The Problem of the Speed of Light in a Vacuum

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Close to 0 is still infinitely away from zero.

No. The difference between two finite quantities is finite. Precise thinking — and mathematics — are required to describe the universe rationally.

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.

What ‘respect’? There are TWO and only TWO possibilities:

1.) The observer is inside the reference frame of the propagating light. This ‘possibility’ is impossible. Why? Because the ‘observer’ (comprised of matter) cannot be accelerated to the speed of light or beyond, and thus, cannot exist in the same inertial reference frame as the light. Why? Because the observer’s spatial dimension (think length contraction, Lorentz transforms) would be zero. And its time dilation would be such that it was total; the postulated ‘observer’ would experience no passage of time. Such an observer does not, and cannot exist, outside of time and space. And that is ALSO why a particle accelerator like SLAC can accelerate particles to, say, 0.999999995c, but not ALL the way to c. That is because infinite energy is required to accelerate to c; that translates to ‘impossible’. Mathematically, the denominator is SQRT(1-V^2/C^2). It incrementally becomes harder and harder to accelerate the particle — more energy required. So this division by zero is where the requirement for infinite energy comes from. And of course, an observer would bring mass, so that you no longer have vacuum.

2.) The observer is outside the inertial reference frame of the propagating light — i.e. they are moving slower than the speed of light. The light then propagates at c from their perspective.

Even if I am on a hypothetical spaceship traveling through interstellar space at half the speed of light, I still perceive observed light as traveling AT c, NOT 0.5c or 1.5c — and an observer ‘stationary’ relative to me, ALSO perceives THE SAME LIGHT traveling at the SAME speed. That is only possible because ‘space’ is four dimensional — it is spacetime. The Lorentz transform is called transform, because it transforms length and time between reference frames. If I turn on my flashlight parallel to direction rocket is traveling, and did experiments with geared teeth, mirrors, etc, to measure the speed of light, I would NOT come up with a speed of light on my spaceship of 0.5c or 1.5c, even for light parallel to my direction of travel — it would be c (this assumes experiments measured the speed in vacuum of course).

Now you may ask, what is the speed of one photon relative to another photon, moving approximately parallel to it? Well, if I had two parallel photons (bearing in mind they are actually oscillating in 2 dimensions, and propagating in a 3rd dimension approximately parallel), what would they ‘see’? Well, they are in the SAME reference frame. So they have ZERO relative speed. Just like two cars both traveling 75 miles per hour, see the other car as stationery relative to themselves. In the case of the two light rays, there IS no Lorentz transform, because the relative velocity is ZERO, and the denominator of the transform is unity — you’re multiplying by 1. The idea you keep spouting that the light travels instantaneously in its own frame is non-sensical. Think about it another way. The light has a WAVELENGTH. That represents an oscillation over time. If it traveled instantly, it could, by definition, have no wavelength. And of course, if it traveled at infinite speed it would have infinite energy. Where does infinite energy come from in a universe with finite mass and energy?

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

The basis is experimental measurements which agree with one another to high precision, using widely different techniques. Science has also explored whether physical constants have changed over time, and so far, no evidence has been found for that. The speed of light is constant only in vacuum. Its speed can be changed very slightly by focusing on other techniques to structure light; those speed differences are insignificant, and due to the structuring, changing the angle (in simple terms) — a detailed explanation of the differences between phase and group velocities is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Pure mathematics doesn’t prove the speed of light is constant.

As for the assumptions of SR (special relativity), those would be that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, and the laws of physics are the same in all frames. So those are not ‘variables’. Again, precision is crucial in a discussion. Is relativity ‘true’? So far, it’s the best explanation and hasn’t been falsified, and experiments have verified its predictions. That doesn’t mean it’s ‘true’ or there won’t be further refinements. It merely means it has not been falsified. Again, the speed of light being constant was the ASSUMPTION or POSTULATE used to develop the theory, not the RESULT of the theory. From these assumptions, with mathematics, comes the Lorentz transform. Then all the subsequent tests to confirm or falsify the theory using OBSERVATIONS.

Incidentally, you can actually calculate the speed of light INDEPENDENTLY from direct measurements, using the constants of electromagnetism (permittivity and permeability of free space). I remember doing that in college physics, an interesting exercise. Does that ‘prove’ Maxwell’s Laws? No, it just means that theory hasn’t been falsified.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

Close to 0 is still infinitely away from zero.

No. The difference between two finite quantities is finite. Precise thinking — and mathematics — are required to describe the universe rationally.

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.

What ‘respect’? There are TWO and only TWO possibilities:
1.) The observer is inside the reference frame of the propagating light. This ‘possibility’ is impossible. Why? Because the ‘observer’ (comprised of matter) cannot be accelerated to the speed of light or beyond, and thus, cannot exist in the same inertial reference frame as the light. Why? Because the observer’s spatial dimension (think length contraction, Lorentz transforms) would be zero. And its time dilation would be such that it was total; the postulated ‘observer’ would experience no passage of time. Such an observer does not, and cannot exist, outside of time and space. And that is ALSO why a particle accelerator like SLAC can accelerate particles to, say, 0.999999995c, but not ALL the way to c. That is because infinite energy is required to accelerate to c; that translates to ‘impossible’. Mathematically, the denominator is SQRT(1-V^2/C^2). It incrementally becomes harder and harder to accelerate the particle — more energy required. So this division by zero is where the requirement for infinite energy comes from. And of course, an observer would bring mass, so that you no longer have vacuum.
2.) The observer is outside the inertial reference frame of the propagating light — i.e. they are moving slower than the speed of light. The light then propagates at c from their perspective.
Even if I am on a hypothetical spaceship traveling through interstellar space at half the speed of light, I still perceive observed light as traveling AT c, NOT 0.5c or 1.5c — and an observer ‘stationary’ relative to me, ALSO perceives THE SAME LIGHT traveling at the SAME speed. That is only possible because ‘space’ is four dimensional — it is spacetime. The Lorentz transform is called transform, because it transforms length and time between reference frames. If I turn on my flashlight parallel to direction rocket is traveling, and did experiments with geared teeth, mirrors, etc, to measure the speed of light, I would NOT come up with a speed of light on my spaceship of 0.5c or 1.5c, even for light parallel to my direction of travel — it would be c (this assumes experiments measured the speed in vacuum of course).
Now you may ask, what is the speed of one photon relative to another photon, moving approximately parallel to it? Well, if I had two parallel photons (bearing in mind they are actually oscillating in 2 dimensions, and propagating in a 3rd dimension approximately parallel), what would they ‘see’? Well, they are in the SAME reference frame. So they have ZERO relative speed. Just like two cars both traveling 75 miles per hour, see the other car as stationery relative to themselves. In the case of the two light rays, there IS no Lorentz transform, because the relative velocity is ZERO, and the denominator of the transform is unity — you’re multiplying by 1. The idea you keep spouting that the light travels instantaneously in its own frame is non-sensical. Think about it another way. The light has a WAVELENGTH. That represents an oscillation over time. If it traveled instantly, it could, by definition, have no wavelength. And of course, if it traveled at infinite speed it would have infinite energy. Where does infinite energy come from in a universe with finite mass and energy?

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

The basis is experimental measurements which agree with one another to high precision, using widely different techniques. Science has also explored whether physical constants have changed over time, and so far, no evidence has been found for that. The speed of light is constant only in vacuum. Its speed can be changed very slightly by focusing on other techniques to structure light; those speed differences are insignificant, and due to the structuring, changing the angle (in simple terms) — a detailed explanation of the differences between phase and group velocities is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
Pure mathematics doesn’t prove the speed of light is constant.
As for the assumptions of SR (special relativity), those would be that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, and the laws of physics are the same in all frames. So those are not ‘variables’. Again, precision is crucial in a discussion. Is relativity ‘true’? So far, it’s the best explanation and hasn’t been falsified, and experiments have verified its predictions. That doesn’t mean it’s ‘true’ or there won’t be further refinements. It merely means it has not been falsified. Again, the speed of light being constant was the ASSUMPTION or POSTULATE used to develop the theory, not the RESULT of the theory. From these assumptions, with mathematics, comes the Lorentz transform. Then all the subsequent tests to confirm or falsify the theory using OBSERVATIONS.
Incidentally, you can actually calculate the speed of light INDEPENDENTLY from direct measurements, using the constants of electromagnetism (permittivity and permeability of free space). I remember doing that in college physics, an interesting exercise. Does that ‘prove’ Maxwell’s Laws? No, it just means that theory hasn’t been falsified.

1) .1 contains .01, .001., .0001, .00001 to infinity when observing a distance between .1 and 0.

High precision is merely the observation between one framework (the experiment) and another framework (the experiment or hypothesis) as having a high level of symmetry.

The nature of similarity acts as a connective median between the empirical and the empirical and/or idea. However any differential is subject to the above .1 and 0 example which accounts for variation between the two given a long enough timeline.

2) The dualism between the inside and outside observer is a repetitively changing framework. X experiment gives y impression on observer. Y impression in turn results in a experiment.

This reflects a micro scale of progressive evolution where the process of measurement is not just limited to time, and an act of time in itself, but effectively is a series of movements folding through themselves.

It is subject to an infinite regress similar to point 1.

3) Empirical experiments, while relying on abstract mathematics, contains an inherent form of probablism in the nature of understanding any finite reality because its dependence on time takes into account potential change.

The assumption of the speed of light, in special relativity, necessitates it as a variable in the respect it is both an assumption (and as an assumption is not a constant) and a premise axiom (all axioms are variables when relating are defined by the framework of interpretation which extends from them).

4) Relative to Maxwell’s law an absence of proof or no proof sets the law as merely a means of defining reality where the law itself is not just an interpretation of specific relations but in itself is a localization of these specific realities against the whole of reality and as a localization is subject to randomness on part of the observer as an approximation of phenomenon.

This applies to all laws.

5) Electromagnetism as an unchanging constant, not only sets the foundation for how to measure light but effectively is either subject to an equal or greater speed in the respect that as a constant it is beyond change.

That which does not change is infinite and as infinite neither is it subject to variation but effectively is beyond an concept of speed considering it does not variate. This is considering speed is one ratio of movement to another.

This point 5 is subject to debate however, even from my stance of arguing it.

6. Relativity is true, is it strictly a form of atomism where one locality (particle/wave/any other phenomenon existing in parts) exists through and is defined by other parts where multiplicity acts as a form of definition that gives greater precision than wholism. Relativity is not just limited to physics.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

1) .1 contains .01, .001., .0001, .00001 to infinity when observing a distance between .1 and 0.

Actually, the term is ‘infinitesimal’ not ‘infinity’. Each successive term is increasingly smaller. Even if spacetime is continuous rather than discrete, movement through it is still possible.

I am not trying to belittle you; if you’re sincerely interested in this, you MUST study the math behind it to gain any real understanding. Have you studied infinite geometric series in secondary school and what they sum to? What convergence and divergence are? If I add up 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … it yields a finite result summed across an infinite number of ever-smaller TERMS: The summation is unity. This is referred to generically, as an ‘infinite series’ in the precise language of mathematics. Similarly, the series you posited above, sums to a finite value. I’ll leave that exercise for you to calculate the sum, should you wish to do so. I think you will find the topic very interesting.

This is probably a decent introduction if you’re interested in how such sums are computed analytically: https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/sequences-sums-geometric.html

It is also an interesting exercise, to set up a loop and calculate the first few thousands terms’ summation, on a modern computer or spreadsheet. You can actually plot it and watch it converge.

In fact, there is a general formula for these convergent series. What do you think that implies about your argument above? Just as Zeno’s paradox may seem a ‘paradox’ if you have not studied mathematics, it is most certainly NOT a paradox, to someone who has. Some of my previous posts were very technical; while you can ‘plug in’ numbers into a Lorentz transform, being able to derive that formula, is NOT trivial. I’m not a mathematician, but I’ve studied a good deal of mathematics up to partial diff eq and lots of math electives (just for fun!) — but the link above is relatively easy to comprehend without a great deal of prerequisites.

I’m not going to respond to the rest of your message, because most of it, doesn’t make any sense. ‘Symmetry’ likewise has a very precise meaning, as does ‘inertial reference frame’.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

Empirical experiments, while relying on abstract mathematics, contains an inherent form of probablism in the nature of understanding any finite reality because its dependence on time takes into account potential change.

The assumption of the speed of light, in special relativity, necessitates it as a variable in the respect it is both an assumption (and as an assumption is not a constant) and a premise axiom (all axioms are variables when relating are defined by the framework of interpretation which extends from them).

1). Call it what you wish but an infinitesimal is still an infinity, however small.

2) This issue while relegated to mathematics, obviously, is as much as a philosophical problem of framework. Light in a perfect vacuum is unified, hence instantaneous. Academic references, which you cannot argue, are a fallacy of authority and can only be taken so far.

3) Break it down to one simple question: “If light exists in a perfect vacuum, is it unified?” The remainder of the argument can be broken down from here.

Is light in a vacuum unified or not?

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

1). Call it what you wish but an infinitesimal is still an infinity, however small.

No, it isn’t. An infinity has a PRECISE definition, ‘a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number’.

Think of it this way. I can divide a rod into infinitely many segments (each segment being extremely small or ‘infinitesimal’). But the total MASS of the individual segments summed together, must equal the mass of the rod before it was cut. This is addressed mathematically by the ‘infinite series’ summing up an infinite number of infinitesimal ‘terms’ or ‘slices’.

Note that this isn’t a perfect example; eventually the ‘segments’ would be single atoms, and any further division, would no longer have the same properties as the rod itself, and eventually, we MAY reach fundamental particles that are indivisible. Also, the energy levels required to divide a nucleus and overcome the strong force binding the nucleons, is considerable. So there are practical limits to how far this division can proceed. Even particles once thought fundamental, have been shown to be divisible; e.g. the electron is comprised of 3 sub particles.

Nonetheless, even if I WERE ABLE to divide it into an INFINITE number of INFINITESIMAL segments, the sum of their weights, is finite and equal to the weight of the original bar.

The same is true for two points on the number line. The number line, is of course, continuous and division into an infinite number of shorter segments IS a property of the set of real numbers; whether spacetime is continuous or discrete, in contrast, is not known.

But, even in the continuous case, if I divide the distance into an infinite number of short segments, they still sum to a FINITE difference. If you read the link of infinite series, this would make sense.

2) This issue while relegated to mathematics, obviously, is as much as a philosophical problem of framework. Light in a perfect vacuum is unified, hence instantaneous. Academic references, which you cannot argue, are a fallacy of authority and can only be taken so far.

Haha, no, it isn’t ‘relegated’ to mathematics. The word ‘relegated’ means ‘dismissing to an inferior position’. It is a scientific question, answered by observations, hypothesis, theories, and mathematics. So math and science are CENTRAL to the question–the question is not ‘relegated’ to them. ‘Philosophy’ is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality or existence. Quite apart from science. What, PRECISELY, do you mean by ‘unified’ in this context? As for ‘fallacies’, and ‘academic references’, ALL of this discussion, including your suggestion that light travels ‘instantaneously’, are based on the THEORY of relativity. While it IS true a photon experiences no time in its reference frame, its reference frame also has no LENGTH (because length contraction is total). It really makes NO SENSE to even talk about light’s ‘reference frame’, because no matter (observer) can be accelerated to the speed of light, as noted previously. From a photon’s perspective, no time passes, but also it travels no distance IN THAT FRAME. In all ATTAINABLE frames, the speed of light in vacuum is c. You cannot ATTAIN the velocity of light (see previous discussion), to enter into its frame, because doing so, requires infinite energy. Nothing with mass, can travel at the speed of light.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

1). Call it what you wish but an infinitesimal is still an infinity, however small.

No, it isn’t. An infinity has a PRECISE definition, ‘a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number’.
Think of it this way. I can divide a rod into infinitely many segments (each segment being extremely small or ‘infinitesimal’). But the total MASS of the individual segments summed together, must equal the mass of the rod before it was cut. This is addressed mathematically by the ‘infinite series’ summing up an infinite number of infinitesimal ‘terms’ or ‘slices’.
Note that this isn’t a perfect example; eventually the ‘segments’ would be single atoms, and any further division, would no longer have the same properties as the rod itself, and eventually, we MAY reach fundamental particles that are indivisible. Also, the energy levels required to divide a nucleus and overcome the strong force binding the nucleons, is considerable. So there are practical limits to how far this division can proceed. Even particles once thought fundamental, have been shown to be divisible; e.g. the electron is comprised of 3 sub particles.
Nonetheless, even if I WERE ABLE to divide it into an INFINITE number of INFINITESIMAL segments, the sum of their weights, is finite and equal to the weight of the original bar.
The same is true for two points on the number line. The number line, is of course, continuous and division into an infinite number of shorter segments IS a property of the set of real numbers; whether spacetime is continuous or discrete, in contrast, is not known.
But, even in the continuous case, if I divide the distance into an infinite number of short segments, they still sum to a FINITE difference. If you read the link of infinite series, this would make sense.

2) This issue while relegated to mathematics, obviously, is as much as a philosophical problem of framework. Light in a perfect vacuum is unified, hence instantaneous. Academic references, which you cannot argue, are a fallacy of authority and can only be taken so far.

Haha, no, it isn’t ‘relegated’ to mathematics. The word ‘relegated’ means ‘dismissing to an inferior position’. It is a scientific question, answered by observations, hypothesis, theories, and mathematics. So math and science are CENTRAL to the question–the question is not ‘relegated’ to them. ‘Philosophy’ is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality or existence. Quite apart from science. What, PRECISELY, do you mean by ‘unified’ in this context? As for ‘fallacies’, and ‘academic references’, ALL of this discussion, including your suggestion that light travels ‘instantaneously’, are based on the THEORY of relativity. While it IS true a photon experiences no time in its reference frame, its reference frame also has no LENGTH (because length contraction is total). It really makes NO SENSE to even talk about light’s ‘reference frame’, because no matter (observer) can be accelerated to the speed of light, as noted previously. From a photon’s perspective, no time passes, but also it travels no distance IN THAT FRAME. In all ATTAINABLE frames, the speed of light in vacuum is c. You cannot ATTAIN the velocity of light (see previous discussion), to enter into its frame, because doing so, requires infinite energy. Nothing with mass, can travel at the speed of light.

1. A number greater than any assignable quantity not only necessitates a subjective defintion to mathematics, necessitating a form of irrationality, but a fraction of such small quantity is still “greater than” an assignable quality as this observes a “range” of numbers.

.000…1 and 111…1, with “…” necessitating an infinite variation observes both the fraction and the whole number as equally uncountable due to this infinite variation defining both of them.

All numbers are composed of infinite relations between them, as fractals composed of further fractals. Each number is effectively void in itself an act as a point of inversion where one fractal changes to another.

Secondarily,

Fallacy of authority, as the universally agreed upon definition is subject to majority vote thus further necessitating a bandwagon fallacy.

A commonly accepted definition, does not make it the definition.

2. Actually it is dismissed to an inferior position in the respect it must be an empirical axiom as it is scientific. Mathematics, in this respect, maintains a degree of inferiority.

3. Empiricism, the foundation of science, is justified through philosophy and argument. The only proof for empiricism is the symmetry of the argument for it.

4. It is based on an axiom for the theory of relativity, not the theory of relativity. Relativity exists. And most academic references, well are academic references. Some are theoretical and some are not. Empirical references are dependent upon interpretation, hence always carry a form of abstraction.

5. Actually a photons length would be the smallest observable length.

6. A light’s reference frame is still dependent upon other light particle waves.

7. Light alone in a vacuum is infinite energy as the light is pure volume and the vacuum is pure mass. Nothingness is formlessness, it takes the nature of mass as formlessness. Volume is strictly an amount of space, a set of boundaries which the light in the void exists as.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

All numbers are composed of infinite relations between them, as fractals composed of further fractals. Each number is effectively void in itself an act as a point of inversion where one fractal changes to another.

Do you know what a fractal is? Do you know what the set of real numbers is? If so, how can you make that statement? A fractal is a never-ending pattern that is self-similar across different scales. You can use equations to generate fractals with numbers, but numbers are not ‘composed’ of ‘fractals’. If you perform OPERATORS on numbers, you can generate fractals.

Did you read the reference on how to sum an infinite series, and if so, what did you conclude from it about convergence?

Did you perform the exercise of summing the first few thousand terms of the series? If so, what did you conclude from doing it? Did you experiment with changing the exponent to gain understanding of convergence and divergence?

As for the rest of it, words have PRECISE meanings. Your failure to understand terminology, precludes both understanding, and clear communications.

5. Actually a photons length would be the smallest observable length.

No, that would not be the smallest observable distance. And what do you even mean by its ‘length’? Since light is a fluctuation in the electric and magnetic fields, two light rays can INTERFERE with each other, either CONSTRUCTIVELY or DESTRUCTIVELY. Light has a WAVElength, a photon does not have ‘length’ or a ‘radius’ or a ‘volume’. Again, precision is PARAMOUNT.

The smallest length thus far measured, is ABOUT 10^-18 m, measured at the LHC (a particle accelerator). In contrast, with an optical interferometer (I used one in college), you can directly measure down to only about 10^-7 m with light. So light interferometry, does not even measure the smallest lengths.

6. A light’s reference frame is still dependent upon other light particle waves.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
You don’t understand what an inertial reference frame is. There is no dependency.

If you’re interested in this, study some of the links above.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

All numbers are composed of infinite relations between them, as fractals composed of further fractals. Each number is effectively void in itself an act as a point of inversion where one fractal changes to another.

Do you know what a fractal is? Do you know what the set of real numbers is? If so, how can you make that statement? A fractal is a never-ending pattern that is self-similar across different scales. You can use equations to generate fractals with numbers, but numbers are not ‘composed’ of ‘fractals’. If you perform OPERATORS on numbers, you can generate fractals.
Did you read the reference on how to sum an infinite series, and if so, what did you conclude from it about convergence?
Did you perform the exercise of summing the first few thousand terms of the series? If so, what did you conclude from doing it? Did you experiment with changing the exponent to gain understanding of convergence and divergence?
As for the rest of it, words have PRECISE meanings. Your failure to understand terminology, precludes both understanding, and clear communications.

5. Actually a photons length would be the smallest observable length.

No, that would not be the smallest observable distance. And what do you even mean by its ‘length’? Since light is a fluctuation in the electric and magnetic fields, two light rays can INTERFERE with each other, either CONSTRUCTIVELY or DESTRUCTIVELY. Light has a WAVElength, a photon does not have ‘length’ or a ‘radius’ or a ‘volume’. Again, precision is PARAMOUNT.
The smallest length thus far measured, is ABOUT 10^-18 m, measured at the LHC (a particle accelerator). In contrast, with an optical interferometer (I used one in college), you can directly measure down to only about 10^-7 m with light. So light interferometry, does not even measure the smallest lengths.

6. A light’s reference frame is still dependent upon other light particle waves.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_referenceYou don’t understand what an inertial reference frame is. There is no dependency.
If you’re interested in this, study some of the links above.

So fractions compose further factions.

So what you are saying is that no set of infinite fractions exists between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc.?

If 1 and 2 are on a number line. And you mark 1.1, 1.2, etc., where the numbers 1 and 2 are marked by fractions.

Then take the the fraction and make it into further fractions, etc.

All number lines result in fractals, as patterns occurring at smaller and smaller scales.

As to reading you point? No. Why? Redhering gibberish. Why?

Because I am arguing about numbers being composed of further numbers, ad-infinitum. So what you are saying is that between 1 and 2 there are not infinite fractions(and fractals)?

Actually words have precise meanings only in the context they are used. Wittgenstein observed this…please dont tell me you are so ignorant of this I have to provide a link.

Actually the smallest observable length is its length considering length occurs only through the application of measurement. You can say x is of y length unless using “z” application of measurement.

Length is a distance between two points, or the wave length observes this.

Light, as a wavelength, does have a length…facepalm.

As to the particle accelerator having the more precise measurement, is off topic because we are talking about light in a complete vacuum

If light is a fluctuation in electric/magnetic fields, then light does not exist in a complete vacuum.

The premise of my argument is real simple and goes back to the fractal (not fraction, although this equally applies):

There is only 1 variable in both quantity and quality in the void. Because of this it effectively is immeasurable and whatever is measured is a localization. Any localization is a fraction relative to another fraction, or fractal relative to another fractal.

Also

Light is not in a vacuum if the vacuum is in something else.

The argument stands, and spare me the red herings. What you push is strictly group agreement.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Certainly any real number can be represented as a sum or difference of other real numbers. That does not mean the number is a fractal. I have covered the mathematics of why any two numbers have a finite difference between them, even though you can divide the number line between them into an infinite number of partitions, the sum of those partitions remains the difference between the two points.

If what I stated about distances were NOT true, no motion would be possible. Nothing in the universe could move.

Since length contraction is total at the speed of light, there is no distance in its own frame. Similarly, there is no time in its own frame (see Lorentz transform). Velocity has meaning only in real frames, where the speed of light in vacuum is always c, with caveats noted previously.

From my previous posts, you now understand light oscillates in two planes, corresponding to the electric and magnetic fields, that it travels 1,000 times faster than you originally posted, that there is no evidence for light being conscious or self-aware as you suggested, that the speed of light varies with its frequency in all media except vacuum, what the Lorentz transform is, and some other useful information, so I have at least made some progress.

Light does not halve itself as it propagates or ‘invert’, either, as you initially posted. Light cannot exist alone without an emitter. And it MAY not be able to exist without an absorber, either (Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory), strange as that may seem to causality.

As for your comment ‘Light is not in a vacuum if the vacuum is in something else’, you have to understand, space and space time, do not, can not, exist without matter and energy.

There is no rest frame for light. As an exercise you can prove that to yourself with v = f * lambda. Plug in numbers, look at the implications of one quantity being 0 or infinity, it will provide further insight. There is no time and there is no distance in the frame in which light propagates; this is one of the major errors in the initial post that I want to clearly refute in my last post on the topic.

There is no ‘measurement’ possible in the frame the light propagates in because no observer can enter it.

Responding to erroneous statements and incorrect facts, from the speed of light, to basic
definitions, has grown tiresome. Should you wish to learn more about relativity and physics, I would recommend the Khan Academy online. It is free.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

FrankOne wrote:

Certainly any real number can be represented as a sum or difference of other real numbers. That does not mean the number is a fractal. I have covered the mathematics of why any two numbers have a finite difference between them, even though you can divide the number line between them into an infinite number of partitions, the sum of those partitions remains the difference between the two points.
If what I stated about distances were NOT true, no motion would be possible. Nothing in the universe could move.
Since length contraction is total at the speed of light, there is no distance in its own frame. Similarly, there is no time in its own frame (see Lorentz transform). Velocity has meaning only in real frames, where the speed of light in vacuum is always c, with caveats noted previously.
From my previous posts, you now understand light oscillates in two planes, corresponding to the electric and magnetic fields, that it travels 1,000 times faster than you originally posted, that there is no evidence for light being conscious or self-aware as you suggested, that the speed of light varies with its frequency in all media except vacuum, what the Lorentz transform is, and some other useful information, so I have at least made some progress.
Light does not halve itself as it propagates or ‘invert’, either, as you initially posted. Light cannot exist alone without an emitter. And it MAY not be able to exist without an absorber, either (Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory), strange as that may seem to causality.
As for your comment ‘Light is not in a vacuum if the vacuum is in something else’, you have to understand, space and space time, do not, can not, exist without matter and energy.
There is no rest frame for light. As an exercise you can prove that to yourself with v = f * lambda. Plug in numbers, look at the implications of one quantity being 0 or infinity, it will provide further insight. There is no time and there is no distance in the frame in which light propagates; this is one of the major errors in the initial post that I want to clearly refute in my last post on the topic.
There is no ‘measurement’ possible in the frame the light propagates in because no observer can enter it.
Responding to erroneous statements and incorrect facts, from the speed of light, to basicdefinitions, has grown tiresome. Should you wish to learn more about relativity and physics, I would recommend the Khan Academy online. It is free.

Any number, on a number line can be observed as a fractal in the respect it is replicative symmetry that progressively changes in size.

Fractions exist as fractals where the number line is evidence of this.

Nothing in the universe moves unless it is localized into parts. If all is “quantified” (universes, dimensions, atoms, etc.) As “1” we are left with infinite movement/multiplicity as no movement.

This effectively sets a reasonable axiom for explaining quantum mechanics.

1. I agree with your point that: There may be no distance in it’s own frame, as this frame effectively represents another “unity” where no movement occurs. Movement and distance are inseparable in these respects.

However a distance does occur when one frame is observed through another, and while something such as photon my have no length in it’s own frame, relative to another photon in a frame it begins to gain length.

2. The fact that light oscillates in two planes leads to a problem of measurement.

If the light oscillates in two frames, then there is no complete vacuum.

If the light is in a complete vacuum, then these two planes are merely are extensions of light observing light as having no just multiple and potentially infinite speeds, but a speed of infinity giving further justification to a quantum effect.

3. Of course it is 1000 times faster than I previously posted, as well as 2,3,4…etc times considering there are many speeds if viewing the persepctive from one of unity.

4. If light exists in a vacuum, and this vacuum cannot be inside another vacuum as this would mean light is not in a complete vacuum, then everything stems from light based on this premise and light is self aware.

5. The fact that you say light cannot exist alone without an emitter necessitates the speed of light in a complete vacuum is a contradiction.

6. Actually the rest frame of light would be the localized photon in itself as having no length when taken as a singular frame. The fact that the localization of any particle causes the trajectory to be unfixed and random, necessitates a dualism being a resting state of order in the localization and disorder without it.

7. There is no definition of matter physicists agree on. And energy is dependent upon the formless nature of mass taking volume through acceleration. This acceleration necessitates a movement from point A to point B, as acceleration is dependent upon movement. Because of this all energy is strictly localization.

8. I agree no measurement occurs, relative to your point with no distance in the frame/lambda calculation. That is the paradox. If light is localized in a complete vacuum with there is no measurement.
There is only 1 variable. It can only have speed if broken into further localities.

This is the crux, and it goes back to a philosophical problem of measurement going to the pre socratic atomists.

Now for the sake of the thought experiment, I will use “atom” as synonymous to a localization of light.

1. If I have infinite atoms in a void, all of which as simple “points” because size is relative and we are left with a point particle interpretation, and all the atoms effectively are the same… is there really one atom?

2. If I have these infinite atoms again, any localization of one group, as a group, gives length and speed relative to the atoms existing inside of it as well as the atoms that exist as both singular and groups around it. What we observe as energy is effectively a synthesis between one constant localized framework, and a moving framework effectively repeating itself though movement around the constant framework.

Talking with someone who memorizes statements from authority figures has grown tiresome. Should you wish to push the limits of what you know you have yourself in front of you to question.

Physicists…what a bunch of arrogant idiots.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

No…I think we will keep it public frankone, The more enemies the better…lol. Any more takers?

I’ll respond to your last post in a private message only; the public posts merely torque off other members and are not of interest to anyone else.

>Nothing in the universe moves unless it is localized into parts. If all is “quantified” (universes, dimensions, atoms, etc.) As “1” we are left with infinite movement/multiplicity as no movement.

Motion is relative. I think that is what you are trying to say. With that, I agree. However, if you take the reference frame as the entirety of the universe, you certainly don’t have ‘infinite movement’ or ‘multiplicity’, or even ‘no movement’ — rather, you have an indeterminate form — there is no way to take any measurement, since you can’t OBSERVE anything from outside the universe, or even outside the ‘light cone’ of spacetime; i.e. you can’t move into the ‘elsewhere’ described by special relativity, or even interact with it. So best to call it ‘immeasurable’ or ‘inaccessible’ — very different from ‘infinite’.
2d
>This effectively sets a reasonable axiom for explaining quantum mechanics.

No, it doesn’t. The axioms for quantum mechanics involve state spaces and probability distributions, and how to calculate them.

>1. I agree with your point that: There may be no distance in it’s own frame, as this frame effectively represents another “unity” where no movement occurs. Movement and distance are inseparable in these respects.

Length and time axes are compressed to a point. So distance and time have no meaning. So they aren’t ‘inseperable’. Incidentally, GRAVITY also propagates at the speed of light, NOT instantly. So do electric and magnetic fields. We don’t have an actual transform to transform coordinates in and out of the frame the light travels in — so it’s really most precise to call it an invalid frame.

1) Actually taking all of “being” into a framework of measurement as “1” we are left with “void” or “nothingness” as a counter framework…which is a contradiction in terms considering it is “nothing”, not even a framework. “Infinite” is measured as “indefinite” and all atomic facts, referencing loosely Wittgenstein’s work…or at least imply it, are “indefinite”. Deductivity proof the indefinite nature of any atomic facts, “measurement in physics” in this case.

2) 1 cannot be measured, for it is the foundation of measurement and reflects measurement only when compared to itself. Unity must be inverted to “units”, where “unit” itself is strictly an approximation of “Unity”; necessitating “Unity” as inevitable. The continual manifestation of “units” being composed of further “units” observes point 1, hence “unit” is an approximation of “unity” but shares the same indefinite nature.

3) Points 1 and 2 point to the inherent paradox within the quantitative nature of Physics stemming from psychological projections of the mathematics community determining the foundations of the axioms which constitute mathematics. The foundational problems of mathematics in turn act as foundational problems for physics, considering 1 and 0 effectively is the foundation for light speed in a vacuum. The foundation for light speed in physics is a question about the “nature” of binary code.

4) Motion is the relation of one part to another, but in light of points 1 and 2, where are left with motion as the relation of “multiple” infinities stemming from the “1” infinity. The foundational axioms of relativity, as logical atoms in turn are subject to relativity where the “speed of light in a theoretical vacuum” is set as the starting constant measurement…but does it change when replacing it with another variable such as “electromagneticism”?

5) Distance and time are the relation of points. With this relation of points gain meaning realtive to another relations of points. Distance and time effectively are just ratios within ratios and are, in these respects, one and the same.

6) Infinite is “indefinite”. What is immeasurable is “indefinite”. The problem occurs in the philosophical problems of the foundations of measurement; hence why “the problem of the speed of light in a vacuum” is in the philosophy section.

7) There is no such thing as an invalid frame because “frame” itself is invalid and share the same nature of “1” in the respect frame follows the same recursive nature.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

Don’t y’all make me post M-Theory.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[L. EulerParticipant 343]

Dear John Doe / Frank one,
To bring the subject back on topic for others in this website (and L. Euler gets it being one laboratory course short of a physics degree),and yes Carnage who is a doctor well so am I (Medicine not Physics)…I digress….back to topic in a vacuum light is the ONLY thing… so all phenomena are self measured through it.
Kind of like feminism .. if all you measure is one constraint (women’s viewpoint)… you will NEVER see the guys viewpoint.
Put it another way it’s like trying to solve the Arab/Israeli problem but all you are only willing to look at the the problem from the point of view of “Arab Abuse”. That’s the whole problem of Women’s abuse!! GET IT !!

Are we back on topic?.. that’s what this website is for…Physics is great but bring the topic back to what is relevant to the average people on the website.

Euler gets Physics, but not everyone does, but anyone here certainly understands a fake yardstick that only wants to measure one thing. (and no there’s not a perfect vacuum except perhaps in my Ex’s head)

Yes yardsticks that measure only on thing are useless just like the preoccupied feminist social construct.
Time is a great healer… lets watch Sweden self destruct and ask ourselves if we want this path.

L. Euler

[Author]

Posts