Defining Time

[WebFeet]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

WebFeet

As a matter of fact I have argued long and hard for the idea that perhaps gravity DOES reduce the speed of light. It works out just as well as arguing that it warps space, and it is a lot easier to understand.

The argument goes this way.

1) it would account for gravitational lensing.

2) The kinetic energy gained when an object falls into a gravitational well is balanced by loss of potential energy. It starts with the energy of its mass as E=MC2. Inside the gravitational field C is reduced, so the potential energy associated with the objects mass is also reduced. The maths works if one of the two C's in that equation is the local speed of light.

3) It accounts for gravitational time dilation. Dilate C and time must follow.

Your theory still depends on the bending of spacetime in a gravitational well.

Here's a big what if for you.

What if the speed of light is in fact infinite ? That energy can travel between two points instantly.
Before this thread gets inundated with post stated that the speed of light is a known constant, let me explain.

I started this thread describing how Time can be defined by using permeability and permittivity as in Maxwell's equations.
If energy could travel instantly from one side of a region of space to the other, its permeability would be absolute along with its permittivity.
Now add a bit of energy into that region. Its permeability is no longer absolute. Any energy travelling through the region would encounter the other energy.

The more energy that is present in a specific region, the more its permeability is reduced.

Let's use einstein's E=MC2 and substited C2 with Maxwell's equation for the speed of light to give us

E = M / µ οε ο

The amount of energy in any given mass is directly related to the permeability and permittivity of free space.
If we use a volume of free space for the mass, then the amount of energy contained in that volume will increase if there is a reduction in permeability or permittivity.

We accept that within the field of a gravitational well, distances are compressed. THis is explained as the bending/warping of spacetime due to the gravitational well.

The same effects can be demonstrated with the above.

To maintain the same amount of energy when we have any reduction in mass (or volume) the permeability/permittivity of free space has to have been reduced. Whatever is inside the volume has effectively been compressed.
Light will still take the same amount of time to travel from one side of the volume to the other.
The gravity well is a region of free space with a lower permeability than that surrounding it. Essentially, it just a bit more compressed.

And because we can define Time in terms of the properties of free space, light will always appear to be travelling at the same velocity.

[WebFeet]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Your mention of permiability brings to mind the area of math called "Percolation Theory". In this field one investigates the spread of phenomena; ie. forest fires or oil deposits, through a medium(a forest or a rock formation). Since you have described a situation in which it appears light is percolating through a medium, perhaps some of the equations from this area may serve to model light as well.

Thanks for the pointer.
On first inspection, it would appear that there may some mileage in using percolation.

[BlameTheEx]

Originally Posted by WebFeet

We accept that within the field of a gravitational well, distances are compressed.

No I don't.

A gravitational well acts as an optical lens. That much is well tested. I have been arguing that 2 causes are possible ETHER distances are compressed OR C is reduced. Ether way you get your lens.

The evidence holds up as well for gravity warping C as it does for warping space. If C is warped, space isn't. ALL the effects attributed to space warp have to be reassigned to reduced C.

[WebFeet]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

No I don't.

A gravitational well acts as an optical lens. That much is well tested. I have been arguing that 2 causes are possible ETHER distances are compressed OR C is reduced. Ether way you get your lens.

The evidence holds up as well for gravity warping C as it does for warping space. If C is warped, space isn't. ALL the effects attributed to space warp have to be reassigned to reduced C.

I used the example of distances being compressed in a gravity field by way of generally accepted theory.

It may be that in what you are saying, both things are true. C is reduced and distances are compressed.

Using the example of a volume of free space.
If the permeability of the volume where halved, then it is true that light would take twice as long to traverse the volume of free space. So the apparent speed of light would have halved.
Since time can be defined by the permeability of free space, the amount of time taken for the light to cross the volume would also have halved.
The net result is that it would appear that the speed of light has remained constant.

In truth, the light has taken longer to travel through the region of free space, but since every measurement is dependant on the permeability of that region, our preception of what has happened would be that the speed of light has remained constant.