Is the Speed of Light variable?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state "All completely incorrect" without providing any explanation.

It is abundantly clear from my proposition that I assume light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. How have you interpreted this to be otherwise? 

Because your very first post concluded with: 

On 4/5/2020 at 12:57 PM, jamesfairclear said:

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured ... as travelling at a speed less than c.

So either light propagates at c or it doesn't. You need to decide which it is.

And, no you cannot redefine the word "speed" to say that "light propagates at c but its speed is less than c". That is like saying: "I love chocolate, you know those long orange root vegetables."

You need to come up with a new word for this quantity that you are defining. 

Call it "bogospeed" perhaps.

Or, just maybe, why not use the existing technical term for this concept: "power"

[Ghideon]

14 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state "All completely incorrect" without providing any explanation.

Ok. I've got plenty of explanations by reading the posts by other members. And their arguments hold when checked against, for instance, physics text books. 

14 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

It is abundantly clear from my proposition that I assume light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. How have you interpreted this to be otherwise? 

This:

15 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

I am indeed proposing a small change to the definition of speed.

And your descriptions and analogies implies you do not agree with light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. And your name of the thread. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Ghideon
spelling

[jamesfairclear]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Your proposal is not working, for many reasons already stated. Here is an attempt at posting some hints regarding "definition" in case you are open for learning.

Note: bold by me

What is your new definition of speed? How does your new definition affect the measurement in first equation in the quote above? Are you trying to use two different definitions of speed at the same time, the standard definition and your own new definition?  

Your math is not just incompatible with physics of light and speed of light, it is incompatible with the concept of speed as stated by you. You need to tell the new definition of speed before incorporating it into an explanation of speed of light. 

 

Measured speed of light over distance D for time T1 = D/T1 = c (Based on the usual definition of speed d/t)

Adjusted speed of light  = D/(T1+t) < c (This is the proposed adjustment to the value obtained by d/t)

You state "You need to tell the new definition of speed before incorporating it into an explanation of speed of light. " . I have been stating and re-stating this until I am blue in the face 😨

My proposition is an alternative approach to measuring light speed more accurately by making adjustments to the value obtained from d/t in order to account for discrepancies in rates of energy transfer between source and destination in the special case where there is relative motion between source and destination. You take the standard (first past the post) definition of speed and then make an adjustment to account for the discrepancy between the rate of energy emitted and the rate of energy received. 

 

You state "Your math is not just incompatible with physics of light and speed of light". This is a very generalised statement. Please can you be more specific.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because your very first post concluded with: 

So either light propagates at c or it doesn't. You need to decide which it is.

And, no you cannot redefine the word "speed" to say that "light propagates at c but its speed is less than c". That is like saying: "I love chocolate, you know those long orange root vegetables."

You need to come up with a new word for this quantity that you are defining. 

Call it "bogospeed" perhaps.

Or, just maybe, why not use the existing technical term for this concept: "power"

You state "Because your very first post concluded with: 

So either light propagates at c or it doesn't."  NO IT DIDN'T

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Measured speed of light over distance D for time T1 = D/T1 = c (Based on the usual definition of speed d/t)

Adjusted speed of light  = D/(T1+t) < c (This is the proposed adjustment to the value obtained by d/t)

The velocity* of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference and is a function of time. You do not have one frame of reference. You put the label "speed" on something that is not a "speed". 

 

11 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

I have been stating and re-stating this until I am blue in the face 😨

Enthusiasm about physics is a good thing! 👍 I wonder what your posts would look like if you spent some energy on learning instead of repeating?

 

*) speed in this case is fine since there is no change in direction.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Ghideon

[jamesfairclear]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The velocity* of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference and is a function of time. You do not have one frame of reference. You put the label "speed" on something that is not a "speed". 

 

*) speed in this case is fine since there is no change in direction.

 

My expression implicitly factors in the 2 frames of reference.

With a receding light source and measuring a given quantity of light energy E emitted over a time T the distance D implicitly represents a known range of distances D1 to D2 that can be factored into the calculation with the same values at both source and destination thus effectively cancelling out to a simpler expression D.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Adjusted speed of light  = D/(T1+t) < c (This is the proposed adjustment to the value obtained by d/t)

You have included the extra time (+t) but you have not included the extra distance (+d). I am assuming you have never studied calculus?

17 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

My proposition is an alternative approach to measuring light speed more accurately

It is not "more accurate" because it give the wrong result. And disagrees with fundamental physics.

How do you ensure the invariance of the speed of light with this approach?

19 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state "Because your very first post concluded with: 

So either light propagates at c or it doesn't."  NO IT DIDN'T

I quoted your post. Are you saying you didn't write that? That some went in and changed your words? Your entire thesis has been about changing the speed of light. You can't now claim that you don't want to change the speed of light.

20 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You take the standard (first past the post) definition of speed and then make an adjustment to account for the discrepancy between the rate of energy emitted and the rate of energy received.

RATE OF ENERGY IS NOT SPEED. IT IS POWER

Just now, jamesfairclear said:

My expression implicitly factors in the 2 frames of reference.

Wrongly.

[jamesfairclear]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have included the extra time (+t) but you have not included the extra distance (+d). I am assuming you have never studied calculus?

It is not "more accurate" because it give the wrong result. And disagrees with fundamental physics.

How do you ensure the invariance of the speed of light with this approach?

I quoted your post. Are you saying you didn't write that? That some went in and changed your words? Your entire thesis has been about changing the speed of light. You can't now claim that you don't want to change the speed of light.

RATE OF ENERGY IS NOT SPEED. IT IS POWER

Wrongly.

This is my first post and as you can see it does not contain the expression "So either light propagates at c or it doesn't"

Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c?

 Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed c – v but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being detected at the destination.

The difference between light detected from a stationary source and light detected from a receding source is that the latter is red shifted which means that its wavelength has increased and consequently that it is less energetic. But what does that really mean?

One can visualise it as follows:

A Quanta of light  (Photon) is released from moving light source. The next quanta (Photon) is released at a distance d from the first. Thus a relatively stationary observer will observe a greater distance between each quanta than an observer in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving light source; this is manifested as an increase in wavelength or decrease in frequency.

If the wave from a stationary light source has a length L then the wave from a moving light source has a length L + n.

If we consider that the full energy of the photon only arrives at the crest of the wave then the amount of energy arriving per second from the moving light source is less than that from the stationary light source.

It takes longer for a FULL quanta of light to reach a point A where the light source is moving in a direction away from A than light from a relatively stationary source.

Although energy from each quanta of light will arrive in a continuous stream as its waveform unfolds it cannot accurately be said to have arrived until the whole packet of energy has been absorbed at the destination point. As an analogy a locomotive leaves station A and collects one mile of carriages in front of it on its way to station B. The first carriage being pushed by the locomotive may arrive at a station B at 09:00 but the locomotive doesn’t arrive until 09:03.

The speed of each quanta should be more accurately calculated as distance/time where time is the interval between the FULL quanta being discharged at source and the FULL quanta being fully absorbed at the destination. As its wavelength increases there can be a considerable interval between the arrival of the front of the wave and the back of the wave.

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured in terms of the quantity of energy transmitted and received per second as travelling at a speed less than c.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Because your very first post concluded with: 

So either light propagates at c or it doesn't. You need to decide which it is.

And, no you cannot redefine the word "speed" to say that "light propagates at c but its speed is less than c". That is like saying: "I love chocolate, you know those long orange root vegetables."

You need to come up with a new word for this quantity that you are defining. 

Call it "bogospeed" perhaps.

Or, just maybe, why not use the existing technical term for this concept: "power"

There seems to be some cross wires here. Please can you state in your own words your understanding of my proposition.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

This is my first post and as you can see it does not contain the expression "So either light propagates at c or it doesn't"

That wasn't a quote from you, that was my comment on what you said (in the bit quoted immediately above). As a clue, things that are quoting you are in boxes with your name one. Sheesh.

 

So, I repeat, you said:

On 4/5/2020 at 12:57 PM, jamesfairclear said:

In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured ... as travelling at a speed less than c.

 

OK. This is me speaking again now. The bit above is quoted from you.

My comment on the above is: You started out saying that light travels at "speed less than c" (see the quote above).

So you cannot now say (note, tricky bit here: another quote from you) 

1 hour ago, jamesfairclear said:

It is abundantly clear from my proposition that I assume light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. How have you interpreted this to be otherwise? 

 

OK. Now back to me speaking again: You cannot both claim that the speed of light is less than c but also claim that light travels at c. This is contradictory.

 

So, apart from demonstrating that you cannot read, all you have done is ignored the substantial points in my post (and every other attempted explanation by others). And then simply repeated your erroneous assertions.

I will suggest that this thread is closed as you are clearly unwilling to learn. And unable to justify your claims with evidence (obviously, because they are wrong).

[swansont]

10 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

What questions do you have about this analogy?

Why does the photon "expand" while it's traveling, rather than just being emitted at a longer wavelength? Why does the photon take longer to be absorbed? Does it take longer for an atom to absorb a photon from a receding source, than from a stationary one, with the photons at the same frequency in the absorber’s frame?

13 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Quantitatively there is less energy per second arriving at the destination from a receding light source than light from a relatively stationary light source.

 Energy emitted per second = E

 Energy received per second = (E – e)

 Energy discrepancy e received in t seconds.

 Energy emitted in T seconds = ET

 Energy received in T seconds = (E – e) x (T)

 Energy received in (T + t) seconds = ET

 Measured speed of light over distance D for time T1 = D/T1 = c

 Adjusted speed of light  = D/(T1+t) < c

What if we just measure one photon? Your definition depends on there being many photons to measure. As Strange has noted, this is power.

Can you derive the Doppler formula from your conjecture? Which definition of v appears in it?

 

[studiot]

I am reporting responses for blatant promotion of falsehoods, to whit the denial (3 times like St Peter) that the opening post contained the circled words in my screenshot.

Also for failure to answer valid technical questions about other presented material.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, jamesfairclear said:

My expression implicitly factors in the 2 frames of reference.

With a receding light source and measuring a given quantity of light energy E emitted over a time T the distance D implicitly represents a known range of distances D1 to D2 that can be factored into the calculation with the same values at both source and destination thus effectively cancelling out to a simpler expression D.

The "implicit factoring" is incorrect. I cannot help you repair your equations; there nothing working to build upon. The equations are incorrect beyond repair and needs to be replaced, preferably with mainstream equations available for this kind of physics.

If you wish to learn about physics and the proper equations to be used you can start a thread in the mainstream sections, questions posted there usually gets good responses from members with knowledge. 

By the way, Markus' had compact way of telling you how you proposal is utterly wrong. I do not see any response from you.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Ghideon
formating

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state "All completely incorrect" without providing any explanation.

It is abundantly clear from my proposition that I assume light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. How have you interpreted this to be otherwise? 

Really then why would you assume redshift affects the speed of light ?

Redshift directly affects the wavelength which also affects the frequency.

You cannot state redshift causes light to propogate at less than c while stating all frequencies of light propogate at c.

If you agree with what you stated in your quote which is correct then you cannot claim redshift or blueshift affects the speed of light.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

I have been stating and re-stating this until I am blue in the face 😨

!

Moderator Note

And it's clear you aren't listening to any of the refutations of your idea. What you're doing is preaching, not discussing science. 

You have an idea that makes sense to you, but you've been shown over FOUR PAGES that there are inconsistencies with it, problems it causes that interfere with the definitions everyone else uses, but you didn't find intuitive. You aren't going to learn much in discussion if all you do is repeat yourself and soapbox ideas that others are trying to show you don't work. This is a science discussion forum. 

You need to learn to take criticism on board, and recognize when a more reasoned approach is necessary. Please don't spam any mainstream discussions with your pet idea about light. And since you're unable to support this topic, please don't start any more threads on it. Thread closed.