The sun is acting as a magnet with particles in the air. The sun would rather repel these particles instead of attracting them. Objects get heated because of the bouncing of particles from the sun - skin's change of color from normal to red to dark, basic sight of organisms who encounter light always will detect it in some way. Staying in the shade will drastically reduce the heat of the sun, while standing in the light will have immediate warm effect on the skin.
For example, measuring the same with a large fire will not work if testing shade and exposure if you stand next to it. However, fire will agitate oxigen right above it which acts as oxigen repulsion, thus forcing the particles upward - practically, you can test that with a lighter: the heat above the light is always most powerful in comparison to any other side.
So, potentially, the sun could have the same effect but on all sides, thus the oxygen will react as a particle during some measurements, while the source will create a wave pattern as it currently does in other measurements. Thus, light will be constant and instant, but our measurement of light would depend on the distance from us to the source. Because we don't detect the light but the particles that bounce off of it. E.g.: The human eye and a camera's light-detection is based on particles that pass through the lense, yet they move as one (shutter speed / impulses in the optic nerve) - both wave and particles. Color changes based on the amount of particles that bounce off of an object: high density of particles - red, low density - blue, cold colors. Butterfly wings that keep an eye of a predator actually are made of colorless particles like hairs that only bounce light from them, or more accurately - the amount of oxigen particles. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=butterfly+wings+zoom&t=brave&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nisenet.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fcatalog%2FDSC_3682.JPG
Hope this helps your theory. I would be glad if you have any challenges, questions, or else on this. I like the name very much - Resistance Theory. :D
If we are momentum (form) within velocity (flow) then our choice can a) only measure reaction of light to form and b) all attempts to measure are based on suggesting an affixed point to measure from; which implies ignoring ongoing movement while doing so.
It goes flow/form causing friction; vibration; heat; light towards our sense of perception; which we then respond to by choice (need/want).
MEASURE, noun [Latin mensura, from mensus, metior, to measure] - "the whole extent or dimensions of a thing". The issue is the lack of comprehension that we each represent ONE differentiation out of ALL (the whole). ONE temporary evaluates ALL ongoing value. Question what you are measuring and why? The in-between of ONE and another ONE, and for the sustenance of ONEself. Once you comprehend the ONEness of ALL; the in-between you try to measure becomes the perceived whole.
The trick here is just like with suggested math...endless suggested problems for the same ignored solution....ONEself. What mathematical problems could choice have within balance (need/want)? What would form have to measure flow for? What does a problem represent within ALL energy but ONEs ignorance of order?
According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute constant, and modern physics is based on this assumption.
Not surprisingly, early measurements of the speed of light varied considerably, but by 1927, the measured values had converged to 299,796 kilometers per second. At the time, the leading authority on the subject concluded, “The present value of c is entirely satisfactory and can be considered more or less permanently established.”20 However, all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometers per second.21 The “best” values found by leading investigators were in impressively close agreement with each other. Some scientists suggested that the data pointed to cyclic variations in the velocity of light.22
In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again by about 20 kilometers per second and a new consensus developed around the higher value. In 1972, the embarrassing possibility of variations in c was eliminated when the speed of light was fixed by definition. In addition, in 1983 the unit of distance, the meter, was redefined in terms of light. Therefore if any further changes in the speed of light happen, we will be blind to them because the length of the meter will change with the speed of light. (The meter is now defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.) The second is also defined in terms of light: it is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of vibration of the light given off by cesium 133 atoms in a particular state of excitation (technically defined as the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state).
How can the drop in c between 1928 and 1945 be explained? This remarkable episode in the history of physics is now generally attributed to the psychology of metrologists. Brian Petley, a leading British metrologist, explained it thus:
The tendency for experiments in a given epoch to agree with one another has been described by the delicate phrase “intellectual phase locking.” Most metrologists are very conscious of the possible existence of such effects; indeed ever-helpful colleagues delight in pointing them out! Aside from the discovery of mistakes, the near completion of the experiment brings more frequent and stimulating discussion with interested colleagues and the preliminaries to writing up the work add a fresh perspective. All of these circumstances combine to prevent what was intended to be “the final result” from being so in practice, and consequently the accusation that one is most likely to stop worrying about correction when the value is closest to other results is easy to make and difficult to refute.
Existing theories of varying constants, like Paul Dirac’s, assume that the changes are small, slow and systematic. Another possibility is that the constants oscillate within fairly narrow limits, or even vary chaotically. We are used to fluctuations in the weather and in human activities: newspapers and websites routinely report changes in the weather, stock-market indices, currency exchange rates and the price of gold. Maybe the constants fluctuate too, and perhaps one day scientific periodicals will carry regular news reports on their latest values.
The implications of varying constants would be enormous. The course of nature would no longer seem blandly uniform; there would be fluctuations at the heart of physical reality. If different constants varied at different rates, these changes would create differing qualities of time.
There are no known way to reliably measure speed on light in one direction. You could reliably measure only a time-of-flight forth and back using reflection from some object. That does not mean that speed of light travelling forth has to be equal to speed of light travelling back.
I think that, just as in mathematical logic where you cannot tell from within the system whether the system has certain flaws, so physics may not be able to know from within a physical system that it may be oscillating on some grand scale. We have NO absolute references: time is variable, mass is variable according to velocity, and space or distance is variable according to mass in it (which is the same as energy within it) since gravity is proportional to mass and gravity warps space. (In other words, space shrinks when mass is in it; expanding space would be caused by 'anti-mass' in it; maybe 'dark matter' is not antimatter but antimass. A system that could create antimass would warp space. And offset gravity. Hello UAPs.)
We may know whether some local region in space is stable and unchanging, or jiggling like jelly (because it will either not distort the path of light travelling through it or it will perturb the path of light.) But we may not be able to detect that time is changing or whether a mass is stable (since any measuring system in a region of space will distort from the same causality that might be distorting mass in the region).
Gravity waves should distort time and space within their paths and if that accelerates masses then the mases should change.
TLDR: seems like nothing is completely stable and fixed and certain and absolute. Probably the 2020 election violated the laws of physics, among other things.
How about this theory?
The sun is acting as a magnet with particles in the air. The sun would rather repel these particles instead of attracting them. Objects get heated because of the bouncing of particles from the sun - skin's change of color from normal to red to dark, basic sight of organisms who encounter light always will detect it in some way. Staying in the shade will drastically reduce the heat of the sun, while standing in the light will have immediate warm effect on the skin.
For example, measuring the same with a large fire will not work if testing shade and exposure if you stand next to it. However, fire will agitate oxigen right above it which acts as oxigen repulsion, thus forcing the particles upward - practically, you can test that with a lighter: the heat above the light is always most powerful in comparison to any other side.
So, potentially, the sun could have the same effect but on all sides, thus the oxygen will react as a particle during some measurements, while the source will create a wave pattern as it currently does in other measurements. Thus, light will be constant and instant, but our measurement of light would depend on the distance from us to the source. Because we don't detect the light but the particles that bounce off of it. E.g.: The human eye and a camera's light-detection is based on particles that pass through the lense, yet they move as one (shutter speed / impulses in the optic nerve) - both wave and particles. Color changes based on the amount of particles that bounce off of an object: high density of particles - red, low density - blue, cold colors. Butterfly wings that keep an eye of a predator actually are made of colorless particles like hairs that only bounce light from them, or more accurately - the amount of oxigen particles. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=butterfly+wings+zoom&t=brave&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nisenet.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fcatalog%2FDSC_3682.JPG
Hope this helps your theory. I would be glad if you have any challenges, questions, or else on this. I like the name very much - Resistance Theory. :D
If we are momentum (form) within velocity (flow) then our choice can a) only measure reaction of light to form and b) all attempts to measure are based on suggesting an affixed point to measure from; which implies ignoring ongoing movement while doing so.
It goes flow/form causing friction; vibration; heat; light towards our sense of perception; which we then respond to by choice (need/want).
MEASURE, noun [Latin mensura, from mensus, metior, to measure] - "the whole extent or dimensions of a thing". The issue is the lack of comprehension that we each represent ONE differentiation out of ALL (the whole). ONE temporary evaluates ALL ongoing value. Question what you are measuring and why? The in-between of ONE and another ONE, and for the sustenance of ONEself. Once you comprehend the ONEness of ALL; the in-between you try to measure becomes the perceived whole.
The trick here is just like with suggested math...endless suggested problems for the same ignored solution....ONEself. What mathematical problems could choice have within balance (need/want)? What would form have to measure flow for? What does a problem represent within ALL energy but ONEs ignorance of order?
from "Science Set Free" by Rupert Sheldrake.
Put a jew on a chair, drop a shekel on the floor next to him, and see how fast he reacts.
kikeapedia i know 😒
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Time_of_flight_techniques
There are no known way to reliably measure speed on light in one direction. You could reliably measure only a time-of-flight forth and back using reflection from some object. That does not mean that speed of light travelling forth has to be equal to speed of light travelling back.
I think that, just as in mathematical logic where you cannot tell from within the system whether the system has certain flaws, so physics may not be able to know from within a physical system that it may be oscillating on some grand scale. We have NO absolute references: time is variable, mass is variable according to velocity, and space or distance is variable according to mass in it (which is the same as energy within it) since gravity is proportional to mass and gravity warps space. (In other words, space shrinks when mass is in it; expanding space would be caused by 'anti-mass' in it; maybe 'dark matter' is not antimatter but antimass. A system that could create antimass would warp space. And offset gravity. Hello UAPs.)
We may know whether some local region in space is stable and unchanging, or jiggling like jelly (because it will either not distort the path of light travelling through it or it will perturb the path of light.) But we may not be able to detect that time is changing or whether a mass is stable (since any measuring system in a region of space will distort from the same causality that might be distorting mass in the region).
Gravity waves should distort time and space within their paths and if that accelerates masses then the mases should change.
TLDR: seems like nothing is completely stable and fixed and certain and absolute. Probably the 2020 election violated the laws of physics, among other things.