Is Light speed really the limit? - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

Science a GoGo's Home Page

Under commonly accepted theory matter cannot accelerate faster than light particles ahead of it due to compression of the particles in front of it. If particle teleportation were to be used to alter the properties of the particles in front so that they were no longer moving in the same direction of the accelerated object this would decrease friction so that less force would be needed to move these objects faster. In an ideal situation these light particles moving in the same direction could be shunted to one side OR better yet could one day be completely moved to the back of the object thus removing the limit to velocity. Does anyone have any views on this? or research to the contrary?

Commonly accepted theory says no such thing.

Where are you getting the basis for what you are writing?

To start with there is no such thing as a faster than light particles.

My view is that you need to learn how to post links to source material so we can attempt to decipher what you are writing.

The speed limit imposed upon particles has nothing to do with friction or other particles being in the way, compressed or not. I'm sorry, everforward, but you need to get a proper understanding of relativity before you start this kind of theorizing. What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

Yes.Speed limit is the property of space...
It not something which can be overcome or get rid of...as it has its own committments to different refernce frames ... Amazing is HIS integrity...And that is the reason I pray to the Light and the ultimate source of the light...

You think photons are giving you friction, what about all those tachyons out there, going backwards in time smacking you in the face as you try to move forward! I'm amazed we can move at all!

hehe. so as you can see this is just a theory. could anyone please discredit it with links to reference material as i thought the reason light couldn't travel any faster is because there was no more force being applied to the photon. Thus leading me to believe that, no matter what the mass of the object being moved, the only reason it couldn't become faster than light was because for it to do so it would need immense amounts of energy just to pass through normal space at that speed. (no mention of travelling through absolute void though) Perhaps i should have had my pseudonym as shotinthedark.

ef:"hehe. so as you can see this is just a theory. could anyone please discredit it with links to reference material..."

Finchbeak is right, what you wrote does not make any sense. And BTW, puttig together two ideas does not always a theory make. Especially when one of the ideas is flawed in its understanding.
You want some refs attesting your reasoning is faulty. Try any college level physics book that deals with special relativity.

ef:"... as i thought the reason light couldn't travel any faster is because there was no more force being applied to the photo."

In special relativity, the main postulate is that nothing can travel faster than light in vacuum (in vacuum light travels at the fastest speed).
Why this is indeed the case, let's say that no observation of faster than light particles (tachyons) has ever been made. It should suffice for now.

ef:"...thus leading me to believe that, no matter what the mass of the object being moved, the only reason it couldn't become faster than light was because for it to do so it would need immense amounts of energy just to pass through normal space at that speed. (no mention of travelling through absolute void though)."

Actually, if you read the postulates of SR (special relativity) attentive, the vacuum is implicitly understood, besides being explicitly stated for light, exactly for the reason that in vacuum all other dissipation mechanisms are absent.

The rest of your explanation is correct. One of the reasons why no massive (i.e. having rest mass) particle can exceed the speed of light is because in order to attain the speed of light it would need infinite energy. Photons are a special case of what is called massless particles (i.e. no rest mass) and the explanation does not apply to them since they already travel at the speed of light (which if you think about, makes sense).

Hey git - don't you like a causal universe?

Lorentz Invariance demands a finite lightspeed. Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm

Observed permittivity and permeability of the vacuum set a value for the finite lightspeed.

If you have a physics that does not include Lorentz Invariance and still contains useful stuff like Maxwell's Equations, post it. BTW,

thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity

so you need also rewrite all of chemistry or information theory, too.

Quote:

Lorentz Invariance demands a finite lightspeed

Provided you assume causality. Tachyons that alway travel faster than lightspeed are not inconsistent with SR. But suppose you fire a tachyonic bullet and kill someone with that. The bullet would have to be made inside the gun at the instant it is fired, because it could never have been at rest. Let's assume that this is possible. Then there exists a frame in which the person was hit by the bullet before the gun was fired.

A tachyon is almost indistinguishable from a slower-than-light particle. It would take just as much energy to "slow" it down towards light speed as it would take to speed up a normal particle towards light speed.

The only notable difference is that the tachyon's relative movement through time would appear to us to be going backwards in time. (And a photon traveling at the speed of light experiences no time; its entire existence happens at the same time, so far as the photon is concerned.)

So who's to say your tachyonic bullet did not in fact jump from the victim's body into your gun?

Well, causation is the big problem there. The chemical reaction in the gun caused the bullet to shoot out.

So look for something that appears to have been caused by what happened at the end, and ta da, there's your tachyon.

(I guess that explains all those "the end justifies the means" people out there.)

I'm glad there was some useful information there. From you guys

Could anyone recommend some books to buy (available in England)

So I can learn more.

Hm...well i think light does have its limits since it's comprised of waves, much like sound. The possibilities of even greater moving paricles must not be thrown out the door. Maybe blackholes could explain this. If light can't escape the gravitation force of such a supermassive body,so then what could be the velocity of particles moving towards this body?

everforward
Here's a site that looks like it might be pretty good - can't say I've really checked it out, though.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

And another one, on general relativity:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Justin:
You need to get yourself a basic book on physics. The speed of light sent from a spaceship traveling at 90% of the speed of light ... toward a black hole ... is precisely the speed of light. That is the state of physics ... both theory and laboratory.

Finchbeak:
Baez is one of the best in the field. You can definitely trust the site.

Yes, Einsteins special theory of relativety...i know. What i was proposing was the idea that maybe there are other particles moving faster than light.

Assuming a vehicle could reach the speed of light by means of some force nuetralizing field or something, what wouldn't prevent one from manipulating space/time to the crafts advantage? If possible it would not travel faster than light per se, but it would go from point A to B faster than light, it would merely have a "shorter" path in a straight line than light would when infact the actual distances are the same.

I wonder if in other 'parallel' universes there are things such as 'faster than light'. In ours I think light is taken as the fastest.

Makes me wonder if our universe could be expanding at the speed of light, maybe even just a tad faster. That could be why that speed can't be exceeded. It's pretty tuff to go faster than the vehicle you are traveling in. Especially if that vehicle is using all available energy to maintain it's speed. If this were true then all parallel universes would have their own speed of light. It would be their rate of expansion plus a tad.
Good gosh . . . if this were the case, what symbol would stand for "a tad".

j6p ... nothing you wrote makes sense.

Let see light goes 186,000 miles per second.

Your argument is that I can't turn on a flashlight in an automobile that is only going 60mpg.

Interesting ... inconsistent ... nonsensical.

Think harder.

Quote:

Your argument is that I can't turn on a flashlight in an automobile that is only going 60mpg.

DA Morgan, is that what you understood my post to indicate? Interesting. :rolleyes:

Try it this way and see if it works for you: Make that vehicle the universe. Now expand that universe at the speed of light or maybe a "tad"

faster. Now put yourself anywhere in that universe and turn on the old flash light.
If that beam of light can go fast enough to leave the universe . . . then ya got me.

Please re-read what you originally wrote. Here it is quoted exactly.

"It's pretty tuff to go faster than the vehicle you are traveling in."

Your words. Nonsensical but your words. Take light out of the picture. What you wrote means that in a vehicle moving 0.5 mph a fly can't fly from the back seat to the front seat.

But even when one is looking at your corrected version, and with even a passing knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics, your statement makes no sense.

The size of the universe is irrelevant to whether something can or can not travel from the earth to the moon at any finite or infinite speed.

I just bought a book by einstein that explains his general and special theories of relativity. i have yet to crack a page so this response is just my own guess.
If the current speed of light was not the limit, then light would be moving faster. because light is a massless ball of energy, and speed is determined by the energy being applied on the object with consideration to its mass (the larger the slower) and friction; then in a frictionless environment,the fastest object would have to be pure energy and no mass (I.e a photon). This is assuming that einsteins photon theory is correct. btw i dont know the formula for speed, i was just postulating based on what i thought sounded logical.

Ok, I'll give this failure of ours, to have a reasonable meeting of minds, one more shot.
Enlighten me, in plain language. You know, the way that fellow explained the quantum world on PBS. The way someone who really knows their field can break things down to every day language. Language that guys like me can understand. By the way j6p stands for Joe six pack. I'm the guy next door, the guy that built your car, the farmer, the electrician, plumber, carpenter. Average Joe. So make it clear to me what this universe is.
If you do that, I'll explain how I think it's happening, what's causing it, why it's acting like it is and I'll explain it in language that most anyone can understand. In fact I guarantee that you will understand what I am talking about. No ambiguity. Deal?
Otherwise, for me at least, this conversation is over.

Ay, if for no other reason, think of the laughs you can have at ol j6p's expense. Go for it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Grasshopper With a Top Hat:
I just bought a book by einstein that explains his general and special theories of relativity. i have yet to crack a page so this response is just my own guess.

Gotta love this. "I don't know anything about the subject, but I bought a book about it which I haven't read. Nevertheless, I will now explain it to you."

(just poking fun, no offense intended)

I am not versed in Physics, this will be obvious, in a moment. Only that after reading Justin Whalon's pondering about if there are other particles faster than light? My unproven theory as well as others with the same or similar idea on the subject is that; although the measurable speed of light has distinctly won the blue ribbon as the fastest. Quantum theories, (which tend to make my brain like pudding after 30 minutes of reading) have stated that the existance of energy/matter, in both states is faster. The example given is this. Not only the space in between atoms at the sub atomic particle level, but the space in between that is so minute a mass, that it is both energy and mass simultaneously. In a pulsating back and fourth type of dimention that can only be proven math matically. Which I have not seen nor the brain pan to comprehend. (I told you this is not my forte') any way, by being both, can be faster than light x's 10. I havent read the articles for some time, and I if I can find them, I will include them in my reply. (after my slaughter of how I make no sense etc...) ha haa. this to be the way it was explained in theory, of what I read. Im sure the more educated of the lot of you can shread this theory and tell me so. Fair enough, but the possibility is so beyond our limitations of thought, because we can only think of things with limits and Time. Im sure it goes beyond that, and perhaps then, things like God, and Creationism etc... will start to make sense.

Justin that's a pretty decent suggestion. However, i dont know h ow true it holds. The escape velocity of the earth is 25,300 mph, or 11.3 km/sec; that doesnt mean that the earth pulls objects into it at the speed of 25,300 mph and greater. I assume this holds true with a black hole as well, the gravity is so great the its escape velocity is higher than 299,792,458 km/sec doesnt mean that it is pulling objects toward it at a speed faster than that... although truth be told it may. It is a proposition that I myself haven't thought of.
by the way DA Morgan's reference to Einstein's special theory of Relativity was completely irrelevant.

Thank you for redefining "clueless."

Not once did I reference SR. To see the only person that did will require that you use a mirror.

Question: Is speed of light really the limit?

The speed of light should be considered from the perspective of common sense as well as from the posture of current dogma. I am surprised at the heat of discussion between parties that have different views on various scientific subjects with the speed of light formost.

We arrive at the speed of light by measurements made here on Earth. It matters not where the light originates from because all measuring is done from here at Earth. We discover a speed of 186,281 miles per second. We use that determination to conclude that it represents the speed of light throughout the Universe. We have no disagreement so far, do we?

In spite of the elaborate theories, all of them, that make conclusions concerning the speed of light, not one, not any of them, tell us why light travels at 186,281 miles per second here at Earth. From my perspective that determination should come first before we speculate about the speed of light from all sources and in all parts of the Universe. Not a word that I am aware of is provided to document the CAUSE for the speed of light as we measure it here at Earth.

I have considered this issue for many years. I am well aware that any approach that suggests an explanation for the WHY of the speed of light will be met with fierce objections but I do not care. Consider a Star one million times the mass of our sun and explain why such an object would produce light with the same energy factors that our tiny sun does? I contend I have worked out the answer to the speed of light and why we measure it as we do here at earth. The full content of my contentions, which is the only explanation that I know of as ever being offered by anyone, is explained in my Web site. To avoid any suggestion of spam I am not including the location of the site here but you can email me and I Will reply with the data.

In short I propose that sun light leaves the sun at about 112,941 miles per second having excellerated dramatically from the suns equator. It continues to excellerate until it reaches the Earth going about 186,281 miles per second when it passes Earth. It thereafter continues to go faster and faster while it goes out into space until it diminishes and probably fades at about 186,624 miles per second many billions of miles from Earth. This unique quality of light that I offer also acounts for the alleged red shift and other effects in my contention.

I will not be sensitive to your arguments. I am a retired lawyer and I am used to confrontations.

My last reply left out the Web site I referred to because I did not think I should include it. I find that others commonly include web sites.

http://www.SurfingTheSolarSystem.com

Well, Fermat, the explanation to Why a star/sun a million times heavier than our sun, or any star for that matter produces light with the same energy factors ( I will assume that terms like energy factors, excelleration, etc. are lawyerese for frequency/wavelength and acceleration) already exists.

Someone didn't do their reasearch correctly now, did they? And you can be acused (with enormous available proof) that you are actually suborning perjury by your statements, and in the court of science, this makes you guilty of gross ignorance (stupidity in short, since you actually meddled into the matter pretending to know the field), even though your ignorance may be unwillful.

The answer to the question whose answer you claim to be the only one to hold is rouhly a century old, and is called general covariance (homogeneity and isotropy can be derived therefrom). A fella, Einstein, discovered it long ago. And to the best of our observational knowledge, it works.

Furthermore, at the scale of our solar system, we know that there is no variation of the speed of light, and that the mechanism you propose is "null and void". As for the redshift, that has already been explained a century and a half ago, so once again, you are a bit late.

Despite your insensitivity to arguments (you must be a corporate lawyer) you might want to consult the scientific literature from the last hundred years. It is not difficult to do so, since I suppose you are aware that the concept of books and articles has been successfully applied to science too.

And if you are retired, you also have a lot of time to dedicate to such a study, although you seem to lack the wisdom and/or maturity of such an undertaking.In science open mindedness to arguments (or at least to cogent ones) is still the fashion, you know?

Thank you Pasti for your comments.

You must feel very strongly about the subject to voice such bitterness at my view. I am retired. I am pleased to see your caustic response, for another subject it helps to explain why cats have sharp teeth.

You may want to review the history of science your self. You may have historical teachers that thought the Earth was at the center of the universe, or possibly the Solar System which contained some "stars" revolving around each other.

When you feel rested please tell me how we measure the speed of light from any where except here on Earth. I welcome your sparky approach.

Fermat:"Thank you Pasti for your comments."

You're welcome.

Fermat:"You must feel very strongly about the subject to voice such bitterness at my view."

If by this you mean that I feel strongly about those claiming to do science from the point of view "Imprator dixit", then you are right. You might also have noticed that my bitterness was directed towards your approach to "discussing", the subject, and not to the subject itself. The theory you presented is fairly trivial to argue against, based on your expose.

Fermat:"I am retired."

Good for you. You seem to consider this aspect to be very important to you (or to the others) since you keep repeating it. I'll keep it in mind as a mitigating circumstance.

Fermat:"I am pleased to see your caustic response..."

Once again, I am glad you enjoyed it. It's been my lifelong goal to do stand-up comedy for second hand science buffs.

Fermat:"...for another subject it helps to explain why cats have sharp teeth."

What can I say? I am marvelled by your insight. But I am rather sorry to burst your bubble again,but this issue has already been dealt with in both anthropology and psychology. For the purpose of this discussion, you should check out the latter (you should actually already have some rudiments of psychology).

Fermat:"You may want to review the history of science your self. You may have historical teachers that thought the Earth was at the center of the universe, or possibly the Solar System which contained some "stars" revolving around each other."

Well, what can I say, you got me between a rock and a hard place. You wouldn't be talking about the same teachers who wrote laws against heresy (including scientific heresy), would you? And enforced them by burning the heretics at stake? I am glad though that you are a proud descendant of such teachers ("I will not be sensitive to your arguments."-remember?You wrote it)(Hint: This would give you the correct ideea about my causticity!)

And you wouldn't by any chance be talking about teachers like Giordano Bruno, or Copernic, or Kepler, or even Galilei? Or Newton who had to invent his own mathematics in order to describe his own physics?
You are probably talking about imbeciles like Mach, whose "sensitivity" to arguments drove Boltzmann to commit suicide, just to give an appropriate example

Well, I have news for you. But then, it would appear that anything from the last century is news for you, when it comes to science.

Yes, you are right, there have been imbeciles during the history who taught the geocentric system, and they are part of "my" pedigree as well as yours. But science at least had the courage to brake up with "secular power", with such "illuminati", even at the cost of death in many cases (Galileo excluded), and carve its own path.

So, your point is? I cannot believe you actually went into such a poorly thought argument.

Fermat:"When you feel rested please tell me how we measure the speed of light from any where except here on Earth."

Oh, boy. And this time I am really sorry to have to say this, but you are rather square. Does the word (laser) telemetry mean anything to you? And telescope? And chronometer (stopwatch would be the commonly used term)? Let me put it in a form that is easier for you to understand. Hypothetically speaking, suppose that you have a spacecraft roaming the solar system. You can direct a laser beam (pulse acrually) to a mirror on the spacecraft, which will bounce of the mirror and return back to you. And suppose that you have two telescopes on earth that can triangulate the position of your spacecraft in the solar system (that would be an independent measurement of the distance to the spacecraft). You know the distance to the spacecraft, you can measure the time passed from the moment you sent the laser pulso to the moment you beceived it back, and bingo!A bit of elementary mathematics and there is your measurement of the speed of light in the solar system.

Of couse, this is all a hypothetical scenario for you. Nevermind that the method has been in use eversince humans landed on the Moon. You just did not know about it. Nor did the Mars rovers give you any hint. Well, I would say that you need to do your research more thoroughly, before even attempting to develop a new theory/model.

Fermat:"I welcome your sparky approach."

Happy to oblige.

Thank you again Pasti.

Thank you for confirming that the speed of light is measured with instruments located here on Earth. It matters not how we do it or how far away the tools are located, with or without lasers, from the moon or otherwise. The point, which I know would never occur to you is that the final measure is made on the light, laser, or whatever as it enters the Earth enviornment. That is the key. Why do you feel compelled to be so vindictive?

I said I was retired because YOU brought it up in your first tirade- for whatever reason, hintimg that I must be retired. Possibly you meant to say retarded and that would fit your mindset much better.

My contention is not expected to be popular. The prospect is not totally without others thinking there are areas to be considered.

Finally, If sun light has a specific density in the vicinity of the Earth and that density equates to a speed of 186,281 miles per second and the density of light at all points distant from the Earth is less we may speculate that the density of light may be a factor in the observed speed of light. If this conjecture is true then light re-entering the Earths enviornment will be subjected to the Earth region density and reduce the expanded light source back to the speed of light normally measured at the Earths location.
For this reason all measurements of the speed of light will be the same even though apparently made in outer space- which they are not.

I can not prove, at this time, that I am correct in my view or my calculating why the speed of light here at Earth is measured at 186,281 miles per second but neither can you. Calling me an idiot will prove only that you are rude and not capable of objective evaluation of others views.

Jim Wood

Jim, I will answer your questions in a slightly different order.

jjw: ?Why do you feel compelled to be so vindictive?

I am not vindictive, Jim. I just gave you a taste of your own medicine, and pretty much as expected, you didn?t like it very much. And if you re-read your first post any my first reply to it, I am pretty sure that my reason for doing so will become clear. It is not your model, or theory, it is your attitude.

jjw: ?I said I was retired because YOU brought it up in your first tirade- for whatever reason, hintimg that I must be retired. Possibly you meant to say retarded and that would fit your mindset much better.?

No, I didn?t mean to say you were retarded. But let me quote your last two sentences from your first post: ?I will not be sensitive to your arguments. I am a retired lawyer and I am used to confrontations. ?. Besides a certain sad and ironic contradiction that is apparent from what you wrote, it is once again you attitude. No one cares that you are a lawyer, and no one cares that you are retired, when it comes to discussing something like your model, on this forum and in real life science. All that matters is your willingness to discuss your theory, whether someone brings you pro or con arguments. However, when you use a totally irrelevant background to offer weight to your statements in one way or another, expect to be ridiculed. Sure, that will not happen the way I did it, but then let?s ignore the form and focus on the content. The result would have been the same, but just unspoken.

As for the nickname Fermat, I just couldn?t resist it. I believe the reason is obvious.

jjw: ? Calling me an idiot will prove only that you are rude and not capable of objective evaluation of others views.?

Yes, maybe it proves that I am rude. But I am not sure which is worse: being incapable of viewing objectively other?s arguments or being unwilling to do the same. And once again I refer you to the quote above. Hope you do see my point.

And before discussing you theory, it would be nice if you actually posted it in more detail. Or post a link to your website.

jjw: ? It matters not how we do it or how far away the tools are located, with or without lasers, from the moon or otherwise. The point, which I know would never occur to you is that the final measure is made on the light, laser, or whatever as it enters the Earth environment. That is the key. Why do you feel compelled to be so vindictive?

Well, of course it does. Your contention is, in part at least, that light propagates at different speeds close to large masses. If you want to see whether light propagates at different speeds throughout the solar system you just get a space probe close to another massive object (with mass different from the Earth?s), like another planet. Then any effect due to the variation of the speed of light can be measured using this telemetry method (and it has been).
If the fact that the emission/receiving instruments are located on Earth bothers you, the same thing is done with elmg radiation emitted an received by the probe. In this configuration, the experiment is not performed on Earth, and can still determine any differences in speed of light during its propagation.

jjw: ?My contention is not expected to be popular. The prospect is not totally without others thinking there are areas to be considered.?

The issue is not popularity or public support. And as much as I agree with you that there are still isuues in science which are not clear yet, or that might need revisions and further development, I don?t believe this is an issue. If you recall, I never said that the speed of light is a constant within the entire universe. I only said that within our solar system we have observational evidence that it is. And yes, current cosmological theories are based on the idea that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe, which is a reasonable assumption. I am not going to lecture about why it is a reasonable assumption, it would take me too long. But keep in mind that it is also the simplest assumption compatible with general relativity. And if this assumption will be proven to be wrong by observational evidence, it will be recognized as such. Until then, Occam?s razor is the best way to go.
If you want to look at cosmological models with varying speed of light, go to www.arxiv.org and search for author John Moffat(t) (I don?t remember if it is a double t or not).

Jjw: ?Finally, If sun light has a specific density in the vicinity of the Earth and that density equates to a speed of 186,281 miles per second and the density of light at all points distant from the Earth is less we may speculate that the density of light may be a factor in the observed speed of light. If this conjecture is true then light re-entering the Earths enviornment will be subjected to the Earth region density and reduce the expanded light source back to the speed of light normally measured at the Earths location.For this reason all measurements of the speed of light will be the same even though apparently made in outer space- which they are not.?

First of all, you need to be more clear in your statements. What do you mean by the density of light? You seem to be saying that light can have a volumetric density as any solid body. If the latter is the case, you are already into trouble. Due to quantum effects, you cannot determine the volume/size of a photon, and hence such a quantity would be ill-defined.

Second of all, you seem to imply that due to gravitational effects, the speed of light seems to change. Well, I can only tell you that as far as we know, it is not the speed of light that changes. It?s energy changes, but its speed remains constant. And the change in energy would be responsible for red-shifts and/or blue shifts. As I said, at the scale of the solar system these are observationally confirmed facts.

Third of all, I have no idea what you mean by ?reduce the expanded light source back to the speed of light normally measured at the Earth?s location?. Be clearer. An expanded source in physics means a source which is not pointlike, but I am afraid this is not what you meant.

Fourth of all, you don?t seem to have understood the telemetry measurement concept. If your theory were correct, it does not matter whether light measured locally on Earth has the value we know. The whole point is that if the speed of light would vary from here say to Jupiter, based on your conjecture, then the time necessary for light to travel to Jupiter and back would be different from what would be expected if the speed of light were the constant measured on Earth. It?s very simple math, you can do it yourself. And such an effect has simply not been observed.

jjw: ?I can not prove, at this time, that I am correct in my view or my calculating why the speed of light here at Earth is measured at 186,281 miles per second but neither can you.?

Jim, look, the issue of locality of measurement versus the globality of the assumptions underlying the measurement is indeed a ?hot? issue in physics. You seem to be aware of that. But you have addressed it in the wrong context, and at the wrong scale. Among other things, the Doppler shift of the light reflected by other planets would have been detectable. Then there would have been anomalous Doppler shifts from nearby/other stars.
You can start asking your question only at galactic scale, at the scale of The Local Group at the very least. And indeed at that scale there is such anomalous Doppler shift, but it is associated nowadays with what is called dark matter. This info must seem to be very puny to you. In fact, it is rather massive, I just do not have enough time to review it in detail in a post.

This is an interesting forum, many people not familiar with GR and SR (general relativity and special relativity), and a hot argument with the standard theories vs. a new theory (I side with the standard).

Measuring the speed of light first came up to try to detect the ether of space. This was an old theory that says light as a wave, must have a medium to propagate in (the ether) and the medium must have some movement or else we are moving though the medium. Experiments were set up to measure the speed of light in different directions, and by using diffraction, try to cause the slower moving light to lap the faster moving light and cause a diffraction pattern. It didn't work and ether was finally given up on. Light moved at the same velocity regardless of direction.

But it didn't always move at the same speed! Change the medium to air, or water or a prism and the light slowed down. If anyone would like to win a Nobel and contribute to the understanding of light, please come up with a provable theory on the interaction of light as it passes though matter at slower speeds than in a vacuum. BTW that dose mean that light inside the sun is moving slower than in a vacuum as the sun is also matter. Depending on the new theory of the interaction of photons with matter, the flux of material outside of the sun may not be a perfect vacuum and therefore show some slowing of photons, but that would be very slight. and hopefully, that is not the explanation of the einsteinium effect that bends light around stars.

Of course matter has traveled faster than light. Put the light in a heavy oil to slow it way down and compare it with some partials in a vacuum in an accelerator, but that doesn't disprove Einstein, it is just a special case.

As to measuring the size of a photon, it is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, not quantum mechanics that we have to deal with. So we can put some upper limits on the size of a photon. It gets smaller and therefore more penetrating (less likely to react with matter) as it's energy (frequency) increases. But no it is not solid, and it is not matter. It is energy and it carries information in that energy.

Einstein created a set of mathematical laws to better explain what we observed. They do not explain everything we observe, but they were better (more accurate, and simpler) than the laws Newton gave us. So until someone else gives us something even better, we use Einstein?s SR rule set which is the same as Newton's rule set with just a tiny exception at very high velocities and gravities.

But just because we use Einstein's rule set does not mean that all extrapolations from that rule set are true. Time travel still belongs to SiFi because we still have no evidence that reverse travel in time is possible. Everything we know says it is impossible. Time is not a normal dimension like length, width or height. Please understand, you can create a set of equations that seems to fit reality, but still have discontinuities that don't work. Likewise some extrapolations from rule sets are nonsense. We acknowledge that all our rule sets simply have nothing to say about what happens inside a singularity (black hole).

The Universe is probability simpler than we make it now, because our rule set is imperfect or incomplete. But it is far better than the rule set our great grandfathers had. So don't knock it, improve it.

Sparky: "This is an interesting forum, many people not familiar with GR and SR (general relativity and special relativity)..."

Are you sure?

Sparky: "... Experiments were set up to measure the speed of light in different directions, and by using diffraction, try to cause the slower moving light to lap the faster moving light and cause a diffraction pattern. It didn't work and ether was finally given up on. Light moved at the same velocity regardless of direction."

You mean Michelson and Morley used interference. And in the case of their interferometer, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest diffraction.

Sparky: "But it didn't always move at the same speed! Change the medium to air, or water or a prism and the light slowed down."

If you treat light like a wave. But then explain the phenomenology that causes the light to slow down, and more importantly, what causes light to regain its speed when it comes out of a material medium.

Sparky: "If anyone would like to win a Nobel and contribute to the understanding of light, please come up with a provable theory on the interaction of light as it passes though matter at slower speeds than in a vacuum."

The theory exists, why don't you look it up?

Sparky: "BTW that dose mean that light inside the sun is moving slower than in a vacuum as the sun is also matter."

Sparky, the light that the Sun radiates is emitted at the surface, or more accurately in the corona, which is mainly plasma, and as such, it has a density smaller than the air. The picture of the Sun as a ball of fire is not exactly an accurate one.

Sparky: "Depending on the new theory of the interaction of photons with matter, the flux of material outside of the sun may not be a perfect vacuum and therefore show some slowing of photons, but that would be very slight. and hopefully, that is not the explanation of the einsteinium effect that bends light around stars."

It definitely is not the cause of the redshift. A rather simple calculation would tell you that if the redshift of a star were due to intergalactic matter, the density of the latter would be quite high, which is contradicting observation.

Sparky: "Of course matter has traveled faster than light. Put the light in a heavy oil to slow it way down and compare it with some partials in a vacuum in an accelerator, but that doesn't disprove Einstein, it is just a special case."

Sparky, usually when one talks about speed of light in a general context, this means the speed of light in vacuum. And your above argument fails to prove that "light can travel faster than light".

Sparky: "As to measuring the size of a photon, it is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, not quantum mechanics that we have to deal with."

And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is derived in what context? What is the name of that theory? This is a good one.

Sparky: "So we can put some upper limits on the size of a photon. It gets smaller and therefore more penetrating (less likely to react with matter) as it's energy (frequency) increases."

That would be the day. Based on what? What is your criterion? And if your answer is based on Heisenberg inequalities, think about the precision to measure frequency/wavelenght. A photon cannot be described by a D-Delta function, not even (semi)classically.

Sparky: "But no it is not solid, and it is not matter. It is energy and it carries information in that energy."

Sparky, you already don't know what you are talking about.
If you represent light as a wave of frequency \nu (I am using latex syntax) then it will be a sine or a cosine. You cannot transmit/encode information in something like that.
If you are talking about a photon, a single photon, once again, you cannot encode anything in a photon. You need more photons than one to encode information, and as for a wave, you need modulation.

Sparky: "... we use Einstein?s SR rule set which is the same as Newton's rule set with just a tiny exception at very high velocities and gravities."

OK, now you are making a fool of yourself. SR deals only with (flat) Minkowski space, and as such, gravity plays no role.And at low speeds, newtonian dynamics is recovered as an approximation of SR.

GR deals with curved spacetimes, at any velocities. Since locally any metric with lorentzian signature can be approximated by a minkovskian metric, this means that for spacetimes with small curvature, Newtonian gravity can be recoveres as an approximation of GR. This is "slightly" different than your claim.

Sparky: "Time travel still belongs to SiFi because we still have no evidence that reverse travel in time is possible."

Observationally, no. theoretically, see wormholes, or the Kruskal extension for black-holes.

Sparky: "Everything we know says it is impossible."

Not quite. See above.

Sparky: "Time is not a normal dimension like length, width or height. Please understand, you can create a set of equations that seems to fit reality, but still have discontinuities that don't work."

You do, huh? Would you be so kind as to give me an example of metric with a temporal discontinuity (besides the Big Bang or the Big Crunch solutions)?

Sparky: "Likewise some extrapolations from rule sets are nonsense. We acknowledge that all our rule sets simply have nothing to say about what happens inside a singularity (black hole)."

You are slightly off again. You can extend the theory beyond the horizon or the ergosphere of a black-hole (see again the Kruskal extension, causal structure of a black hole, etc). Wheteher these extensions are off or not,that's another story. Be mor careful in your statements.

You do seem to enjoy tearing things apart. Just one point, the sun is prevent from collapsing due to the internal pressure caused by the energy generated inside the core of the sun. Guess what this energy is sometimes called? photons. I don't do science by your rules, and thank god I am not in your class.

I see too much of this trivial correction going on. If you had worked with chaos theory you would have run up against discontinous equations. Why do you assume that you are the final authority on anything? Open your mind up, there is still lots to learn

Sparky: "You do seem to enjoy tearing things apart."

Not particlarly. But when I discuss science, I prefer to be exact.

Sparky:"Just one point, the sun is prevent from collapsing due to the internal pressure caused by the energy generated inside the core of the sun. Guess what this energy is sometimes called? photons."

Sparky, so is Earth. And while such a balance between light pressure and gravitational pressure is indeed govern the energy production mechanism in the core of stars, this does not mean that photons generated in the inner core escape to the surface, nor does it mean that by the time the nuclear cycle in the core is completed will it collapse (once again, the collapse term in astrophysics means that the star will end up being a neutronic star). Think of Earth: while it has an active inner core, it does not emmit light. It reflects the light from the Sun.

Sparky: "I don't do science by your rules, and thank god I am not in your class."

Well, it's your loss, not mine.

Sparky: "I see too much of this trivial correction going on."

And being exact is wrong because...?

Sparky:"If you had worked with chaos theory you would have run up against discontinous equations."

If by discontinuous equations you mean equations that have to be solved on discontinuous domains, then I have news for you. They are present in all domains of physics. Including GR.

Sparky:"Why do you assume that you are the final authority on anything? Open your mind up, there is still lots to learn."

I do not claim to be the final authority on anything, and I am more aware than you might know about how much is left to learn. But you made some elementary mistakes while claimimg expertise. In my book, you can't have them both. And further more, knowing more than you do in a domain is not exactly a sin. It might be uncomfortable to you, but that's your problem. As you said, "...there is still lots to learn."

I have been invited to provide a little more explanation for my views on the speed of light. This should be prefaced with my confession that I am not educated in the areas you gentlemen are and I accept the likehood that if I was I would believe the world to look exactly the same as you see it. Also I do not contend that any past theory is false or faulty. That is beyound the scope of my knowledge. If we all thought the same there would be little progress.

Light has been a source of facination for me from the very first reading I did of Newton's work. I am curious about such things which to me appear to present a mystery, possibly not. When I learned (thought I did) that there was no adaquate explanation for why light travels at the specific speed around 186,281 miles a second in a vacume, and not having the benefit of the knowledge you share with Einstien I looked for my own answers.

I use words like density to discuss light because I think they are appropriate to explain my views. Light being esentially pure energy seems to self propell throught the universe with no apparent contribution of any other energy source. That itself is a curious prospect.

My contention is that light does have a density and can be expanded or compress in the same manner that a gas is compress, except we use mirrors and 'magnifing glasses' to do it instead of pumps. We know we are compressing the light because we can observe and measure the heat produced by the effort. light leaving the sun is as dense as it will ever be and from that point onward is always less dense. This "density" will decline as the light moves througout the Solar System. This light, as I see it, can be compared to a gas being released from a container. It will continue to expand until it disapates, much the same as light diminishes with distance.

We must always keep in mind that the easpansion is sphereical. The speed of light is in part a product of the density of the light and the rate of the expansion of light. This, if correct, is a natural control of the potential speed at which the light will travel because the rate of expansion is means by which light speeds up. This would mean that light in the vicinity of Earth is clocked at 186,281 miles per second while the expanded light a Jupiter will be less dense and capable of traveling faster.

The first hurdle here is to explain why we measure light returning to us from Jupiter at the same speed we measure light passing us here at Earth. I contend that the reflected light leaving Jupiter is traveling faster as it leaves but while it travels back to Earth is is slowed and slowly compressed alond the way so as to meet us here at Earth traveling at our enviornments speed. This would apply to light originating from any source, including distant stars. This gives us a nice comfort zone and the conclusion that the light speed is fixed always.

In my book I try to provide some better thoughts on this point but this is the essence. I also try to predict the probable sped of light from the sun going out through the Solar System. At Earth my method does provide the 186,281 miles per second figure and that at the very least is a curious calculation. I am well aware of my limitations in this area of science but I am inclined to feel it may be an asset. Using my own way of doing calculations I have also made claim to discovering a mathemativcal means of predicting the mean equatorial surface velocity of a planets rotation in miles per second, an item which was a primary purpose of my hobby.

All in all I have some outlandish ideas but some of them I can prove mathematically- but not using killometers or grams to measure anything because I found that to be unproductive. Miles will seem unscientific but it works very well with time. Example: Earth at 7926.6 miles diameter divided into the sun's circumference of 2,714,342.4 equals 342.45 and the square root of that is 18.5, the miles per second of the Earths obital speed around the sun. You can do that same test with kilometers and get the same ratio result but we know 18.5 kilometers is meaningless in this workup. I unravel a lot this way. This was a product of my spare time using the data published in various textbooks by others because I observed nothing (excpet errors in the published data at times)

Thank you for your attention: My web site is:

http;//www.SurfingTheSolarSystem.com

Jim Wood

Thank you for your attention.

Well professor Patti, my memory of the Michelson and Morley experiment was from my freshman physics course 34 years ago. It was an important introduction to those wondering about the speed of light, and deserved mentioning. As to people not understanding GR and SR, read the early posts and the questions they asked. As for your understanding of GR and SR that was not questioned though you took offense when none was meant. GR and SR are very deep subjects as they require us to look at the universe in ways that seem a bit unnatural at first. I expect you have been studying it a bit longer and deeper than I.
But this thread was not meant to be a doctorial theses, it was meant to explain what is known and what is not known about the speed of light. To make it interesting, one can add in the things that seem strange (matter can travel faster than light, but only if you rig the race), and questions knowledgeable people still have about light. Think of the recent experiment where they froze light for a few seconds. This is what makes science interesting and leads to more scientists. Who would want to become a scientist if they knew they would have to face a tigeress like you every day? I am not trying to be a better scientist than you, I am just interested in science.

Hey Jim Wood, I have known people with your name before but it is a common name. Your interest in light is curious. You seem to enjoy numerology and there are lots of curious conjunctions of numbers. But most of that is probably just coincidence.

Light is one of the first things we could experiment with easily that does not seem to obey Newton?s laws, but has a set of law all it's own. Light belongs to a class called leptons, and most of what we know of matter doesn't seem to apply to these leptons.
For example we cannot seem to find any acceleration with light. It moves though air into a glass prism, and instantly is going slower. It leaves the prism and is instantly going faster. Matter has mass and inertia and can't do that. So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia. It seems to be a loose packet of energy.

If I may expand the definition to a loose packet of energy, we can change the name to a photon, and include energy levels that are above and below the energy levels of visible light. These photons seem to be constantly on the move (that is why the freezing of photons was so interesting, it may not be the photon, but the information that was frozen, discussion still ongoing).

Photons of any energy level all move at the same speed depending on the media they are moving though, but unlike sound waves, they don?t need a media to move in. Photons have a direction vector and a frequency. We use the frequency when we see different colors of light or use FM (frequency modulation) radio, or use an AM tuner. The frequency of the photon determines its energy level. As far as the curious speed of light being 186,xxx miles per second, that is just because of the way we chose the distance of a mile. Had we been more advanced, we could have measured things in terms of a parsec or 3.26 light year, or an Astronomic Unit (AU), the average distance between the earth and the sun.

The exact size of a photon is also a difficult thing to measure due to it?s nature. Think that your microwave can block the microwave photons from getting out of your oven by using a metal grid with holes in it. The photons must in some sense be larger than the holes. Increase the hole size and they can get out. The curious thing is if you leave the door cracked they will get out. They can get out though a very thin crack that is longer than their size. So they seem to be something like a waveform with height but no thickness. Think also of polarized light. Photons with their height oriented with the lenses pass though, but those turned 90 degrees are blocked. Same thing happens in your microwave, not all the energy gets though the crack, only that orientated in the right direction.

As the energy gets higher, the photons can get though smaller holes, but they get adsorbed easier. The ELF (extra low frequency) radio we use to talk to submarines has such a low frequency that it can reach submarines under water. While cosmic rays that have extremely high energy levels are quickly stopped high in the atmosphere though the collision that stops them produces all sorts of other photons (radiation).

This is just an introduction to light, there is much more to it than I could touch on. Try the http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/index.html to learn more about matter and energy. It is exciting to learn how things work. Or try http://www.physorg.com/ to learn about some of the newest research going on in the science world. We have several university professors on this website who can also add their considerable knowledge to the subject.

Jim, I apologize, I will get to your post a bit later.

Sparky:"...my memory of the Michelson and Morley experiment was from my freshman physics course 34 years ago..."

Well, you remembered the right concept at least.

Sparky: "As to people not understanding GR and SR, read the early posts and the questions they asked."

I am very well aware what the people of this forum know, I have been posting here of some five years. The was not even your claims, but mainly your attitude, the bedside manners you mentioned in another post. You came "heavy" on the topic, and trying to impress. Very likely, according to your first post, because you knew a bit more than the others, and because chances for someone to know more than you did were slim.Which, if you really want to be honest, was not fair to the others. Hence me comming even "heavier" on you.

Sparky:"As for your understanding of GR and SR that was not questioned though you took offense when none was meant."

I didn't take offense. It was just a way of telling you that you actually stumbled upon that 0.1% chance that someone knew a bit more than you did, in the context above, and your statement was rather incorrect.

Sparky: "But this thread was not meant to be a doctorial theses, it was meant to explain what is known and what is not known about the speed of light."

Well, here we agree. But unfortunately, from the very beginning, the question asked required exactly GR, and some QFT to even discuss it in a useful manner. Back of the envelpe arguments simply do not work in this case (like yours about the upper bound on the size of the photons). I am sorry that I have to say this, but they simply don't work. If you have time, you can check it by yourself.

Sparky:"To make it interesting, one can add in the things that seem strange (matter can travel faster than light, but only if you rig the race), and questions knowledgeable people still have about light."

Maybe, but a lot of the things that seem strange are in fact not. And there are a lot of misconceptions, hence the need to be exact.
As for FTL, I still don't know of any (valid) experiment that shows that. And this is not scientific bigotry. Simply there hasn't been satisfactory observational data yet to this effect.

Sparky:"Think of the recent experiment where they froze light for a few seconds. This is what makes science interesting and leads to more scientists."

Yes, I agree with you that this was a very interesting experiment, and long overdue for that matter.

Sparky: "Who would want to become a scientist if they knew they would have to face a tigeress like you every day?"

Me a tigress? Why, but I am a lamb, really.

Joking aside, you might be surprised of how often one has to face tigers, panthers, and other species in the scientific community. It is a matter of fact. When you publish, when you review, when you give a lecture, when you discuss experimental results. The form in which they object might be different, butthe end result is the same. And whoever wants to pursue science, must become aware of this, and learn to deal with it.

Sparky: "...I am just interested in science."

Me too. So discuss something more interesting.

Thank you for your observations.

Your "For example we cannot seem to find any acceleration with light. It moves though air into a glass prism, and instantly is going slower. It leaves the prism and is instantly going faster. Matter has mass and inertia and can't do that. So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia. It seems to be a loose packet of energy."

The above tends to support my views.
I contend that the expansion of light is the means by which it travels. When light passes thhrough objects like glass it appesrs to slow and while passing through your prism it will slow because the light loses the normal ability to expand. Upon exiting it quickly speeds up because it can expand and by doing so regain speed.

My view that the light at Earth position limits the speed of light compared to far away is part of the same principle. Glass has a certain density as does oil and as does the light in the area of the Earth. I suppose you could ask the question of whether light can be refracted by other light and I suggest it can. Over looking the contribution our eyes may make there is a little expierment I offer. You are in a bathroom in the daytime with one small window. Without the electric light on you still do not get a good clear cut view of the pipe and valve under the tank even though the room is well lit. It is now night time and you turn on the electric light and note you can see into the corner of the room quite clearly and better that you did with the sunlight. You question this result and in the morning with sunlight in the room you turn on the electric light but find it does not improve the view.

Crazy stuff and maybe my lights are different so you will not notice such a result.

I do not consider my efforts to be numerology but you are welcome to do so if you wish. One of my ideas work out a mathematical basis, that I contend, will give the astronomer observing the size and motion of planets, to calculate his final conclusions to see if they fit the formula using the objects mean orbital velocity, the estimated days and the objects size. If they fit the calculations, using all three ingredients the days produced will conform to the estimate.

I think you have had enough of my speculations.
I appreciate your interest very much. I am well aware of how weird and strange my comments are to educated people of science.

My book is Surfing the Solar System.
ISBN1-4208-4452-0 (sc)

Jim Wood

Jim:
Any chance you could send me a copy to review?

Jim: ??Also I do not contend that any past theory is false or faulty. That is beyond the scope of my knowledge. If we all thought the same there would be little progress.?

Well, Jim, I am sure you got intellectual satisfaction from your work over the years on this issue. But are you not curious to see if your work matches reality? Sure, it answers some questions, but are you not curious if it also matches observed phenomena, phenomena upon there is little experimental doubt?

Jim: ?My contention is that light does have a density and can be expanded or compress in the same manner that a gas is compress, except we use mirrors and 'magnifing glasses' to do it instead of pumps.?

OK, this sounds reasonable. In fact, photons can be imagined as a gas, and as such there is a density of the gas (number of photons per unit volume). However, since this is not a very good description if you have photons of different frequencies (it would require you to work with partial pressures of rather odd types), one uses something called spectral energy density, defined as number of photons per unit volume and per unit frequency.
In this description, you don?t need mirrors, or magnifying glasses to compress or expand the gas, you can treat it thermodinamically, like any ideal gas, just with a special equation of state.

Jim:?Light leaving the sun is as dense as it will ever be and from that point onward is always less dense. This "density" will decline as the light moves througout the Solar System. This light, as I see it, can be compared to a gas being released from a container. It will continue to expand until it dissipates, much the same as light diminishes with distance.?

OK, let?s assume things are the way you say

Jim: ?We must always keep in mind that the expansion is spherical. The speed of light is in part a product of the density of the light and the rate of the expansion of light.?

Well, spherical symmetry aside, you need to define what you mean in the second sentence. Density is measured (in your case) in kg/m^3, while the expansion rate (which I don?t yet understand what you mean by that) should be in something/second. Now, if you want this product to be a speed, the something must have units of m^4/kg. Which doesn?t seem to make much sense.

So, what do you understand by density of light, and what do you understand by expansion rate of light? Please define them, units and all.

Jim: ?This, if correct, is a natural control of the potential speed at which the light will travel because the rate of expansion is means by which light speeds up.?

So what you are saying is that v=CdR, where v is the speed of light, C is a dimensional constant, d is the density, and R is the expansion rate. And you say that R controls v. OK, let?s assume that. But how did you come up with this equation?

Jim: ?This would mean that light in the vicinity of Earth is clocked at 186,281 miles per second while the expanded light at Jupiter will be less dense and capable of traveling faster.?

Well, keeping the analogy with the escaping gas, as distance increases, density decreases and rate of expansion also decreases, so light should slow down at Jupiter compared to Earth. How did you come up with the opposite?

Jim: ?The first hurdle here is to explain why we measure light returning to us from Jupiter at the same speed we measure light passing us here at Earth. I contend that the reflected light leaving Jupiter is traveling faster as it leaves but while it travels back to Earth it is slowed and slowly compressed along the way so as to meet us here at Earth traveling at our environment?s speed. This would apply to light originating from any source, including distant stars. This gives us a nice comfort zone and the conclusion that the light speed is fixed always.?

Well, your hurdle is just one issue. But your explanation has generated two other questions, that did not exist before. The first is what is the speed of light when light is emitted by a source. The second and an even more important one is this: according to your model, what is the maximum speed the light can ever attain?

But if your scenario with light travelling to Jupiter and back is true, this should be observable through the telemetry measurements I was talking about earlier. In these measurements, it does not matter what the speed of light is at the point of origin/return of the pulse. Suppose that value is known. These measurements can determine if the light has traveled along its path at constant speed or if the speed along the path has varied. Any variation of the speed along the path results in a time lag or a time advance, and such a thing has simply not been observed.

Jim: ?Example: Earth at 7926.6 miles diameter divided into the sun's circumference of 2,714,342.4 equals 342.45 and the square root of that is 18.5, the miles per second of the Earth?s orbital speed around the sun. You can do that same test with kilometers and get the same ratio result but we know 18.5 kilometers is meaningless in this workup.?

Jim, the calculation doesn?t make sense dimensionally, it only makes sense as maybe a mnemotechnic rule. Dividing miles by miles you get a dimensionless number, whose square root is also a dimensionless number, that coincidentally reproduces some number associated with Earth?s orbital velocity. This is all, there is no hidden meaning. I can only hope that you did not fell into the trap of ?pyramidology? (you know, finding the golden ratio/section in the Khufu pyramid at Gizeh, Charles Piazzi Smith, etc.)

You may be interested to read the following:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon mentions an observation of superluminal particles. I have no firm opinion on the subject, but tend towards skepticism.

To Amaranth Rose. I would be pleased to send you a copy. I by luck happen to have an extra copy with me here in the desert. Please email me a mailing address at n666_up@yahoo.com.

Pasti:

You say "So, what do you understand by density of light, and what do you understand by expansion rate of light? Please define them, units and all."

It is just possible that science does not fully understand the properties of the photon. Unless we assume that the photon is capalbe of reproducing itself we must accept that the same photons that exit the suns surface are also providing the reflected light from Sedna which is estimated to be possibly 20 billion miles away from Earth. At that point in space light has traveled 215 times the Earths orbital radius and if we are talking about the same photons that left the sun they are, to my thinking more than 215 times less dense. They were expanding 3D to get there a fill up the volumne. As I recall, possibly incorrectly, density is determined by dividing volumn by weight. Light being weightless and massless(!) can not work so I equate the starting point to the measuring point in space. To me this means that light has a density relative to its point in space from the sun. You wish me to respond with formulas that fit your perceptions and I am not always able to do that but that is not the only way.

The heat produced by sun light is a reasonable demonstration of density. If there is no density level in sunlight why does distance from the sun produce less heat? You may have your own answer to this but to me the answer is self evident. There are other examples. If yuou were sitting on the suns surface (impossible) do you think you would see any reflected light at all?

If you wish to assume there are more photons per volumn close to the sun than at Sedna then that would equate to density as well.

You asked my opinion as to the maximum speed of light. That is a relative question to me because I think the source controls the speed of light it produces. Here at Earth I have suggested that light leaves the sun and quickly accelerates to the speed we measure here at Earth. it continues to speed up as it travels through the solar system. This would eventually top out at 186,624 miles a second many billions of miles out. Now this is a slow diminishing speed over long distances. This I contend would be a speed of about 186,623.59 miles per second at a distance 50,000,000,000 miles from the sun.
That is as far out as my contention.

You asked some other questions but I did not print you message and while in the reply mode I can not go back to read them unfortunately.

I recall your comment that the numerical item I listed was meaningless or some such. Possibly, but I think my hobby produced more than a happy past time for me. So much has been done by an endless number of astronomers and academics in the area of my laymans efforts it would be truly amazing to come up with anything new. While we are on the subject of light density I may as well confess that I think the slowing of light from distant sources is also the cause for the alleged red shift touted as proof pf the expanding universe, that the sun is really an oblate object as the earth and the gas giants are, that differential rotation of the sun is an illusion- and other weird stuff all part of the basic unique qualitis of light speed.

I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do think there is such a thing as Pyramid power. I think one of the failings of science is to quickly dismiss a view because it does not fit the accepted "proven' mind set. I happen to think the Great Pyramid is a remarkable object. I find no magic in it. To detour a moment I want to recite something I saw. A television name was being interviewed and was asked if he beleived in UFO's. He was surprized and embarrased as if to say yes would reduce his image. The proper question should have been "do you beleive that people see things they can not identify? Aloud yes would be heard. Ask me the right question that fits my level of expertise and I reply.

I will go back and print your last message so I can try to respond to it fully.

Jim Wood

Pasti:

As you would expect I am not good at this but your offered equation v=CdR needs would require an ingredient that accounts for the suns part in all of this. 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.

This also explains your apparent paradox of why light speeds up instead of slowing as it travels. One could look upon this as the density of the suns gravity being diminished as you travel out of the solar system. 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 sruare 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.

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. 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.
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.

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. 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 comming to us from distant objects, maybe not.
Jim Wood

Sparky: "...that does not seem to obey Newton?s laws, but has a set of law all it's own."

Sparky, it seems we are back to the scientific truth game. What you just wrote is patently untrue. Light obeys Newtons laws,semiclassically, in SR and in GR. As you noted below, with zero acceleration.

Good Grief Patti, have you never stepped outside of your lab? Light was one of the problem that lead Einstein to GR and then SR. The way it did not behave like matter is what bothered him.

Sparky:"So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia."

Patently untrue. The mass of a photon of frequency f is m=hf/c^2. And as such, it has inertia. Bending of light rays around a planet was one of the experiments that confirmed Einstein's GR. What a photon does not have is REST MASS, i.e. mass at zero speed.

Splitting hairs again are you? I was referring to mass in the Newtonian sense i.e. rest mass is implied. I am unaware of this simulated mass of a photon. Does it influence gravity; can it be counted as the dark mass we are looking for? If not then it is not mass but a simulated mass to solve inertia problems. When a laser hits a mirror and the light reverses direction, can we detect Newton?s for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? I think you might be referring to calculations on the bending of light in a gravity well as well. I have never been clear on SR on that. Does the gravity bend the light, or does the gravity bend time, which then bends the light? Chicken or egg thing I guess, but one solution does not require inertia for light.

"Think that your microwave can block the microwave photons from getting out of your oven by using a metal grid with holes in it."

Wrong. The microwave is a resonant cavity with absorbtion (absorption). The walls of the microwave and the air inside absorb the microwaves in the absence off anything inside.

The microwave is like a faraday cage with the energy being kept inside. From the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

?The door of a microwave oven has a screen built into the glass of the window. From the perspective of microwaves (with wavelengths of millimeters) this screen finishes a faraday cage formed by the oven's metal housing. Visible light, with wavelengths around half a micrometer, passes easily between the wires.?

-----------------------------------

Sparky:"The photons must in some sense be larger than the holes. Increase the hole size and they can get out. The curious thing is if you leave the door cracked they will get out. They can get out though a very thin crack that is longer than their size."

It has no bearing on the size of the photons, this is a quite childish argument, not to mention incorrect. The phenomenology is comp[letely different.

On the contrary Patti, I have used faraday cages and my instrument uses the principle to shield itself from magnetic radiation. Large doors into such cages take care to make sure there is a metal-to-metal contact between the doors and their frames so that they don?t leak. This is usually a mesh of copper wire to electrically seal the space between door and door jam. (BTW, 2% silicon steel makes a good material for Faraday cages, though it is brittle. I?m a metallurgist remember?)

Sparky: "As the energy gets higher, the photons can get though smaller holes, but they get adsorbed easier."

See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage again. Visible light being smaller does get though the holes.

Wrong again. The more energetic the photons, the lower the absorbtion (adsorption). At high energies for example, metals become transparent for photons,i.e. there is no absorption. Why do you think they use X-rays and gamma rays in airport security scanners for the luggage instead of visible light?

No Patti, I used a 200kv electrical x-ray to check castings for porosity. Indeed you crank it up to push more x-rays though up to a maximum of about 4.5 inches. It is not only a matter of power but of quantity. But if you want to send messages to subs under water, you use Elf, if you use a 800 mhz phone it has trouble getting though walls and won?t carry much further than a block with a clear path. The adsorption of energy depends on what it is going though as the electrons have preferential energy levels they like to adsorb. But the energy level has to equal or exceed the energy level for the jump to the next state. And photons close to the jump energy are very effective at being adsorbed. We fight that principle in readsorption in optical spectrometers all the time.

And oh, they use x-rays in airports because metal blocks x-rays very easily, thereby showing up as dark spots on a crt. Again it is the material that prefers to adsorb certain levels of energy as the electron levels can easily jump at x-ray energy levels. Of course it is a lot more complex than that. But each material can be opaque to frequencies it can easily adsorb.

Yes there are exceptions because it is a complex process. Neutrinos have a very small capture cross-section and get though almost everything, including this planet. It is often hard to make a blanket statement that covers every exception. But in general, higher frequencies are more frequently and easier blocked than lower ones.

Come on Patti, you see falsehoods where there are none. You search for things that are wrong, when they are right. I am an Engineer; I deal with the real world. The engineer?s motto is that theory is only good when there is a useful application. Science is my relaxation so I give scientists a break and appreciate their work.

Take care everyone, hang loose, I'm traveling this week: Quebec and Indiana...

Back to my previous post.
"I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do ___ think there is such a thing as Pyramid power."

There should be a big NOT there.
Jim Wood

It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building.

Amaranth, I checked my email and note there is no address for you so I can not send you the book. I can understand why you would not want your address bandied about so I have another suggestion for you and any one else that qualifies to get a free copy of the book for review. The publisher AuthorHouse.com, as part of my contract with them will send a free copy of the book for review to any qualified person. You and Pasti appear to be eductors so I am very confident they will be pleased to hear from you.
I would tell them myself except I do not know who you are.
Jim Wood
AurthorHouse.com
Surfing the Solar system, ISBN: 1-4208-4452-0

"It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building."

Pasti has left it only temporarily. Sorry for this, and don't take it as rudeness. It is just that while the discussion progresses,the posts become longer and also the replies. And the academic year has started too. I will get to your posts as soon as I can, hopefully by tomorrow.

And I would be intersted in reading your book too. I will try to request a copy from your publisher. However, as much as I am trying to keep an open mind to your theory, I cannot promise you a good review. I will call them as I see them. So it is only fair to leave at your latitude if you want me to review your book. If yes, please let me know and I will contact you on your private email on your website. If no, there is no problem, we can still discuss your theory.

As for your last but one post:"I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do _NOT_ think there is such a thing as Pyramid power."
I am glad you are not into pyramidology. This will make things a lot easier.

No rush, I was trying to be "funny".

I have a CPA neighbor here in the desert that I gave a copy of my book. His comment was that "there are too many numbers and I think I found an error"; that must be a first! I think he can be forced to part with it. I have lots of copies in Seal Beach and enough around here I can borrow back for replacement later that if I have a place to mail it/them I can do it with no problem.

I would never expect any thing other than straight forward opinions. I am flattered to have you check it out. If you feel it is beneath critical review then trash it. You will find my approach foriegn to the customary but hopefully logical.

My normal web site is jjw004@pcmagic.net

Sparky:?Good Grief Patti, have you never stepped outside of your lab? Light was one of the problem that lead Einstein to GR and then SR. The way it did not behave like matter is what bothered him.?

True, but the context in which Einstein considered light is completely different than what you state. And it does not mean that light did not obey Newton?s law. It?s really easy to see that it obeys it:
Newton?s law is m(d^2 x/dt^2) =a , With m=hf/c^2 (which btw is irrelevant here), c=constant (speed of light) it is straightforward to show that that the photons obey Newton?s law for a=0. So much for that.

Sparky: ?Splitting hairs again are you? I was referring to mass in the Newtonian sense i.e. rest mass is implied.?

Nope,I am not splitting hairs. And nope again, the rest mass is not implied in the Newtonian theory. Aside from the fact that the concept of rest mass is a specifically special relativistic concept, what is implied in the Newtonian theory is that the mass appearing in Newton?s law is a measure of the body?s inertia, not the mass of a body at rest.

Sparky:?I am unaware of this simulated mass of a photon.?

It is not a simulated mass, it is the real mass. Think of Einstein?s famous equation E=mc^2. The energy of a photon is E=hf, with f its frequency. Using these two equations you get exactly the expression I gave you. Don?t take it as rudeness, but this is now common knowledge in highschool, freshman year, etc. I can provide refs if you like.

Sparky:?Does it influence gravity; can it be counted as the dark mass we are looking for??

Yes, it influences gravity, and is influenced by gravity. As I said before, it was the gravitational deflection of light by a star that gave one confirmation of GR.

Sparky:?If not then it is not mass but a simulated mass to solve inertia problems. When a laser hits a mirror and the light reverses direction, can we detect Newton?s for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction??

Yes, we can detect this law. Pressure of light was discovered about two hundred years ago, and there is a nice toy you can buy for some 20 $ that uses a mirror windmill to illustrate the idea (mind you because of pure vacuum in the chamber it does the opposite thing, due to thermal effects). More recently, it is the idea of propelling a spacecraft with sails, under the influence of light pressure, I am sure you read about this.

Sparky: ?I have never been clear on SR on that. Does the gravity bend the light, or does the gravity bend time, which then bends the light? Chicken or egg thing I guess, but one solution does not require inertia for light.?

Well, gravity bends the light in SR. And in SR, time is not ?bent?. But in GR, the spacetime is bent (not time, not space but spacetime in the general case), and light goes ?straight?, though straight does not mean the same thing as a straight line. ?Straight? means the minimal distance between two spacetime points (or fancier, light moves on a geodesic) It is probably this latter context you referred to when you said that one does not require inertia for light, although this is not quite true.

Sparky:?The microwave is like a faraday cage with the energy being kept inside. From the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage?

Sparky?.Wikipedia? Then let?s take Wikipedia. First search for microwave oven, then click the link for waveguide (this is the resonant cavity). Read about this issue, and then look at the Faraday cage explanation for the microwave oven. Let me know if you had a hearty laugh. I did.

Sparky:?The door of a microwave oven has a screen built into the glass of the window. From the perspective of microwaves (with wavelengths of millimeters) this screen finishes a faraday cage formed by the oven's metal housing. Visible light, with wavelengths around half a micrometer, passes easily between the wires.?

Remember resonant cavity for microwaves/waveguide? The phenomenon you talk about is related to the frequency of the waves/photons, and unless you have discovered a relationship between frequency/wavelength/ energy of the photons and their size, it has no bearing on the latter. Remember, when it comes to quantum mechanics, back of the envelope reasoning ?ain?t working no more?.

Sparky:?On the contrary Patti, I have used faraday cages and my instrument uses the principle to shield itself from magnetic radiation. Large doors into such cages take care to make sure there is a metal-to-metal contact between the doors and their frames so that they don?t leak. This is usually a mesh of copper wire to electrically seal the space between door and door jam. (BTW, 2% silicon steel makes a good material for Faraday cages, though it is brittle. I?m a metallurgist remember?)

I know what a Faraday cage is. But at a microwave, the Faraday cage is just a fortunate ?byproduct? of the waveguide design. The fundamental part of the microwave we are talking about is the waveguide, and its role is to generate certain models of the microwaves (i.e. certain configurations of standing microwaves in the oven). And the phenomenon involved is reflection.
As far as your instrument goes, if you have the money to spare, I would recommend mumetal if you want shielding for magnetic fields. It?s skin depth is the smallest for magnetic fields.

Sparky:?See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage again. Visible light being smaller does get though the holes.?

Look again. It only tells you that visible light goes through the mesh. The size of the photon (smaller??) is your conjecture, and no matter how natural an association it might seem, it is incorrect.

Sparky:?No Patti, I used a 200kv electrical x-ray ?that principle in re-adsorption in optical spectrometers all the time. ?

And your point is??

Sparky:?And oh, they use x-rays in airports because metal blocks x-rays very easily thereby showing up as dark spots on a crt.?

It also blocks visible light. You are missing something very important.

Sparky:?Again it is the material that prefers to adsorb certain levels of energy as the electron levels can easily jump at x-ray energy levels. Of course it is a lot more complex than that. But each material can be opaque to frequencies it cannot easily adsorb.?

OK, we seem to be getting there. The reason why x-rays go through (luggage) and visible light doesn?t is this: visible light interacts strongly with materials, so strong, that in fact it might be reflected back. In other words, it has a very large scattering cross-section. In the case of x-rays, they are so energetic that not only can they go through many materials through which visible light cannot go, but it is also very poorly absorbed (compared to visible light). This means it has a small scattering and absorption cross-section. I will not debate this anymore, there are international tables giving you the cross-sections of photons through different materials as a function of their wavelength, and from IR up to x-rays (in frequency) the cross-section decreases. If you want I will look them up and give you a link.

Sparky:?Yes there are exceptions because it is a complex process. Neutrinos have a very small capture cross-section and get though almost everything, including this planet. It is often hard to make a blanket statement that covers every exception. But in general, higher frequencies are more frequently and easier blocked than lower ones.?

Let me point you first a contradiction emerging from your reasoning. According your reasoning, microwave photons are larger than visible photons (your mesh argument before). Now let?s return to your ELF, which is one argument in favor of the fact that low frequencies are easier blocked than high frequencies. Following your theory, then the size of ELF photons is much larger than the size of microwave photons while water is a ?mesh? much finer than the microwave mesh. Hence, an ELF photon should not be able to penetrate water according to your argument, while light should. See the inconsistency? So something is wrong with your explanation.
Furthermore, when you refer to higher and lower frequencies, do you refer to waves or photons? Because despite the popular version of de Broglie?s duality principle, matter behaves as a wave or as a particle not when you want it (you cannot actually use interchangeably wave with photons as you please), but when ?it? wants it. And I haven?t seen yet any absorption of a, say, ELF photon by a corresponding quantum system.

Sparky:?Come on Patti, you see falsehoods where there are none. You search for things that are wrong, when they are right.?

No, Sparky, I don?t. I just can see easier the wrong ones, when it comes to my expertise.

Sparky:?I am an Engineer; I deal with the real world.?

And I am dealing with Alice in Wonderland?

Sparky:?The engineer?s motto is that theory is only good when there is a useful application.?

I will actually forget you said that. For your sake. Nevertheless, your point is?

Sparky:?Science is my relaxation so I give scientists a break and appreciate their work.?

Sparky, I am glad that you enjoy science as a relaxation activity. But your point is? I am sorry, but I fail to see the relaxation and fulfillment you can have if you discuss science based on incorrect notions (note that I did not say incomplete, just incorrect). It would be just make believe.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by jjw004:
It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building.

Amaranth, I checked my email and note there is no address for you so I can not send you the book. I can understand why you would not want your address bandied about so I have another suggestion for you and any one else that qualifies to get a free copy of the book for review. The publisher AuthorHouse.com, as part of my contract with them will send a free copy of the book for review to any qualified person. You and Pasti appear to be eductors so I am very confident they will be pleased to hear from you.
I would tell them myself except I do not know who you are.
Jim Wood
AurthorHouse.com
Surfing the Solar system, ISBN: 1-4208-4452-0

I am not an educator, though I have taught in colleges (Physics, Chemistry, Biology). I am currently reviewing books, Science Fiction and Science Fact, under the rubric of the "Moebius Bookshelf" (savor that concept for a moment if you like) and would be happy to add your book to my list of books to review. Check your private messages. I am using a pseudonym and keeping a low profile on account of a former spouse who vowed vengeance on me and I take that seriously. All will become clear when you check your mail.

Cheers,

"Amaranth Rose"

Rose wrote:
"I am not an educator, though I have taught in colleges (Physics, Chemistry, Biology)."

Funny ... I thought that was the definition of the word.

Hi Amaranth:

I would be pleased to send you a copy. The book is as yet undiscovered so there is no money in the pot but I know that is not a criteria.
I checked emails at:
jjw004@pcmagic.net and n666_up@yahoo.com
a number of times and do not find your email.
Try again? Jim Wood

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

Jim, I sent you an email on jjw004@pcmagic.net, did you get it?

"If the speed of light proves not to be constant any more, even by a very small changeable amount, laws of physics - the theory of relativity included - will have to undergo significant changes," says Nanopoulos.

I found this article, must be from a few years back, but it might interest those so inclined.

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/01/020601-5.html

Sincerely,

It is a shame that whatever academic institution Pasti is connected to does not teach manners or social graces!!

Regards,

Blacknad.

Hi ever, well about the waves speed limit, if you see the science past, for example, about break the speed of the sound you will see in that times scientifics beleive that that't break was impossible, never, and if it was possible then all earth atmosphere go in crash and a big destructive explosion may be
About lighs speed is the same, you must think, from where in the relativity equations on what conditions you conclude that sentence about ligh speed is not break, if you see, we find a basical codition es that the SPACE DENSITY mus be Uniform, but if you change that densities surround the motion body you can break light speed
You can confirm in your house in a single experiment that barrier is breakdown seein a phenomena is more fast that the ligh speed, make the following:

1) With a antenna send a train of pulses at 7,8 Hz to the Ionosphere, that's de resonance frecuency of our natural plasma and the plasma physics stablish that pulses send at that frecuency are CAPTURED for the plasma and go across the plasma in all directions

2) Wait return the pulses, when you pulse input the Ionosphere that waves propagates following the earth sphere and go until the antipode in respect to the antenna, then reflects in the antipode that waves and return to the input point anretur to the antenna

3) Compute the time for the returned pulses

as we explain that pulses describes 1 earth circles or aprox 40000 Km, then the you can calculate the speed of that waves, in my meditions I read about 84,84 miliseconds that gives a minimun speed of 471240 Km/seg, you can repeat that medition many times in any places and get the same values

Any question my email:

gigawattgratis@123mail.cl

Bye

Do photons create friction on objects travelling in the 'vacum' of space?

To Tesla2006:

Your post may be based on information that I am not familiar with so please consider my reply with that in mind.

You say you send a signal at a frequency that is absorbed by the plasma within the ionosphere and then you time the return on the signal to obtain the speed that the signal consumed to travel from your antenna and back again. There are two things I do recognize in your post. The circumference of the Earth expressed in kilometers at 40,000 that equals about 24,854.8 miles. This suggests you are concluding that your signal is traveling around the circumference of the Earth and you see this to be very fast at 471,240 Km per second that converts to 292,814.4 miles per second. I think this restatement is consistent with your view.

My thought is that your speed is measured on an erroneous distance. I do not think your signal is traveling around the Earth and that means it must be traveling some lesser distance. The speed of light here at Earth has been measured many times and I do not conceive of the academics being that far off under any circumstances. Using your 292,814.4 miles per second divided by the actual speed of light of 186,281 miles per second you have the light traveling 1.572 times as fast as normal, Dividing your Earths circumference by 1.572 I get a probable distance from the reflecting surface of 15,811 miles distance. This is simply (24,854.8/1.572)= 15,811 miles. I do not know the angles of the signal and I do not know what there is out there that is reflecting your signals but I am quite satisfied you are not getting a proper measurement meaning the signal is not traveling around the Earth back to you- if it does you will measure it at about the speed everyone else measures it at. Try to figure out where your reflection is coming from.
jjw

Error correction:

Because your signal is making a round trip my guess is that your reflecting surface is half of the number I quoted before (15,811/2) or 7,905.5 miles. It is curiously close to the diameter of the Earth at the equator. Is it possible your signal is traveling through the Earth and back never leaving the surface? Very curious.
jjw

Hi jjw, that signal process is very easy verify, but before you must know the Plasma physics, if you don't know that, that's say the reason why the signal is captured for the plasma and get the earth curvature that practical meditions are not random, theory predicts that you can deduce that equation by using Maxwell equations in plasma structure and you can see 3 conditions in that equations, for begin, all plasma in gas state has a oscilating frecuency you can calculate with this equations and according for the input frecuency signal you will see this 3 cases:

1) If the input frecuency is less than the plasma frecuency the signal is reflected

2) if the input frecuency is greater than the plasma frecuency the signal is refracted in a angle

3) if the input frecuency is equal than the plasma frecuency the signal is captured for the plasma and follow his way

The Ionosphere has severeal layers of very densities and in consecuence many resonance frecuencys from 7,8 Hz in the more lower Heaviside layer to some MHz in the top layers
You can verify and I verify that waves follow the earth curvature using a single test, you can modulate a 7,8 Hz signal with another wave and get it an another world position and register times and follow the trayectory of the pulse, remember that waves finds in the antipode, with many people we have verify that speed of 470000 Km /seg app
About equations here is very large put them and send you for email

This single test show there is phenomena more speed that light and with theorical explanation, of course at start you send waves with a speed less than light speed but there is another waves travelling for Ionosphere, traditional EM waves you send only activate the process
This waves in scientific terms are more speed than light are called longitudinale, scalar waves or more specific, magnetodielectric waves

Thanks, bye

gigawattgratis@123mail.cl

To Tesla2006.

I have been very interested in the numbers of the Solar System and have learned some simplistic ways of getting meaningful results for the interrelationship of the sun and the planets. Because of that search on my part I tend to spot curious facts that may otherwise not be obvious.

I already explained that your measurement of the speed of light might be faulty. Possibly due to a miscalculation of where the signal is traveling or more likely how far the signal is traveling. I do not contend that you are wrong because the method you are using is not known to me.

Consider the numbers. Note that I dislike working with kilometers but will do so because you do. You measure the speed of light at 471,249 Km per second. The known speed of light at Earth has been measured by others at (186281/. 62137) 299,790.1 Km per second. Repeating the comparison I made before we find that 471,248/299,790 = 1.5719. You recite that the Earth circumference is 40,000 Km and I accept that. I noted earlier that light traveling at the normal speed through the Earths sphere and back to you would take the exact time we would expect at the normal speed. I have gone over this again and note one other curious thing. The number 1.5719 representing the amount of increase in your measured speed of light is times 2 are almost exactly the value for Pi, or 3.1438 compared to 3.14159. If I had an adequate understanding of your method I might be able to suggest a solution to this curious circumstance. I find the subject highly interesting but I cannot come up with a better idea than that the distance you use as your measure is not correct. If you have some reason to know why light would travel so much faster in the plasma and if you think I can grasp the significance please share it.
jjw

Hi jjw, yes of corse, when you register a speed of a phenomena go faster then the light speed you may thing there is a mistake, an error of calculation, that's reasonable, but the best way of test this and use all best instruments is make this meditions for yourself and verify that, scientific method use the repeat meditions in all the cases, but if you or another people only make "afirmations" without a practical medition for show that you are not doing science, when you discover a phenomena violates in apparience a physical law you can think 2 things, or there is a mistake or that's right and the only way for verify that is with experimental method
The purpose of my posting here is show there is single phenomena propagates faster than light speed and any wants verify can do it for the single steps I give, who wants prove it for himself must do it, that's the idea and the science essence
There is many other phenomena propagates more faster than 470000 Km/seg this is only one
The equations a made reference are only for explain how at resonance the waves propagates following the earth circle, for explain why there is a speed faster than light you must think in scalar waves or magnetodielectric waves and calculate his speed in a certain media using the same formula you calculate the speed of a wave in a fluid media at pressure P and density ro, the formula is V = square root ( 2 * P / ro ) , for the vacuum space ro is definited and P you calculate for the Poyting Vector of the scalar wave as in function of (H^2 + E^2 ) for the electric and magnetic components and you can compute for longitudinal waves a speed faster too far faster than light, for ionosphere plasma the ro value is more grater than in vacuum and in consecuence a speed faster than light but no bigger
The filling of all this is that, all physical law is limited for conditions,if one of that conditions is not present that laws go breaks,many phd in physics has say that all physical law in the moment of be stablish creates inmediatly an anti-law, the equations of relativity you conclude light speed is not break is only for severeals conditions, one condition is that the space density must be uniform, but if that density is not constant that result is another and you can calculate more speed
This is single, only make meditions, this meditions has been made for some people I contact of many academic level and conclude the same
I use Km in way of miles because in my country the metrics is in Kilometers for lenght

Thanks

Tesla_2006