Unzicker’s Real Physics
A detailed account how Einstein discovered his principle of equivalence, the foundation of general relativity, and why his best idea became forgotten.
Source
Einstein's Best Idea: Variable Speed of Light – The History
Similar Posts
Stephen Fry on Facebook – BBC News
Under Pressure – Mindfulness for Teens
More Random Clutches (Gears of War 4 Clutches)
44 thoughts on “Einstein's Best Idea: Variable Speed of Light – The History”
Comments are closed.
Since Einstein's General Theory is not a physically realizable theory, for which a YouTube link for your view. https://youtu.be/6S8YxnbBe-Q
Where can i find a precise from scratch VLS model explanation? There must be books about this: Derivation, implications and problems
The absolute electromagnetic field varies according to position around a large mass as well. So does the speed of light vary according to the absolute electromagnetic field or the matter?
If all go by levels like the rainbow then the light speed MUST be variable – dont you think so Unzicker?
If c is affected by gravitational fields, 1= it is irrelevant to say that the escape velocity from a black hole exceeds c, or 2= since wavelength, but not frequency is affected by the gravitational field, then wavelength becomes infinitely long, 3= the curving space around the black hole makes light go in an orbit around the hole, 4= in an infinitely strong gravitational field, c goes to zero. Please choose.
Does it simplify the mathematics of GR?
The idea of "curved" space seems highly unlikely given the empirical evidence. Dr. Dowdye from NASA gave a presentation on the Sky Scholar channel discussing how new detailed observations prove that "gravity" has no effect on the propagation of light waves beyond the atmospheric plasma limb of the sun as should be observed if Einsteins theories of relativity were correct. I believe VSL is disproved by these same observations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ixkOI4k8c
Since 1905 the psycho-physicians ( Einstein first ) lost any contact with the reality and with the reasoning.
Laphysiqueneoclassique fr
The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances. Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is.
Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is expanded where there is no matter in outer space.
This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where space is expanded in outer space where there is no matter.
So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. …!
Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing at the same time in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity.
In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter.
Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies.
Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance!
Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.
Hyperfluid time-timing->variable relative-timing ratio-rates of QM-TIME. Of course all self-defining spin-spiral condensation in/of log-antilog interference constants are variable. Including Bose-Einsteinian Condensation.
So is it like the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? Is there a way to distinguish the two someway?
einstein is not founder of variable speed of light. variable speed of light found by al haysam an egiptian at 11th century 1020 AD. speed of light is not changing through space with huge percentage. einstein was mixing the formulas its not useless. mass=energy means fuel=energy. at atomic level mass is not equal to energy. atomic strong force is potently charged on nucleus of atoms if we break the gates of strong force it pulls some amount of mass and nucleons with huge acceleration. this creates a convertible energy. none of neutrons and quarks or electrons lost. only unstable nucleus bonds are lost.
Is this variable speed of light methods easier to understand and use the GR?
The curvature of light in an accelerating reference frame is observational, not physical. Photons have no mass- they travel in a straight line in an absolute or inertial reference frame.
The tick of a clock is absolute. It occurs when every particle in the universe has a unique position and dynamic status. When you hear or observe it is physics.
The condition of a human body or physical phenomenon is absolute- It doesn’t depend on your definition of time. It depends only on physical processes, not on your observations.
The fundamental error of relativity is that observations effect physical processes.
Thank you. I never knew. I know he did not like Minkowsky's tensor gravitation. He had to be brought around to that interpretation of his original thinking.
This is not the right way to phrase Einstein's insight, the 'variable speed of light' is the variation of g_00, the time-time component of the metric tensor. It has nothing really to do with a variable speed of light, but with a variable clock-tick-rate with location, because the speed of light is a dimensional number, it can't vary. The clock-tick rate can be compared from one position to the other by taking (dimensionless) ratios of the time ticked by synchronized clocks. The geometric theory came BEFORE Entwurf, and Hibert did nothing at all for GR except guess the correct action (which is now named the Einstein Hilbert action to recognize this).
Thanks Dr. Unzicker! You may not believe but couple of years ago I thought that variable speed of light is the best way of describing light bending and GR. Even we have the term: GR lenses! Honestly I didn't know Einstein (or anyone else) had worked on it before until I saw your video…. It was exhilarating for me though….Thanks for the historical discussion. If GR was described based on VSL it would have been much much easier to grasp than the abstract geometrical GR , I hated it always…
You could add that section that's missing in the Wikipedia article!
Thanks for sharing this info! I suggest that you update the wikipedia page, you seem to be qualified for that task.
Because in a room light bends
Thank you for your careful description of the issue, very insightful and much appreciated
Many people don't seem to know that the speed of sound in a homogeneous medium is constant and independent of the source or receiver.. that is because the speed is is c=sqrt(stress/density) and these don't change. For light c=aqrt(1/permeability* permittivity) of empty space. Speed can change in sound if the medium itself moves like shouting upwind or downwind. But in light, the vacuum can't move. The only change due to motion is frequency as in the Doppler shift.
Light changes direction near to a massive body like any projectile.. that is because the formula for the change in direction as derived by Newton doesn't not involve the mass of the projectile and can thus be massless… like a feather and steel falling from the top of the Pizza tower at the same speed.. the mass cancels out in the problem.
If Wikipedia mentioned VSL in association with Einstein, I would be much more likely to dismiss VSL as quackery.
Hi
http://www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/docs/c/c_038.jpg
"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
"Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon..
Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science."
spaceandmotion
Professor, are you familiar with the work of the mathematician and philosopher Wolfgang Smith?
Great
Weaving in the historical context really brings the topic alive!
It's always good to keep an open mind. However… youtube is now recommending physics cranks selling half-truths and snake oil. The scalar theory attempt discussed developed into a theory using the scalar curvature as that is the scalar quantity you basically want. The tricky bit is the interpretation.
Eine Frage bitte: ist das Postulat der Invarianz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit nicht einfach eine andere Darstellung oder Teil der Invarianz von Naturgesetzen im Allgemeinen? Wenn die LG tatsächlich variabel im eigentlichen Sinn wäre.. würden die Maxwellschen Gesetze dann nicht auch variabel erscheinen, abhängig von Ort, Zeit und Beobachter?
I understand how VSL and GR are basically saying the same thing, so I don't really get the point, both are just hypothesizing a "why" and the "why" is thus far unknown.
It is interesting to think about in relation to a black hole; instead of an infinitely curved space time at the event horizon, you have a speed of light of 0. So rather than thinking about a singularity and a bulk of the black hole, the surface area of the black hole BECOMES the black hole, and the black hole essentially becomes a 2D structure. This falls in line better with the holographic principle. Just some thoughts…
👍🏼
Interesting how Ego, institutional politics and virtual deification of Einstein by the establishment destroys the foundation of Science and makes the past disappear (like Winston’s job in 1984 … systematically rewriting history by erasing it). And God forbid, if anyone points out all of Einstein’s “appropriations” of other people’s works and their equations.
Currently this has destroyed any research, science and careers that counter the official politically driven narrative about the pandemic (origin, treatment, vaccine)
Tesla first discovered that gravitation is not a fundamental force but rather a derived, fictitious force, just like centripetal and centrifugal forces.
If VSL implies changes in time and length scales, then what does that say about the cosmological redshift?
Consider the Twin Paradox. The twins pass each other; each one thinks the other is aging slower; but they never encounter each other, and get conflicting age measurements, unless there is acceleration or a gravity field. So how does VSL apply if gravity brings the twins together again?
Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.
I understand that the variable speed of light would be when you combine the velocity/direction of the aether with the light velocity/direction. This would allow light to travel faster or slower and provide the red shift or blue shift.
Fascinating -thank you.
I am horrified that Unzicker likes the STR.
I notice that Unzicker duznt mention the aether, nor the aetherwind.
The speed of light is constant in the aether (if not near mass).
The speed of light is c + V where V is the aetherwind, or C – V if the aetherwind is a headwind (if the observer is stationary)(ie if the observer feels that the aetherwind is 00 km/s)(ie if the observer is in the absolute aetherwind frame).
Measurements of the speed of light get complicated koz the aetherwind blowing through a clock affects the rate of ticking, & koz the aetherwind blowing through a rod affects the length of the rod.
Prof Reg Cahill deals with these issues, but Unzicker is not aware of Cahill's papers.
Cahill refers to a speed of light experiment by Torr & Kolen. And by DeWitte.
STR is krapp — & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science — but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return — it never left.
Couldn't it also be explained via matter/energy expanding and accelerating the space around it. It kind of feels like that would be a far better description as you are making equivalent the expansion of the Universe and the Energy in the universe. I am willing to be in the math's of a model like that we would start to see the issues we currently do with Dark Energy as well as the rotational velocity discrepancies we see with Dark matter because similar to how angular momentum is conserved if we pull our arms in it should also conserve as the universe expands into it making the outside of large rotating bodies spin faster than they really should. It may also explain the Muon precession issues idk. Maths aint really my thing, creativity and general science is.
[1:40] No. The slowing of light near mass (which is true)(which is Einstein's only good contribution to science) duznt mean that a light wave bends. It merely means that the nearer photons go slower.
Consider a single lone photon passing a mass, the nearer portion of the photon goes slower. This might then make the photon bend its shape, plus, it might make the photon bend its trajectory.
And we now know that light does bend when passing the Sun, hence a photon duz bend its trajectory.
But there was no good reason to assume that a light wave changes its trajectory. That there assumption was bad science.
That there assumption is that the photons making a wavefront always propagate at 90 deg to the wavefront.
It might be true, & i think that it is true, but it is an (unwritten) assumption.
PS: If the speed of light does change as it seems from the results of the calculation, this new worldview will solve many mysteries for us.
We may understand how the big bang started (please bring t aim to zero as a starting condition and see how the speed of light explodes to infinity),
And will explain the properties of cosmic background radiation more accurately than ideas from the distant past. For 35 years physicists believed that c is constant but then discovered that the early universe expanded rapidly, many times faster than light. Such cosmic "inflation" posed many problems, as no possible experiment could test it. And it required physicists to invent imaginary vacuum energy that performs large-scale repulsion with deliberate parameters, in order to achieve the universe we
Watch it today.
Yes, it's also something physicists do. They invent new forces and energies that will adapt to observations instead of changing the existing model. I will never understand their stubbornness.
If light were faster in the early universe, it would explain today's observations without repulsive energy.
Changes in the Earth's climate will also explain the "weak young sun" paradox. That according to the theories of astrophysics, life should not have evolved on Earth at all, because 3.5 billion years ago the sun was only 75% luminous compared to today. The earth was frozen and solid, and its frozen surface reflected sunlight back into space. We have also been taught that regardless of human activity, the sun will continue to warm until the earth's oceans boil.
Paleontologists found evidence for liquid water and life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. In 1996, scientists at the Johnson Space Center found signs of fossil life in a 3.5-billion-year-old Martian meteorite. Over the past 20 years spacecraft in orbit and across Mars have discovered that at the beginning of Mars' career it once contained liquid water, and even an ocean.
The sun converts its fuel into energy according to E = mc ^ 2. If billions of years ago c was higher in value, as predicted by:
GM = tc ^ 3, the sun would be shining almost exactly as it is today. It is possible that if the speed of light had not changed at the predicted rate, we would not be alive to study it.
One last note: Nothing like the repulsive "dark energy" that fills space has been observed in nature.
First and foremost, congratulations on your fantastic video! Both historically and in terms of awareness-building. Using a novel geometric notion called space-time, Einstein assumed a constant speed of c but also backed himself up, in case it did vary (following hidden variables).
Indeed, at the end of his life, Einstein said again that relativity could not exist without the Aether and that the present model needed to be revised.
However, due to the rapid development of Quantum theory, Einstein and his updated theories were pushed back, leaving him with the present model.
Because, with physicists, if it doesn't matter in terms of computation and precision, there isn't much new information you can learn about the "system."
It will be interesting to revisit my previous work, which indicated a 0.927 cm decrease in the speed of light per year using the same metric guv.
(By the way, this conclusion fits the 12 sigma anomaly of estimating the moon's distance from us to within a fraction of a standard deviation.) However, it can be accomplished using far simpler methods.
Take a sheet of paper and a pen with you, at your disposal..
Please write in the left side the energy of the mass m at rest in relation to the mass of the universe M, and you get:
E = GMm / r
Compare this energy to the energy of the rest mass m:
E = mc ^ 2
The mass m doesn't contribute (it's eliminated
On both sides)
And from recent data, we assume that:
r = ct
(According to the Hubble Law)
You have obtained a relationship between the speed of light, the mass of the universe, gravity constant and the duration t of the universe.
c = (GM / t) ^ 1/3
You are welcome. The same result in a much simpler calculation and a minimum number of assumptions.