> 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.
> ...
So we agree, the speed of light can change if the permeability of space changes...
>
>
> > 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.
I'm pretty sure length contraction is considered real, but as I said there is a
contraction/expansion effect that is not real at all.
>
> >
> > 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
Who's GUT? I have a GUT that you don't know of, convention lost it's GUT.
Do you have a spare 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
This is getting silly, I'm arguing with you and your using I theory I don't understand.
Here is what I stand by with respect to conventional theory:
There are two types of length alteration at high speed, the contraction/expansion one is
considered unreal, The contraction/contraction one is considered real, There are two types
of time alteration, the expansion/contraction one is considered unreal, the
contraction/contraction one is considered real.
The contraction of length and or time from one point of view can keep the speed of light
constant from one direction, but light in the other direction goes doubly overboard.
The above are arguments about conventional theory, not your theory I know nothing of.