The Problem of the Speed of Light in a Vacuum

[John DoeParticipant 743]

In a complete vacuum, with only light existing, the light effectively would be measured only against itself as all speed is an observation of relation. The problem is that as the “only thing” existing in the vacuum the light would exist ad-infinitum through itself and any measurement of speed would imply one portion of the light particle wave is faster than the other part, hence multiple speeds would occur simultaneously.

The problem occurs, that movement implies a degree of vacuum already, and a perfect vacuum would not allow any movement what so ever because there would be no where to move.

Light, as one directional, would effectively have to invert to another direction if it is to progress anywhere. This is considering light must move somewhere in a void, but as it is a a void there is no where for it to move; hence it has to project past itself.

In projecting past itself, it must project in another direction. Light is now divided into 2 directions when beginning with the premise it starts as 1 projective direction.

A. These 2 directions of light, progressing from 1 direction, still maintains light as projecting in one direction through time and the process repeats.

B. Secondly moving from 1 to 2 directions necessitates light effectively halves itself prior to the first direction it exists through. Considering 1 direction exists, then 2 directions these two directions as now existing exist in and of themselves. Light effectively divides in half relative to a prior starting point, however double itself relative to its current state as two directions.

C. This process of light simultaneously dividing relative to a prior starting point, and multiplying relative to its current state, observes light as its own system of measurement. This continual “individuation” observes that as the light multiplies, relative to its original state it is a fractal approaching point zero.

D. The current foundation of light, as projecting in one direction, observes it as an infinite standard always manifesting itself through the individuation of light into further directions. Simultaneously, as this process of individuation occurs in time, light as projecting towards a point 0 is synonymous to 1 as manifesting a line of fractions as it approaches point 0. Each of these fractions, whether viewed as a number or linear particle of light, however is a whole number or multiple directions.

E. Light as ever fractating through time, is light simultaneously multiplying itself. Light sets its own standard of speed in a void, and any perceived “speed” is strictly one unit of light being composed of or composing further units of light.

300,000 mps observes light as the foundation for the second, in the void, as a series of oscillations relative to another fix point of light. Miles is strictly a length of space respectively considering the length of a mile, exists through the light projecting.

Hence in a void, light is a length. This length, a mile in this case, is a fraction of the original length of light (infinite) where this infinite length is divided into a series of units.

The seconds is effectively light revolving around a fix position, under a light only in a void interpretation. 1 second is the amount of time a point cycles from A to A again. These movements of A to A exist as a series of degrees. These degrees are the breakdown of one cycle of light into multiple parts.

So the “Mile” as “length” and the second as a cycle (which in turn exists as a length) observes miles per second as the number of lengths light multiplies itself within a given length. It is a ratio of one length to another, with light being the set standard.

To argue that light is 300,000 mps is to argue it exists as a ratio of 300,000 lengths to one length where both the mile and second are lengths.

Inversely, with the speed of light, as the only variable in the void. Each second is equivalent to 1/300,000 of a mile and the second is actually a length of space.

The problem occurs that as light being the standard projective length as 1 directional in the void, it is infinite and a regress occurs considering this 1 unit by continually individuating into further directions, exists through infinite units. In simpler terms light as projecting in one direction continually fractates into further lengths of light so that the original 1 direction of light is composed of infinite lengths of light, which all on there own terms exist through the same process.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

F~~~ this bulls~~~

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gravel Pit wrote:

F~~~ this bulls~~~

Troll…obviously you cannot provide an argument on any one of the points.

So much for being rational…

[MonkParticipant 16977]

Surely this would be better posted in a physics forum, of which there must be many?

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Monk wrote:

Surely this would be better posted in a physics forum, of which there must be many?

Not really, it is a philosophical problem of measurement.

If you have 1 thing (light in this case) in a void…all phenomenon are self-measured through it.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Do you know anything about science or philosophy?

(1.) The speed of light is 300 MILLION meters per second, not 300 THOUSAND meters per second as stated in your post. Or it is 300 KILOmeters per second. Since you stated it incorrectly TWICE in your message, it isn’t just a typo…
(2.) There is no ‘complete vacuum’; study vacuum state fluctuation. Light propagates through curved spacetime.
(3.) Light waves oscillate in TWO planes, unless it is polarized. The electric field, and then the magnetic field perpindicular to it.
(3.) If you take an ‘inertial reference frame’, as they are technically called, of the Sun, the earth is moving through space at approximately 107,000 km/hr. Yet since we are on the moving body, moving with it, we do not directly observe this motion.
(4.) Light doesn’t ‘divide’. It has a fixed amount of energy, depending on wavelength and Planck’s constant. E=h x Lambda.
(5.) ‘Fractate’ and ‘fractating’, are not words in the English language (except slang)
(6.) Time units are not length units. Study dimensional analysis.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

I remember a few years ago reading there were some experiments measuring the speed of light passing through various gas with the gases causing light to slightly slow down.

So, the possibility of the speed of light not being a constant is very possible.

Of course, the intellectual class will never admit this given how much work and effort has gone on based on the speed of light being a constant.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

Do you know anything about science or philosophy?
(1.) The speed of light is 300 MILLION meters per second, not 300 THOUSAND meters per second as stated in your post. Or it is 300 KILOmeters per second. Since you stated it incorrectly TWICE in your message, it isn’t just a typo…(2.) There is no ‘complete vacuum’; study vacuum state fluctuation. Light propagates through curved spacetime.(3.) Light waves oscillate in TWO planes, unless it is polarized. The electric field, and then the magnetic field perpindicular to it.(3.) If you take an ‘inertial reference frame’, as they are technically called, of the Sun, the earth is moving through space at approximately 107,000 km/hr. Yet since we are on the moving body, moving with it, we do not directly observe this motion.(4.) Light doesn’t ‘divide’. It has a fixed amount of energy, depending on wavelength and Planck’s constant. E=h x Lambda.(5.) ‘Fractate’ and ‘fractating’, are not words in the English language (except slang)(6.) Time units are not length units. Study dimensional analysis.

1. It is not a typo, I was told 300,000 miles per second, 300,000 miles per hour..etc. Google it and it is 300,000 km per second, 186,000 miles per second or 299, 792, 458 meter per second.

It can be x km or mi or m per second. I really dont care, because the number is irrelevant…that is the whole point of the argument. The light in a void can be all of the above numbers as it is measured strictly against itself. Which is why I really am not too picky about what they believe it is, but rather the framework in which it is measured. As a complete vacuum, it can only be itself.

2. The speed of light as “x” is premised in a complete vacuum. Take it up with physics.

3. The intertial reference frame of light is light in a complete vacuum, the argument observes this.

4. Actually it divides into multiple wavelengths as different colors. Also the fact it changes direction, means light as directed movement divides in various directions. The above argument observes this.

It has a fixed amount of energy dependent upon the wavelengh, yes, unless the wavelength changes.

Plancks constant is still subject to particultion as the plank unit is dependent upon a regress towards other plank units. The plank unit is strictly a representation of how small we can measure until some quantum effect kicks in. With the introduction of the quantum effect we are exposed to not just randomness but instantaneous effects conducive to infinite speeds (as no speed).

5. Fractate/fractating are observed and defined in the above as a movement in fractal states. I can you fracturing, atomize, or a whole list of synonym words. A word is defined in the context it is used. If you do not like fractate, just view it as “becoming a fraction of what is was”.

6. I understand they are not length units in the standard sense, but considering time and space are inseparable and time is dependent upon cycles…it ends up being a length. 9 billion + cycles of radiation of the cesium atom, as cycles, translates into a length when straightened out.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

John Doe: The bottom line is, you don’t even know what the speed of light is, and are posting a boatload of messages which are largely just antagonizing people. I certainly understand the arbitrary nature of standards for units. There isn’t any ‘measurement against itself’. Measurement requires an observer. The observer will either be traveling at or close to that speed, or at a very different speed.

Faust: The apparent speed of light varies markedly in different media — glass, water, and air (RI ~1.0003 so speed reduction of ~0.03%) come to mind. Its speed can ALSO vary in a vacuum — by applying masks that change the orbital angular momentum as an example. The latter impact is extremely small, whereas travel through water, glass, air, and other media can reduce apparent speed by 25% — as measured by the index of refraction.

John Doe: You have already demonstrated in your first post you don’t know what the speed of light in vacuum is, without looking it up, which you did in the second post. ‘mps’ means EITHER meters or miles per second, and in either, it is not 300,000.

The statement that it can be ‘all of those numbers’ is non-sensical. There is no ‘measurement’ until the inertial reference frame is defined. The observer and instrument used for observation reside there.

The rest of your response is non-sensical. [White] light is composed of a range of wavelengths perceived in their aggregate, as white. When it passes through a prism it is refracted, and different wavelengths come off at different angles — that was a key experiment in the development of Optics by Isaac Newton. White light can travel a billion years in a vacuum, without any change in color, aside from the change due to the star/other initial emitter receding at extreme velocity due to the expansion of the Universe (typically redshift but sometimes blueshift). It doesn’t ‘divide into multiple wavelengths’, even over billions of years time, propagating through a vacuum. It is also NOT ‘divided’, but rather, SEPARATED by wavelength. It IS true that, in simplified terms, that different wavelengths of light, propagate at different speeds but ONLY in media OTHER than vacuum. Hence the recommendation: Study refraction.

Making up words makes it difficult to discuss.

[GeraldParticipant 3620]

Could a perfect vacuum not exist in an amount of distance or space as you will, meaning you measure the speed to cross that amount of space?

No longer can we walk away, we must run. Remove the motive power.

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

Well, Gerald, I don’t know. I mean space has tons of Hydrogen in it all through it. And there are many particles in space that can slow Photons down. But as light being a constant, well. That’s kind of like shorthand I think. Like maybe a close rough estimate of the avg speed light travels.

Let me bring this down to Human level.

SO if the Dominos guy, and the Pizza hut guy both deliver the pizzas at the same time to the same 2 houses that are the same distance from each other, then roughly speaking, they were going the same speed. But if were trying to say smash particles to hit at the same time to cause for example to knock out atoms in a particle, then I guess you would need to know the exact speed to get there instead of just saying ” Both Pizza guys have to go 35 Miles per Hour since tha tis the speed limit posted. But as we all know cars can go over 35 and under 35.

Just as their is fluctuation when your Gas engine is idling at 800 RPM (lower for Diesels) I think that the speed of light in a vacuum is the rough average measurement. (again, only Hypothesis)

For example, electrical timing of the electrons going through a conductor is well known since if it is not known , a CPU or time sensitive component would have errors in operation, excess heat build up or something like the small transistors inside would burn up possibly or function erratically approaching the level of miniaturization needed for the CPU die to function properly.

The speed of light is kind of important as this is how fiber optics works. It’s actually fascinating to find out that optical cable
s actual bandwidth. Why? Once you do, you can double or triple or even more by using meathods simuliur to how they do it in radio.

Now, from and I.T. perspective,

The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,282 miles per second. In any other medium, though, it’s generally a lot slower. In normal optical fibers (silica glass), light travels a full 31% slower
Extreme tech Mar 25, 2013

The research was actually pretty solid and here is the source:
Towards high-capacity fibre-optic communications at the speed of light in vacuum
F. Poletti, N. V. Wheeler, M. N. Petrovich, N. Baddela, E. Numkam Fokoua, J. R. Hayes, D. R. Gray, Z. Li, R. Slavík & D. J. Richardson

So basically, through normal air, or atmosphere here on earth, : This represents the first experimental demonstration of fibre-based wavelength division multiplexed data transmission at close to (99.7%) the speed of light in vacuum.
– Nature Photonics volume 7, pages 279–284 (2013)

Other citation & sources:
Affiliations
Optoelectronics Research Centre, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

So, basically, the rule is true that Light does travel at a speed, but that measurement of speed itself is not what I would call perfect like a MD-5 checksum is by being able to reproduce consistently.

So in english, your speedometer says your going 55MPH. But what you are really doing is going 55.5 MPH etc. You don’t really have the extra digits to really measure the EXACT speed you are going. I don’t really know if there is a measure of speed that is accurate since you also have to (I would think) use time as well as speed if that makes sense. So like, basically what they do on the Quarter mile on a race track for example. Or Lap times, but calculated to the most miniscule of units to measure how fast you are actually going instead of just rounding up or down from 2 digits like 55 MPH vs 56 Mph.

This becomes kind of important when you are making Exhaust systems for example for 2 cycle motors as it uses some of that back pressure wave to fill the cylinder for the next combustion cycle in that 2 stroke motor. Same goes for making heads for a cars engine block, that will help it get the best fuel economy or emissions with power output curve and other variables etc. (measured in Kw (Kilowatts) , or Horsepower)

Gerald wrote:

perfect vacuum

This is the way to understand “perfect” conditions vs “Optimal” or “Average ” conditions as it relates to science or especially philosophy. (Something I don’t pretend to know, but plenty of people seem to be experts at while all telling each other they are flaws in their findings; especially when it comes to science.

Again, I bring it down a notch.

Say you met your dream girl, Cherry 2000. Well, she can give you “Perfect sex” But if you finish on her face or land your load all over her t~~~, it’s STILL PERFECT. So, most of this stuff that people talk about is in the ballpark so to speak. And by Ballpark, I mean like you yourself are never going to play pro ball, but ALL this stuff is there that if everything was just PERFECT, you would be on first base trying to steal a home run while arguing that stealing is the Government’s Job.

John is trying to relate Quantum Mechanics with Philosophy. (In My opinion only) But in the end, if you don’t use sheet rock screws, its going to come down from the ceiling if you use some kind of adhesive to hold it up. His argument is basically like arguing that Arco Gas 87 RON is not as good as Chevron with Techron at the same 87 RON (Octane rating) in your lawnmower. THe point is moot since you don’t use ethanol gas in your 2 Weed eater or your Craftsman or Husqvarna Lawn Mower. But IT DOES WORK. But by the time you see results, the wheels are bald, the blade is out of balance, and damn cables have rusted out and sized.

If you are an Audio guy, it’s more like picking different vacuum tubes for your output stage. Or Transistors that are all matched. It does make a measurable difference on a O scope, but CAN YOU HEAR IT? Most people can’t. But it may sound “Sweeter” or “More full” depending on your mood or amount of blood and air temperature or SPL reaching in your inner ear Silica to produce the electrical output your brain interprets as sound.

What everyone else including is angry about here is that John uses a Super Tweeter to reproduce frequencies up to 40,000 Khz, and the rest of us are more worried about if our subwoofers are producing resonance frequencies at 18 hz causing phase anomalies that may muddy up the sound and require the use of a DSP or Band Pass filter to negate the issue of Box Port tuning in relation to our cabins natural frequency response.

What’s everyone is really p~~~ed about ? You can’t make a 20hz sound wave in a car. You can feel it, but its not possible to recreate it since the note that that level can not be heard in a room to small to faithfully reproduce that wave Audibly. But you can “Hear IT” and “Feel It” but it’s not really an acoustic wave. More you ears responding to pressure. Hence why you can hear Very low bass in Headphone.

This is the visual example of that (Bellow) where we are trying to calculate just how funny this is, and how long we are going to laugh until we see the gas station blow up that is theoretically possible, but impractical to think about at the time since you are laughing your ass off, while checking out her ass all at the same time. Techinly, you can’t do both, but you did.

If you reduce this all down to its basic form..

CARNAGE is a DOCTOR.

ICED <—-> COFFEE

If you want to do your own experiment, take 3 glasses of water. One with hot water, one with Ice cold water, and the other at room temperature.

Stick one finger on one hand in the hot glass, and the other in the cold glass and then take both fingers or hands and place them in the room temp water glass.

They say this confuses your brain. I never thought so, but some say it does.

SO unless you are trying to work on 100TB Interconnects for your server rack? Or go with Infiniband? Moot point since the server was never plugged in.

But when you do? You can think about all this stuff when you finally get money to pay the power bill.

I hope this helps. 🙂

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

John Doe: The bottom line is, you don’t even know what the speed of light is, and are posting a boatload of messages which are largely just antagonizing people. I certainly understand the arbitrary nature of standards for units. There isn’t any ‘measurement against itself’. Measurement requires an observer. The observer will either be traveling at or close to that speed, or at a very different speed.
Faust: The apparent speed of light varies markedly in different media — glass, water, and air (RI ~1.0003 so speed reduction of ~0.03%) come to mind. Its speed can ALSO vary in a vacuum — by applying masks that change the orbital angular momentum as an example. The latter impact is extremely small, whereas travel through water, glass, air, and other media can reduce apparent speed by 25% — as measured by the index of refraction.
John Doe: You have already demonstrated in your first post you don’t know what the speed of light in vacuum is, without looking it up, which you did in the second post. ‘mps’ means EITHER meters or miles per second, and in either, it is not 300,000.
The statement that it can be ‘all of those numbers’ is non-sensical. There is no ‘measurement’ until the inertial reference frame is defined. The observer and instrument used for observation reside there.
The rest of your response is non-sensical. [White] light is composed of a range of wavelengths perceived in their aggregate, as white. When it passes through a prism it is refracted, and different wavelengths come off at different angles — that was a key experiment in the development of Optics by Isaac Newton. White light can travel a billion years in a vacuum, without any change in color, aside from the change due to the star/other initial emitter receding at extreme velocity due to the expansion of the Universe (typically redshift but sometimes blueshift). It doesn’t ‘divide into multiple wavelengths’, even over billions of years time, propagating through a vacuum. It is also NOT ‘divided’, but rather, SEPARATED by wavelength. It IS true that, in simplified terms, that different wavelengths of light, propagate at different speeds but ONLY in media OTHER than vacuum. Hence the recommendation: Study refraction.
Making up words makes it difficult to discuss.

Actually it is far from hypocritical as it is about “not knowing” the speed of light.

If I don’t know what the speed of light is, I can observe this same ignorance in others.

The argument about the speed of light is about pointing out a contradiction.

The great irony, is that whether it is measured in km or miles, both answers are right because the speed of light is it’s own measuring system, in a vacuum and all possibilities are simultaneous.

Observing one speed, is observing a localization of one movement of light, using another as a standard.

The speed of light in a complete vacuum is the foundation for relativity and scientific fact…but it has never been tested.

It is just religious dogma.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gerald wrote:

Could a perfect vacuum not exist in an amount of distance or space as you will, meaning you measure the speed to cross that amount of space?

The speed of light has never been tested in a complete vacuum…just Google “the speed of light” and history.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

iMickey503 wrote:

Well, Gerald, I don’t know. I mean space has tons of Hydrogen in it all through it. And there are many particles in space that can slow Photons down. But as light being a constant, well. That’s kind of like shorthand I think. Like maybe a close rough estimate of the avg speed light travels.
Let me bring this down to Human level.
SO if the Dominos guy, and the Pizza hut guy both deliver the pizzas at the same time to the same 2 houses that are the same distance from each other, then roughly speaking, they were going the same speed. But if were trying to say smash particles to hit at the same time to cause for example to knock out atoms in a particle, then I guess you would need to know the exact speed to get there instead of just saying ” Both Pizza guys have to go 35 Miles per Hour since tha tis the speed limit posted. But as we all know cars can go over 35 and under 35.
Just as their is fluctuation when your Gas engine is idling at 800 RPM (lower for Diesels) I think that the speed of light in a vacuum is the rough average measurement. (again, only Hypothesis)
For example, electrical timing of the electrons going through a conductor is well known since if it is not known , a CPU or time sensitive component would have errors in operation, excess heat build up or something like the small transistors inside would burn up possibly or function erratically approaching the level of miniaturization needed for the CPU die to function properly.
The speed of light is kind of important as this is how fiber optics works. It’s actually fascinating to find out that optical cables actual bandwidth. Why? Once you do, you can double or triple or even more by using meathods simuliur to how they do it in radio.
Now, from and I.T. perspective,
The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,282 miles per second. In any other medium, though, it’s generally a lot slower. In normal optical fibers (silica glass), light travels a full 31% slowerExtreme tech Mar 25, 2013
The research was actually pretty solid and here is the source: Towards high-capacity fibre-optic communications at the speed of light in vacuumF. Poletti, N. V. Wheeler, M. N. Petrovich, N. Baddela, E. Numkam Fokoua, J. R. Hayes, D. R. Gray, Z. Li, R. Slavík & D. J. Richardson
So basically, through normal air, or atmosphere here on earth, : This represents the first experimental demonstration of fibre-based wavelength division multiplexed data transmission at close to (99.7%) the speed of light in vacuum. – Nature Photonics volume 7, pages 279–284 (2013)
Other citation & sources:AffiliationsOptoelectronics Research Centre, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
So, basically, the rule is true that Light does travel at a speed, but that measurement of speed itself is not what I would call perfect like a MD-5 checksum is by being able to reproduce consistently.
So in english, your speedometer says your going 55MPH. But what you are really doing is going 55.5 MPH etc. You don’t really have the extra digits to really measure the EXACT speed you are going. I don’t really know if there is a measure of speed that is accurate since you also have to (I would think) use time as well as speed if that makes sense. So like, basically what they do on the Quarter mile on a race track for example. Or Lap times, but calculated to the most miniscule of units to measure how fast you are actually going instead of just rounding up or down from 2 digits like 55 MPH vs 56 Mph.
This becomes kind of important when you are making Exhaust systems for example for 2 cycle motors as it uses some of that back pressure wave to fill the cylinder for the next combustion cycle in that 2 stroke motor. Same goes for making heads for a cars engine block, that will help it get the best fuel economy or emissions with power output curve and other variables etc. (measured in Kw (Kilowatts) , or Horsepower)

Gerald wrote:

perfect vacuum

This is the way to understand “perfect” conditions vs “Optimal” or “Average ” conditions as it relates to science or especially philosophy. (Something I don’t pretend to know, but plenty of people seem to be experts at while all telling each other they are flaws in their findings; especially when it comes to science.
Again, I bring it down a notch.
Say you met your dream girl, Cherry 2000. Well, she can give you “Perfect sex” But if you finish on her face or land your load all over her t~~~, it’s STILL PERFECT. So, most of this stuff that people talk about is in the ballpark so to speak. And by Ballpark, I mean like you yourself are never going to play pro ball, but ALL this stuff is there that if everything was just PERFECT, you would be on first base trying to steal a home run while arguing that stealing is the Government’s Job.
John is trying to relate Quantum Mechanics with Philosophy. (In My opinion only) But in the end, if you don’t use sheet rock screws, its going to come down from the ceiling if you use some kind of adhesive to hold it up. His argument is basically like arguing that Arco Gas 87 RON is not as good as Chevron with Techron at the same 87 RON (Octane rating) in your lawnmower. THe point is moot since you don’t use ethanol gas in your 2 Weed eater or your Craftsman or Husqvarna Lawn Mower. But IT DOES WORK. But by the time you see results, the wheels are bald, the blade is out of balance, and damn cables have rusted out and sized.
If you are an Audio guy, it’s more like picking different vacuum tubes for your output stage. Or Transistors that are all matched. It does make a measurable difference on a O scope, but CAN YOU HEAR IT? Most people can’t. But it may sound “Sweeter” or “More full” depending on your mood or amount of blood and air temperature or SPL reaching in your inner ear Silica to produce the electrical output your brain interprets as sound.
What everyone else including is angry about here is that John uses a Super Tweeter to reproduce frequencies up to 40,000 Khz, and the rest of us are more worried about if our subwoofers are producing resonance frequencies at 18 hz causing phase anomalies that may muddy up the sound and require the use of a DSP or Band Pass filter to negate the issue of Box Port tuning in relation to our cabins natural frequency response.
What’s everyone is really p~~~ed about ? You can’t make a 20hz sound wave in a car. You can feel it, but its not possible to recreate it since the note that that level can not be heard in a room to small to faithfully reproduce that wave Audibly. But you can “Hear IT” and “Feel It” but it’s not really an acoustic wave. More you ears responding to pressure. Hence why you can hear Very low bass in Headphone.
This is the visual example of that (Bellow) where we are trying to calculate just how funny this is, and how long we are going to laugh until we see the gas station blow up that is theoretically possible, but impractical to think about at the time since you are laughing your ass off, while checking out her ass all at the same time. Techinly, you can’t do both, but you did.<iframe width=”500″ height=”281″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/C1ZrFqUgcME?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=””></iframe>
If you reduce this all down to its basic form..
CARNAGE is a DOCTOR.
ICED <—-> COFFEE
If you want to do your own experiment, take 3 glasses of water. One with hot water, one with Ice cold water, and the other at room temperature.
Stick one finger on one hand in the hot glass, and the other in the cold glass and then take both fingers or hands and place them in the room temp water glass.
They say this confuses your brain. I never thought so, but some say it does.
SO unless you are trying to work on 100TB Interconnects for your server rack? Or go with Infiniband? Moot point since the server was never plugged in.
But when you do? You can think about all this stuff when you finally get money to pay the power bill.
I hope this helps.

Word salad.

And the reason for it as a word salad is simple.

You are using standard mechanical constructs as an example. The test creates the results. The analogies create the knowledge.

To test the speed of light, in a vacuum (which has not been done), requires to put the vacuum in a framework.

This framework determines the nature of the vacuum, and effectively eliminates it as a vacuum as the vacuum becomes an extension of the framework and in turn determines it.

A complete vacuum, would have to exist outside of all light…the framework is composed of various degrees of light, hence light is being used to measure light and the test becomes a localization of one speed.

Dually, if one uses equations to determine an empirical model…the model is no longer completely empirical but theoretical.

Reason, sets the standard, and the foundations of science are premised on non-empirical foundations.

Yes, you could argue, I am “implying” quantum mechanics…I will agree with your point there.

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

https://jobs.soton.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=1094618PN

“Implying” that there is Empirical evidence that you can theoretically extrapolate the Constructs of unemployment theory to the foundation of the vacuum of people not applying for this position in relative 3D volume here on Corporeal earth.

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[John DoeParticipant 743]

iMickey503 wrote:

https://jobs.soton.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=1094618PN
“Implying” that there is Empirical evidence that you can theoretically extrapolate the Constructs of unemployment theory to the foundation of the vacuum of people not applying for this position in relative 3D volume here on Corporeal earth.

Nice job for ignoring the point, and good job trying to be clever…how is that working for you? That +1 is from me.

To get back on topic:

There is empirical evidence that theories do work, and this empirical evidence is statistical.

The light in a vacuum is not just pure theory, but the difference between the speed being 1 percent and .0000001 percent off quite literally is irrelevant in this case considering the model of light in a vaccum is strictly 1 dimensional.

The only variable is light.

Increasing the number of variable requires one variable effectively to be instantaneous, hence something is faster than the speed of light.

Lol, there is empirical evidence you can pull a theory from a theory recursively and apply it to a void of a specific negative variable that exists through an empirical variable of x dimensions…real cute.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

To test the speed of light, in a vacuum (which has not been done), requires to put the vacuum in a framework.

Having studied physical chemistry, the ‘framework’ of vacuum is the kinetic theory of gases, bolstered by empirical measurements.

Even before that framework, the measurement of the speed of light in vacuum — the high vacuum of space within the solar system and even more rarefied outside it — had been made centuries ago — through stellar aberration, eclipses of Jupiter’s moons, etc. Then there were the terresterial gear experiments in the 1800’s (these latter being through air), followed by electrical measurements after James Clerk Maxwell developed the electromagnetic theory in the mid 1800’s.

There are also retroreflectors on the moon that reflect laser pulses, though this is more often used to measure distance rather than the speed of light, for a variety of reasons.

As for a ‘complete’ vacuum (typically termed a ‘perfect’ vacuum), it is not attainable. Even if I build a cylinder or pressure vessel and mechanically pump everything out of it, there are still neutrinos passing through it, and the sidewalls, will still outgas. Even the vacuum of the interstellar medium, while highly rarefied, is not a perfect vacuum.

The great irony, is that whether it is measured in km or miles, both answers are right because the speed of light is it’s own measuring system, in a vacuum and all possibilities are simultaneous.

Again, it is not its own measuring system. A velocity measurement involves selecting a frame of reference.

If you are moving with the light, the relative velocity is zero, for instsance. Once a frame of reference is selected, the velocity can be measured. A measuring system involves selection of bases for various units such as length and time. Velocity units of distance / time can then be expressed in these base units.

While I can create a base for velocity of c, if I convert any other speed to such units (fraction of c), I will most certainly have a different fractional multiplier, for the conversion into km or miles.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

To test the speed of light, in a vacuum (which has not been done), requires to put the vacuum in a framework.

Having studied physical chemistry, the ‘framework’ of vacuum is the kinetic theory of gases, bolstered by empirical measurements.
Even before that framework, the measurement of the speed of light in vacuum — the high vacuum of space within the solar system and even more rarefied outside it — had been made centuries ago — through stellar aberration, eclipses of Jupiter’s moons, etc. Then there were the terresterial gear experiments in the 1800’s (these latter being through air), followed by electrical measurements after James Clerk Maxwell developed the electromagnetic theory in the mid 1800’s.
There are also retroreflectors on the moon that reflect laser pulses, though this is more often used to measure distance rather than the speed of light, for a variety of reasons.
As for a ‘complete’ vacuum (typically termed a ‘perfect’ vacuum), it is not attainable. Even if I build a cylinder or pressure vessel and mechanically pump everything out of it, there are still neutrinos passing through it, and the sidewalls, will still outgas. Even the vacuum of the interstellar medium, while highly rarefied, is not a perfect vacuum.

The great irony, is that whether it is measured in km or miles, both answers are right because the speed of light is it’s own measuring system, in a vacuum and all possibilities are simultaneous.

Again, it is not its own measuring system. A velocity measurement involves selecting a frame of reference.
If you are moving with the light, the relative velocity is zero, for instsance. Once a frame of reference is selected, the velocity can be measured. A measuring system involves selection of bases for various units such as length and time. Velocity units of distance / time can then be expressed in these base units.
While I can create a base for velocity of c, if I convert any other speed to such units (fraction of c), I will most certainly have a different fractional multiplier, for the conversion into km or miles.

Kinetic “theory” of gases is a theory, but even taking this into account the vacuum is nullified in the face of physics interpretation, however obscure, of dark matter.

Take in gravity, gravity waves, radiation of various forms, and the vacuum exists as a purely theoretical state.

The premise of the speed of light is a theoretical complete vacuum. One small variable can magnify the consequences beyond any real calculation.

A complete vacuum, with only light in it, necessitates light as a self measuring system conducive almost to self consciousness.

Light as directed towards itself has infinite velocities, as no velocity, until it is localized in which case the speed may be determined relative to other light as a standard assuming this act of localization does not introduced new variables…which is highly unlikely considering the void would represent potential space between the light and the framework.

Light would basically manifest as all speeds at once until the framework determines its velocity which would be influenced by gravity.

If light is x speed with y variables, that is one thing to argue, but when arguing it is x speed in 0 variables (vacuum/void) it changes the nature altogether.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Take in gravity, gravity waves, radiation of various forms, and the vacuum exists as a purely theoretical state.

Kinetic “theory” of gases is a theory, but even taking this into account the vacuum is nullified in the face of physics interpretation, however obscure, of dark matter.

Having worked with multistage industrial vacuum systems over half of my adult life, I can say vacuum is very REAL. When you get to very high vacuums, as I’ve dealt with in specialized laboratory equipment (turbomolecular pumps, used in a mass spectrometer), the pressures I’ve dealt with are about 250 million times lower than atmospheric pressure — so getting down close to perfect vacuum. The vacuum of interstellar space is even higher — about 1,000 times more rarefied than even that. But you don’t see any change in the laws of nature at these pressures — indeed kinetic theory does a good job of predicting pressure and other properties across the entire range of attainable pressures. When the pressure gets very low, gas molecules travel in straight lines for long distances, and are far more likely to hit the vessel wall, than they are other gas molecules (long mean free path). And even TOUCHING a surface (skin oil) of the inside vessel walls before pulling down, impacts upon ultimate attainable pressure, because after you pull down, the oils from your skin degas. Ever notice how high vacuum chambers are all polished stainless steel? You also have to use special gauges to even measure these low pressures.

Since you don’t define ‘framework’, it’s rather muddled thinking. To aid further discussion, define the ‘framework’. If the ‘framework’ is a Universe with perfect vacuum and no matter, then there is NO SPACETIME.

As for Dark matter, it is hardly ‘obscure’. Lord Kelvin postulated its existence back in the 1880’s, nearly 140 years ago! Bear in mind, gravity does not accelerate or decelerate light. Rather, it causes curvature in the spacetime in which light travels. The local frame speed of light in vacuum, is everywhere constant, c. These are very precise terms. Dark matter, if it exists (there are competing theories to explain gravitational lensing, spiral arm galaxy velocities, etc) is just non-luminous matter that exerts a gravitational force. Nothing mystical about that.

Again, just because something isn’t measured doesn’t mean it attains ‘all values’, or that it is ‘self-conscious’. It just means we don’t know the value of it. How does consciousness arise out of something you don’t measure? If I shut my eyes and don’t observe the velocity of a car on the street is it ‘almost self conscious’ by your analogy? This intermingling of mystical and scientific concepts represents the muddled thinking of the past. It is useful to speak CLEARLY about these topics, which requires STUDY. For instance, light does not have mass; it is not impacted by gravity — in precise language, the curvature of spacetime THROUGGH WHICH IT PROPAGATES, can impact its measurable properties.

Science and philosophy separated with Galileo and then moreso with Descartes almost 400 years ago. And we got away from this mingling of the mystical and the physical. The term ‘science’ is still relatively new, coined in the 19th century — prior to that practitioners were called ‘natural philosophers’.

Incidentally, you can still observe light emitted approximately 14 billion years ago — its wavelength has been stretched out by the expansion of spacetime — this is the cosmic background radiation. And this is also why the wavelengths of said radiation, are in the microwave band.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

Take in gravity, gravity waves, radiation of various forms, and the vacuum exists as a purely theoretical state.
Kinetic “theory” of gases is a theory, but even taking this into account the vacuum is nullified in the face of physics interpretation, however obscure, of dark matter.

Having worked with multistage industrial vacuum systems over half of my adult life, I can say vacuum is very REAL. When you get to very high vacuums, as I’ve dealt with in specialized laboratory equipment (turbomolecular pumps, used in a mass spectrometer), the pressures I’ve dealt with are about 250 million times lower than atmospheric pressure — so getting down close to perfect vacuum. The vacuum of interstellar space is even higher — about 1,000 times more rarefied than even that. But you don’t see any change in the laws of nature at these pressures — indeed kinetic theory does a good job of predicting pressure and other properties across the entire range of attainable pressures. When the pressure gets very low, gas molecules travel in straight lines for long distances, and are far more likely to hit the vessel wall, than they are other gas molecules (long mean free path). And even TOUCHING a surface (skin oil) of the inside vessel walls before pulling down, impacts upon ultimate attainable pressure, because after you pull down, the oils from your skin degas. Ever notice how high vacuum chambers are all polished stainless steel? You also have to use special gauges to even measure these low pressures.
Since you don’t define ‘framework’, it’s rather muddled thinking. To aid further discussion, define the ‘framework’. If the ‘framework’ is a Universe with perfect vacuum and no matter, then there is NO SPACETIME.
As for Dark matter, it is hardly ‘obscure’. Lord Kelvin postulated its existence back in the 1880’s, nearly 140 years ago! Bear in mind, gravity does not accelerate or decelerate light. Rather, it causes curvature in the spacetime in which light travels. The local frame speed of light in vacuum, is everywhere constant, c. These are very precise terms. Dark matter, if it exists (there are competing theories to explain gravitational lensing, spiral arm galaxy velocities, etc) is just non-luminous matter that exerts a gravitational force. Nothing mystical about that.
Again, just because something isn’t measured doesn’t mean it attains ‘all values’, or that it is ‘self-conscious’. It just means we don’t know the value of it. How does consciousness arise out of something you don’t measure? If I shut my eyes and don’t observe the velocity of a car on the street is it ‘almost self conscious’ by your analogy? This intermingling of mystical and scientific concepts represents the muddled thinking of the past. It is useful to speak CLEARLY about these topics, which requires STUDY. For instance, light does not have mass; it is not impacted by gravity — in precise language, the curvature of spacetime THROUGGH WHICH IT PROPAGATES, can impact its measurable properties.
Science and philosophy separated with Galileo and then moreso with Descartes almost 400 years ago. And we got away from this mingling of the mystical and the physical. The term ‘science’ is still relatively new, coined in the 19th century — prior to that practitioners were called ‘natural philosophers’.
Incidentally, you can still observe light emitted approximately 14 billion years ago — its wavelength has been stretched out by the expansion of spacetime — this is the cosmic background radiation. And this is also why the wavelengths of said radiation, are in the microwave band.

Close to 0 is still infinitely away from zero.

If light is x speed with y variables, then fine…it is a rational argument.

But a complete vacuum is only theoretical.

Saying “dark matter is hardly obscure” then following it by “if it exists” is a very obscure statement. But let’s take the interpretation you offer: it is non luminous matter that exerts a gravitational force.

This gravity curves the light.

By curving the light it effectively causing a change in acceleratioj and further a change in volume.

If the light is moving from point A to B in a straight line and this straight line is let’s say 50 units.

The curve of it through gravity causes the length of it to change to 75 units.

Gravity causes an increas in volume.

Now the speed of the light moving from point A to B, if the same always, takes longer if gravity is applied as this curvature causes the distance to increase. With the increase in distance causes an increase in length of time from point A to B.

No surprise.

The problem occurs in the respect that point A to B always is composed of sub distances. A1 to a2 to a3… etc. This is composed of A11 to A12 to A13 etc. So on an so forth.

The light is always traveling between a set of linear points, but these linear points always show an the light as instantaneous in some respects.

A.111x and A.111y, for example, is always the constant length of light. It is always instantaneous as this length. The light as a set of points effectively is a set of points replicating. The movement of light is the replication of light where this dark matter effectively causes to change from on locality to another. The speed of light is a replication of one locality to another, where any “speed” is merely a ratio of instantaneous localization of light to other instantaneous localization of light.

Light only has a speed if a localized state is infinite in speed.

Light is not in a pure vacuum, unless vacuum is defined as dark matter. This still leads to a whole set of further problems where the variations in the gravity produced by dark matter will cause a variation within the speed of light.

The speed of light may in fact be it adaptation to dark matter where a percieved change in light is actually the dark matter canceling itself out. Dark matter may just be a veil of chaos in very loose terms where this chaos observes the unity of light in an approximate nature.

The problem with light existing through spacetime, is that light is an extension of space time where we are still left with a rate of infinity for some variable. Light is a result of space time folding through itself and we are left with a self referential system where percievably instantaneous speeds are inevitable.

The whole foundation for the speed of light being a constant is a mathematical theory based on certain variables.

[Author]

Posts