifiable claims. Here is what is blatantly wrong:
There was no big bang.
You have no math that is represented by a modeled object and claiming the redshift is explained and MUST have occurred is baloney.
Then there is this magical numerology idea that these ratios must mean something.
So just a couple questions:
1.) Why are black holes black?
2.) How does a pull work?
Funny.... I went back to see your why red-shift occurs and I said essentially the same as above.
I've written a lot here, but the big bang is too far off and an expansion-driven cold-gravitational-focus universal rebound makes more sense than the universal heat death that is basically guaranteed by GR along with a complete lack of free will. Voila, the universal wave function, anyway, Poisson's recurrence dream with lots of free-space, free will and galactically invisible free energy. Beyond that a typical placid grand design spiral galaxy defines a noisy quantum unified-field wavelet spinning in opposing directions in carrying energy dipoles rotating in space dominated by core mass, based on a conformal gravitational field theory of cooled quark-triplet surface energy deflating to make intersecting flat XYZ surfaces of corner-cube reflector octets. A tentative prediction is background noise channeled by BH gravity in VLBA images of BHs may be forming multiple ring highlights. Specifically, three highlights are always expected. If Lagrange points were definitive a fourth point should eventually show up in better examples than the only two available. Highlight points should always be positioned reflective of BH spin-aligned perpendicular axes and an equilateral triangular pattern in the highlights on the BH's radio image accretion disk suggests a strongly-precessing BH spin axis is tilted about 45 degrees off the galactic plane where the BH shows as a quark diamond matrix. Anyway, the idea resembles an inside-out RF version of x-ray crystallography, in my mind.
GR is a nasty thing to teach anyone but a history major regarding how it has been callously used to build up elitist political bad blood liberally by the mainstream media.
@@CACBCCCU Hmm excellent. This is like the guy that wrote gibberish as a peer reviewed paper and got it through. 10/10 for the performance.
G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. So,no. Laughable fairytales.
just ignore special relativity since it's garbage anyway.