Jim: ? I failed to inclulde in my earlier contentions an important item. It is long standing common knowledge that the orbital velocities of the planets deminish as you travel away from the sun. The suns gravity diminishes as you go out into areas that I contend the suns light travels faster as it expands. Keeping in mimd the argument that lights density is reduced as you get farther and farther from the sun the effect, I contend, is to provide less resistance to the travel of light permitting accelleration.?
I have one problem with this picture. Light can only be slowed down by gravity in this case, and the mass of the Sun is the largest mass in the solar system (I mean the total mass of the rest of the solar system is smaller by a factor of ~ one million compared to the mass of the Sun). So in your theory, there will always be a force acting on the photon gas (from the Sun) slowing down the photons. To this force you want to add an additional drag force due to the rest of the photons, as I understand it. Now, since this force of drag is still gravitational, and since the mass of the photons is basically insignificant compared to the mass of the Sun, you can simply ignore the drag froce due to the photons. The net result will be that photons will necessarily be slowed down, not accelerated. Unless I missed something from the picture you described.
Jim:? There are some suggestions here by the mean orbit of Jupiter in AU when divided bt the mean orbit of Earth in AU equaling 5.2. the square root of 5.2 is 2.28. If we divide the mean orbital velocity of the Earth at 18.5 by the mean orbital velocity of Jupiter at 8.11 we get 2.28, the same. This reflects the less gravitation effect the sun has at each position, and I think this difference is part of the explanation for the increased speed of light at Jupiter, or about 186,558.23 miles per second. Not being skilled in mathematics I will leave it to you to convert this suggestion into an equation.?
These calculations you do seem very much like the Kepler laws (ratio of the squared orbital periods is equal to the ratio of the major semiaxes of the orbits for two planets orbiting the sun. As for the gravitational force between the Sun (MS-mass of the Sun) and a mass m at a distance d from the Sun, it is given by Newton?s law: F=G*MS*m/d^2, but this does not explain the acceleration in your theory.
As form me translating this into equations, I am afraid I need more detail. The other equation was rather simple to infer, but in order to include gravity the way you want, I need more detailed info.
Jim:?Also I come up with the opposite of the gas anology for the increase speed of light because the gas is running out of energy and slowing down. ?
Yes, it appears that you did. I just wanted to say that there was a model of the photonic gas that has already been developed.
Jim:?The sun light from our sun has a built in speed limit but that limit is very high and would actually travel at the maximum speed of about 186,624 but for the suns gravity causing it to start slower and not reach maximum until it is farther from the effects of that gravity.?
OK, I think that I understand what you mean by that. It is though contrary to observations, in our solar system at least.
Jim:?The other part of your question as to what the starting speed of light is will be uncertain but my estimate is that a one radius of the suns distance it will be traveling at about 112,941.32 miles per second.?
I would guess that you assume that the speed of light is 185,624 on Earth, and then assuming some acceleration, you ?backtrack? to it?s value of 112,941.. when it leaves the Sun/is emitted.
Jim:?Testing is an important part of science and much has been spent in the development of testing tools. If I start to develope a test searhing for details that I assume to be meaning full and disreggard results that I think will not be relevant I will not learn much that is new. I will either confirm what I believe to be true or find that it is not true.?
Yep, pretty much. But isn?t this the whole purpose of what you did? To find an alternative/different explanation, still consistent with observations?
Jim:?There is a Web site that discuses the problem with the Hubble telescop lense. I do not know if the calculations are accurate or not but the contention is that the mirror was in fact accurate and produced perfect pictures of the planet Saturn but not perfect pictures of the more distant objects. They contend that the reason was the different focal length and the difference in the speed of light entering the scope. I do not want to start a different discussion. This may be junk but the corrections required to fix the scope may hold a clue to the difference in the speed of light coming to us from distant objects, maybe not. ?
I can see how it was a problem with the focusing, this is pretty elementary optics. But I cannot see what the speed of light had to do with this. Are you sure of that? Give me more info.
