At Rest with our Hubble view

[Grumpy]

The speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same in all frames and FROM all frames. If a spacecraft passes an observer at relativistic speed with a beacon flashing inside his cabin that can also be seen by the observer, both the observer and the passenger would measure the speed of the light from that beacon the same. The observer would see the flashes coming faster or slower(time dilation due to speed)and the light would be shifted(toward blue while approaching, then the correct color as it went by and red as it receded. The Doppler effect). The passenger would see no such shift in frequencyIn all cases all parties would measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same. Period. This is one of the most tested LAWS of our Universe, nobody will be making a dent in that fact.

Farsight

Your "bouncing ball" diagrams are demonstrating frequency change, not speed change. In your diagrams motion is vertical and does not vary, while the frequency is horizontal, slowing with gravity, varying with Doppler as well.

Grumpy

 

[quantum_wave]

In my so called model, where there is space, there is gravitational energy. The energy density of the space is governed by the proximity of the observer to the net sources of gravitational energy, and to the motion of the observer relative to those sources; those two factors make up the relative energy density of the space occupied by the observer. Determining the energy density of the space in which an observer would be making his measurements of the speed of light requires knowledge of both the gravitational energy of that space (measured by a free falling body in that space), and the motion relative to the free falling body in that space (the other component of relative gravitational wave energy density). Further, the relative gravitational energy density affects the rate at which particles function, and thus, clocks slow down or speed up depending on particulars of the two determinants of relative energy density.

(28803 tot. views)

 

[Cheezle]

In my so called model, where there is space, there is gravitational energy. The energy density of the space is governed by the proximity of the observer to the net sources of gravitational energy, and to the motion of the observer relative to those sources; those two factors make up the relative energy density of the space occupied by the observer. Determining the energy density of the space in which an observer would be making his measurements of the speed of light requires knowledge of both the gravitational energy of that space (measured by a free falling body in that space), and the motion relative to the free falling body in that space (the other component of relative gravitational wave energy density). Further, the relative gravitational energy density affects the rate at which particles function, and thus, clocks slow down or speed up depending on particulars of the two determinants of relative energy density.

(28803 tot. views)

Oh come on QW, that is not your hypothesis or your model. What you said here is a hopeful extrapolation of your hypothesis and model, with all the scientifically acceptable terms but still vague enough so that readers here will be convinced you have some valid point to make. It is not really what you said here that is interesting but what you did not say here. Nowhere have you showed that your hypothesis / model can be shown to have these features, or any other features that describe our universe. And yes, we all know you are not here in the Physics and Math section DOING science. It is just your so called model and your so called hypothesis.

I would challenge you to state clearly in one paragraph just what your hypothesis is. We know your hypothesis is sometimes called by you as Quantum Wave Cosmology. You have this website that is perhaps the most comprehensive (if that word can be used to to describe such a monstrosity).
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/
And here are some diagrams you have created to describe some of the points.
http://s399.photobucket.com/user/quantum_wave/library/
(Be sure to not miss the QWC 101 directory)
And you should be quick in your work on your theory because there is a similar theory that I found. It is called Quantum Wave Theory and has a striking similarity to your Quantum Wave Cosmology. You can view it here.
http://quantumwavetheory.wordpress.com/
It is similar (and vague) enough that I thought at first it might have been just another version of your theory you left laying around the web. It is certainly just as goofy as yours is.

 

[brucep]

To back up what Undefined said:

I'm afraid the speed of light isn't constant. I'd hoped that posters here would have appreciated this by now. The locally-measured speed of light is always the same because you use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, which you then use to measure the motion of light. So "the speed of light is constant" is a fallacy based upon a tautology, and rather ignores what everybody knows: the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame such as a gravitational field. We see this in action in the NIST optical clocks which lose synchronisation when separated by a mere 30cm height difference. The lower clock runs slower. Note that they're optical clocks, and that gedanken parallel-mirror light clocks will demonstrate the same effect: View attachment 6419. Look at the two light pulses. They aren't going at the same speed.

Hope all you want. I'm afraid you're full of crap farsight. The local coordinate speed of light is the invariant c.

dr/dt=1. The local coordinate speed of light. This means whenever you measure the speed of light in your local proper frame [IE where you measured it] the local coordinate speed of light is c. A constant. An invariant. The remote coordinate speed of light is frame dependent and not required to be c.

dr/dt=1-2M/r The radial remote coordinate speed of light is frame dependent. Tell us what it is at r=2M when measured from remote coordinates.

You just refuse to learn the physics and keep making the dumb mistakes infinite in extent. You might consider putting a cork in the stream of misinformation flowing from your keyboard. Useless troll.

Cut the nonsense about what you think Einstein said. What I wrote down is what Einstein's theory predicts. That's what he SAID.

 

[brucep]

Oh come on QW, that is not your hypothesis or your model. What you said here is a hopeful extrapolation of your hypothesis and model, with all the scientifically acceptable terms but still vague enough so that readers here will be convinced you have some valid point to make. It is not really what you said here that is interesting but what you did not say here. Nowhere have you showed that your hypothesis / model can be shown to have these features, or any other features that describe our universe. And yes, we all know you are not here in the Physics and Math section DOING science. It is just your so called model and your so called hypothesis.

I would challenge you to state clearly in one paragraph just what your hypothesis is. We know your hypothesis is sometimes called by you as Quantum Wave Cosmology. You have this website that is perhaps the most comprehensive (if that word can be used to to describe such a monstrosity).
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/
And here are some diagrams you have created to describe some of the points.
http://s399.photobucket.com/user/quantum_wave/library/
(Be sure to not miss the QWC 101 directory)
And you should be quick in your work on your theory because there is a similar theory that I found. It is called Quantum Wave Theory and has a striking similarity to your Quantum Wave Cosmology. You can view it here.
http://quantumwavetheory.wordpress.com/
It is similar (and vague) enough that I thought at first it might have been just another version of your theory you left laying around the web. It is certainly just as goofy as yours is.

It's so pathetic. It predicts our universe is eternal. So it predicts the CMBR doesn't really exist as the natural phenomena we've evaluated with the WMAP and Planck experimental model. It predicts everything science has learned about the evolution of our universe is bullshit because it doesn't fit Amy and John's world view.

Oops Amy and John are responsible for Quantum Wave Theory. Further Quantum Wave bullshit.

 

[brucep]

The speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same in all frames and FROM all frames. If a spacecraft passes an observer at relativistic speed with a beacon flashing inside his cabin that can also be seen by the observer, both the observer and the passenger would measure the speed of the light from that beacon the same. The observer would see the flashes coming faster or slower(time dilation due to speed)and the light would be shifted(toward blue while approaching, then the correct color as it went by and red as it receded. The Doppler effect). The passenger would see no such shift in frequencyIn all cases all parties would measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same. Period. This is one of the most tested LAWS of our Universe, nobody will be making a dent in that fact.

Farsight

Your "bouncing ball" diagrams are demonstrating frequency change, not speed change. In your diagrams motion is vertical and does not vary, while the frequency is horizontal, slowing with gravity, varying with Doppler as well.

Grumpy

His gif is irrelevant since it doesn't describe the natural phenomena Farsight thinks it does. My six year old granddaughter has a better understanding of Einstein's theoretical model than he does. She gets what invariant means and what frame dependent means. She gets that any measurement she makes in the local proper frame of her school is invariant. She gets that the measurement is invariant regardless which school she makes the measurement at. That means she knows the difference between local frame measurements and remote frame measurements and which are invariant and which are frame dependent. Pretty smart kid. Cranks are always dumber than first graders since they refuse to acknowledge anything that conflicts with their world view.

 

[Undefined]

...whenever you measure the speed of light in your local proper frame [IE where you measured it] the local coordinate speed of light is c. A constant. An invariant. The remote coordinate speed of light is frame dependent and not required to be c. ...

Hi brucep. I have bolded the words which illustrate precisely the source of the problem; ie: falsely attributing 'effective equivalence' to 'constant' and 'invariant' in this area.

What seems to keep escaping the notice of certain learned members is that there is a subtle but important difference between the two:

- The 'c' as an 'invariant across frames' is actually a propotionate value calculated using a relative "t" value (relative "t" confirmed by Aqueous Id earlier). Ie, the speed of light must vary in order for the proportionate calculation to always produce the 'same' dependent resultant 'value' of 'c' (so the speed of light must not be the same 'absolute magnitude' across frames, else the resultant would vary commensurate with the "relative t" factor used for calculating/measuring that speed);

whereas

- The 'c' as a 'constant per se' is actually an assumed value for light speed according to SR postulates/hypothesis, not an apriori factual value in each frame. It is not until one calculates the speed of light for each frame, using the "relative t", that one can say anything about the "measured c value' as opposed to the 'assumed c value'.


When taken as calculated across frames, the fact that relative t is used to make all calculations purporting to "measure light speed in a frame", it is clear that light speed 'c' symbol stands for the invariant proportionate calculated value, and not some 'postulated/hypothesized constant absolute magnitude value.


If once you and certain others can get past the mistaken impression that there is a conceptual and/or effectual "equivalence" between the terms 'constant' and 'invariance' in this context, then it will become clear that all assumptions about speed of light must be dropped in preference for the fact that a "relative t" logically and mathematically implies that speed of light must be an variable in order to give 'invariance' across frames. The only case where one can say with empirically supported certainty that 'c' is 'constant at all times', is in a particular frame where 'all times' are based on the same proper "t" which does not vary within that frame (but does vary across frames).

Less insults and prejudice, and more attention to subtle but important differences in contextual meanings, would help to minimize the antagonistic tones brought to discussion because of 'personal past baggage' etc.

Good luck with your continuing discussions here and elsewhere, brucep, q_w, Farsight, Aqueous Id, Tach, Motor Daddy, CptBork, Grumpy and everyone! Enjoy life and discourse without rancour. It's the best hope for humanity and science into the future! Bye for now.

 

[Tach]

.

What seems to keep escaping the notice of certain learned members is that there is a subtle but important difference between the two:

- The 'c' as an 'invariant across frames' is actually a propotionate value calculated using a relative "t" value (relative "t" confirmed by Aqueous Id earlier). Ie, the speed of light must vary in order for the proportionate calculation to always produce the 'same' dependent resultant 'value' of 'c' (so the speed of light must not be the same 'absolute magnitude' across frames, else the resultant would vary commensurate with the "relative t" factor used for calculating/measuring that speed);

Nonsense, you just keep repeating the same crank ideas, even after it has been proven to you that your statements are crank.

 

[Cheezle]

It's so pathetic. It predicts our universe is eternal. So it predicts the CMBR doesn't really exist as the natural phenomena we've evaluated with the WMAP and Planck experimental model. It predicts everything science has learned about the evolution of our universe is bullshit because it doesn't fit Amy and John's world view.

Oops Amy and John are responsible for Quantum Wave Theory. Further Quantum Wave bullshit.

What I was getting at was that quantum_wave is being disingenuous in this statement.

In my so called model, where there is space, there is gravitational energy. The energy density of the space is governed by the proximity of the observer to the net sources of gravitational energy, and to the motion of the observer relative to those sources; those two factors make up the relative energy density of the space occupied by the observer. Determining the energy density of the space in which an observer would be making his measurements of the speed of light requires knowledge of both the gravitational energy of that space (measured by a free falling body in that space), and the motion relative to the free falling body in that space (the other component of relative gravitational wave energy density). Further, the relative gravitational energy density affects the rate at which particles function, and thus, clocks slow down or speed up depending on particulars of the two determinants of relative energy density.

He is trying to persuade people that his theory has some consequences that match much of our understanding of the world. But his hypothesis is all about the in-flowing and out-flowing energies and how they combine to produce the laws of motion and gravity. That was what his "swam of gnats" thread was all about. He was trying to show that these expanding energy quanta will move. He could not do the math himself and so asked for help. He thinks his quanta will move, but he as not shown they will follow Newtons laws of motion or act anything like gravity. All of what he said in the quote above is just what he HOPES to show, not what he can show. And I doubt it can show that. He does not like to talk about his actual hypothesis in this thread simply because it is so goofy. As you say, even a child could see that it is wrong.

A good example of the stuff he likes to hide is one of the pictures in his photobucket. Here

he shows how his idea of photon is different than the "mainstream" view. I mean just look at it. Amazingly goofy.

Or this one of the rare spherical photon.

This is the result of free thinking alternative views. And he has no idea as to why this can't be correct.

 

[brucep]

Hi brucep. I have bolded the words which illustrate precisely the source of the problem; ie: falsely attributing 'effective equivalence' to 'constant' and 'invariant' in this area.

What seems to keep escaping the notice of certain learned members is that there is a subtle but important difference between the two:

- The 'c' as an 'invariant across frames' is actually a propotionate value calculated using a relative "t" value (relative "t" confirmed by Aqueous Id earlier). Ie, the speed of light must vary in order for the proportionate calculation to always produce the 'same' dependent resultant 'value' of 'c' (so the speed of light must not be the same 'absolute magnitude' across frames, else the resultant would vary commensurate with the "relative t" factor used for calculating/measuring that speed);

whereas

- The 'c' as a 'constant per se' is actually an assumed value for light speed according to SR postulates/hypothesis, not an apriori factual value in each frame. It is not until one calculates the speed of light for each frame, using the "relative t", that one can say anything about the "measured c value' as opposed to the 'assumed c value'.


When taken as calculated across frames, the fact that relative t is used to make all calculations purporting to "measure light speed in a frame", it is clear that light speed 'c' symbol stands for the invariant proportionate calculated value, and not some 'postulated/hypothesized constant absolute magnitude value.


If once you and certain others can get past the mistaken impression that there is a conceptual and/or effectual "equivalence" between the terms 'constant' and 'invariance' in this context, then it will become clear that all assumptions about speed of light must be dropped in preference for the fact that a "relative t" logically and mathematically implies that speed of light must be an variable in order to give 'invariance' across frames. The only case where one can say with empirically supported certainty that 'c' is 'constant at all times', is in a particular frame where 'all times' are based on the same proper "t" which does not vary within that frame (but does vary across frames).

Less insults and prejudice, and more attention to subtle but important differences in contextual meanings, would help to minimize the antagonistic tones brought to discussion because of 'personal past baggage' etc.

Good luck with your continuing discussions here and elsewhere, brucep, q_w, Farsight, Aqueous Id, Tach, Motor Daddy, CptBork, Grumpy and everyone! Enjoy life and discourse without rancour. It's the best hope for humanity and science into the future! Bye for now.

Quit posting nonsense RC. It's well established that you're a purveyor of convoluted nonsense.

 

[Undefined]

Quit posting nonsense RC. It's well established that you're a purveyor of convoluted nonsense.

Please don't bring your old 'personal baggage' into a science discussion, bruce.

And you didn't address the subtle differences in contextual meanings which I pointed to as the likely source of the misunderstandings and insults, brucep.

Can you please address the point about the distinction to be made between 'constant c' and 'invariant c' in this context, and why they cannot be considered "equivalent" in this context, as certain members still seem to believe without considering the important difference between the two?

Do you agree? If not, why not?

Your considered response to the point/subtlety involved would help everyone. Thanks.

 

[brucep]

What I was getting at was that quantum_wave is being disingenuous in this statement.



He is trying to persuade people that his theory has some consequences that match much of our understanding of the world. But his hypothesis is all about the in-flowing and out-flowing energies and how they combine to produce the laws of motion and gravity. That was what his "swam of gnats" thread was all about. He was trying to show that these expanding energy quanta will move. He could not do the math himself and so asked for help. He thinks his quanta will move, but he as not shown they will follow Newtons laws of motion or act anything like gravity. All of what he said in the quote above is just what he HOPES to show, not what he can show. And I doubt it can show that. He does not like to talk about his actual hypothesis in this thread simply because it is so goofy. As you say, even a child could see that it is wrong.

A good example of the stuff he likes to hide is one of the pictures in his photobucket. Here

he shows how his idea of photon is different than the "mainstream" view. I mean just look at it. Amazingly goofy.

Or this one of the rare spherical photon.

This is the result of free thinking alternative views. And he has no idea as to why this can't be correct.

He refuses to see why it's incorrect. I think he does have an idea why it's incorrect and why he pretends that isn't true. I was referring to the first paragraph where he predicts this universe is eternal. Once you decide to make that initial prediction then all the 'tired light' and 'phantasmagoria explanations' for the cosmological redshift and how a CMBR can exist in an eternal universe follow suit. After reading several paragraph it sounded like it's God's cosmology.

 

[Tach]

Can you please address the point about the distinction to be made between 'constant c' and 'invariant c' in this context, and why they cannot be considered "equivalent" in this context, as certain members still seem to believe without considering the important difference between the two?

There isn't any "distinction", please stop posting your crackpot ideas. This is the third time you've posted this crackpottery, please cease and desist.

 

[Cheezle]

He refuses to see why it's incorrect. I think he does have an idea why it's incorrect and why he pretends that isn't true. I was referring to the first paragraph where he predicts this universe is eternal. Once you decide to make that initial prediction then all the 'tired light' and 'phantasmagoria explanations' for the cosmological redshift and how a CMBR can exist in an eternal universe follow suit. After reading several paragraph it sounded like it's God's cosmology.

I have to agree, all theories come with these types of presumptions about the basics, the environment, many are unstated. While he explicitly stated the universe is eternal and infinite, he also had this unstated built-in assumption that there is absolute position in space. He realizes this and is why he adopted aether. I could be wrong but I don't think that he was pro-aether initially. He only later realized it was required for his base assumption of the in-flowing and out-flowing energies. And it is the reason he started this whole At Rest With Respect To The Hubble View thread. Where he came up with the idea for the flowing energies is anybody's guess. It surely is not based in science.

But most of all I just wanted to point out how he hides parts of his theory. Maybe he is embarrassed by them. He is hoping that people will not investigate what he says and accept his statement above about how it is all relative and about energy densities. His theory is about energy density but it does not jibe with any science or experimental evidence.

 

[Undefined]

There isn't any "distinction", please stop posting your crackpot ideas. This is the third time you've posted this crackpottery, please cease and desist.

You keep making unsubstantiated assertions about selected excerpts from a larger context post/exchange. This makes your opinion eminently ignorable. You may not want to support your assertions having regard to the full context, but brucep might. So let him speak for himself and stop trying to influence/incite trolls and spoilers who like you seem to prefer avoiding and insulting to actually honestly and properly addressing the point made in proper context. Thanks anyway for your trouble, Tach.

 

[Tach]

You keep making unsubstantiated assertions about selected excerpts

No, I simply point out your repeated crackpotteries. The ones that you keep trying to pass as "science" <shrug>

 

[Grumpy]

Undefined

Lightspeed is invariant, it is time that varies. Light travels through a vacuum at one speed, it is a property of the photon that absent a medium it travels at a set speed, not one jot more or less in all frames in the entire Universe. In all frames, no matter their velocity or how far down a gravity well they fall, lightspeed is measured to be the same. And it matters not what frame the source occupies either, the speed of the light coming from it will still be measured to be the same in all other frames. It is a property of our Universe that is tied in to gravity, speed in the local Universe and time, changes to mass or speed slow time, the pivot point for that change in all frames is lightspeed(ie changes will be compensated for in a manner to bring the measured lightspeed to the same value).

Time flows fastest when the frame is at rest with local spacetime. It flows slowest at lightspeed(in fact it stops there). Time's rate of passage is dependent on the speed through local spacetime.
Time flows fastest when there is no mass, it stops at the event horizon of a Black Hole(ie at a certain acceleration value). Time's rate of passage is dependent on the mass of the frame.
Matter has the least mass when stationary to local spacetime, it has infinite mass at lightspeed(which is why it will never reach lightspeed, but the rise in mass is exponential), it even distorts spacetime, shortening distance in the direction of travel(to zero at lightspeed, a photon is a wave in the form of a two dimensional disk). Most of the mass is because of the gain in energy. Energy, has mass, it is just another form of matter. So mass is dependent exponentially to speed through local space.
But in all cases, lightspeed will be measured to travel at the same speed, it is the constant the others pivot around. This is not opinion, it is not speculation, it is a law in our Universe that has never been seen to be violated.

Grumpy

 

[rr6]

Eternal and c invariance

I was referring to the first paragraph where he predicts this universe is eternal.

Brucep, that would be correct assessment..."energy[/physical] cannot be created nor destroyed".....

To best of our knowledge all observations of speed-of-radiation, is a constant, and I got thinking about how, even those radio or near microwave frequencies are shorter or longer relatively speaking, the trees, rock whatever, cause interference but they do not cause invariance, at our medio-macro scale of existence ergo observations.

Loop Quantum Gravity predicted at ultra-short frequencies, radiation would be interfered with by gravitational spacetime--- aka a gravitonic foam ---and that was somehow suppose to be differrent than trees or rocks interfering with EMRadiation i.e. the graviational spacetime foam would intefere only enough to retard the speed-of-radiation, not completely transform it into electronic matter/fermion.

So we still have the mysterious constant c--- that we observe in quantum ---and the mysterious graviational spacetime that we do not observe in quantum--- ergo continous aka smooth ---.

r6

 

[Undefined]

Hi Grumpy. Thanks for your considered comments.

Lightspeed is invariant, it is time that varies. Light travels through a vacuum at one speed, it is a property of the photon that absent a medium it travels at a set speed, not one jot more or less in all frames in the entire Universe. In all frames, no matter their velocity or how far down a gravity well they fall, lightspeed is measured to be the same. And it matters not what frame the source occupies either, the speed of the light coming from it will still be measured to be the same in all other frames. It is a property of our Universe that is tied in to gravity, speed in the local Universe and time, changes to mass or speed slow time, the pivot point for that change in all frames is lightspeed(ie changes will be compensated for in a manner to bring the measured lightspeed to the same value).

Time flows fastest when the frame is at rest with local spacetime. It flows slowest at lightspeed(in fact it stops there). Time's rate of passage is dependent on the speed through local spacetime.
Time flows fastest when there is no mass, it stops at the event horizon of a Black Hole(ie at a certain acceleration value). Time's rate of passage is dependent on the mass of the frame.
Matter has the least mass when stationary to local spacetime, it has infinite mass at lightspeed(which is why it will never reach lightspeed, but the rise in mass is exponential), it even distorts spacetime, shortening distance in the direction of travel(to zero at lightspeed, a photon is a wave in the form of a two dimensional disk). Most of the mass is because of the gain in energy. Energy, has mass, it is just another form of matter. So mass is dependent exponentially to speed through local space.

I have no disagreement with all this. I even already pointed out the nature of the 'invariance' and how it is derived from frame dependent "t" used in the calculation of the 'invariant proportionate c' because the "relative t" factor compensates for any variable speed of light 'input value' to that calculation "measurement". No problem so far.

But in all cases, lightspeed will be measured to travel at the same speed, it is the constant the others pivot around. This is not opinion, it is not speculation, it is a law in our Universe that has never been seen to be violated.

This is where the problem comes in, as I pointed out to brucep in my post to him, wherein I pointed out the subtle (but nevertheless effectively important physical, logical and mathematical) difference between 'constant' and 'invariant' in this context.

In a nutshell, lightspeed can only be 'a constant' if it never varies in absolute value between frames; whereas lightspeed can be 'an invariant' if its absolute value does vary between frames such that the relative "t" applying in each frame automatically mathematically re-adjusts the actual lightspeed input value into an invariant calculated measurement output value "result" proportionate value dependent on the "t" value used (which latter does vary between frames, remember?)

So that is the source of the confusion and tension between the debaters of this aspect. The difference between 'invariant' and 'constant' is not being noticed, and they are being given an "equivalence" that is not logically or mathematically or physically there in fact.


If "t" varies between frames, then speed of light must vary to 'keep pace' with the proportionate invariance aspect. In no way can the speed of light be thought of as 'constant' if there is a varying "t" which we all agree on. If one factor varies, then the other factor must also. That is, the only way lightspeed can really be considered as a constant, is if both "lightspeed" and "t" never vary between frames. But we all know empirically that "t" does vary, so we muct also recognize logically that lightspeed must also vary if 'an invariant c' is to result in any frame "measurement" calculation of that proportionate value which we label 'c' as a symbol only, and not as an actual absolute value 'constant'.


In this context, 'invariance' does not also automatically imply 'constant'. I hope this has explained the likely source of the confusion so that we drop the unwarranted impression that 'constant' and 'invariance' are the same things in this context, Grumpy?

Thanks again. Bye for now.

 

[Tach]

I even already pointed out the nature of the 'invariance' and how it is derived from frame dependent "t" used in the calculation of the 'invariant proportionate c' because the "relative t" factor compensates for any variable speed of light "measured" by that calculation. No problem so far.

This is false, the invariance of light speed is not "derived", it is postulated. Please stop posting crackpottery while trying to pass t as science.

This is where the problem comes in, as I pointed out to brucep in my post to him, wherein I pointed out the subtle difference between 'constant' and 'invariant' in this context.

There is no "difference", constant means invariant. Please stop posting crackpottery while trying to pass t as science.

In a nutshell, lightspeed can only be 'a constant' if it never varies in absolute value between frames; whereas lightspeed can be 'an invariant' if its absolute value does vary between frames such that the relative "t" applying in each frame re-adjusts the actual lightspeed and makes it an invariant proportionate value "calculated measurement result" dependent on the "t" value used (which latter does vary between frames, remember?)

Nonsense.

So that is the source of the confusion and tension between the debaters of this aspect.

No, this is just your cranky contribution to the confusion.

If "t" varies between frames, then speed of light must vary to 'keep pace' with the proportionate invariance aspect.

False, c doesn't "vary". Please cease posting crackpottery while trying to pass it as science.

In no way can the speed of light be thought of as 'constant' if there is a varying "t" which we all agree on.

Experiment (and mainstream theory) says that the above is poppy cock.

If one factor varies, then the other factor must also.

Experiment says that the above is false. Mainstream SR contradicts your claim. Where do you get all this BS?

That is, the only way lightspeed can be constant is if both "lightspeed" and "t" never vary between frames.

False.

But we all know empirically that "t" does vary, so we muct also recognize logically that lightspeed must also vary if 'an invariant c' is to result in any frame "measurement" calculation of that proportionate value which we label 'c' as a symbol only, and not as an actual absolute value 'constant'.

Who is "we"? the crackpots that claim the above?

In this context, 'invariance' does not also automatically imply 'constant'. I hope this has explained the likely source of the confusion so that we drop the unquestioning impression that 'constant' and 'invariance' are the same things,

A long series of fallacies. Nonsense from beginning to end.