The speed of light may have been broken.

Motor Daddy still hasn't come to grips with the awful truth: the speed of light is defined in terms of the metre and second because the metre and second are defined in terms of the speed of light at a specific measured frequency.
The frequency has to be stable or the definitions wouldn't be accurate.

And the speed of light doesn't depend on any particular chosen units of distance or time, it's independent of such a choice. I think he's even said that himself.

It's a case of Hedda Pass, I'm afraid.
 
Who's willing to bet that if neutrinos are independently proven to exceed c they are going to cover it up in the name of SR?
 
arfa brane said:
And the speed of light doesn't depend on any particular chosen units of distance or time, it's independent of such a choice. I think he's even said that himself.
Click to expand...


Elaborate please.

Isn't it more that light being a physical constant is independent of units of distance or time.
 
Big Chiller said:
Who's willing to bet that if neutrinos are independently proven to exceed c they are going to cover it up in the name of SR?
Click to expand...

I would be more than willing to take that bet. That is the typical fallacy of individuals that don't grasp what science is. It would not be possible to cover it up, and it would be the last thing a scientist would want to do. Just because there is extremely strong evidence that is demanded does not mean that we don't want to know the truth! Finding more evidence that a neutrino exceeds c could win you the Nobel Prize not the ire of science!
 
origin said:
I would be more than willing to take that bet. That is the typical fallacy of individuals that don't grasp what science is. It would not be possible to cover it up, and it would be the last thing a scientist would want to do. Just because there is extremely strong evidence that is demanded does not mean that we don't want to know the truth! Finding more evidence that a neutrino exceeds c could win you the Nobel Prize not the ire of science!
Click to expand...


It would be so much work to replace SR, no? :p
 
Big Chiller said:
Elaborate please.

Isn't it more that light being a physical constant is independent of units of distance or time.
Click to expand...
Well. You may be aware that speed is measured in units of distance divided by time.
A physical speed is indeed independent of the units used to measure it, but science uses standard units (metres and seconds) for a very good reason. Can you guess what that is? It's much the same reason that we decided to use timezones--so everyone agrees what time it is.
 
You're saying because speed is relative it is independent of units of distance or time or is it only in the case of c because it is a physical constant?
 
Big Chiller said:
It would be so much work to replace SR, no? :p
Click to expand...

It would not falsify SR. As I have said before SR has already proven itself at all other scales it has been tested. It may require the addition of a clause.., "except for neutrinos" when it comes to c being a universal constant.

Light would still be limited to c. That is a measured value.
 
Big Chiller said:
You're saying because speed is relative it is independent of units of distance or time
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying the measurement of speed is independent of the units of distance and time used.

Speed is not independent of measurement, like anything physical. That's why measurement is also necessarily physical (apart from imaginary measurement of course, with imaginary rulers and clocks). You can say all kinds of imaginary things about the speed of light, but the physical measurement of speed (of anything with physical speed) is not independent of: measurement!

Does that make sense?
 
Does an object's speed alter if you use kilometres rather than miles? Inches?
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Motor Daddy still hasn't come to grips with the awful truth: the speed of light is defined in terms of the metre and second because the metre and second are defined in terms of the speed of light at a specific measured frequency.
The frequency has to be stable or the definitions wouldn't be accurate.

And the speed of light doesn't depend on any particular chosen units of distance or time, it's independent of such a choice. I think he's even said that himself.

It's a case of Hedda Pass, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

The meter and the second are not defined in terms of the speed of light.

The meter is specifically defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

That automatically defines the speed of light as 299,792,458 m/s, because there are 299,792,458 intervals of time that are 1/299,792,458 of a second in duration, per second. That means light travels 299,792,458 meters per second, so the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Why is that so difficult for people to comprehend??? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top