Re: Speed of Light?

Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:25:36 -0500

John Berry wrote:
>
> Warren York wrote:
>
> > John Berry wrote:
> > > the speed of light in a vacuum varies quite a bit, This was evident in the one
> > > mile long vacuum tube experiment which showed seasonal variation.
> > ========================================================================
....
> I don't understand what your talking about, It seems quite clear, the time it takes
> light to go from one point to another varies in a vacuum, light is hence not constant,
> This happens because light travel at a constant speed only thought a constant
> permeability.
> >
> > ========================================================================
Warren writes:
Then what you are talking about is not the speed of light being
constant but the changes in the media it is moving through.

Quote: "This happens because light travel at a constant speed only
thought a constant permeability".

The speed of light is again based on a reference. Now if you choose
your vacuum tube a mile long again you must remove all outside
influences that might in some manner cause light to vary. Even the
tube itself may cause the phenomena and not the light. If the light
still varies then there must be something about the nature of light
we do not know. I don't feel nature plays with dice either. Ask again
if you still do not understand the point I am trying to make. I'm not
putting you down, I am only trying to say you have not given us enough
information to explain the actions you have reported.
....

> You lost me there, The faster you go the slower time passes, that fixes things on one
> direction but leaves a big problem in the other direction...
======================================================================
Warren writes:
Remember you are talking about relativity. It only seems due to
reference
points viewed from. In actuality there is no physical change to length
except a slight compression due to acceleration of the mass itself and
that is addressed in Newton's laws.
>
> As for length contraction that only does the same thing.
======================================================================
Warren writes:
I don't recall any physical contraction taking place. Again, the
virtual contraction is due to where it is viewed from.
>
> There are two kinds of length and time variation, one type of length alteration is not
> considered real, it makes something coming at you seem longer and going away seem
> shorter, this works in the wrong was for things to come right, when things come at you
> time runs faster, and going away seems slower, also not in agreement with relativity,
> just makes things worse.
======================================================================
Warren writes:
But it IS in agreement with relativity. I just stated above about
virtual
contraction. Now you are trying to talk about TIME and CONTRACTIONS in
the same breath. Not the same apples and oranges. You really need to
take a deeper look at just what TIME is. You can not use TIME as you
are doing. If you already know all there is about TIME please let me
in on it. I have been looking at it for over 9 years now and I am still
learning new things. It is the bugger in the soup. QM shows this.

>
> Both length and time contraction makes things shorter when going away or towards, it
> corrects the speed of light in one direction and makes it doubly bad in the other
> direction.
>
> John Berry
>
========================================================================
Warren writes:
Again, not true. The dictionary does not supply a good enough definition
of TIME yet to be able to tell which one is the apple and which is the
orange. This is what I have been trying to do. I have found TIME to be
an engineerable element of LIGHT. This is why I say our GUT is based
on light. You will have to understand my concept before you can say you
understand TIME. Nobody yet as far as I know has attempted to grasp the
concept. I have had little or no questions asked that tells me anybody
has considered it yet. Once you see what is hidden and matches up to
what has been learned, a little light should come on in your head and
it should remain on or CONSTANT as they say. I am in agreement with
E=MC^2. All we have done is expand upon it to show what TIME and GRAVITY
are and there relationship. Everything can be found in the one computer
graphic of our YGEM at:
http:personal.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/YGEM.htm
The photograph of the same formation shows the dynamics of the fields
found at the same site. Just click on return at the bottom of the
graph of the YGEM. You will find the magnetic or Dipole pattern and
the gravity or Quadrupole pattern. The hopf ellipse pattern is the TIME
field and NOBODY has even asked how can that be TIME? The length of
that line is the distance of the speed of light. Notice I did not say
just the speed of light. To engineer TIME you must be able to alter
that distance while the speed of light remains constant. Strange
things start happening when you start to change the line and I am not
talking just virtual things. Talk is cheep. Investigation is exciting.
Warren