The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Undefined]

Just checking an old PM and saw this while reading past quickly.

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.

So applying an abstract 'maths' construct is suddenly going to make 'time' other than the abstract maths 'dimensional construct' it evidently is, as explained many times already?

Wow. A circuitous reasoning riddled one-liner is all you got in reply? I think one can now say you have shot your last bolt and missed entirely.


Did you even bother to read and understand what was pointed out to you above?

 

[Beaconator]

You can represent time as a " moot" quality/quantity. The downside is nothing exists at all when an equation is given, because you take velocity and u out of the equation. Yet here they are not talking about making time "disappear". They are talking about spreading the constant of light (time) across a field of differential density of space which is acceptable in GR which does not include a single value of density to begin with.

Gravity has a constant and has never been subjected to error. Light has a constant within a vacuum, therefore a constant within different densities. It is impossible to miscalculate gravity yet very easy to miscalculate the speed of light because its (*&^///#€%=÷£¥€÷÷×¥ VELOCITY!!!!!) Is AlWAYS!!!!# CONSTANT yet its speed is only constant in a vacuum. Speed is the third integration of velocity. Light propagates omnidirectionally in a vacuum, yet any density at all will slow the speed and increase the deceleration to allow the velocity to remain constant. Which means more energy will be distributed perpendicularly in high density areas. This is why when light approaches a black hole the bulk is sent straight back to the source! This allows certain atomic densities to decay faster than others. (If anyone can find a table including volume of the periodic table i'll recant everything I just said and call my universal inequality fallacious)

So equating time with velocity of light to offset curvature is possible but I have seen no such equation represented here.

God I love drinking!!! My tongue gets loose and so do my fingers.

my references include two facts. One no one has ever miscalculated gravity (except when they calculated weight). Two... the constant of light was not properly calculated until the differences in its speed wererealized

btw V= dw/dW

where w is density and W is the amount of radiant energy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy_density

 

[Russ_Watters]

So applying an abstract 'maths' construct is suddenly going to make 'time' other than the abstract maths 'dimensional construct' it evidently is, as explained many times already?

Wow. A circuitous reasoning riddled one-liner is all you got in reply? I think one can now say you have shot your last bolt and missed entirely.

Did you even bother to read and understand what was pointed out to you above?

Math is not abstract and your writing style is terrible (you need to learn how to write proper sentences). In physics, the math is everything - the words exist only to describe the math. You're not unlike these other jokers in that you say you can do physics without time, but never demonstrate the claim by showing different, useful math than is currently used. I think I'll just go back to ignoring your posts because they contain neither logic nor math and really say nothing of value - and worse are nearly unreadable. Your posts are just empty words, devoid of real meaning.

 

[Russ_Watters]

...Speed is the third integration of velocity....

Posts like this make me think you are a gibberish generator bot.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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.

And not once have I seen you make a clear distinction between an inertial and non-inertial frame, but it seems that you think irrelevant babble with capital letters and forward slashes is good enough:

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.
\

And here would be a good reply had I even bothered; simple wiki:

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[12][13] This article focuses on visible light. See the electromagnetic radiation article for the general term... The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s (approximately 186,282 miles per second). The fixed value of the speed of light in SI units results from the fact that the metre is now defined in terms of the speed of light. All forms of electromagnetic radiation move at exactly this same speed in vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Speed_of_light

Aside from your grotesque use of English, why are you going on about frequency when it makes no difference? Are you trying to throw people off, hoping you can continue making stuff up as you go along? You've been playing the same game for years and no one should take you seriously. And this is just one example. I'm not going to waste my time going through all of your posts.

The simple fact of me referencing an experiment done at CERN trumps the premise of this thread. And no, I highly doubt the person with a stop-watch clocking ther gamma rays was inside a black hole a billion light years away from the lab at the time...

 

[origin]

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).

You really crack me up sometimes, think more deeply indeed. You remind me of the kid that plays the Guitar Hero video game and thinks he is a musician. You read a few wiki articles that you can't understand and then drawing on your highschool algebra you decide to write a paper that will unite QM and GR. You don't even have enough knowledge to realize how incredibly ludicrous that is. It would be a real belly laugh if it weren't so embarrassingly sad.

 

[Beaconator]

Posts like this make me think you are a gibberish generator bot.

If I was a bot I would have said derivative. But I'm glad you think I'm mechanically correct yet artificially induced.

 

[Beaconator]

You really crack me up sometimes, think more deeply indeed. You remind me of the kid that plays the Guitar Hero video game and thinks he is a musician. You read a few wiki articles that you can't understand and then drawing on your highschool algebra you decide to write a paper that will unite QM and GR. You don't even have enough knowledge to realize how incredibly ludicrous that is. It would be a real belly laugh if it weren't so embarrassingly sad.

The nature of duality supposes they are. The language of math imposes difficulties upon uniting them. Observation supposes there is more we have not seen than both probability defined mechanics and observed changes to physical systems.

 

[Trippy]

So, undefined, what's your explanation for the excess of relativistic muons observed at the earth's surface?

Relativity can explain it, and does so consistently - earh frame observers see the relativistic muon as being time dilated, and muon frame observers see the altitude as being length contracted, and both answers give the same result for attenuation, which also explains the measurements made of muons in laboratories.

 

[Russ_Watters]

If I was a bot I would have said derivative. But I'm glad you think I'm mechanically correct yet artificially induced.

Is that bot-ese for "let's trade one wrong for another?" It's still wrong - so wrong it is tough to fathom you aren't just selecting these words from a random technobabble generator. I wonder how many tries it will take for a random word selector to pick the right word?

 

[Undefined]

Hi Russ.

Math is not abstract and your writing style is terrible (you need to learn how to write proper sentences). In physics, the math is everything - the words exist only to describe the math. You're not unlike these other jokers in that you say you can do physics without time, but never demonstrate the claim by showing different, useful math than is currently used. I think I'll just go back to ignoring your posts because they contain neither logic nor math and really say nothing of value - and worse are nearly unreadable. Your posts are just empty words, devoid of real meaning.

More 'terrible' than your earlier circuitous-reasoning-riddled one-liner in reply, which did not address what was pointed out to you? Don't think so.

You have it backwards. The local reality and the empirically confirmable logics come first. Anything that does NOT start with those is potentially GIGO exercise, irrespective of the 'maths' used. Maths is an abstraction from observed relationships between real things which may be 'represented' in a mathematical/geometrical 'modeling construct' as convenient for the purpose.

Remember: Reality first; Maths second; Always. Any other way is fraught with GIGO potential of enormous 'fantastical' proportions which lead to abstract interpretations which are abstractly divorced from the local reality.


Since you didn't bother to read and understand what was pointed out to you earlier, then why pretend to be so high and mighty while still avoiding the points outlined in reply to you before? If maths is all you are 'looking for' in the conversation, it's no wonder you don't read and understand what comes before maths in the scientific method and logical reasoning from empirically relatable premises rooted in the local reality observed for real not abstractly assumed. Ignore all you like, it seems what you like to do best anyway. Good luck with that.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Beer.

And not once have I seen you make a clear distinction between an inertial and non-inertial frame, but it seems that you think irrelevant babble with capital letters and forward slashes is good enough:

How would you know what distinctions I made or not? You just got through boasting a few posts back that you don't bother to read or understand my posts before making some irrelevant/uninformed 'reply'? Just because you shut your eyes doesn't mean the world 'goes away' and things 'didn't happen' just because you 'didn't see' them.

...why are you going on about frequency when it makes no difference?
The simple fact of me referencing an experiment done at CERN trumps the premise of this thread. And no, I highly doubt the person with a stop-watch clocking ther gamma rays was inside a black hole a billion light years away from the lab at the time...

If you had bothered to read and understand what I wrote to you there, you would have realized that the frequency at emission is a function of the particles RESPECTIVE internal motion-energy states. That includes not only the SR components involved depending on their motion or otherwise across the EXTERNAL lab space, but also the GR effects on INTERNAL decay process rate (just like clock rates are affected by GR factors at the location in question.

So the two emissions, one from the (wrt the common lab/clock frame) 0.999 75c particle and the other from the 'stationary' particle, would have different frequencies which reflect their combined INTERNAL energy-motion state RATE for the decay process. That was the point; there is a TIMING factor effective internally as well, and that timing factor is the internal cyclic/oscillatory/periodic processes occurring during the 'lifetime' of the unstable particle leading up to decay/emission.

So your simplistically assuming that your CERN reference was any 'answer' to the points about 'time' being anything other than energy-space motional outcomes, was neither here nor there.

Because I pointed out the internal decay process RATES also affect the gammas. And naturally, once the different frequencies were imprinted on the gammas AT emission related to internal decay 'clock' rates, any further measurements of both by ANOTHER and common EXTERNAL lab clock will come up with the same 'c'. So the only difference is what happened AT emission INTERNALLY according to the internal motional processes internal to the particles.

Instead of again boasting you don't read or understand properly before making your posts, try it, and you'll 'see' things which you would otherwise miss and claim never to have happened. Good luck.

 

[Undefined]

You really crack me up sometimes, think more deeply indeed. You remind me of the kid that plays the Guitar Hero video game and thinks he is a musician. You read a few wiki articles that you can't understand and then drawing on your highschool algebra you decide to write a paper that will unite QM and GR. You don't even have enough knowledge to realize how incredibly ludicrous that is. It would be a real belly laugh if it weren't so embarrassingly sad.

So many personal opinions and untenable assumptions made there in your post, and so little objective facts because you haven't bothered to do due diligence as to what I have actually said over the years here and elsewhere! Why do you bother trolling/spreading personal stuff like that out of personal prejudice without any attempt to get ALL the facts straight? So much for the objective and courteous scientific method as far as your internet activity goes, hey? Good luck with that.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh I see, Undefined, you have a much much better grasp of things.

Go go, quick, there are still so many unsolved crimes!

 

[Undefined]

So, undefined, what's your explanation for the excess of relativistic muons observed at the earth's surface?

Relativity can explain it, and does so consistently - earh frame observers see the relativistic muon as being time dilated, and muon frame observers see the altitude as being length contracted, and both answers give the same result for attenuation, which also explains the measurements made of muons in laboratories.

Yeah, and so did the 'epicycles' explain it consistently. The maths/abstractions model is no substitute for the locally real things to be explained by locally real mechanisms/processes/entities when it all boils down to what is 'real reality' and what is 'theoretical 'reality'. The one comes before the other every time in my book.

I've already explained it so many times before. But I will explain again one more time seeing it's you, Trippy.

The motional states/effects across the energy-space conditioned by the gravitating planet produces NON-linear effects on the INTERNAL particle decay process (cyclic/oscillatory/periodic etc) RATES, depending on the initial mass at creation, and the GR component (acceleration profile) and the SR component (speed profile) all the way down to ground. It is the internal decay 'clocking' effects which are SLOWED because of GR and SR effects from the continually changing energy-space (density/conditioning, including atmospheric mass-energy) on internal changes/motions (oscillations etc) rates/speeds until the unstable particle finally decays. In this case, its decay process has been slowed by NON-linear effects as explained, and the simplistic 'calculation' from theory is not a true reflection of how long the Muon actually can last. The assumption that the 'spacetime distance travelled' is somehow 'shortened' is a cop-out because otherwise the 'theory' could not explain it as I have, based on empirically observable effects in the energy-space conditions experienced by any 'clock' type internal processes accordingly delaying decay as observed.

And before anyone is tempted to bring out that old tired chestnut about the particles/distance 'contraction/time dilation' in the CERN accelerator ring etc, I have also explained that in such HIGH ENERGY INPUTS/FLOWS environment, under so much acceleration from external high strength electromagnets, there is too much energy flying in and out of the system for any sensible 'interpretations from theory' to be clean of complicating factors which affect the decay/speed/distance 'calculations' if all these other much MORE STRONG factors are ignored as if they didn't exist.

There, mate. I have briefly pointed to alternatives which make the current interpretations suspect, especially when the locally REAL energy-space conditions/content/effects are properly taken into account empirically reflective of what is observed to happen to clocks and 'timing' information/rates in GR and SR non-linear situations.

Sorry, I can't say any more than that for now, as the rest will be part of my upcoming complete ToE book, and I have let too many cats out of the bag here and there as it is! Cheers.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Sorry, I can't say any more than that for now, as the rest will be part of my upcoming complete ToE book, and I have let too many cats out of the bag here and there as it is! Cheers.

Wow!

 

[Undefined]

Oh I see, Undefined, you have a much much better grasp of things.

Go go, quick, there are still so many unsolved crimes!

Well, Ok then. See ya round. I'm sure you have plenty of important and original contributions to make here and elsewhere. Cheers.

 

[Undefined]

Wow!

It's called conversing with your interlocutor and explaining why the explanations ended there. Try conversing instead of one-lining, Beer. It might help you come across as something more substantial than at present. Good luck.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Reality first; Maths second...

Good luck with that.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Despite your protestations, the math works as a model of reality. You're proposing an alternative exists without demonstrating the flaw in the current model, much less providing your own alternate model to replace it (since, of course, there is nothing wrong with the existing model).

I can see, though, how you suck guys like paddoboy in to your trolling and crush them through frustration.

Sorry, I can't say any more than that for now, as the rest will be part of my upcoming complete ToE book, and I have let too many cats out of the bag here and there as it is!

I do have one quick question that shouldn't let any critical cats out of that bag of yours: does your book contain any math?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It's called conversing with your interlocutor and explaining why the explanations ended there. Try conversing instead of one-lining, Beer. It might help you come across as something more substantial than at present. Good luck.

Do an interview with Richplanet Starship!