Dr. Unzicker. I've read your book Einstein's Lost Key with great interest. The idea that a flat space where light slows in a gravitational field is equivalent to the view of General Relativity (GR) with deformable space-time seems quite plausible. But a variable light speed (VSL) in a flat geometry has very different implications for Cosmology, namely no expansion of space is needed for the interpretation of the red shift. So it would seem that a means of distinguishing between the two paradigms would be highly desirable. I believe there may be an observational way to do this. The idea is a little lengthy to outline in a comment like this. But it is based on the idea that in GR light travels along geodesics and that therefore no energy is lost when passing through gravitational fields; light is just traveling along the path of no resistance. No alteration of its spectrum should be observed. In contradistinction in the VSL flat space paradigm, light bending in a gravitational field slows and hence losses energy. This should show up in observations of, e.g., a star passing by the Sun's limb as a decrease of frequencies in the star's spectrum compared to observations of the same star when it is observed far from the Sun. Would this idea work to distinguish between the two paradigms?
I guess you are misinterpreting the theories. There is no loss in energy for the light traveling through a changing gravitational field. In the curved space model the light follows the inherent curvature of space, on the shortest path, which "looks" straight for the photon but bent for the outside observer. In the curved time model the light follows the inherent curvature of time, on the fastest path, with the same effect: It "looks" straight for the photon but bent for the outside observer. In both cases a changing speed is not a property of the photon but a property of space-time in which the photon travels with ever unchanged speed (from its "perspective"). The difference is that one approach concentrates on the space-aspects of space-time, and the other on the time-aspects. And even if light _would_ gain energy when following a gravitational force, it would lose it again when escaping the same field. So on cosmological scales the net effect of passing through the gravitational field of a single object would always be zero. No wonder even the brightest minds haven't reached a conclusion or a way to differentiate experimentally. Maybe this is just another example of mother nature's love for dualisms: The one reality can be interpreted differently, depending on how you look at it.
Re Rainer Grob. Your premise is that General Relativity applies even in the flat space paradigm. Unzicker proposes an alternative to curved spacetime and expanding space (& incidentally to Big Bang theory). In the FS paradigm light slows and loses energy (& hence frequency) when passing thru a gravitational field. Since this doesn't happen in the gravitationally curved spacetime paradigm (where the red shift is caused by BB caused expanding space), this should provide a means of distinguishing between the two.
Stars have been proven to change particles. In fact, IceCube data shows electron neutrinos move to the galactic bulge. There is no way this is a local thing. It's more than obvious stars consume these to produce larger particles. Otherwise, there would be no reason for galaxies to move through space and be so evenly spaced. It's about supply and demand for neutrinos. There is no better explanation for gravity than electron neutrino wind.
Because they don't want to admit that the imperfect vacuum of interstellar space slows the speed of light which causes the red shift so the cosmic expansion is not true.
Einstein "took" (stole) the ancient 1735 equation founded upon the concept of light. c = (root square) Em. Einstein just flipped E and c and took out the root equation to get E=mc2. Before chanting Einstein's equation, it was this prior equation being chanted.
I annoy my scientific friends by reminding them of the impossibility of measuring the one way speed of light. We do not know whether light prefers a certain direction. Now I find Einstein did not initially assume that a constant speed of light was a given. Now, all you smart people reading this, attack, piranhas, attack! I'm such a pain.
So fundamental, and impossible to actually measure experimentally. The science community doesn't chase these counter theories like they should (certainly no grant money in "fringe" physics).
If the speed of light is variable... do we live in an oscillating universe? Also could it explain the uncertainty principle? Im no scientist I just ask the questions.
The gravitational lensing due effect to curvature observed around stellar bodies cannot be brushed aside that easily. If it was due to anything but the curvature of space, it would not be as consistent as it is with black holes and neutron stars. You can argue that stars might have some refractive qualities, but not black holes. Also if it was some sort of refraction the size of the object rather than the mass would cause more refraction. If this was the case then black holes and neutron stars will have less refraction than large stars - which is not true according to observation.
Assuming that black holes really exist as we think and are not something entirely different. I mean, we are not the masters of the universal truth, in fact we now so very little but we grew so arrogant and stubborn in the last hundred years or so. That's why I'm studying physics, just to have a word that can be heared and not dismissed due "lack of papers"... yeah, tell me that I cannot think because of that, tell that to Galileo for him was educated in a Monastery lol...
@@Fl0yd I think the data so far collected on Black holes... is on the Level of Exoplanets. We know they exist...we know they are there. We don't know their natural purpose , mechanism and what they mean...and "papers" are part of modern science - when you are active in theoretical physics...there is no other way of spreading your ideas to others in your field ( scrutiny and looking at your ideas with another perspective ) and theres no other way to have exoerimentalists try out your hypothesis. So...im actually astounded that you seem critical of science papers but make the claim you study "Physics". Can I ask where you study?
Surely gravity has to be acting faster than the arbitrary ‘speed of light’ (like an instantaneous pull on a taught string) in order to have a stable interaction over such vast distances, otherwise how can the universe have a coherent structure/geometry and orbits of mass. Otherwise the Earth would be 8 minutes behind the pull of the Sun’s gravity in its coordinate in space, which wouldn’t be a stable system, and as you get further out to Pluto, we are talking hours, then extrapolating that outwards to galaxies, we are talking ‘light years’. Newton did not use time in his equations, so does that imply he assumed it must be acting instantaneously?
8 min ago the Sun was at the same position as "now" so it does not matter for the two-body problem. However, one should not use Newtonian mechanics mixed with propagation delays. It has been tried and gives the wrong orbital mechanics for a N-body problem like the Solar system.
If G can be derived from all the masses in the Universe, are we talking the observable Universe? Outside the observable universe mass is travelling away from us at >c and has no effect on us. This would make G, and likely many other constants, variable at each point in space as each point has its own slightly different observable universe.
It's constant relative to the clock measuring its speed as both are affected by the same gravitational field. However the speed of light by something massive like a black hole isn't going to be the same speed as it is here. So in a way it's a bit of a coefficient in relation to gravitational fields. (It'll look constant in any locality where it's being measured.) For long enough distances, if you're using light to measure it, then you're using a rubber-band as your yardstick. (Since the path would not be through a homogenous gravitational field.)
I'm unclear as to exactly what the issue is here. According to a cursory bit of online research, these "variable speed of light" methodologies are simply different ways of parsing the effects of time dilation and length contraction. General relativity as commonly regarded makes all the correct predictions - what's wrong with it explicitly?
I am afraid with cursory bits of online research you will not dig deep enough into the matter. SR is largely unaffected by VSL. There is a difference however in GR; VSL yields a convincing cosmology, the conventional geometrical formulation encounters lots of problems.
@Bob You can disagree as much as you want, but not for that something is "a lie". If you do not manage to behave decently, you will be out the room here.
@@TheMachian I would really like to see how to do some calculations with VSL. For example, how are light paths computed for a given distribution of mass? Would it be possible to simulate a toy universe and see how it evolves? Would VSL framework be computationally simpler than the usual GR?
I don't get this. Einstein's attempt of a "variable speed of light" is incorporated in his theory of general relativity by the fact that the coordinate speed of light is, well, coordinate dependent. Why turn back to a former attempt which also has a much smaller empirical power of explanation? That doesn't make sense at all. Afaik, theories in which c is a scalar field is something else than Einstein's 1911 attempt.
The 1911 idea is a scalar field. If you consider cosmology, the power of explanation is greater. You need to go into some detail however to see this. arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518 and www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8.
speed:time would be equivalent to (m/s)/s wouldn't it? That is acceleration which is a varying velocity. So if c=speed:time this implies either the direction or speed vary. I'd say even "empty" space isn't actually empty so has a "curvature". Therefore a laser beam passing through empty space at a constant velocity actually "curves". But what does this "curvature" represent? Curvature is used to represent gravity or gravitational effects such as gravitational lensing. In this case I'd point to the refractive index of "empty" space. So the curvature of empty space represents the refractive index of empty space. Empty space is usually thought of as flat space-time but it isn't flat if c=speed:time.
Clue: space is "warped" (speed of light varies) outside of a black hole. Space knows the amount of mass inside even though no signal can escape (via photons). A "quantum" gravity theory proposes a graviton propagating the signal. If that is the case, gravitons must travel in a different dimension or channel than the photons. On the other hand, why should we assume that the gravity field is quantized. Why should we assume a signal does the warp? Perhaps the in-falling matter/momentum is producing the warp. - Assuming "inflation" ==> perhaps the out-flowing matter/momentum has warp or unwarp effects on the inflating universe.
What I have been thinking about is how the speed of light can be seen as just a consequence of the quantization of space and time at the most fundamental level. Imagine a 3 dimensional space lattice with each cell separated from its neighbors by a set distance, and that distance is the Planck length multiplied or divided by some integer (our scale constant, let's say). Then we have a rule that we define as "normal motion", just like a rule about how the pieces can move on a chessboard. This rule says you can only move to neighboring spaces on the lattice, and each move takes an amount of time equal to the Planck time multiplied by the same scale constant we used for space. A simple consequence of an arrangement like this is that for any set of movements between two points on the lattice, the speed to follow the fastest path is going to reduce to the Planck Length/Planck Time or the speed of light. You can always choose alternate paths between two points that are longer, and therefore reduce your speed, but you can never find a path to go above that speed. So, what would a variable speed of light look like from that perspective? Well, to get a variable speed of light in that scenario, we know there are only two fundamental variables that determine the speed: the distance between the cells in the lattice, and the time it takes to move to a neighboring cell, so one or both of those variables must change. If we wanted to represent Einstein's "deformation of spacetime" in this scenario, we would also come to the exact same conclusion, that we could only represent it by changing one or both of those variables. So, from that perspective, a variable speed of light, and a deformation of spacetime are mathematically equivalent, and it is just a matter of semantics!
What you call measuring distances is formalized under the concept of metric. You understood correcty that you can either change the metric or change the speed of light; this is equivalent. However, the idea of space being a lattice with width Planck length is, in my view, too naive. If you study Diracs large numbers, it turns out that Planck units are not really fundamental.
@@TheMachian No, I don't think that the Planck length needs to be the fundamental length. But if there is a fundamental length and time at some scale, then if those units were proportional to each other in the same ratio as the Planck length to the Planck time, then the speed of light emerges naturally.
You are basically describing spaces, for example the Hilbert space. They represent matrices of vectors that can tell you the total state of a system. It is basically a way to relate all known information in a mathematically rigorous way. What we have now are mathematical tools that approximate the information available to us as energy waves interact with each other. For example, when you pack quarks together, mathematically they look like standing waves with different amplitudes in different x,y,z, space. This demonstrates the Pauli exclusion principle as standing waves only have a few valid arrangements. In any event, physics is at the point of looking like we came up with clever math to describe what is available to us, but it looks like we might be fundamentally limited as to what we can know. Not being able to combine relativity with quantum physics could be a consequence of this.
@@ElectronFieldPulse Yes, but there must be a reason. I addressed this in my last book, "The mathematical reality - Why space and time are an illusion"
I hypothesise that the speed of light is constant locally but varies from galaxy to galaxy according to the gravitational effect of the supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the centre of the individual galaxy. At the event horizon, the speed of light is zero. Externally of the SMBH, the speed of light equates to the speed at which light can travel notwithstanding the black hole's gravitational effect on the matter within the galaxy. Ergo, gravity is the anchor which slows light to a fixed velocity but the velocity is not the same everywhere.
Trouble with this is that because c is not defined as "some specific speed" but rather as "the maximum possible speed," you can always reformulate your equations in terms of "the maximum" instead of varying c itself. It may or may not lead to easier solutions (though probably does more often than not, as you don't have to worry about special cases where you accidentally allow speeds >c) but it should always be possible. None of the other fundamental constants are defined as a bounding condition in that way, so even for those it generally makes more sense to consider for example G(t)=f(t)c rather than c(t)=f(t)G (assuming variability of one or more fundamental constants is necessary for your theory in the first place, of course.) That said, if you want to consider a theory where c is _not_ an absolute boundary condition then my argument of course doesn't apply as c would then "only" be a measured constant like the rest of the pack.
@@bobbwc7011 > Planck's constant is also a very boundary of the universe That statement falls into the "not even wrong" category. Planck's constant is just a number. Its a number used to calculate several limits within our known theories (such as the Planck length which I'm guessing is what you're referring to since that's the one most commonly referenced), but the number itself is not a "boundary" any more than zero is a "boundary" on the integers just because you can't divide by it. Pedantry aside, note the phrase "within our known theories". There is absolutely no reason to believe that some deeper theory couldn't blow past the Planck length. The limit is not on the universe, the limit is on our knowledge of the universe. Its _possible_ that limit is also fundamental, but its not something we actually _know._ All we know is that our theories break down at that scale. Whatever lies beyond our theories is still a complete mystery. There have been hypotheses of course, but since that's something like 16 orders of magnitude beyond what modern engineering allows us to probe, it will be a long time (likely on the order of centuries) before we have any solid answers. Assuming nobody finds a better way to probe the subatomic world than "smash shit together really really hard and see what happens". But there's currently not even a theoretical basis for such an invention. Doesn't mean its impossible, but its certainly not where you should be putting your money at this point.
@Richard Mcintyre Someone did make that theory indeed - Albert Einstein. Going faster means you have more energy. More energy means more gravitational influence (E=mc^2 goes both directions - more energy means more apparent mass). Its a lot more complicated than that of course (general relativity is kind of a monster, mathematically speaking) but it does in a sense encompass what you're suggesting.
@Richard Mcintyre Yeah. Modern physics is good for that though! The math is so absurdly complicated that almost everything has had at least a few attempts at describing what it means without getting bogged down in the numbers. Just have to be a bit careful though because most modern physics is at least 4D, and while lower dimensional models can provide some high-level insight, there's often things that get lost in translation (I mean if there wasn't, we wouldn't need models - we'd be able to understand the system directly!) The "gravity is like a rubber sheet" is a good example. While that's not _entirely_ wrong, its also not entirely right. Specifically it models _space_ being warped by mass, while in reality its _spacetime_ being warped. Similarly the "expansion of the universe is like a balloon being blown up". What its supposed to imply is that its like the _surface_ of the balloon, but us humans being so deeply embedded in the 3D world have trouble not thinking of the balloon expanding outward from the center of the balloon (where the air is). That is, you're visualizing what's supposed to be a 2D model in 3D, whether you really intend to or not. In reality (as far as our theories understand it) there is no "center" hiding in a higher dimension. Its just the surface of the balloon without any "inside" or "outside", and that's very difficult for us to visualize even when we understand the difference. Both examples are "good" models but they're missing a level of subtlety that's lost when translating to the lower-dimensional model. Those subtleties aren't _always_ important, but sometimes they are. There's a whole lot of bad science around the internet because people overlook those subtleties and try to extrapolate more from a model than is really justified based solely on their intuition rather than on the mathematics. (There's also no shortage of quacks that try to claim their intuition is more correct than the mathematics because it "makes sense". Unfortunately for them, making sense to a bunch of hairless apes on one random planet out of the trillions upon trillions out there is not a fundamental principle of the universe.)
@@bobbwc7011 > describes the smallest possible action No. In its simplest use of the constant describes the smallest possible ratio between our ability to measure position and momentum. But that's just a _use_ of the constant. The constant itself is just a number, little different from pi or e - critically important yes, but not physically meaningful without some additional context. I have no idea what you mean by "action" though. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the physics definition of the word (as in the Least Action Principle and related concepts). But you're so vague that its hard to interpret your meaning. > The stuff does not fall out of the sky No, it falls out of experimentation followed by clever people noticing patterns and defining mathematical systems to describe those patterns. We cannot currently experiment anywhere close to the Planck length. We have _absolutely no idea_ what future generations will discover if and when they manage that feat. Maybe that's the end of the line and all of the changes we need to make to our theories are on the GR side. Maybe we'll discover additional dimensions and tiny wiggling strings. Maybe we'll find something completely unexpected. Assuming we can predict what occurs beyond the Planck scale using current theories is little different from assuming we can predict the action of quarks using Newtonian mechanics. Its so beyond reasonable that its verging on absurdity. > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (...) is another one of those fundamental limits (...) of what we can know _Within the extent of our current theories._ There are as many orders of magnitude between the Plancks scale and what we currently know of the subatomic world as there is between that subatomic world and an ocean. Do you think anyone could accurately predict the action of atoms based only on the observing waves of water? > which means it is so fundamental that anything else will only be a supplement but nothing radically new. In the same way that quantum mechanics "supplements" Newtonian mechanics. That is, any new theory will need to reduce to quantum mechanics (and potentially general relativity as well) under specific limits, but whatever exists beyond those limits could be as different from QM as QM is from classical mechanics. > We have reached a situation where we cannot glance further behind this "curtain of human knowledge," simply because nature literally ends there. No, our _theories_ end there. Until we can device a way to actually probe those energy scales we have _no idea_ what nature truly does. We know the limits of our theories, but the universe gives exactly no fucks about our theories. It does whatever it wants, and if our theories break down at some point its on us to invent new theories. > or any other mambo jambo which can never be falsified All of those things you listed can be falsified. They just can't be falsified within our lifetimes (or likely the lifetimes of our great, great grandchildren for that matter). Falsifying them requires being able to probe the Planck length, and that is as noted before many orders of magnitude beyond our current engineering capabilities. > The Noether theorem cannot be violated Sure it can. Or rather, it only applies under certain conditions and if those conditions are violated, Noether's theorem no longer applies. As an example, the vaunted "conservation of energy" is violated constantly - namely, dark energy (which is the mathematical hack used to explain the expansion of the universe) comes out of nothing we currently know about. For all intents and purposes, the universe is not a closed system - which is one of those conditions required for Noether's theorem to apply and convert time translational symmetric into conservation of energy. (GR actually violates CoE on a more fundamental level, but dark energy is the easiest to understand in that context simply because we don't understand it in any other context so its easier for people to think it "makes sense" for it to violate CoE.) > Example General Relativity. It is easy to say "Oh we will go beyond.", no, that is not guaranteed. And here is why: So the reason we won't go beyond GR is because scientists are lazy? I don't think that's quite the argument you think it is. > GR by now has been verified to a mindblowing accuracy Yes, and QM has been verified to even greater accuracy, which is why most scientists favor quantizing gravity as the most likely path to a "theory of everything". But that's still just opinion. Again, we have _absolutely no way to know_ until we can start probing the Planck length. Hell, we don't even know 100% whether our theories are completely accurate at grand unified energies (where our theories predict the strong force joins the weak and EM). Our theories don't mathematically break down at that level like they do at the Planck scale, so that's promising, but there's also no experimental evidence anywhere close to actually confirming anything at that scale (GUT energies are only about 3 orders of magnitude short of Planck energies - so still many orders beyond our current capabilities). > These measurements have verified GR to a brainmelting accuracy. We are talking atomic scale and below, the scale of nucleii inside of atoms Which is not surprising, given that we don't expect GR to break down at any scale - its a continuous theory. It keeps going until it hits zero. The problem we have with GR is that hitting zero leads to infinities that are not compatible with quantum mechanics. One of the two (and most likely both) are incomplete theories - there is _something_ at or beyond the Planck scale that we simply cannot observe with the energies we're currently capable of producing. > We are talking atomic scale and below, the scale of nucleii inside of atoms Which is "only" about 17-18 orders of magnitude larger than where we would expect to see deviations. > When the first direct proof of gravitational waves was published, it was like a nail into the coffin of quite a few theoretical physicists Yes, that is how science works. You make a theory. You test your theory (or wait for clever people with big budgets to test it for you) and well.. you can be wrong. That's what the word "falsifiable" you used before means. Lots of supersymmetry (and by extension superstring) theories have been invalidated by the LHC as well. That doesn't magically make the Standard Model start being able to explain the things it couldn't before. It just means that we need to try again. > because a quantum theory of gravity was suddenly pushed millions of lightyears away. No it wasn't. The Planck scale has been known for a century, and its been known that any breakdown in GR is (probably) going to occur below that scale. Or at the very least, at a scale far beyond what we can currently experiment with. String theory has been losing precedence because of the LHC's failure to detect supersymmetric particles, not because of LIGO's detection of gravitational waves. But "losing precedence" doesn't mean its wrong, never mind that being dead. It just means the people with the purse strings are less willing to to open their pocketbooks for string theory research. > Mankind could end up in a sad deadend, Yes that is entirely possible. We're likely looking at another centuries-long gap between major theories though even if we do eventually get beyond it. There's just too much of an energy gap between theory and experiment at the moment and that's not going to resolve itself any time soon. > Now you got a professional glimpse at Well, I got a glimpse at your inability to understand just how far off the Planck scale is from our current understanding of the universe. PS: I'd avoid adding those "(German: whatever)" phrases in future. Nobody really cares, and anyone who does care can look them up for themselves. Including them in your post like that just makes it feel like you're trying to convince people you're right because you took the time to Google "fancy" words rather than by having an actual solid argument.
Classical electromagnetic theory understood that the "velocity of light" was inherently dependent upon the medium through which the waves propagate, which meant that a completely uniform isotropic medium would have to exist for there to be a "constant velocity of light." There is no completely uniform isotopic medium in this universe. Even outer space has irregularities. Now I know I am going to hear a lot of nonsense about how the Michelson Morley experiment disproved the aether, but that is incorrect. Einstein's general relativity theory is just a reification of Lorentz's aether theory whereby Lorentz's aether was replaced with a reified space which was unified with a reified time. Einstein threw out the classical definition for both space and time and made both physical entities with physical properties. However, without an aether, the Lorentz transformations are simply cause-less assertions without foundations in principle. As Einstein's reified space is not a medium, there is no way for space to work against a ratified space to cause a length contraction. Length contraction in Einstein's theory must necessarily work by magic as there is no fundamental cause for the length contraction in his theory.
The way I see it is every Up Quark attracts one quanta of -ve charge 'gas' that binds close-packed +ve subspace field cells (balls, quanta, +1), this adds up to a macro -ve charge gradient around objects, with the added benefit that variable field cell (gap) size can accommodate Dark Energy too, with voids expanding (and/or space around matter shrinking). -- For time & mass dilation to work with variable cell (gap) size light has to travel between cells in a fixed, absolute time (+ Dark Expansion that itself takes time). Light absolutely speeds up and slows down as local cell gap increases/decreases. Light absolutely slows with gravity but always measures C as all measuring device spin loops lengthen in space and time (cover more cells per loop), due to conservation of energy. Some energy is 'lost' to acceleration/gravitational pull (or flow pressure in the not needed funky light speed ether flow thought experiment). -- Spin loops are (part of) the strong force (but the model also allows quantum gravity wells that could contribute), magnetism too. Electrostatic force is free cells (positron / up quark) and the excess -ve charge left behind (electron / down quark) vibrating the subspace field with the same phase in time, but opposite phase in space, with recoil. Light is a transverse wave with compressed peak, stretched base, subspace field-wise, comprised of electrostatic field cell 'blips'.. -ve charge 'gas' (moves at C..) is physically displaced by 'blips'. Forward-back field cell blips compress / decompress the field laterally too. -- Strong force in a free electron or positron is spin loops forming a toroidal sphere , perhaps 12 cells surrounding a cell / 2 = 6 ins, 6 outs? 6 loops with lateral vibes. There are 6 quark proton models.. Makes sense.. Loops spin at C and can perhaps twist too and join up into DC strong circuits. When atomic dipoles line up the path from positron in one atom to an electron in another (especially if free and shared between two atoms) is much shorter, resulting in a straight path forming inside the magnetic / ferrous metal, spin loops are externalised (magnetic field) due to conservation of energy. Interestingly even though most of the mass is in spin loops magnetic materials weigh the same as when demagnetised. -- Spin loop' AC lateral compression / decompression vibrations interact with AC Electrostatic Force 'blips' and their lateral vibrations.. Interestingly, if cells are non-compressible and only cell gap varies, the tighter the field, the further the lateral compression / decompression has to travel per light speed electrostatic blip / spin circuit advance.. This lateral force travels at (many) times the speed of light, but each cell only travels at C, just many in (near) unison per blip.
@Paul Wolf The Michelson Morley experiment "null" result, which was not actually null, but about 8 km/second, can actually be explained by the Doppler Effect. Here is the paper. vixra.org/pdf/2103.0149v2.pdf Furthermore, the Sagnac and the Modified Sagnac Experiment of Wang show that there must be an aether with which light propagates. If there was no aether, there would be no observable fringe shift caused by a rotating light path. As light propagates through a medium that is not the physical medium of the fiber optic cable, a fringe shift occurs and is observable due to the relative motion of the fiber optic cable with the aether medium through which the light is propagating which causes the apparent difference in light path lengths. In other words, there can be no relativistic effect without an aether in the Sagnac and Modified Sagnac experiments. Light is not particulate. It is a wave. A wave can slow down and speed up without violating the conservation of energy when the wave propagates through a changing medium due to the changes in the densities and elasticities of the media. This is exactly what we see in light. A particle can do no such thing. A particle can only slow down if no additional energy is applied to it. In order for the particle model of light to be correct, every time light leaves a medium, energy would have to be applied to it in order to speed it back up. This does not happen. The particle theory of light violates conservation of energy.
So the speed of light (SOL) in any inertial frame of reference (IFOR) is always 'c' but SOL in an IFOR in a high gravitational field is less relative to SOL in an IFOR in a low gravitational field however you can only make measurements of one IFOR from the IFOR you are in so will still conclude SOL is 'c'?
Lasenby, Doran, and Gull formulated a theory like this called "gauge theory gravity". It's derived from the Einstein-Hilbert action, as general relativity is, but models gravity as a gauge field in flat Minkowski spacetime.
@@TheMachian It's a more modern effort, developed in the 1990s by a group at Cambridge. It introduces a gravitational "dielectric tensor" or "generalized index of refraction" in a flat space, and makes the same predictions as GR, except it doesn't allow some extreme solutions, such as wormholes. It's formulated using geometric calculus, which looks like a great tool for theorists.
@@Raging.Geekazoid ER = EPR Einstein wins again. Oh and Einstein created Condensed Matter Physics and Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from scratch.
Isn't the central tenet (or at least one of them) that the speed of light is a) finite and b) the same for all observers? But if all observers find themselves far away from a significant mass or close to such a mass, the variation in the speed of light might drown in the measurement error.
Dr Unzicker comments that the war had a very negative effect on development of physics. Do you know exactly what he was referring to? Also he said variable speed of light theory was presented, can anyone say what the implications of this are?
It is crazy given the history to talk about the true size of the universe. The things we know are that we have claimed to know the size of the universe a bunch of times, then we find more. So until we find no more for several versions of new telescope it seems unwise to think we know the size of the universe.
In fact any variation in the Speed of Light is necessarily a re-view revision of the Aether, Absolute Zero reference-framing of potential positioning, which in reciprocation-recirculation math-music examination is what you think you see in log-antilog relative-timing condensation modulation cause-effect interference Quantum-fields, the Relativity of default Mathematical Conjecture to the temporal superposition identification of the Superspin Conception Centre of Time Duration Timing stability. Mach's Principle, seeing all mass in the (Holographic) Universe as a singular objective, plus Einsteinian relative-timing of clocks in Gravitational circumstances is another version of Aether, by any observation of WYSIWYG.
Variable light is correct due to the Twins Paradox. Only it's a tired light universe. The closer you are to a gravitational object, the more time slows, and the faster light becomes. Away from gravity, light slows down, and time speeds up.
Not exactly. Gravity slows down c. Then c= lamda f always holds. The only consisten way to do it is described in arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518, or see "Einstein's Lost Key"
The way I see it is every Up Quark attracts one quanta of -ve charge 'gas' that binds close-packed +ve subspace field cells (balls, quanta, +1), this adds up to a macro -ve charge gradient around objects, with the added benefit that variable field cell (gap) size can accommodate Dark Energy too, with voids expanding (and/or space around matter shrinking).. -- For time & mass dilation to work with variable cell (gap) size light has to travel between cells in a fixed, absolute time (+ Dark Expansion that itself takes time). Light absolutely speeds up and slows down as local cell gap increases/decreases. Light absolutely slows with gravity but always measures C as all measuring device spin loops lengthen in space and time (cover more cells per loop), due to conservation of energy. Some energy is 'lost' to acceleration/gravitational pull (or flow pressure in the not needed funky light speed ether flow thought experiment). -- Spin loops are (part of) the strong force (but the model also allows quantum gravity wells that could contribute), magnetism too. Electrostatic force is free cells (positron / up quark) and the excess -ve charge left behind (electron / down quark) vibrating the subspace field with the same phase in time, but opposite phase in space, with recoil. Light is a transverse wave with compressed peak, stretched base, subspace field-wise, comprised of electrostatic field cell 'blips'.. -ve charge 'gas' (moves at C..) is physically displaced by 'blips'. Forward-back field cell blips compress / decompress the field laterally too. -- Strong force in a free electron or positron is spin loops forming a toroidal sphere , perhaps 12 cells surrounding a cell / 2 = 6 ins, 6 outs? 6 loops with lateral vibes. There are 6 quark proton models.. Makes sense.. Loops spin at C and can perhaps twist too and join up into DC strong circuits. When atomic dipoles line up the path from positron in one atom to an electron in another (especially if free and shared between two atoms) is much shorter, resulting in a straight path forming inside the magnetic / ferrous metal, spin loops are externalised (magnetic field) due to conservation of energy. Interestingly even though most of the mass is in spin loops magnetic materials weigh the same as when demagnetised. -- Spin loop' AC lateral compression / decompression vibrations interact with AC Electrostatic Force 'blips' and their lateral vibrations.. Interestingly, if cells are non-compressible and only cell gap varies, the tighter the field, the further the lateral compression / decompression has to travel per light speed electrostatic blip / spin circuit advance.. This lateral force travels at (many) times the speed of light, but each cell only travels at C, just many in (near) unison per blip.
A variable speed of light implies the frequency of light depends on the speed of light but not it's wavelength. It implies the wavelength (lambda) in planck's (constant) formula is a constant and the only variable is the frequency which depends on the speed of light.
The frequency of an approacing mass compresses the approaching light absorbing it becoming a blue tooth.Emit light rays often electron scattering emission becoming a red tooth.The emitting spectrum is varied. The mass increases with increase in velocity as more light rays are absorbed compressed to form increased mass and vice versa. The velocity of light decreased during condensation.
I think it's good this guy challenges standard physics. Science which cannot survive scrutiny isn't science. However, this guy uses appeal to authority in every single talk. Physicists from 100 years ago weren't infallible, and basically saying 'Einstein said this' may actually be more of a proof that science DID consider Einstein's not-as-well-known ideas, rejecting them for a reason. Should we always reconsider our models? Yes. Should we consider what the great physicists of the 20th century thought? Sure. However, the logic seems a bit like 'look at these possible connections and whoa hoa hoa u guys got trolled lol xD'. Also, this is a history talk, so this comment may not be on the right video. Here I'm speaking about a lot of his talks at once. Of course, history is appropriate for a history talk.
I haven’t watched through these videos yet myself. I do salute new ideas, but if the focus is to debunk “mainstream” physics, by holding evangelist speeches to “real” physicists, that are “woke”, it does give off a certain vibe of being a “flat earth” society for physicists. I also notice how the claim that “mainstream” physicists are not “critical” thinkers, which is the same rhetorics. Of course the mainstream physicists are critical thinkers. That is in the very nature of science, and as you say, maybe there is a reason why current physics is focusing on other areas, because they already have considered these ideas. Anyway... if there is anything of value in these talks, time will show, as it will be easy to put to the test. Edit: I do applaud different ideas, but the focus must be on the ideas themselves, not on debunking the already established and accepted ideas. If the ideas are good, advertise the idea, it will be picked up on and, while slowly, it will gain traction with time. Don’t waste your time attacking other ideas.
In a vacuum it’s one speed and in various elements it varies in speed and direction. Bending, refracting, constant but different...... What is the speed at which gravity acts?
@@jwingo7257 From gravity wave observatories I believe their conclusion was the speed of gravity is c the speed of light. Yes, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c the observation of gamma-ray burst from a neutron star collision arrived with ~2-sec delay from the observed Gravity wave neutron star collision. Both travelling at the same speed the collapse creates the flash.
@@frankdimeglio8216 Interesting writings, I believe you're on to something. In chemistry, my teacher derived E=mc2 from F=ma, if I recall correctly. Can you comment on the implications of variable speed of light? Thank you.
The comoving coordinate system used in cosmology has a variable speed of light. c(t)=c/a(t), I believe. That gives you speed relative to c in the present but the numerical value would be measured as equal to c by an observer at that time. It's a bit like inflation adjusting dollar values in the past to today's value in dollars to make them comparable. A dollar is always a dollar but past dollars are worth less than today's dollars. If you then think about gravity in terms of lag of an over-dense region behind the ideal implicit space-time manifold, observers in a gravity well are literally at a different t (radius from the origin, the big bang) than an observer outside it so their definitions of c, while numerically identical, are different. That's equivalent to saying the person outside the gravity has $100 in his pocket and the person in the gravity well also has $100 in his pocket but his is worth more since it's in the past.
All that is needed for someone with only high school math to "prove" special relativity is accepting that light always has the same speed to all observers.
The speed of light is always the same within space-time. If you alter the properties of space-time, as is the case concerning the mass of Earth, for instance, as it alters the space-time properties, light still moves at the speed of light within that altered space-time environment. It is not the speed of light that has been altered, but the properties of the space-time environment that have been altered, they have been warped. Only if you observe the speed of light from a distance of the warped space-time, does the speed of light seem to have changed. If a swimmer was swimming in a river that was motionless, and he was also aware that he was moving at a speed 2 mph relative to the water, an observer off to the side of the river would also observe him to be moving at 2 mph. However, if you changed the river properties such that the water was now moving at 2 mph in the opposite direction that the swimmer was moving, the swimmer will still see his or herself, moving at 2 mph relative to the water, but on the other hand the observer that is off to the side of the river, will now see the swimmer not moving at all.
I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about an addition of velocities. The idea is (actually Einstein's) that c is influenced by nearby masses.
@@TheMachian I think you are missing what I am saying. In no way what so ever have I mentioned anything that relates to velocity addition in my comment.
Are you discussong a spatially varying speed (scalar) of light or a spatially varying velocity (vector) of light. Please. Love your brave stand against the herd mentality!
Real gravity is neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian physics (and some Mach), and comments. Gravity is neither mass nor volume nor density. Gravity is found within actual objects that have electro-gravitic sub-atomic particles within them - while electro-static sub-atomic particles do not show gravity but static attraction. True accretionary theory is electro-gravitics (EG), not electro-statics (ES). Even physics mentions that they can't resolve accretionary theory by static attraction up to 1 meter, but no greater. As such, cosmology with cosmic nurseries of (current) gas clouds or dust cloud regions - have no greater portion of electro-gravitic sub-particles - and thus will never have creation of higher elemental objects into moons, planets, or stars. Only electro-gravitics explains how cosmology is able to produce accretionary theory above and beyond electro-statics and all greater cosmic events of creation and destruction. These sub-atomic particles massively reside within the Dark Universe of (sub-particulate) matter, energies, and forces. So the true statement that any mass, volume, or density and all basis of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics is in error - from the start with wrong words and wrong word definitions. Any higher sub-particulate conglomeration up into the range of electrinos and positrinos, composing the higher atomic electrons and positrons, ... and the atomic proton and neutron ... and all atomic elements and the physical matter universe of forces and energies. As such, using some bad words (that others might understand from the now-challenged Standard Model) there are 7 levels of Dark Universe and Physical Universe objects. Gravition (-) and Graviton (+), graviton neutrino (ES), and graviton photino (EG), Gluon (-) and Gluon (+), gluon neutrino (ES), and gluon photino (EG), Electrino (-) and Positrino (+), electrino neutrino (ES), and electrino photino EG), Atomic Electron (-) and Atomic Positron (+), Atomic electron neutron (ES), and electron photon (EG), Atomic Proton (+, EG) and Atomic Neutron (0, ES) Electron Muon (-, ES), Positron Muon (+, EG), Muon neutron (ES), and Muon photon (EG), Electron Tau (-, ES), Positron Tau (+, EG), Tau neutron (ES), and Tau photon (EG). The reason WHY photons (and photinos) bend to other larger gravitational fields is because of their (EG) properties, and gravitational lensing. The reason WHY neutrons (and neutrinos) fly through 30 light years of steel without stopping is because of their (ES) proerties, and no affects of gravity upon them.
The true sources of variable light would come from the Dark Universe lesser energy photinos - while higher energy photons are those measured as the speed of light. The Dark Universe of sub-atomic particles explains this solution and resolution. The speed of light is not a constant, but depending on the 7 levels of variable light photinos and light speed photons.
Dark Universe - Graviton photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture Gluon photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture Electrino photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture Physical Universe - Atomic electron photon - (variable ?) speed of light - affected (?) by gravitational fields - no (?) capture Muon electron photon - speed of light = gravitational lensing - no capture Tau electron photon - speed of light - gravitational lensing - no capture What you can see as variable light and speed of light activity is the actual cosmic foam between the Dark and Physical universes, ... and the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CMBR) is nothing from the (false concept) Big Bang and its remains - but the actual visual (and extra non-visual) activities of short-lived quarks, and these photinos and photons in, on, around ... in both (said) Dark and Physical universes.
True quantum entanglement, which can't properly be explained as an instant event from one side of the cosmos as an instant recognition at the other side of the cosmos, only happens in the Dark Universe of atomic sub-particulates, and these fall into the range of the gravitons, gluons, and electrino/positrino. The Dark Universe is the entirety (95-99%) of the whole cosmos, while the 1-5% is the Physical universe. Scientists and physicsts are restrained by their false concept of only being allowed to measure events in the Physical Universe, while all these unresolvable issues are easily and entirely explained in the Dark Universe. The majestic and massive numbers of free gravitons, free gluons, free electrinos/positrinos, along with their 3 levels of free neutrinos and free photinos (of variable light speed) interact with each other instantly across this "quantum" ... whether said as quantum entanglement, quantum electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, the cosmic (quantum) foam .... The greater part of the entire cosmos, in better terms, is sentient and sentience. One could say these sub-partiulcates in religious terms, have God sentience (God consciousness) or Cosmic sentience (Cosmic consciousness). Everything happening in the cosmos is known in this region by all of these active participants in that Dark Universe composition. It is the cosmic Matrix.
This presentation feels like it was not well-prepared for. The slides seemed in an almost random order, and in numerous places the oral material didn't really seem to "flow" well. It seems almost like Unzicker just grabbed a stack of slides and got up there and "winged it." It's a shame, because it feels like there's the makings of a strong, interesting case here.
Definitely not constant..?....if light is variable....that means..light can’t be use as a point of reference....Einstein himself based his entire model upon the fact that light was a fixed constant for the foundation of relativity....either you’ve wasted your hours going down a rabbit hole or your calling Einstein an idiot....try creating something useful with your knowledge
No he didn't. He said there was a max speed of light. When light travels through a transparent object it will slow down. This is well established and accounts for refraction. Many explanations are available on the net and found to be quite interesting. (You might be confusing light speed in vacuum which is a fixed constant), Best wishes.
Sebastian Henkins field pressure?...when I make a sound...it vibrates the oxygen molecules in the air...depending on the tone sound is created...if I don’t make a noise...there is no sound...a sound wave is hitting the end of a diving board which the vibrations travel from one end to the other...our ears decipher vibrations...if the diving board is hit on the edge (hammer on a nail)the signal is directly into our eyes which also work by deciphering vibrations...scaler wave compression and refractions..looking down the barrel of a snooker cue...this is the way I see light 💡
I don’t see light as a speed...I view light as a vibration coming from a source ...it’s the source to my eye directly..the same pulse at 90degrees,links to my ears..set at 90degrees (sound). Especially at a distance..i see the phenomena..before I hear it...doesn’t mean light is anything different than the event...a variation of sound vibrations...coming from an horizontal shock wave perspective..
Accident of history..? Very common in Ego competitions. What goes around comes around, and contempt get amplified by a curriculum of misinformation. Ie the natural critique of the paths of reasoning, Sciencing Re-search, is Agnostic neutrality and always an argument with apparent circumstances, not an authoritarian insistence that contraindications are always wrong. It is a constant creation condition that parallel coexistence is not even wrong, inevitable in a universe of parallels in Euler's e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity instantaneous Aether staging levels of Resonance.
before i watch this video I also considered a variable speed of light in flat space. I also considered a parameter for the variability of the speed of light and the curvature of space time; The more the speed of light can vary, the less curved space-time is in the presence of mass. I thought it would be useful to generalize this in a physical theory because some problems might be easier to solve using different forms of the theory. However, in completely flat space, as the speed of light changes, why does the path get bent towards a massive object if space is not curved anymore?
Shapiro showed that light slows near mass. And that slowing is in accordance with Einstein's equation. However this is merely a lucky equivalence, Einstein's underlying theory is wrong (ie that slowing is due to clock slowing & length contraction). The slowing of light is probably in accordance with the Lorentz gamma, where the escape velocity is inserted in VV/cc. However it is not correct to base this on gravitational potential. At least not on the nett gravitational potential. It must be based on the total gravitational potential. In other words u must find the effect on gamma for every bit of nearby mass, treated in isolation, then add. However, the speed of light does not slow near mass, because light propagates at c kmps in the aether, & the aether flows into mass at the escape velocity, & the inflow kmps nearnuff cancels the slowing kmps, hencely the speed of light remains at c kmps near mass. [edit 16july2020][I dont remember writing that wordage. But to clarify let me add -- at say the Sun the aether inflow (617 km/s) will equal the slowing of light (617 km/s), hence when the photon is propagating radially into the Sun the apparent speed of the photon to an observer on say Earth might be c+617-617=c. When propagating radially away it might be c-617-617, & when propagating tangentially it might be ((c-617)^2 + 617^2)^0.5.] The above ignores any slowing due to the light having to pass throo any plasma air water glass etc, such "refractive" slowing will of course reduce the speed to less than c kmps.
@@TheMachian I reckon that the Shapiro Delay relates/equates to the GTR time dilation delay, ie Shapiro Delay doesnt include any GTR spatial (radial contraction) delay. The time delay (which is quasi-true) is in theory greater than the spatial delay (however spatial delay does not exist, which is why i say that it cant affect the measured Shapiro Delay). But what does/did Shapiro say -- did his explanation include a spatial part?? Ok i had a look at wiki. Shapiro used the time delay & ignored the spatial delay. They make a lame excuse for ignoring the spatial delay -- the reason that it doesnt show up in Shapiro's measurements is that it doesnt exist (as i said earlier). So, how can Shapiro Delay perfectly agree with VSL ??
VSL is not something new...João Magueijo published his Book in 2003. Same issue with Lee Smolins Darwinian Universes or the Cyclic models by Penrose or Steinhardt/Turok... None of these models explain ANYTHING better then Lambda... I personally hate the Multiverse hypothesis...but nature always seems to "pick" the most colluded, ridiculous theories to fit it's ridiculous " behavior ".
Given that Einstein considered VSL in 1911, I think you should tell Magueijo that his proposal was not exactly new. The Einstein-Dicke-version proposed here instead *does* explain De and also the redshift itself. More details in my book "Einstein's Lost Key" and in th-cam.com/video/2NdUcR4unYs/w-d-xo.html
At the beginning light "speed" was infinate, instantly sending matter to the edge of the universe... then lightspeed slowed down...some say on a bell curve to todays speed...
What can say about the truth a clerk who started talking at age five and until twenty-five years old did not see a professional physicist? Only fantasies.
Look while this is technical and not very entertaining I'll say this as simply as I can. 1mph is 1mph no matter what outside force acts on it. Depending on that outside force you might have to gun the engine to maintain that 1mph but it will always be 1 mph. The same is true of the speed of light at about 186, 000 mps. It doesn't matter what forces act on the light it will always go at about 186,000mps. If the light passes next to a strong enough gravitational field and the gravity slows it down then it stops going the speed of light, simple as that.
@@Fl0yd I don't know if you are serious or making a sad joke. You answered your own question and a perfect vacuum anywhere has nothing to do with anything. If you could capture a portion of a piece of light and put it under a strong microscope you would see that the light is made up of small particles called photons. Pick out a photon and let the light go and time that photon as it goes from point A to B. It would work out to about 186,000 miles per second. That is the speed of light. And only that.
That's an interesting question, I think I have a solution for it. Alright, so gravity in either this interpretation or the standard interpretation can be represented by a deformation in spacetime. Einstein himself said it was silly to think of this as an actual deformation in space itself; he made it clear that he was only talking about a deformation in the 4d mathematical construct. But if spacetime is deformed and space is not, then it follows that the time component is what is actually deformed. If time, or the rate of change, is deformed, then the speed of light must be deformed as well, since speed is just distance/time. So that works to explain why a photon passing by a star would slow down, but it doesn't explain why the photon curves toward the gravitational source, to explain the lensing that you are talking about. So, what I propose is that to explain the lensing you merely have to take into account that the photon is not a point particle. It has a width, and therefore, the amount of deformation in time and the speed of light is ever so slightly greater on the side of the photon that is towards the star, and less on the side of the photon that is away from the star. If the shape of the photon can't deform, or if there is a limit to how much the photon can deform, then this would cause the photon to turn towards the star, just as a canoe is forced to turn if you put an oar into the water on only one side to slow it down just on that side.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 if the starlight passing a mass was affected as you say, then the light closest to the mass would be slowed down and hence red shifted. Overall the remote star would appear with chromatic aberration. I think this doesn't happen
@Sebastian Henkins idk this idea actually sounds like it is on the right track, light is both a wave and a particle. In a bucket of water a wave exists over the entire surface of the water. Instead of a simple disc getting steered, it might be something like the wave-function being distorted by massive objects instead of space?
That will contradict Einstein's speed of light constant in his relativity theories. Perhaps he came out with the idea for a variable speed when he realized the flaws in his relativity ideas.
@@TheMachian Many physicists are now coming out to debunk Einstein's theory of Relativity for it's mathematical errors at great cost to their reputations . I would just as well study mathematics and take only the minimal amount of physics courses required to graduate since that field is highly controlled by the physics elite from Copenhagen like some sort of religious cult and is likely to pollute my mind with bad logic and error filled mathematics. Who made them in charge? It's like the Vatican with it's forbidden library and vows of silence. Free thinking is not allowed in such a climate.
Agree in many respects. The Copenhagen orthodoxy however is sth different from doubting relativity. SR is fine and well tested - in my opinion. GR however, is better formulated in a VSL framework.
We really need a real theory of gravity and not geometric ansatz ruminations. People talk about gravitons when no such entities exist in GR. String theory and loop quantum gravity are hardly solutions to the lack of microphysical content in GR. Funny how Yilmaz was criticized for double counting by introducing a gravitational field Lagrangian but GR zealots talk about "spacetime tells matter-energy how to move and matter-energy tells spacetime how to curve". How does matter-energy curve spacetime without any agent of action, aka field? Variation of the speed of light in a gravitational well would be consistent with coupling between gravitons and photons. Light does not propagate at its characteristic speed through materials so perhaps the same thing happens in a sea of gravitons. There is an interaction time cost. Physics also has a phobia of space(time). It tries to ignore its material properties. It has volume and according to GR can curve, but it is swept under the carpet as if it is not there. Just maybe photons and their speed reflect the properties of the space(time). Having the speed of light change from the Big Bang until today is more physically consistent than a magic hyperluminal inflationary period which deus ex machina fixes conceptual problems. Sort of like dark energy and even dark matter. The latter supposedly does not clump into compact objects but conveniently populates galactic gravitational wells to fix the rotation speed distribution conundrum. Wouldn't black holes consume dark matter? If the dark matter is distributed as a gas halo, then this consumption would be ongoing. Gravitons would self interact, so gravity is fundamentally nonlinear. This means that the constant G is actually variable. So MOND would have a basis and is not a contrivance. Trying to model galaxies with Newton's gravity, which is what is done, is not self-evidently valid.
MOND has serious problems too. And GR just passed more strongest tests. Einstein wins again. Without Einstein, Schrodinger never arrives at the wave function equation.
The instant that you use a transform, YOU JUST CREATED A SECOND REALITY! The non-transformed reality did not just disappear after you used the math to CHANGE your data! THERE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ANOTHER REALITY LEFT BEHIND. Then, show me time outside of the SEQUENCE MARKER in math and the ability to REMEMBER and ANTICIPATE in the brain. You CANNOT, so don't hurt yourself. All velocities have infinite definitions, which is just like saying "NO DEFINITION". Put that in your reference frame!
It is a proven fact that the speed of light is frequency dependent. The speed of light is only presumed to be the same for all frequencies IN A TRUE PURE VACUUM. But THIS presumption is what has never been confirmed by experiment because a true vacuum has never been created and can never be created. Only partial vacuums can be created. These are not true vacuums.
@Sebastian Henkins Differences of frequency are differences of speed! "Close to true vacuum" is not the same thing as a true vacuum. There is still a refractive index. Some would say even so-called true vacuum has a refractive index (of 1). But my understanding is that so-called true vacuum with refractive index of 1 is NOT a true vacuum. True vacuum would have a refractive index of 0. But then the speed of light would be infinite. Speed of light in a material with negative refractive index, meaning refractive index between 0 and 1, is faster than C. Refractive index is frequency dependent! So, refractive index for any material can be negative at certain frequencies. Refractive index is not a constant therefore the speed of light is not a constant. But there is phase velocity and group velocity of light. Refractive index is the ratio of group velocity to phase velocity. Group velocity is C, a constant (according to standard physics). But phase velocity is variable. I should point out that C is only a constant when there is no difference of refractive index in the path light follows. The claim I've heard from mainstream physicists is it is only when there is a difference of refractive index that there is a measurable difference in refractive index or speed of light. The speed of light through a single medium as measured within only that medium is C. Differences in speed AKA refractive index require the light to pass through materials with different refractive index meaning materials where the refractive index or speed will be different for the same frequency of light. But people who say this tend to say the local refractive index is always 1. If you ask me that is obviously wrong because refractive index is dependent on frequency and a function of the material properties (magnetic and electric permeability, susceptibility, permitivity, etc). This is true even when light is passing through a single medium such as a partial vacuum. What you are saying reminds me of the claim that gravity bends all frequencies of light by the same amount, that there is no (frequency dependent) dispersion of light in gravitational lensing. This is absurd because first of all it conflicts with the facts. Dispersion was observed in the first experimental confirmation that gravity bends light. The counterargument to that fact is the claim that the observed dispersion was due to gasses and/or dust of varying/increasing density surrounding a large gravitating mass such as a moon or planet or black hole as opposed to the gravity or gravitational lensing itself. But the fact is a pure true vacuum cannot exist around a large gravitating mass. So dispersion will invariably be observed. Dispersionless gravitational lensing seems impossible to me. Likewise, for similar reasons, frequency independent refractive index seems impossible to me. Yet, what you are pushing here is frequency independent refractive index...not only for true vacuum (which you would no doubt say has a refractive index of 1) but also for a partial vacuum. You are at least saying there is no frequency dependent refractive index for a partial vacuum. Do you understand how that contradicts basic laws of physics? I can understand any confusion you may have. But there are answers to your questions which would clear up any confusion you may have. The main one being that the speed of light is actually infinite. But measurement instruments have a finite response time due to reactance time. The infinite speed of light is why FTL signals have been experimentally confirmed such as in the famous EPR related experiments.
@Sebastian Henkins Not only is the reactance time of measurement instruments finite but also the reactance time of materials. It is partly the reactance time of materials which gives rise to what we call refractive index.
@Sebastian Henkins Reactance time depends on amplitude. The further away a source of EM radiation the weaker it gets and the longer it takes for materials to respond the same as they would if the source were closer. This is how raymond chiao sent light signals FTL. He amplified the signal so that the wavefront of the signal could be detected earlier than it would have otherwise been. The wavefront was there at the destination the moment the signal was generated but the amplitude was so low it was not detectable until after the matter in the measuring instruments had time to respond. Amplifying the signal allows the measuring instrument to react faster.
There were a number of men who wrote very extremely similar theory of what Einstein did. As far as I know they were ignored after all He was Einstein. I'd like to one day know the truth about written formulas show.
Lies. They all copied Einstein. Without Einstein science historians are in agreement that we would not have had General Relativity for 100 years. You are referring to Special Relativity (several other geniuses were circling around SR bur Einstein got there first).
Einstein was only an armchair physicist. People take him too seriously. He stole all his ideas from real scientists who did lab experiments to prove their theories. It was just a political decision to make him a famous representative of the science world because he looked like a scientist and could be marketed as an eccentric genius. But, the reality is that he wasn't all that bright and his English was terrible. He didn't understand basic grammar and thus, tried to turn a concept into an object which is impossible. lol! Time is a concept and not an object! Please!
I do not doubt that light bends around solar, however I doubt that is due to gravity interaction between solar and particles which he call photon. Light, is electromagnetic energy only responds to Aether E0, U0 and matter submerged in Aether Er, Ur such as molecular dust, particles, charged particles and plasma. Light bend around the sun is then an optical event but act of gravity. Einstein and his administration, by ignorance, fail to understand the operating principle, application and operation of an apparatus that measures speed of light wave have let them to conclude that aether does not exist in the universe drawn on test data that light speed remains the same in any direction in a vacuum space. This ignorance have lead to conceiving light as particles and his theories of special and general relativity, subsequent patches on flaws of his theories one of which is quantum mechanics.
Time has been shown repeatedly to vary depending on the intensity of the gravitational field the clock is exposed too. GPS satellite clocks require constant correction to maintain synchronisation due to the variable gravitational fields they move through in addition to their speed.
Allan Gibson Thank you for passing over - main stream academia’s twisted science propaganda. In reality, light and electromagnetic wave “ride on” a cosmic substrate known as Aether, and light speed depends on the permittivity of Aether, but gravity. When earth and satellites traversing through Aether, an “up/down wind” effect is induced. Satellite timing will varies more or less depending on the relative direction it move through Aether. Our problem is that we have ruled out existence of Aether by mistake that Albert Einstein made in trusting Albert Michelson’s light speed measurement results.
Photons exhibit wave particle duality - just like electrons. They are simultaneously both depending on how they are measured. Having a media requires the presence of relative motion that should be detectable (hence the Michelson Morley Experiment which failed to detect any difference in light speed at any relative angle - hence no relative motion in a media). Gravitational disturbances change the shape of the universe and hence distances between points. Gravitational effects also change the resonant frequencies of oscillators (more intense fields reduce resonant frequencies - I.e. time slows).
Allan Gibson Thank you for reminding me of what I’ve learned, understand and disagree, including Michelson’s conclusion. No difference in c at any direction because his apparatus is incapable to detect presence of Aether.
The title was interesting. content, you talked a lot and said nothing useful. it clearly showed your admiration for Einstein just like other scientist ignorant of real facts. An admiration due to history and his Jewish background. Admiration which has and continue to sink deeper and deeper the science of space & matter in to bog of ignorance. If you want to make real contribution, do as my grandfather told Einstein when he persisted to ask about gravity. Work out what is the mechanic behind the Mach's principle or stability of bicycle. Sadly the same prejudices has prevented science world to take my statement seriously. They totally ignoring the fact I was asked to come to complete my grandfather’s unfinished work with Max Planck, Nikola Tesla and other scientist in Europe. Full information in my 1975 Bremen Summerhouse notes or by official permission / request of Madam chancellor Angela Merkel I will instruct their release. Ferydoon Shirazi. MG1
@@TheMachian You would not find any record of him, because our work always have been discreet. I have become public because I resigned due to my treatment here in England and the fact Anglo-American did not share my past information with others. depriving world of science. It was not my intension to make anyone curious about him, except the fact there has been no progress on internal structure of matter (photon, electron, nuclei) or their interaction with gravity since black body radiation(photon) by Max Planck. I have released schematic drawing of photon and have put sufficient clue in my comments for the wise to work it out. I do this because our work has come to end with my resignation. At 78 I have very little time to release the remainder of information on structure of matter and it’s interaction with gravity producing evolution which physical universe is consist of. It will show, there is no dark matter, big bang, black hole, expansion, space-time and more. It will explain internal structure of space rocks, Moons, planets, stars and their motion in galaxies. Current models are nonsense. agreed assumption.
Dr. Unzicker. I've read your book Einstein's Lost Key with great interest. The idea that a flat space where light slows in a gravitational field is equivalent to the view of General Relativity (GR) with deformable space-time seems quite plausible. But a variable light speed (VSL) in a flat geometry has very different implications for Cosmology, namely no expansion of space is needed for the interpretation of the red shift. So it would seem that a means of distinguishing between the two paradigms would be highly desirable. I believe there may be an observational way to do this. The idea is a little lengthy to outline in a comment like this. But it is based on the idea that in GR light travels along geodesics and that therefore no energy is lost when passing through gravitational fields; light is just traveling along the path of no resistance. No alteration of its spectrum should be observed. In contradistinction in the VSL flat space paradigm, light bending in a gravitational field slows and hence losses energy. This should show up in observations of, e.g., a star passing by the Sun's limb as a decrease of frequencies in the star's spectrum compared to observations of the same star when it is observed far from the Sun. Would this idea work to distinguish between the two paradigms?
For the solar system, there is no difference. In cosmology, yes. See th-cam.com/video/2NdUcR4unYs/w-d-xo.html
Did you not forget gravitational redshift ?
I guess you are misinterpreting the theories. There is no loss in energy for the light traveling through a changing gravitational field.
In the curved space model the light follows the inherent curvature of space, on the shortest path, which "looks" straight for the photon but bent for the outside observer.
In the curved time model the light follows the inherent curvature of time, on the fastest path, with the same effect: It "looks" straight for the photon but bent for the outside observer.
In both cases a changing speed is not a property of the photon but a property of space-time in which the photon travels with ever unchanged speed (from its "perspective"). The difference is that one approach concentrates on the space-aspects of space-time, and the other on the time-aspects.
And even if light _would_ gain energy when following a gravitational force, it would lose it again when escaping the same field. So on cosmological scales the net effect of passing through the gravitational field of a single object would always be zero.
No wonder even the brightest minds haven't reached a conclusion or a way to differentiate experimentally.
Maybe this is just another example of mother nature's love for dualisms:
The one reality can be interpreted differently, depending on how you look at it.
Re Rainer Grob. Your premise is that General Relativity applies even in the flat space paradigm. Unzicker proposes an alternative to curved spacetime and expanding space (& incidentally to Big Bang theory). In the FS paradigm light slows and loses energy (& hence frequency) when passing thru a gravitational field. Since this doesn't happen in the gravitationally curved spacetime paradigm (where the red shift is caused by BB caused expanding space), this should provide a means of distinguishing between the two.
Stars have been proven to change particles. In fact, IceCube data shows electron neutrinos move to the galactic bulge.
There is no way this is a local thing.
It's more than obvious stars consume these to produce larger particles. Otherwise, there would be no reason for galaxies to move through space and be so evenly spaced. It's about supply and demand for neutrinos. There is no better explanation for gravity than electron neutrino wind.
Why is there never any mention of the permittivity of free space or the permeability of free space?
Because they don't want to admit that the imperfect vacuum of interstellar space slows the speed of light which causes the red shift so the cosmic expansion is not true.
Einstein "took" (stole) the ancient 1735 equation founded upon the concept of light. c = (root square) Em. Einstein just flipped E and c and took out the root equation to get E=mc2. Before chanting Einstein's equation, it was this prior equation being chanted.
I annoy my scientific friends by reminding them of the impossibility of measuring the one way speed of light. We do not know whether light prefers a certain direction. Now I find Einstein did not initially assume that a constant speed of light was a given. Now, all you smart people reading this, attack, piranhas, attack! I'm such a pain.
So fundamental, and impossible to actually measure experimentally. The science community doesn't chase these counter theories like they should (certainly no grant money in "fringe" physics).
Worst camera man of all time! Stop zooming in on him, I’m trying to read the slides!!!
I don't understand how speed of light and clocks are related. At Einstein's times there were no quartz clocks, or am I wrong?
If the speed of light is variable... do we live in an oscillating universe? Also could it explain the uncertainty principle? Im no scientist I just ask the questions.
I don't think the universe is oscillating. Cosmologically, the speed of light decreases.
The gravitational lensing due effect to curvature observed around stellar bodies cannot be brushed aside that easily. If it was due to anything but the curvature of space, it would not be as consistent as it is with black holes and neutron stars. You can argue that stars might have some refractive qualities, but not black holes. Also if it was some sort of refraction the size of the object rather than the mass would cause more refraction. If this was the case then black holes and neutron stars will have less refraction than large stars - which is not true according to observation.
Assuming that black holes really exist as we think and are not something entirely different. I mean, we are not the masters of the universal truth, in fact we now so very little but we grew so arrogant and stubborn in the last hundred years or so. That's why I'm studying physics, just to have a word that can be heared and not dismissed due "lack of papers"... yeah, tell me that I cannot think because of that, tell that to Galileo for him was educated in a Monastery lol...
Enoch Root We’ve imaged a black hole.
@@Fl0yd I think the data so far collected on Black holes... is on the Level of Exoplanets. We know they exist...we know they are there. We don't know their natural purpose , mechanism and what they mean...and "papers" are part of modern science - when you are active in theoretical physics...there is no other way of spreading your ideas to others in your field ( scrutiny and looking at your ideas with another perspective ) and theres no other way to have exoerimentalists try out your hypothesis.
So...im actually astounded that you seem critical of science papers but make the claim you study "Physics". Can I ask where you study?
Surely gravity has to be acting faster than the arbitrary ‘speed of light’ (like an instantaneous pull on a taught string) in order to have a stable interaction over such vast distances, otherwise how can the universe have a coherent structure/geometry and orbits of mass. Otherwise the Earth would be 8 minutes behind the pull of the Sun’s gravity in its coordinate in space, which wouldn’t be a stable system, and as you get further out to Pluto, we are talking hours, then extrapolating that outwards to galaxies, we are talking ‘light years’. Newton did not use time in his equations, so does that imply he assumed it must be acting instantaneously?
8 min ago the Sun was at the same position as "now" so it does not matter for the two-body problem. However, one should not use Newtonian mechanics mixed with propagation delays. It has been tried and gives the wrong orbital mechanics for a N-body problem like the Solar system.
If G can be derived from all the masses in the Universe, are we talking the observable Universe? Outside the observable universe mass is travelling away from us at >c and has no effect on us. This would make G, and likely many other constants, variable at each point in space as each point has its own slightly different observable universe.
It's constant relative to the clock measuring its speed as both are affected by the same gravitational field. However the speed of light by something massive like a black hole isn't going to be the same speed as it is here. So in a way it's a bit of a coefficient in relation to gravitational fields. (It'll look constant in any locality where it's being measured.)
For long enough distances, if you're using light to measure it, then you're using a rubber-band as your yardstick. (Since the path would not be through a homogenous gravitational field.)
I'm unclear as to exactly what the issue is here. According to a cursory bit of online research, these "variable speed of light" methodologies are simply different ways of parsing the effects of time dilation and length contraction. General relativity as commonly regarded makes all the correct predictions - what's wrong with it explicitly?
I am afraid with cursory bits of online research you will not dig deep enough into the matter. SR is largely unaffected by VSL. There is a difference however in GR; VSL yields a convincing cosmology, the conventional geometrical formulation encounters lots of problems.
@Bob You can disagree as much as you want, but not for that something is "a lie". If you do not manage to behave decently, you will be out the room here.
@@TheMachian I would really like to see how to do some calculations with VSL. For example, how are light paths computed for a given distribution of mass? Would it be possible to simulate a toy universe and see how it evolves? Would VSL framework be computationally simpler than the usual GR?
I don't get this. Einstein's attempt of a "variable speed of light" is incorporated in his theory of general relativity by the fact that the coordinate speed of light is, well, coordinate dependent. Why turn back to a former attempt which also has a much smaller empirical power of explanation? That doesn't make sense at all.
Afaik, theories in which c is a scalar field is something else than Einstein's 1911 attempt.
The 1911 idea is a scalar field. If you consider cosmology, the power of explanation is greater. You need to go into some detail however to see this. arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518 and www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8.
Eric Dollard defines "light speed" as the ratio of speed to time (speed:time), where counterspace = /cm/second. I BELIEVE HIM.
speed:time would be equivalent to (m/s)/s wouldn't it? That is acceleration which is a varying velocity. So if c=speed:time this implies either the direction or speed vary. I'd say even "empty" space isn't actually empty so has a "curvature". Therefore a laser beam passing through empty space at a constant velocity actually "curves". But what does this "curvature" represent? Curvature is used to represent gravity or gravitational effects such as gravitational lensing. In this case I'd point to the refractive index of "empty" space. So the curvature of empty space represents the refractive index of empty space. Empty space is usually thought of as flat space-time but it isn't flat if c=speed:time.
Place or generate the correct frequency around a piece of matter and it will levitate or be anti gravity, propel it at any speed you want.
Clue: space is "warped" (speed of light varies) outside of a black hole. Space knows the amount of mass inside even though no signal can escape (via photons). A "quantum" gravity theory proposes a graviton propagating the signal. If that is the case, gravitons must travel in a different dimension or channel than the photons. On the other hand, why should we assume that the gravity field is quantized. Why should we assume a signal does the warp? Perhaps the in-falling matter/momentum is producing the warp.
- Assuming "inflation" ==> perhaps the out-flowing matter/momentum has warp or unwarp effects on the inflating universe.
What I have been thinking about is how the speed of light can be seen as just a consequence of the quantization of space and time at the most fundamental level. Imagine a 3 dimensional space lattice with each cell separated from its neighbors by a set distance, and that distance is the Planck length multiplied or divided by some integer (our scale constant, let's say). Then we have a rule that we define as "normal motion", just like a rule about how the pieces can move on a chessboard. This rule says you can only move to neighboring spaces on the lattice, and each move takes an amount of time equal to the Planck time multiplied by the same scale constant we used for space. A simple consequence of an arrangement like this is that for any set of movements between two points on the lattice, the speed to follow the fastest path is going to reduce to the Planck Length/Planck Time or the speed of light. You can always choose alternate paths between two points that are longer, and therefore reduce your speed, but you can never find a path to go above that speed.
So, what would a variable speed of light look like from that perspective? Well, to get a variable speed of light in that scenario, we know there are only two fundamental variables that determine the speed: the distance between the cells in the lattice, and the time it takes to move to a neighboring cell, so one or both of those variables must change. If we wanted to represent Einstein's "deformation of spacetime" in this scenario, we would also come to the exact same conclusion, that we could only represent it by changing one or both of those variables. So, from that perspective, a variable speed of light, and a deformation of spacetime are mathematically equivalent, and it is just a matter of semantics!
What you call measuring distances is formalized under the concept of metric. You understood correcty that you can either change the metric or change the speed of light; this is equivalent. However, the idea of space being a lattice with width Planck length is, in my view, too naive. If you study Diracs large numbers, it turns out that Planck units are not really fundamental.
@@TheMachian No, I don't think that the Planck length needs to be the fundamental length. But if there is a fundamental length and time at some scale, then if those units were proportional to each other in the same ratio as the Planck length to the Planck time, then the speed of light emerges naturally.
You are basically describing spaces, for example the Hilbert space. They represent matrices of vectors that can tell you the total state of a system. It is basically a way to relate all known information in a mathematically rigorous way. What we have now are mathematical tools that approximate the information available to us as energy waves interact with each other. For example, when you pack quarks together, mathematically they look like standing waves with different amplitudes in different x,y,z, space. This demonstrates the Pauli exclusion principle as standing waves only have a few valid arrangements.
In any event, physics is at the point of looking like we came up with clever math to describe what is available to us, but it looks like we might be fundamentally limited as to what we can know. Not being able to combine relativity with quantum physics could be a consequence of this.
@@ElectronFieldPulse Yes, but there must be a reason. I addressed this in my last book, "The mathematical reality - Why space and time are an illusion"
I hypothesise that the speed of light is constant locally but varies from galaxy to galaxy according to the gravitational effect of the supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the centre of the individual galaxy.
At the event horizon, the speed of light is zero. Externally of the SMBH, the speed of light equates to the speed at which light can travel notwithstanding the black hole's gravitational effect on the matter within the galaxy. Ergo, gravity is the anchor which slows light to a fixed velocity but the velocity is not the same everywhere.
Trouble with this is that because c is not defined as "some specific speed" but rather as "the maximum possible speed," you can always reformulate your equations in terms of "the maximum" instead of varying c itself. It may or may not lead to easier solutions (though probably does more often than not, as you don't have to worry about special cases where you accidentally allow speeds >c) but it should always be possible.
None of the other fundamental constants are defined as a bounding condition in that way, so even for those it generally makes more sense to consider for example G(t)=f(t)c rather than c(t)=f(t)G (assuming variability of one or more fundamental constants is necessary for your theory in the first place, of course.)
That said, if you want to consider a theory where c is _not_ an absolute boundary condition then my argument of course doesn't apply as c would then "only" be a measured constant like the rest of the pack.
@@bobbwc7011 > Planck's constant is also a very boundary of the universe
That statement falls into the "not even wrong" category. Planck's constant is just a number. Its a number used to calculate several limits within our known theories (such as the Planck length which I'm guessing is what you're referring to since that's the one most commonly referenced), but the number itself is not a "boundary" any more than zero is a "boundary" on the integers just because you can't divide by it.
Pedantry aside, note the phrase "within our known theories". There is absolutely no reason to believe that some deeper theory couldn't blow past the Planck length. The limit is not on the universe, the limit is on our knowledge of the universe. Its _possible_ that limit is also fundamental, but its not something we actually _know._ All we know is that our theories break down at that scale. Whatever lies beyond our theories is still a complete mystery.
There have been hypotheses of course, but since that's something like 16 orders of magnitude beyond what modern engineering allows us to probe, it will be a long time (likely on the order of centuries) before we have any solid answers.
Assuming nobody finds a better way to probe the subatomic world than "smash shit together really really hard and see what happens". But there's currently not even a theoretical basis for such an invention. Doesn't mean its impossible, but its certainly not where you should be putting your money at this point.
@Richard Mcintyre That's a.. weird way to state things. "Its only a limit if you don't go past it".. uhh, true. But also kind of the point/problem.
@Richard Mcintyre Someone did make that theory indeed - Albert Einstein. Going faster means you have more energy. More energy means more gravitational influence (E=mc^2 goes both directions - more energy means more apparent mass).
Its a lot more complicated than that of course (general relativity is kind of a monster, mathematically speaking) but it does in a sense encompass what you're suggesting.
@Richard Mcintyre Yeah. Modern physics is good for that though! The math is so absurdly complicated that almost everything has had at least a few attempts at describing what it means without getting bogged down in the numbers.
Just have to be a bit careful though because most modern physics is at least 4D, and while lower dimensional models can provide some high-level insight, there's often things that get lost in translation (I mean if there wasn't, we wouldn't need models - we'd be able to understand the system directly!)
The "gravity is like a rubber sheet" is a good example. While that's not _entirely_ wrong, its also not entirely right. Specifically it models _space_ being warped by mass, while in reality its _spacetime_ being warped.
Similarly the "expansion of the universe is like a balloon being blown up". What its supposed to imply is that its like the _surface_ of the balloon, but us humans being so deeply embedded in the 3D world have trouble not thinking of the balloon expanding outward from the center of the balloon (where the air is). That is, you're visualizing what's supposed to be a 2D model in 3D, whether you really intend to or not.
In reality (as far as our theories understand it) there is no "center" hiding in a higher dimension. Its just the surface of the balloon without any "inside" or "outside", and that's very difficult for us to visualize even when we understand the difference.
Both examples are "good" models but they're missing a level of subtlety that's lost when translating to the lower-dimensional model. Those subtleties aren't _always_ important, but sometimes they are.
There's a whole lot of bad science around the internet because people overlook those subtleties and try to extrapolate more from a model than is really justified based solely on their intuition rather than on the mathematics.
(There's also no shortage of quacks that try to claim their intuition is more correct than the mathematics because it "makes sense". Unfortunately for them, making sense to a bunch of hairless apes on one random planet out of the trillions upon trillions out there is not a fundamental principle of the universe.)
@@bobbwc7011 > describes the smallest possible action
No. In its simplest use of the constant describes the smallest possible ratio between our ability to measure position and momentum. But that's just a _use_ of the constant. The constant itself is just a number, little different from pi or e - critically important yes, but not physically meaningful without some additional context.
I have no idea what you mean by "action" though. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the physics definition of the word (as in the Least Action Principle and related concepts). But you're so vague that its hard to interpret your meaning.
> The stuff does not fall out of the sky
No, it falls out of experimentation followed by clever people noticing patterns and defining mathematical systems to describe those patterns.
We cannot currently experiment anywhere close to the Planck length. We have _absolutely no idea_ what future generations will discover if and when they manage that feat. Maybe that's the end of the line and all of the changes we need to make to our theories are on the GR side. Maybe we'll discover additional dimensions and tiny wiggling strings. Maybe we'll find something completely unexpected.
Assuming we can predict what occurs beyond the Planck scale using current theories is little different from assuming we can predict the action of quarks using Newtonian mechanics. Its so beyond reasonable that its verging on absurdity.
> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (...) is another one of those fundamental limits (...) of what we can know
_Within the extent of our current theories._ There are as many orders of magnitude between the Plancks scale and what we currently know of the subatomic world as there is between that subatomic world and an ocean.
Do you think anyone could accurately predict the action of atoms based only on the observing waves of water?
> which means it is so fundamental that anything else will only be a supplement but nothing radically new.
In the same way that quantum mechanics "supplements" Newtonian mechanics. That is, any new theory will need to reduce to quantum mechanics (and potentially general relativity as well) under specific limits, but whatever exists beyond those limits could be as different from QM as QM is from classical mechanics.
> We have reached a situation where we cannot glance further behind this "curtain of human knowledge," simply because nature literally ends there.
No, our _theories_ end there. Until we can device a way to actually probe those energy scales we have _no idea_ what nature truly does.
We know the limits of our theories, but the universe gives exactly no fucks about our theories. It does whatever it wants, and if our theories break down at some point its on us to invent new theories.
> or any other mambo jambo which can never be falsified
All of those things you listed can be falsified. They just can't be falsified within our lifetimes (or likely the lifetimes of our great, great grandchildren for that matter). Falsifying them requires being able to probe the Planck length, and that is as noted before many orders of magnitude beyond our current engineering capabilities.
> The Noether theorem cannot be violated
Sure it can. Or rather, it only applies under certain conditions and if those conditions are violated, Noether's theorem no longer applies.
As an example, the vaunted "conservation of energy" is violated constantly - namely, dark energy (which is the mathematical hack used to explain the expansion of the universe) comes out of nothing we currently know about. For all intents and purposes, the universe is not a closed system - which is one of those conditions required for Noether's theorem to apply and convert time translational symmetric into conservation of energy. (GR actually violates CoE on a more fundamental level, but dark energy is the easiest to understand in that context simply because we don't understand it in any other context so its easier for people to think it "makes sense" for it to violate CoE.)
> Example General Relativity. It is easy to say "Oh we will go beyond.", no, that is not guaranteed. And here is why:
So the reason we won't go beyond GR is because scientists are lazy? I don't think that's quite the argument you think it is.
> GR by now has been verified to a mindblowing accuracy
Yes, and QM has been verified to even greater accuracy, which is why most scientists favor quantizing gravity as the most likely path to a "theory of everything".
But that's still just opinion. Again, we have _absolutely no way to know_ until we can start probing the Planck length. Hell, we don't even know 100% whether our theories are completely accurate at grand unified energies (where our theories predict the strong force joins the weak and EM).
Our theories don't mathematically break down at that level like they do at the Planck scale, so that's promising, but there's also no experimental evidence anywhere close to actually confirming anything at that scale (GUT energies are only about 3 orders of magnitude short of Planck energies - so still many orders beyond our current capabilities).
> These measurements have verified GR to a brainmelting accuracy. We are talking atomic scale and below, the scale of nucleii inside of atoms
Which is not surprising, given that we don't expect GR to break down at any scale - its a continuous theory. It keeps going until it hits zero. The problem we have with GR is that hitting zero leads to infinities that are not compatible with quantum mechanics. One of the two (and most likely both) are incomplete theories - there is _something_ at or beyond the Planck scale that we simply cannot observe with the energies we're currently capable of producing.
> We are talking atomic scale and below, the scale of nucleii inside of atoms
Which is "only" about 17-18 orders of magnitude larger than where we would expect to see deviations.
> When the first direct proof of gravitational waves was published, it was like a nail into the coffin of quite a few theoretical physicists
Yes, that is how science works. You make a theory. You test your theory (or wait for clever people with big budgets to test it for you) and well.. you can be wrong. That's what the word "falsifiable" you used before means.
Lots of supersymmetry (and by extension superstring) theories have been invalidated by the LHC as well. That doesn't magically make the Standard Model start being able to explain the things it couldn't before. It just means that we need to try again.
> because a quantum theory of gravity was suddenly pushed millions of lightyears away.
No it wasn't. The Planck scale has been known for a century, and its been known that any breakdown in GR is (probably) going to occur below that scale. Or at the very least, at a scale far beyond what we can currently experiment with.
String theory has been losing precedence because of the LHC's failure to detect supersymmetric particles, not because of LIGO's detection of gravitational waves. But "losing precedence" doesn't mean its wrong, never mind that being dead. It just means the people with the purse strings are less willing to to open their pocketbooks for string theory research.
> Mankind could end up in a sad deadend,
Yes that is entirely possible. We're likely looking at another centuries-long gap between major theories though even if we do eventually get beyond it. There's just too much of an energy gap between theory and experiment at the moment and that's not going to resolve itself any time soon.
> Now you got a professional glimpse at
Well, I got a glimpse at your inability to understand just how far off the Planck scale is from our current understanding of the universe.
PS: I'd avoid adding those "(German: whatever)" phrases in future. Nobody really cares, and anyone who does care can look them up for themselves. Including them in your post like that just makes it feel like you're trying to convince people you're right because you took the time to Google "fancy" words rather than by having an actual solid argument.
Does this mean e=mc² is variable?
Classical electromagnetic theory understood that the "velocity of light" was inherently dependent upon the medium through which the waves propagate, which meant that a completely uniform isotropic medium would have to exist for there to be a "constant velocity of light." There is no completely uniform isotopic medium in this universe. Even outer space has irregularities. Now I know I am going to hear a lot of nonsense about how the Michelson Morley experiment disproved the aether, but that is incorrect. Einstein's general relativity theory is just a reification of Lorentz's aether theory whereby Lorentz's aether was replaced with a reified space which was unified with a reified time. Einstein threw out the classical definition for both space and time and made both physical entities with physical properties. However, without an aether, the Lorentz transformations are simply cause-less assertions without foundations in principle. As Einstein's reified space is not a medium, there is no way for space to work against a ratified space to cause a length contraction. Length contraction in Einstein's theory must necessarily work by magic as there is no fundamental cause for the length contraction in his theory.
The way I see it is every Up Quark attracts one quanta of -ve charge 'gas' that binds close-packed +ve subspace field cells (balls, quanta, +1), this adds up to a macro -ve charge gradient around objects, with the added benefit that variable field cell (gap) size can accommodate Dark Energy too, with voids expanding (and/or space around matter shrinking).
--
For time & mass dilation to work with variable cell (gap) size light has to travel between cells in a fixed, absolute time (+ Dark Expansion that itself takes time). Light absolutely speeds up and slows down as local cell gap increases/decreases. Light absolutely slows with gravity but always measures C as all measuring device spin loops lengthen in space and time (cover more cells per loop), due to conservation of energy. Some energy is 'lost' to acceleration/gravitational pull (or flow pressure in the not needed funky light speed ether flow thought experiment).
--
Spin loops are (part of) the strong force (but the model also allows quantum gravity wells that could contribute), magnetism too. Electrostatic force is free cells (positron / up quark) and the excess -ve charge left behind (electron / down quark) vibrating the subspace field with the same phase in time, but opposite phase in space, with recoil. Light is a transverse wave with compressed peak, stretched base, subspace field-wise, comprised of electrostatic field cell 'blips'.. -ve charge 'gas' (moves at C..) is physically displaced by 'blips'. Forward-back field cell blips compress / decompress the field laterally too.
--
Strong force in a free electron or positron is spin loops forming a toroidal sphere , perhaps 12 cells surrounding a cell / 2 = 6 ins, 6 outs? 6 loops with lateral vibes. There are 6 quark proton models.. Makes sense.. Loops spin at C and can perhaps twist too and join up into DC strong circuits. When atomic dipoles line up the path from positron in one atom to an electron in another (especially if free and shared between two atoms) is much shorter, resulting in a straight path forming inside the magnetic / ferrous metal, spin loops are externalised (magnetic field) due to conservation of energy. Interestingly even though most of the mass is in spin loops magnetic materials weigh the same as when demagnetised.
--
Spin loop' AC lateral compression / decompression vibrations interact with AC Electrostatic Force 'blips' and their lateral vibrations.. Interestingly, if cells are non-compressible and only cell gap varies, the tighter the field, the further the lateral compression / decompression has to travel per light speed electrostatic blip / spin circuit advance.. This lateral force travels at (many) times the speed of light, but each cell only travels at C, just many in (near) unison per blip.
@Paul Wolf The Michelson Morley experiment "null" result, which was not actually null, but about 8 km/second, can actually be explained by the Doppler Effect. Here is the paper.
vixra.org/pdf/2103.0149v2.pdf
Furthermore, the Sagnac and the Modified Sagnac Experiment of Wang show that there must be an aether with which light propagates. If there was no aether, there would be no observable fringe shift caused by a rotating light path. As light propagates through a medium that is not the physical medium of the fiber optic cable, a fringe shift occurs and is observable due to the relative motion of the fiber optic cable with the aether medium through which the light is propagating which causes the apparent difference in light path lengths. In other words, there can be no relativistic effect without an aether in the Sagnac and Modified Sagnac experiments.
Light is not particulate. It is a wave. A wave can slow down and speed up without violating the conservation of energy when the wave propagates through a changing medium due to the changes in the densities and elasticities of the media. This is exactly what we see in light. A particle can do no such thing. A particle can only slow down if no additional energy is applied to it. In order for the particle model of light to be correct, every time light leaves a medium, energy would have to be applied to it in order to speed it back up. This does not happen. The particle theory of light violates conservation of energy.
So the speed of light (SOL) in any inertial frame of reference (IFOR) is always 'c' but SOL in an IFOR in a high gravitational field is less relative to SOL in an IFOR in a low gravitational field however you can only make measurements of one IFOR from the IFOR you are in so will still conclude SOL is 'c'?
Lasenby, Doran, and Gull formulated a theory like this called "gauge theory gravity". It's derived from the Einstein-Hilbert action, as general relativity is, but models gravity as a gauge field in flat Minkowski spacetime.
I don't think that this is related.
@@TheMachian It's a more modern effort, developed in the 1990s by a group at Cambridge. It introduces a gravitational "dielectric tensor" or "generalized index of refraction" in a flat space, and makes the same predictions as GR, except it doesn't allow some extreme solutions, such as wormholes. It's formulated using geometric calculus, which looks like a great tool for theorists.
@@Raging.Geekazoid ER = EPR
Einstein wins again.
Oh and Einstein created Condensed Matter Physics and Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from scratch.
Isn't the central tenet (or at least one of them) that the speed of light is a) finite and b) the same for all observers? But if all observers find themselves far away from a significant mass or close to such a mass, the variation in the speed of light might drown in the measurement error.
I find common points with Jean-Pierre Petit's JANUS cosmological model; SchwartsHild is a name he often cites along Einstein.
Dr Unzicker comments that the war had a very negative effect on development of physics. Do you know exactly what he was referring to? Also he said variable speed of light theory was presented, can anyone say what the implications of this are?
The paradigm change in physics was triggered by WWII. More on VSL in my book "Einstein's Lost Key"
It is crazy given the history to talk about the true size of the universe. The things we know are that we have claimed to know the size of the universe a bunch of times, then we find more. So until we find no more for several versions of new telescope it seems unwise to think we know the size of the universe.
In fact any variation in the Speed of Light is necessarily a re-view revision of the Aether, Absolute Zero reference-framing of potential positioning, which in reciprocation-recirculation math-music examination is what you think you see in log-antilog relative-timing condensation modulation cause-effect interference Quantum-fields, the Relativity of default Mathematical Conjecture to the temporal superposition identification of the Superspin Conception Centre of Time Duration Timing stability.
Mach's Principle, seeing all mass in the (Holographic) Universe as a singular objective, plus Einsteinian relative-timing of clocks in Gravitational circumstances is another version of Aether, by any observation of WYSIWYG.
Variable light is correct due to the Twins Paradox. Only it's a tired light universe. The closer you are to a gravitational object, the more time slows, and the faster light becomes. Away from gravity, light slows down, and time speeds up.
Not exactly. Gravity slows down c. Then c= lamda f always holds. The only consisten way to do it is described in arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518, or see "Einstein's Lost Key"
The way I see it is every Up Quark attracts one quanta of -ve charge 'gas' that binds close-packed +ve subspace field cells (balls, quanta, +1), this adds up to a macro -ve charge gradient around objects, with the added benefit that variable field cell (gap) size can accommodate Dark Energy too, with voids expanding (and/or space around matter shrinking)..
--
For time & mass dilation to work with variable cell (gap) size light has to travel between cells in a fixed, absolute time (+ Dark Expansion that itself takes time). Light absolutely speeds up and slows down as local cell gap increases/decreases. Light absolutely slows with gravity but always measures C as all measuring device spin loops lengthen in space and time (cover more cells per loop), due to conservation of energy. Some energy is 'lost' to acceleration/gravitational pull (or flow pressure in the not needed funky light speed ether flow thought experiment).
--
Spin loops are (part of) the strong force (but the model also allows quantum gravity wells that could contribute), magnetism too. Electrostatic force is free cells (positron / up quark) and the excess -ve charge left behind (electron / down quark) vibrating the subspace field with the same phase in time, but opposite phase in space, with recoil. Light is a transverse wave with compressed peak, stretched base, subspace field-wise, comprised of electrostatic field cell 'blips'.. -ve charge 'gas' (moves at C..) is physically displaced by 'blips'. Forward-back field cell blips compress / decompress the field laterally too.
--
Strong force in a free electron or positron is spin loops forming a toroidal sphere , perhaps 12 cells surrounding a cell / 2 = 6 ins, 6 outs? 6 loops with lateral vibes. There are 6 quark proton models.. Makes sense.. Loops spin at C and can perhaps twist too and join up into DC strong circuits. When atomic dipoles line up the path from positron in one atom to an electron in another (especially if free and shared between two atoms) is much shorter, resulting in a straight path forming inside the magnetic / ferrous metal, spin loops are externalised (magnetic field) due to conservation of energy. Interestingly even though most of the mass is in spin loops magnetic materials weigh the same as when demagnetised.
--
Spin loop' AC lateral compression / decompression vibrations interact with AC Electrostatic Force 'blips' and their lateral vibrations.. Interestingly, if cells are non-compressible and only cell gap varies, the tighter the field, the further the lateral compression / decompression has to travel per light speed electrostatic blip / spin circuit advance.. This lateral force travels at (many) times the speed of light, but each cell only travels at C, just many in (near) unison per blip.
A variable speed of light implies the frequency of light depends on the speed of light but not it's wavelength. It implies the wavelength (lambda) in planck's (constant) formula is a constant and the only variable is the frequency which depends on the speed of light.
It is just not like that. variable c implies variable f and lambda.
@@TheMachian Hmm. I see your point. I will need to "meditate" on that a while.
@@TheMachian Perhaps the wavelength appears different from our perspective but not from the photons perspective? That was what I was saying.
The frequency of an approacing mass compresses the approaching light absorbing it becoming a blue tooth.Emit light rays often electron scattering emission becoming a red tooth.The emitting spectrum is varied.
The mass increases with increase in velocity as more light rays are absorbed compressed to form increased mass and vice versa.
The velocity of light decreased during condensation.
I think it's good this guy challenges standard physics. Science which cannot survive scrutiny isn't science.
However, this guy uses appeal to authority in every single talk. Physicists from 100 years ago weren't infallible, and basically saying 'Einstein said this' may actually be more of a proof that science DID consider Einstein's not-as-well-known ideas, rejecting them for a reason. Should we always reconsider our models? Yes. Should we consider what the great physicists of the 20th century thought? Sure. However, the logic seems a bit like 'look at these possible connections and whoa hoa hoa u guys got trolled lol xD'.
Also, this is a history talk, so this comment may not be on the right video. Here I'm speaking about a lot of his talks at once. Of course, history is appropriate for a history talk.
I haven’t watched through these videos yet myself. I do salute new ideas, but if the focus is to debunk “mainstream” physics, by holding evangelist speeches to “real” physicists, that are “woke”, it does give off a certain vibe of being a “flat earth” society for physicists. I also notice how the claim that “mainstream” physicists are not “critical” thinkers, which is the same rhetorics. Of course the mainstream physicists are critical thinkers. That is in the very nature of science, and as you say, maybe there is a reason why current physics is focusing on other areas, because they already have considered these ideas. Anyway... if there is anything of value in these talks, time will show, as it will be easy to put to the test.
Edit: I do applaud different ideas, but the focus must be on the ideas themselves, not on debunking the already established and accepted ideas. If the ideas are good, advertise the idea, it will be picked up on and, while slowly, it will gain traction with time. Don’t waste your time attacking other ideas.
Speed of light c=10^10 at the big bang, was first found by Toitsky in 1968.
Wow, even I enjoyed understood the basic principle. But did he explain why 0.83 is only half the, now established, multiplier?
So if Dicky is right, then find the correct frequence an it will allow anti gravity.
What about the variable speed due to the composition of a material, glass, air, water, etc?
Donny, you're out of your element.
In a vacuum it’s one speed and in various elements it varies in speed and direction. Bending, refracting, constant but different......
What is the speed at which gravity acts?
@@jwingo7257 From gravity wave observatories I believe their conclusion was the speed of gravity is c the speed of light. Yes, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c the observation of gamma-ray burst from a neutron star collision arrived with ~2-sec delay from the observed Gravity wave neutron star collision. Both travelling at the same speed the collapse creates the flash.
Well done, good stuff!
@@frankdimeglio8216 Interesting writings, I believe you're on to something. In chemistry, my teacher derived E=mc2 from F=ma, if I recall correctly. Can you comment on the implications of variable speed of light? Thank you.
The comoving coordinate system used in cosmology has a variable speed of light. c(t)=c/a(t), I believe. That gives you speed relative to c in the present but the numerical value would be measured as equal to c by an observer at that time. It's a bit like inflation adjusting dollar values in the past to today's value in dollars to make them comparable. A dollar is always a dollar but past dollars are worth less than today's dollars. If you then think about gravity in terms of lag of an over-dense region behind the ideal implicit space-time manifold, observers in a gravity well are literally at a different t (radius from the origin, the big bang) than an observer outside it so their definitions of c, while numerically identical, are different. That's equivalent to saying the person outside the gravity has $100 in his pocket and the person in the gravity well also has $100 in his pocket but his is worth more since it's in the past.
Not a bad analogy. More in my VSL videos on the Hubble redshift and cosmology.
All that is needed for someone with only high school math to "prove" special relativity is accepting that light always has the same speed to all observers.
@popasmuerf Psychics LOL
@popasmuerf We're talking science, right? This was the data we were presented.
The speed of light is always the same within space-time. If you alter the properties of space-time, as is the case concerning the mass of Earth, for instance, as it alters the space-time properties, light still moves at the speed of light within that altered space-time environment. It is not the speed of light that has been altered, but the properties of the space-time environment that have been altered, they have been warped. Only if you observe the speed of light from a distance of the warped space-time, does the speed of light seem to have changed. If a swimmer was swimming in a river that was motionless, and he was also aware that he was moving at a speed 2 mph relative to the water, an observer off to the side of the river would also observe him to be moving at 2 mph. However, if you changed the river properties such that the water was now moving at 2 mph in the opposite direction that the swimmer was moving, the swimmer will still see his or herself, moving at 2 mph relative to the water, but on the other hand the observer that is off to the side of the river, will now see the swimmer not moving at all.
I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about an addition of velocities. The idea is (actually Einstein's) that c is influenced by nearby masses.
@@TheMachian I think you are missing what I am saying. In no way what so ever have I mentioned anything that relates to velocity addition in my comment.
Are you discussong a spatially varying speed (scalar) of light or a spatially varying velocity (vector) of light. Please. Love your brave stand against the herd mentality!
Scalar. See my book "Einstein's Lost Key" or arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518.
My understand was always that C is just the cosmic speed limit, not necessarily the speed that light must always travel.
Real gravity is neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian physics (and some Mach), and comments. Gravity is neither mass nor volume nor density. Gravity is found within actual objects that have electro-gravitic sub-atomic particles within them - while electro-static sub-atomic particles do not show gravity but static attraction. True accretionary theory is electro-gravitics (EG), not electro-statics (ES). Even physics mentions that they can't resolve accretionary theory by static attraction up to 1 meter, but no greater. As such, cosmology with cosmic nurseries of (current) gas clouds or dust cloud regions - have no greater portion of electro-gravitic sub-particles - and thus will never have creation of higher elemental objects into moons, planets, or stars. Only electro-gravitics explains how cosmology is able to produce accretionary theory above and beyond electro-statics and all greater cosmic events of creation and destruction. These sub-atomic particles massively reside within the Dark Universe of (sub-particulate) matter, energies, and forces. So the true statement that any mass, volume, or density and all basis of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics is in error - from the start with wrong words and wrong word definitions. Any higher sub-particulate conglomeration up into the range of electrinos and positrinos, composing the higher atomic electrons and positrons, ... and the atomic proton and neutron ... and all atomic elements and the physical matter universe of forces and energies.
As such, using some bad words (that others might understand from the now-challenged Standard Model) there are 7 levels of Dark Universe and Physical Universe objects.
Gravition (-) and Graviton (+), graviton neutrino (ES), and graviton photino (EG),
Gluon (-) and Gluon (+), gluon neutrino (ES), and gluon photino (EG),
Electrino (-) and Positrino (+), electrino neutrino (ES), and electrino photino EG),
Atomic Electron (-) and Atomic Positron (+), Atomic electron neutron (ES), and electron photon (EG),
Atomic Proton (+, EG) and Atomic Neutron (0, ES)
Electron Muon (-, ES), Positron Muon (+, EG), Muon neutron (ES), and Muon photon (EG),
Electron Tau (-, ES), Positron Tau (+, EG), Tau neutron (ES), and Tau photon (EG).
The reason WHY photons (and photinos) bend to other larger gravitational fields is because of their (EG) properties, and gravitational lensing.
The reason WHY neutrons (and neutrinos) fly through 30 light years of steel without stopping is because of their (ES) proerties, and no affects of gravity upon them.
The true sources of variable light would come from the Dark Universe lesser energy photinos - while higher energy photons are those measured as the speed of light. The Dark Universe of sub-atomic particles explains this solution and resolution. The speed of light is not a constant, but depending on the 7 levels of variable light photinos and light speed photons.
Dark Universe -
Graviton photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture
Gluon photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture
Electrino photino - variable speed of light - affected by greater gravitational fields and gravitational capture
Physical Universe -
Atomic electron photon - (variable ?) speed of light - affected (?) by gravitational fields - no (?) capture
Muon electron photon - speed of light = gravitational lensing - no capture
Tau electron photon - speed of light - gravitational lensing - no capture
What you can see as variable light and speed of light activity is the actual cosmic foam between the Dark and Physical universes, ... and the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CMBR) is nothing from the (false concept) Big Bang and its remains - but the actual visual (and extra non-visual) activities of short-lived quarks, and these photinos and photons in, on, around ... in both (said) Dark and Physical universes.
True quantum entanglement, which can't properly be explained as an instant event from one side of the cosmos as an instant recognition at the other side of the cosmos, only happens in the Dark Universe of atomic sub-particulates, and these fall into the range of the gravitons, gluons, and electrino/positrino. The Dark Universe is the entirety (95-99%) of the whole cosmos, while the 1-5% is the Physical universe. Scientists and physicsts are restrained by their false concept of only being allowed to measure events in the Physical Universe, while all these unresolvable issues are easily and entirely explained in the Dark Universe. The majestic and massive numbers of free gravitons, free gluons, free electrinos/positrinos, along with their 3 levels of free neutrinos and free photinos (of variable light speed) interact with each other instantly across this "quantum" ... whether said as quantum entanglement, quantum electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, the cosmic (quantum) foam .... The greater part of the entire cosmos, in better terms, is sentient and sentience. One could say these sub-partiulcates in religious terms, have God sentience (God consciousness) or Cosmic sentience (Cosmic consciousness). Everything happening in the cosmos is known in this region by all of these active participants in that Dark Universe composition. It is the cosmic Matrix.
This presentation feels like it was not well-prepared for. The slides seemed in an almost random order, and in numerous places the oral material didn't really seem to "flow" well. It seems almost like Unzicker just grabbed a stack of slides and got up there and "winged it." It's a shame, because it feels like there's the makings of a strong, interesting case here.
If you are more specific, I shall try to improve on that 6-year old presentation. Feel free to use ChannelInfo-Contact in case.
and 100+ years later... C is still a constant in a vacuum. js but I’m no theoretical physicist. Where is variable C now?
Uh, if light has to travel around a curve, it'll traverse a longer distance. Thereby, it'll at least appear to take longer.
@Lady Mercy yeah, to heck with - I don't know - constants. We'll just put it all in flux and - roll the dice.
All of Einstein's work is based on a variable speed of light.
Definitely not constant..?....if light is variable....that means..light can’t be use as a point of reference....Einstein himself based his entire model upon the fact that light was a fixed constant for the foundation of relativity....either you’ve wasted your hours going down a rabbit hole or your calling Einstein an idiot....try creating something useful with your knowledge
No he didn't. He said there was a max speed of light. When light travels through a transparent object it will slow down. This is well established and accounts for refraction. Many explanations are available on the net and found to be quite interesting. (You might be confusing light speed in vacuum which is a fixed constant), Best wishes.
Chris Gwynne but light can’t speed back up without breaking the law of conservation
Sebastian Henkins field pressure?...when I make a sound...it vibrates the oxygen molecules in the air...depending on the tone sound is created...if I don’t make a noise...there is no sound...a sound wave is hitting the end of a diving board which the vibrations travel from one end to the other...our ears decipher vibrations...if the diving board is hit on the edge (hammer on a nail)the signal is directly into our eyes which also work by deciphering vibrations...scaler wave compression and refractions..looking down the barrel of a snooker cue...this is the way I see light 💡
I don’t see light as a speed...I view light as a vibration coming from a source ...it’s the source to my eye directly..the same pulse at 90degrees,links to my ears..set at 90degrees (sound). Especially at a distance..i see the phenomena..before I hear it...doesn’t mean light is anything different than the event...a variation of sound vibrations...coming from an horizontal shock wave perspective..
It was Einstein's very idea to assume c was variable. See www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Lost-Key-Overlooked-Century/dp/1519473435/
Accident of history..? Very common in Ego competitions.
What goes around comes around, and contempt get amplified by a curriculum of misinformation.
Ie the natural critique of the paths of reasoning, Sciencing Re-search, is Agnostic neutrality and always an argument with apparent circumstances, not an authoritarian insistence that contraindications are always wrong. It is a constant creation condition that parallel coexistence is not even wrong, inevitable in a universe of parallels in Euler's e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity instantaneous Aether staging levels of Resonance.
So, if there is variable speed of light, then Eddington's theory and observation is incorrect..!!
It's correct within our frame of reference, like Newton was correct in his.
before i watch this video I also considered a variable speed of light in flat space. I also considered a parameter for the variability of the speed of light and the curvature of space time; The more the speed of light can vary, the less curved space-time is in the presence of mass. I thought it would be useful to generalize this in a physical theory because some problems might be easier to solve using different forms of the theory. However, in completely flat space, as the speed of light changes, why does the path get bent towards a massive object if space is not curved anymore?
Light chooses the fastes path, not the shortest. Masses slow down c in their vicinity.
Photons cannot escape a BH. Therefore the speed of light must be zero at the event horizon.
Shapiro showed that light slows near mass. And that slowing is in accordance with Einstein's equation. However this is merely a lucky equivalence, Einstein's underlying theory is wrong (ie that slowing is due to clock slowing & length contraction). The slowing of light is probably in accordance with the Lorentz gamma, where the escape velocity is inserted in VV/cc. However it is not correct to base this on gravitational potential. At least not on the nett gravitational potential. It must be based on the total gravitational potential. In other words u must find the effect on gamma for every bit of nearby mass, treated in isolation, then add.
However, the speed of light does not slow near mass, because light propagates at c kmps in the aether, & the aether flows into mass at the escape velocity, & the inflow kmps nearnuff cancels the slowing kmps, hencely the speed of light remains at c kmps near mass.
[edit 16july2020][I dont remember writing that wordage. But to clarify let me add -- at say the Sun the aether inflow (617 km/s) will equal the slowing of light (617 km/s), hence when the photon is propagating radially into the Sun the apparent speed of the photon to an observer on say Earth might be c+617-617=c. When propagating radially away it might be c-617-617, & when propagating tangentially it might be ((c-617)^2 + 617^2)^0.5.]
The above ignores any slowing due to the light having to pass throo any plasma air water glass etc, such "refractive" slowing will of course reduce the speed to less than c kmps.
I think this needs a more through discussion. In my books, I talk about the Shapiro effect; it perfectly agrees with VSL.
@@TheMachian I reckon that the Shapiro Delay relates/equates to the GTR time dilation delay, ie Shapiro Delay doesnt include any GTR spatial (radial contraction) delay. The time delay (which is quasi-true) is in theory greater than the spatial delay (however spatial delay does not exist, which is why i say that it cant affect the measured Shapiro Delay). But what does/did Shapiro say -- did his explanation include a spatial part??
Ok i had a look at wiki. Shapiro used the time delay & ignored the spatial delay. They make a lame excuse for ignoring the spatial delay -- the reason that it doesnt show up in Shapiro's measurements is that it doesnt exist (as i said earlier).
So, how can Shapiro Delay perfectly agree with VSL ??
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
VSL is not something new...João Magueijo published his Book in 2003. Same issue with Lee Smolins Darwinian Universes or the Cyclic models by Penrose or Steinhardt/Turok...
None of these models explain ANYTHING better then Lambda... I personally hate the Multiverse hypothesis...but nature always seems to "pick" the most colluded, ridiculous theories to fit it's ridiculous " behavior ".
Given that Einstein considered VSL in 1911, I think you should tell Magueijo that his proposal was not exactly new. The Einstein-Dicke-version proposed here instead *does* explain De and also the redshift itself. More details in my book "Einstein's Lost Key" and in th-cam.com/video/2NdUcR4unYs/w-d-xo.html
At the beginning light "speed" was infinate, instantly sending matter to the edge of the universe... then lightspeed slowed down...some say on a bell curve to todays speed...
What can say about the truth a clerk who started talking at age five and until twenty-five years old did not see a professional physicist? Only fantasies.
Look while this is technical and not very entertaining I'll say this as simply as I can. 1mph is 1mph no matter what outside force acts on it. Depending on that outside force you might have to gun the engine to maintain that 1mph but it will always be 1 mph. The same is true of the speed of light at about 186, 000 mps. It doesn't matter what forces act on the light it will always go at about 186,000mps. If the light passes next to a strong enough gravitational field and the gravity slows it down then it stops going the speed of light, simple as that.
But what is speed of light? I mean, not even perfect vacuum exist anywhere.
@@Fl0yd I don't know if you are serious or making a sad joke. You answered your own question and a perfect vacuum anywhere has nothing to do with anything.
If you could capture a portion of a piece of light and put it under a strong microscope you would see that the light is made up of small particles called photons. Pick out a photon and let the light go and time that photon as it goes from point A to B. It would work out to about 186,000 miles per second. That is the speed of light. And only that.
@@danhnguyen-fn9eb Yeah, but go through were?
if space is flat, what causes gravitational lensing. ie. Einstein rings
That's an interesting question, I think I have a solution for it. Alright, so gravity in either this interpretation or the standard interpretation can be represented by a deformation in spacetime. Einstein himself said it was silly to think of this as an actual deformation in space itself; he made it clear that he was only talking about a deformation in the 4d mathematical construct. But if spacetime is deformed and space is not, then it follows that the time component is what is actually deformed. If time, or the rate of change, is deformed, then the speed of light must be deformed as well, since speed is just distance/time. So that works to explain why a photon passing by a star would slow down, but it doesn't explain why the photon curves toward the gravitational source, to explain the lensing that you are talking about.
So, what I propose is that to explain the lensing you merely have to take into account that the photon is not a point particle. It has a width, and therefore, the amount of deformation in time and the speed of light is ever so slightly greater on the side of the photon that is towards the star, and less on the side of the photon that is away from the star. If the shape of the photon can't deform, or if there is a limit to how much the photon can deform, then this would cause the photon to turn towards the star, just as a canoe is forced to turn if you put an oar into the water on only one side to slow it down just on that side.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 if the starlight passing a mass was affected as you say, then the light closest to the mass would be slowed down and hence red shifted. Overall the remote star would appear with chromatic aberration. I think this doesn't happen
@Sebastian Henkins idk this idea actually sounds like it is on the right track, light is both a wave and a particle. In a bucket of water a wave exists over the entire surface of the water. Instead of a simple disc getting steered, it might be something like the wave-function being distorted by massive objects instead of space?
The same for normal glass lenses: variable speed of light causes refraction/curvature
That will contradict Einstein's speed of light constant in his relativity theories. Perhaps he came out with the idea for a variable speed when he realized the flaws in his relativity ideas.
No. Read his 1911 paper.
@@TheMachian Many physicists are now coming out to debunk Einstein's theory of Relativity for it's mathematical errors at great cost to their reputations . I would just as well study mathematics and take only the minimal amount of physics courses required to graduate since that field is highly controlled by the physics elite from Copenhagen like some sort of religious cult and is likely to pollute my mind with bad logic and error filled mathematics. Who made them in charge? It's like the Vatican with it's forbidden library and vows of silence. Free thinking is not allowed in such a climate.
Agree in many respects. The Copenhagen orthodoxy however is sth different from doubting relativity. SR is fine and well tested - in my opinion. GR however, is better formulated in a VSL framework.
We really need a real theory of gravity and not geometric ansatz ruminations. People talk about gravitons when no such entities exist in GR. String theory and loop quantum gravity are hardly solutions to the lack of microphysical content in GR. Funny how Yilmaz was criticized for double counting by introducing a gravitational field Lagrangian but GR zealots talk about "spacetime tells matter-energy how to move and matter-energy tells spacetime how to curve". How does matter-energy curve spacetime without any agent of action, aka field? Variation of the speed of light in a gravitational well would be consistent with coupling between gravitons and photons. Light does not propagate at its characteristic speed through materials so perhaps the same thing happens in a sea of gravitons. There is an interaction time cost.
Physics also has a phobia of space(time). It tries to ignore its material properties. It has volume and according to GR can curve, but it is swept under the carpet as if it is not there. Just maybe photons and their speed reflect the properties of the space(time). Having the speed of light change from the Big Bang until today is more physically consistent than a magic hyperluminal inflationary period which deus ex machina fixes conceptual problems. Sort of like dark energy and even dark matter. The latter supposedly does not clump into compact objects but conveniently populates galactic gravitational wells to fix the rotation speed distribution conundrum. Wouldn't black holes consume dark matter? If the dark matter is distributed as a gas halo, then this consumption would be ongoing.
Gravitons would self interact, so gravity is fundamentally nonlinear. This means that the constant G is actually variable. So MOND would have a basis and is not a contrivance. Trying to model galaxies with Newton's gravity, which is what is done, is not self-evidently valid.
MOND has serious problems too.
And GR just passed more strongest tests.
Einstein wins again. Without Einstein, Schrodinger never arrives at the wave function equation.
The instant that you use a transform, YOU JUST CREATED A SECOND REALITY! The non-transformed reality did not just disappear after you used the math to CHANGE your data! THERE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ANOTHER REALITY LEFT BEHIND. Then, show me time outside of the SEQUENCE MARKER in math and the ability to REMEMBER and ANTICIPATE in the brain. You CANNOT, so don't hurt yourself. All velocities have infinite definitions, which is just like saying "NO DEFINITION". Put that in your reference frame!
Theories only established in math but not experiment still to this day
It is a proven fact that the speed of light is frequency dependent. The speed of light is only presumed to be the same for all frequencies IN A TRUE PURE VACUUM. But THIS presumption is what has never been confirmed by experiment because a true vacuum has never been created and can never be created. Only partial vacuums can be created. These are not true vacuums.
@Sebastian Henkins Differences of frequency are differences of speed! "Close to true vacuum" is not the same thing as a true vacuum. There is still a refractive index. Some would say even so-called true vacuum has a refractive index (of 1). But my understanding is that so-called true vacuum with refractive index of 1 is NOT a true vacuum. True vacuum would have a refractive index of 0. But then the speed of light would be infinite. Speed of light in a material with negative refractive index, meaning refractive index between 0 and 1, is faster than C. Refractive index is frequency dependent! So, refractive index for any material can be negative at certain frequencies. Refractive index is not a constant therefore the speed of light is not a constant. But there is phase velocity and group velocity of light. Refractive index is the ratio of group velocity to phase velocity. Group velocity is C, a constant (according to standard physics). But phase velocity is variable. I should point out that C is only a constant when there is no difference of refractive index in the path light follows. The claim I've heard from mainstream physicists is it is only when there is a difference of refractive index that there is a measurable difference in refractive index or speed of light. The speed of light through a single medium as measured within only that medium is C. Differences in speed AKA refractive index require the light to pass through materials with different refractive index meaning materials where the refractive index or speed will be different for the same frequency of light. But people who say this tend to say the local refractive index is always 1. If you ask me that is obviously wrong because refractive index is dependent on frequency and a function of the material properties (magnetic and electric permeability, susceptibility, permitivity, etc). This is true even when light is passing through a single medium such as a partial vacuum. What you are saying reminds me of the claim that gravity bends all frequencies of light by the same amount, that there is no (frequency dependent) dispersion of light in gravitational lensing. This is absurd because first of all it conflicts with the facts. Dispersion was observed in the first experimental confirmation that gravity bends light. The counterargument to that fact is the claim that the observed dispersion was due to gasses and/or dust of varying/increasing density surrounding a large gravitating mass such as a moon or planet or black hole as opposed to the gravity or gravitational lensing itself. But the fact is a pure true vacuum cannot exist around a large gravitating mass. So dispersion will invariably be observed. Dispersionless gravitational lensing seems impossible to me. Likewise, for similar reasons, frequency independent refractive index seems impossible to me. Yet, what you are pushing here is frequency independent refractive index...not only for true vacuum (which you would no doubt say has a refractive index of 1) but also for a partial vacuum. You are at least saying there is no frequency dependent refractive index for a partial vacuum. Do you understand how that contradicts basic laws of physics? I can understand any confusion you may have. But there are answers to your questions which would clear up any confusion you may have. The main one being that the speed of light is actually infinite. But measurement instruments have a finite response time due to reactance time. The infinite speed of light is why FTL signals have been experimentally confirmed such as in the famous EPR related experiments.
@Sebastian Henkins Not only is the reactance time of measurement instruments finite but also the reactance time of materials. It is partly the reactance time of materials which gives rise to what we call refractive index.
@Sebastian Henkins To be clear, the finite reactance time of materials makes the infinite speed of light seem finite.
@Sebastian Henkins Reactance time depends on amplitude. The further away a source of EM radiation the weaker it gets and the longer it takes for materials to respond the same as they would if the source were closer. This is how raymond chiao sent light signals FTL. He amplified the signal so that the wavefront of the signal could be detected earlier than it would have otherwise been. The wavefront was there at the destination the moment the signal was generated but the amplitude was so low it was not detectable until after the matter in the measuring instruments had time to respond. Amplifying the signal allows the measuring instrument to react faster.
There were a number of men who wrote very extremely similar theory of what Einstein did. As far as I know they were ignored after all
He was Einstein. I'd like to one day know the truth about written formulas show.
Lies. They all copied Einstein.
Without Einstein science historians are in agreement that we would not have had General Relativity for 100 years.
You are referring to Special Relativity (several other geniuses were circling around SR bur Einstein got there first).
How is this talk remotely understandable to history students?
It’s the history session at a physics conference. The audience are physicists with a history slant.
@@user-cn8ie6bq7d Ah OK, that makes more sense.
Einstein was only an armchair physicist. People take him too seriously. He stole all his ideas from real scientists who did lab experiments to prove their theories. It was just a political decision to make him a famous representative of the science world because he looked like a scientist and could be marketed as an eccentric genius. But, the reality is that he wasn't all that bright and his English was terrible. He didn't understand basic grammar and thus, tried to turn a concept into an object which is impossible. lol! Time is a concept and not an object! Please!
I do not doubt that light bends around solar, however I doubt that is due to gravity interaction between solar and particles which he call photon.
Light, is electromagnetic energy only responds to Aether E0, U0 and matter submerged in Aether Er, Ur such as molecular dust, particles, charged particles and plasma.
Light bend around the sun is then an optical event but act of gravity.
Einstein and his administration, by ignorance, fail to understand the operating principle, application and operation of an apparatus that measures speed of light wave have let them to conclude that aether does not exist in the universe drawn on test data that light speed remains the same in any direction in a vacuum space. This ignorance have lead to conceiving light as particles and his theories of special and general relativity, subsequent patches on flaws of his theories one of which is quantum mechanics.
Time has been shown repeatedly to vary depending on the intensity of the gravitational field the clock is exposed too. GPS satellite clocks require constant correction to maintain synchronisation due to the variable gravitational fields they move through in addition to their speed.
Allan Gibson
Thank you for passing over - main stream academia’s twisted science propaganda.
In reality, light and electromagnetic wave “ride on” a cosmic substrate known as Aether, and light speed depends on the permittivity of Aether, but gravity. When earth and satellites traversing through Aether, an “up/down wind” effect is induced. Satellite timing will varies more or less depending on the relative direction it move through Aether.
Our problem is that we have ruled out existence of Aether by mistake that Albert Einstein made in trusting Albert Michelson’s light speed measurement results.
YK Chan The whole concept of an “aether” was debunked over a century ago. The Michelson Morley experiment was just the first nail in that coffin....
Photons exhibit wave particle duality - just like electrons. They are simultaneously both depending on how they are measured.
Having a media requires the presence of relative motion that should be detectable (hence the Michelson Morley Experiment which failed to detect any difference in light speed at any relative angle - hence no relative motion in a media). Gravitational disturbances change the shape of the universe and hence distances between points. Gravitational effects also change the resonant frequencies of oscillators (more intense fields reduce resonant frequencies - I.e. time slows).
Allan Gibson
Thank you for reminding me of what I’ve learned, understand and disagree, including Michelson’s conclusion. No difference in c at any direction because his apparatus is incapable to detect presence of Aether.
He is a very arrogant man, pretending he is the master of cosmology and physics. Thats why he talks to history students here.
The problem is that he is asking challenging questions to an arrogant and inert population of physicists.
The title was interesting. content, you talked a lot and said nothing useful. it clearly showed your admiration for Einstein just like other scientist ignorant of real facts. An admiration due to history and his Jewish background. Admiration which has and continue to sink deeper and deeper the science of space & matter in to bog of ignorance. If you want to make real contribution, do as my grandfather told Einstein when he persisted to ask about gravity. Work out what is the mechanic behind the Mach's principle or stability of bicycle. Sadly the same prejudices has prevented science world to take my statement seriously. They totally ignoring the fact I was asked to come to complete my grandfather’s unfinished work with Max Planck, Nikola Tesla and other scientist in Europe.
Full information in my 1975 Bremen Summerhouse notes or by official permission / request of Madam chancellor Angela Merkel I will instruct their release. Ferydoon Shirazi. MG1
Who is your grandfather then you try to make everyone curious about?
@@TheMachian You would not find any record of him, because our work always have been discreet. I have become public because I resigned due to my treatment here in England and the fact Anglo-American did not share my past information with others. depriving world of science. It was not my intension to make anyone curious about him, except the fact there has been no progress on internal structure of matter (photon, electron, nuclei) or their interaction with gravity since black body radiation(photon) by Max Planck. I have released schematic drawing of photon and have put sufficient clue in my comments for the wise to work it out. I do this because our work has come to end with my resignation. At 78 I have very little time to release the remainder of information on structure of matter and it’s interaction with gravity producing evolution which physical universe is consist of. It will show, there is no dark matter, big bang, black hole, expansion, space-time and more. It will explain internal structure of space rocks,
Moons, planets, stars and their motion in galaxies. Current models are nonsense.
agreed assumption.
Leider kann der Vortragende schlecht vortragen
Just a terrible presenter. He may be right, who knows? But I can’t bear to sit through it to find out.