The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Undefined]

On the same page? With Farsight?

This is the last sentence of the, Richard Hamming, quote:



This is what I said to, Farsight, in post 2:



Care to guess on how they would be at all related?

Read my above two posts again.

If the 'coordinate system' and the 'time' concept are mere maths abstractions overlaying the local actual observable motions/cycles etc, why not go directly for the observables locally in the GR context which makes all 'coordinate system' and 'time' abstractions MOOT.

Without regard to and understanding of the locally real fundamental GR (as per Einstein's GR predictions/observations) EMPIRICAL essentials/effects, all the maths and abstractions in the world cannot be proof against GIGO potential of a higher order which must inevitably follow.

Hence my observation to przyk above that his arguments regarding coordinate systems are equally arguments against using them at all in the easily simplified GR case (as my post #225 advised).

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Um...

My criticism of, Farsight, is applicable to you as well.

 

[Undefined]

Um...

I my criticism of, Farsight, is applicable to you as well.

You haven't addressed the scientific points I made to you, origin and przyk. If you cannot do so, then your empty opinion-only posts are 'noise' and against the site rules, are they not?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Report me then.

 

[Undefined]

Report me then.

Nah. Not this time. I would rather that you made some scientific attempt to address the scientific points I made. Your choice, though.

So, are you going to read and understand properly the scientific points made in #225, #258 and #259, and then actually make a scientific reply, as would be reasonably expected from a member in a science forum discussion on this particular aspect in this thread?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

So, I say this:

Anyway, a neutral pion decays into two gamma rays $$\pi ^0\to \gamma +\gamma$$ ie light. In 1964 at CERN whether these pions were moving at 0.999 75c or stationary in the lab, the gamma rays that came from them were all measured to be the same speed.

Farsight is out to lunch like no other on this one. He may be challenging that light is not an electromagnetic wave that travels at a finite speed, or he wants to re-write Maxwell's equations.

You reply to it with this:

Based on which clock. And compared to what? These little details are important and should be clearly identified and made allowances for when making adamant claims for a 'same speed of light' in all circumstances. Don't you think?

And you magically think you made a discovery somewhere? How long ago was your discovery BTW?

 

[Undefined]

There, was it so hard? But you didn't address my points made to you, origin and przyk in my posts #225, #258 nd #259.

Meanwhile, while you think about those points, I will briefly observe the following regarding what you did post...

So, I say this:




You reply to it withy this:



And you magically think you made a discovery somewhere? How long ago was your discovery BTW?

The gammas would have different frequencies, yes?

So the 'internal clock processes' RATE inherent in the DECAY process rate related to the motional state of the particle would produce those frequency differences DURING the EMISSION process which can be directly related to the INTERNAL MOTIONS/SPEEDS of the particles field/mass components which produced the gammas. Yes?

Hence the component fields of the particle had a SPEED of fluctuation/change differences which were INTERNALLY EFFECTIVE in order to produce the different frequencies depending on motional states which affect the particle accordingly regarding its internal 'decay clock' motions/cycles.

They are their own 'clocks' and their respective 'internal processing speeds' reflect their internal clock RATES according to motional states, including a combination of the SR AND GR component effects (ie, SR linear motion across the lab space at 0.999 75c, or stationary with respect to the lab frame and the component at that local space effects of gravity well (on the internal decay process rate/clock interactions within the particles field/mass structure dynamics).

See how your perspective is too simplistic and superficial to be the valid counter-argument you think it is? Naturally, if afterwards the speeds across the lab frame of both gammas of differing frequencies are measured using ANOTHER external lab CLOCK/RATE common to both gammas' measurement construct, then naturally they will be measured at the same speed and still retain their emission differing rate 'frequencies' imprint.

 

[OnlyMe]

There, was it so hard? But you didn't address my points made to you, origin and przyk in my posts #225, #258 nd #259.

Re-read post #262!

That seems to cover it.

(Though I guess since I post no math it might equally apply to me.)

 

[Undefined]

Re-read post #262!

That seems to cover it.

(Though I guess since I post no math it might equally apply to me.)

You will note that the essentials are what we're after if the discussion is to escape the mire of abstractions which are superfluous if you read my posts #225, #258 and #259. All else is unscientific opinion and 'noise' which clutters the thread up. Please read also my post #267 in reply to another unnecessary distraction from the issue I have observed about in my posts. That's all that interests me. Leave the personal/politics etc out if you please. Thanks.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I haven't made a counter argument to anything you have said in this thread. :bugeye: (An accusation of you being like, Farsight, yes. Also, a suggestion for you to report me.) So, when you say something like this:

See how your perspective is too simplistic and superficial to be the valid counter-argument you think it is?

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, I'm not going to read those posts, and never had intended too. You don't even understand your own word salad, but expect others' to be swayed by it? Thanks.

 

[origin]

The only observable is motion/cycles, not 'time' abstraction FROM that motion/cycle information sets/comparisons. Where have you been? You have missed all the new perspectives about 'time' as a philosophical/abstract 'overlay' on what the motion/cyclic observable dynamics produce that we then 'graph' and 'compare' in an abstract math model.

Time clearly exists as you well know. End of story.

Think about it: If the clock rates are affected LOCALLY by GR (as is observed and as predicted by Einstein's GR) depending on locally applicable gravity-well altitude(s), then what does that do for the LOCALLY 'measured/calculated' speed of light when using the different clock rates to do the local measurement/calculation within the two clocks respective location altitudes?

You end up measuring the speed of light as c in a vacuum in all local frames, don't you?

Your 'believing' in some philosophical abstraction from motion/cycles which you later label 'time', does not answer the reality of what is happening locally in the two GR well locations/clocks and the speed of light measurements/calculations dependent on those two locally differing clock rates.

I don't believe anything, I measure it. In all the frames I measure my resting heartbeat at about 62 beats/min. In my frame I measure the speed of light as c in a vacuum.

ETA: Nice to see your smiling fingers typing again - sort of.

 

[Russ_Watters]

The only observable is motion/cycles, not 'time' abstraction FROM that motion/cycle information sets/comparisons.

And what units do you use to quantify that motion...?

 

[Undefined]

And what units do you use to quantify that motion...?

Whatever the relevant physical parameters/properties are inherent to the cycling rate/nature of the motions involved in both the 'standard motion' used as the clock rate standard, and the motion under study which is compared appropriately in the abstracted analysis construct which uses the 'time second' derived from the natural motions of light/matter across space. Units of time are merely 'parsings of motions' of one or other dynamical system under study as either the clock standard for future analytical references/comparisons, and the 'parsings according to that standard' of any other motion-across-space observations. Sorry for the rushed reply. Gotta go. See/speak to you another day.

 

[Undefined]

I haven't made a counter argument to anything you have said in this thread. :bugeye: (An accusation of you being like, Farsight, yes. Also, a suggestion for you to report me.) So, when you say something like this: It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, I'm not going to read those posts, and never had intended too. You don't even understand your own word salad, but expect others' to be swayed by it? Thanks.

So, you don't read or understand but make replies anyway? Trolling and baiting and deliberately and maliciously making personal cheap shot posts and not addressing the scientific points is frowned upon by admin/mods/rules. If that is what you want to do here, that's your choice. I'll leave you to it, then. Good luck.

It might be nice change for you to actually discuss the science and the points at issue made to you? You being a member of this science discussion forum an all. Just a suggestion.

 

[Undefined]

Time clearly exists as you well know. End of story.



You end up measuring the speed of light as c in a vacuum in all local frames, don't you?



I don't believe anything, I measure it. In all the frames I measure my resting heartbeat at about 62 beats/min. In my frame I measure the speed of light as c in a vacuum.

ETA: Nice to see your smiling fingers typing again - sort of.

"End of story" you say? Sure.

The concept of 'time' is a story. As many people have now come to realize. An abstraction from the reality of motion in energy-space process/dynamics. Glad you realized that.

You end up measuring 'c' with different clock rates at different GR locations. If your clocks rates used for that measurement/calculation differences between locations in a GR well, what OTHER factor input to the measurement/calculation has to change to make the result invariant proportion between the factors called 'c' irrespective of the factors input which change from one clock/location to the next in GR?

When you stop messing about and actually think more deeply on that, you will then have caught up with the reality explanations in lieu of the inadequate 'explanations' being regurgitated without any further bother to think it through again from the start taking into account what has already been pointed out to you by many (see also posts #225, #258 and #259).

Thanks. See ya round. Good luck.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Whatever the relevant physical parameters/properties are inherent to the cycling rate/nature of the motions involved in both the 'standard motion' used as the clock rate standard, and the motion under study which is compared appropriately in the abstracted analysis construct which uses the 'time second' derived from the natural motions of light/matter across space. Units of time are merely 'parsings of motions' of one or other dynamical system under study as either the clock standard for future analytical references/comparisons, and the 'parsings according to that standard' of any other motion-across-space observations. Sorry for the rushed reply. Gotta go. See/speak to you another day.

So...meters per secant, perhaps?

You cannot simultaneously utilize time in your physics and claim it does not exist. That is illogical.

 

[Russ_Watters]

"End of story" you say? Sure.

The concept of 'time' is a story. As many people have now come to realize. An abstraction from the reality of motion in energy-space process/dynamics. Glad you realized that.

You end up measuring 'c' with different clock rates at different GR locations. If your clocks rates used for that measurement/calculation differences between locations in a GR well, what OTHER factor input to the measurement/calculation has to change to make the result invariant proportion between the factors called 'c' irrespective of the factors input which change from one clock/location to the next in GR?

When you stop messing about and actually think more deeply on that, you will then have caught up with the reality explanations in lieu of the inadequate 'explanations' being regurgitated without any further bother to think it through again from the start taking into account what has already been pointed out to you by many (see also posts #225, #258 and #259).

Thanks. See ya round. Good luck.

"End of story"? Sure.

The concept of 'time' is a story. As many people have now come to realize. An abstraction from the reality of motion in energy-space process/dynamics. Glad you realized that.

You end up measuring 'c' with different clock rates at different GR locations. If your clocks rates used for that measurement/calculation differences between locations in a GR well, what OTHER factor input to the measurement/calculation has to change to make the result invariant proportion between the factors called 'c' irrespective of the factors input which change from one clock/location to the next in GR?

When you stop messing about and actually think more deeply on that, you will then have caught up with the reality explanations in lieu of the inadequate 'explanations' being regurgitated without any further bother to think it through again from the start taking into account what has already been pointed out to you by many (please see also posts #225, #258 and #259).

Thanks. See ya round. Good luck.

I think I've heard this story before.

I think I've heard this story before.

Wait, how can I have heard this story before if there is no time?

 

[Undefined]

So...meters per secant, perhaps?

You cannot simultaneously utilize time in your physics and claim it does not exist. That is illogical.

Your 'physics' is a modeling/analytical ABSTRACT construct, not the motion-in-energy-space dynamical system reality it is abstracted from. Your 'time' dimension' is a NOTIONAL GRAPHLINE convenience to parse the other parameters relating to the comparative motions according to some standard parsing already agreed upon as the clock/rate 'timing standard'. As explained. There is a difference between unobservable abstract tool 'dimensions' and real observable motion in space 'dimensions'. Get that and all will fall into place for you.

 

[Undefined]

I think I've heard this story before.

I think I've heard this story before.

Wait, how can I have heard this story before if there is no time?

Because you have a MEMORY facility/capability in your brain-mind 'world construct' with which you function on a daily basis as a human being, not a machine.

The 'timing' aspect is all YOU, abstract and philosophical at root. Convenient and useful survival tool for humans to be able to tell different stages of a cycle/reference dynamics/motions. So you know to go into your cave and build a fire at night; so you can calculate how fast you may have to run to outrun that tiger you saw 'yesterday' in the bushes. etc etc. Get the drift? The 'reality' of time/timing' is all conceptual/philosophical/abstract overlay on obsrved phenomena/information existing/happening in the real world. Really have to log out now. Bye till whenever.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Your 'physics' is a modeling/analytical ABSTRACT construct, not the motion-in-energy-space dynamical system reality it is abstracted from. Your 'time' dimension' is a NOTIONAL GRAPHLINE convenience to parse the other parameters relating to the comparative motions according to some standard parsing already agreed upon as the clock/rate 'timing standard'. As explained. There is a difference between unobservable abstract tool 'dimensions' and real observable motion in space 'dimensions'. Get that and all will fall into place for you.

Use math to describe any of that and it'll fall into place for you.