Hi to Pasti:

Thank for your most recent post. It must seem to you that I have difficulty verbalizing my ideas. I can articulte my thoughts well enough when speaking but my mind runs at a higher frequency than my typeing and things get dropped.

I think every thing in nature has a compressabilty limit. Water is usually described as non-compressable. How much compression can a photon endure? Part of what I am saying relates to the density as well as the compressability of the photons leaving the suns surface. How about we give a photon of light at the sun a value of zero representing the most compact rendidion we can measure (for our sun). This photon(s) are spaced around the suns surface bursting to go out into space. At one mile out from the suns surface we give it an expanded value of 1 due to the fact that photons one mile out had to full up a greated volumn of space with the amount of "substance" that was originally at the suns surface. We continue this way for every mile from the sun as our photons travel out into space. This density, I contend, at the suns surface puts a limit on the ability of the photons to expand and by doing so puts a limit on the speed the sunlight will travel.

As I said my estimate of the probable maximum speed of our sunlight is 186,624 miles per second. If the density of light at the suns surface was not a limiting factor on the speed of light then, I contend, the light would blast off from the sun at that speed.

Think of shooting a bullet through 100 sheets of tissue paper. The effect will be to slow the bullet down. We will shoot another bullet of the same size from the same gun with the same powder charge and when we measure the speed of the bullet after it leaves the tissue and compare it to the unimpeded bullet speed we can see a difference in the projectiles speed. I contend that the density of the photons leaving the area of the sun provide a similar impediment to the speed of light because for sunlight to reach its maximum speed it must be free to expand and the opportunity for sun light to expand is very restricted by being packed into smaller volumns, which I like to think of as density levels.

The solar system rotates like a phonograph record but produces effects which are the opposite of such because instead of objects near the edge revolving faster they go slower. The lack of momentum is clearly due to the lessening effects of the suns gravity, which i contend, is the cause for the revolutions of the planets and other ojects continuiously. I learned that Newton did not conclude the cause for the planets revolutions but only why they were kept where are and that moving objects in a vacume when left alone will continue to go in a straight line. (I though when I started my own review he had worked that out too)

You mention that my comparisson of the orbits of earth and the orbital velocities was worked out By J. Kepler and that is totally correct. I do it my way which is much simpler- no matter.

While still dealing with sunlight we note that things like glass will not only bend light but can cause it to either slow or stay at one speed as Sparky pointed out with the prizm showing light would speed up upon leaving the prizm. I do not see a mystery there and there is no mystery when you consider that the light leaving the constraints of the prizm can expand and that is required for it to pick up speed again.

One last effort to explain myself, I need all the time I can get, as to why, if I claim the sun light speeds up on its way to the outer planets, say Uranus, why then do we not measure that light as faster here at Earth than the usual 186,281 miles per second. One thought is that the reason is that Earth travels in an orbit at 18.5 miles per second and Uranus at 4.22 and this speed difference directly equates to the measure of the suns gravitational effect on the planets in their respective positions. I know it is unscienticic to think of gravity itself as having density, Einstien I think likes to talk in terms of warped space but since I am no Einstien I will settle for density. For light to reach its maximum potential there must be NO imperiment and the presence of compressd photons produces a limit on the ability of light to expand.

Lastly on this. The light leaving Uranus on its way back to earth is traveling faster. This speed is a form of energy that is slightly different from the light here at earth becaus ithas been expanded to full up the difference of a sphere the volumn of Uranus orbit and the light at earth fulls a spherical volumn the size of earths orbit. As the light leaves Uranus for Saturn is is slightly compressed and MUST travel slower. As it gets to Jupiter it is compressed more and moves slower, on and on until it reaches us and we measure the returning light like always here at earth at 186,281 miles a second.

You made a typo. You quote my speed of light at earth at 185,624 and I know it is a typo. I do have a method that I used to determine the speed of light at each planet, or for that matter any place in the solar system as you go out. That is in the book and would be a little lengthy to try and explain it all here. I do have math of my own creation to support my contention.

Pasti, you provide me the conclusion that light can only be slowed down by gravity and I am not sure how to respond. You might just as well say that Einstien and about all knowledgeable academics agree the speed of light is fixed in which case I may as well go back to bed.

Every object we know of has an escape velocity if we wish to get a rocket or some such off of it. Another way is think about the surface gravity of objects wherein earth is 32.16 feet per second, per second and the sun is 900 or so feet per second. This does not directly answer you proposition and that is one of the reasons I like to use density. We should agree it is going to be a lot harder to escape from the suns surface than from earths. If "black holes" can retain all light from escaping(?) we know that some people think that lights travel can be restricted by gravity but we do not have a clear understanding of the photon's ability to perpetuate itself. I am aware of Newton's inverse square rule which describes the lessening of the light with distance from the source but I can not equate that to my views.

I am convinced that I am right about the speed of light and the side effects. Un fortunately I may not be up to the proof of same.

As Kepler and Newton my comment is that I am not about to try and re-invent the wheel. I use a completely differnt approach than Kepler that is not intended to further his conclusions but rather to seek different results which still relate to his discoveries, not contradictions. As for Newton, my ideal, I think there a things yet to be discovered that he could not contemplate because they were not yet discovered. One item is the satellites of Uranus which I contend could open a new area of gravity due to the manner we calculate the force. I do not want to rewrite the book here. If I thought this was nonsense I would be ashamed to post any thoughts on the subject here.

One last thought. We know that light can travel far enough not to be visible at all. We also can reason that the light we can not see due to the distance from the source doe not mean the light is not there but only that it is so faint (or lacking in density) that we do not see. So we aim our scope at it to compress (densify it) so we sn now see it again. Does that help?

Thank you again for your interest and questions.
Jim Wood