Discussion:
The Speeed of Light
Add Reply
The Starmaker
2018-04-02 20:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It is not a question that nothing travels faster
than the speed of light...but

why nothing travels faster than the speed of light, or..

what is the function of light to have to travel faster than anything else.


The function, or reason why light travels so fast is because...

if you plan to travel into the future before anybody else gets there..

light needs to get there first so that there is a future to be there when you get there.
Siri Cruise
2018-04-02 23:15:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
It is not a question that nothing travels faster
than the speed of light...but
why nothing travels faster than the speed of light, or..
what is the function of light to have to travel faster than anything else.
The function, or reason why light travels so fast is because...
if you plan to travel into the future before anybody else gets there..
light needs to get there first so that there is a future to be there when you get there.
So light is anti-langoliers pooping out the future before we arrive?

No, wait, now I get. Langoliers are klein bottles with their mouths in the past
and their poopholes in the future. They are constantly eating past time,
refurbishing it, and pooping it out as future time. The universe is just the
three dimensional surface of the four dimensional klein bottles.

It makes so much sense now.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
SolomonW
2018-04-02 23:46:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
It is not a question that nothing travels faster
than the speed of light...but
why nothing travels faster than the speed of light, or..
what is the function of light to have to travel faster than anything else.
The function, or reason why light travels so fast is because...
if you plan to travel into the future before anybody else gets there..
light needs to get there first so that there is a future to be there when you get there.
Not really.


Its not actually a requirement of modern physics that nothing goes faster
then light, what relativity does forbid is that ordinary matter can ever
reach the speed of light, because it would require infinite energy but this
theory does not rule out “tachyons” that can only travel faster than light.

The problem is that relativity has that if information can go faster then
light then *Causality* is lost.
Tom Roberts
2018-04-03 03:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[... much silliness and nonsense]
There are two quite different meanings of the symbol "c" [#], which have
confused you (and myriad other newbies and wannabes).

* c(1) is the speed that appears in the Lorentz transform.

* c(2) is the vacuum speed of light.

Note that c(1) is the limiting speed for timelike (massive) objects, not
c(2) as you seem to think. c(1) is locally invariant, and is the only
speed at which massless objects can travel.

At present, to the best of our knowledge c(1) = c(2); the limit on the
mass of photons is extremely small, but is not zero. This numerical
equality seems to be rather a coincidence, as these two meanings are
QUITE different. If it should happen that photons are not actually
massless, then c(1) != c(2) and lots of physics books would have to be
re-written. Folks like you would no longer get confused by this
particular subtlety (but of course many others remain).

[#] Due to the historical accident of Einstein using
electrodynamics to discover Special Relativity, while
logically their relationship is the other way 'round:
SR is geometry, which is much more fundamental and
pervasive than electrodynamics.

Tom Roberts
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-04-03 05:31:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[Next time, please set Followup-To when crossposting.]
Post by Tom Roberts
There are two quite different meanings of the symbol "c" [#], which have
confused you (and myriad other newbies and wannabes).
* c(1) is the speed that appears in the Lorentz transform.
* c(2) is the vacuum speed of light.
Note that c(1) is the limiting speed for timelike (massive) objects, not
c(2) as you seem to think. c(1) is locally invariant, and is the only
speed at which massless objects can travel.
At present, to the best of our knowledge c(1) = c(2); […]
Count me as one of the “newbies” then. This discussion brings me back to
my earlier question, which you had answered in an evasive, unsatisfactory
way back then. So I ask again:

Do you mean that, for example,

t' = γ (t − v∕c² x)

would have to be written precisely

t' = γ (t − v∕c₀² x)

*regardless* of the medium in which the relative motion occurs?

A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice for now. TIA.


PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)
c***@optonline.net
2018-04-04 18:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Speed of light for all observers
= constant c = 3E8 M/Sec .

Perceived wavelength when source is receding
is increased. i.e. red shift.

All in accordance with Einstein's Relativities.
Keith Stein
2018-04-08 19:02:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
because what can this speed be relative to ?

But since there is FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE,
there is no need to solve this conundrum.

LIGHT TRAVELS RELATIVE TO THE STUFF IT IS TRAVELING THROUGH,
AS DOES EVERY OTHER TYPE OF WAVE TOO.

Don't tell me i'm wrong, rather tell me what experiment proves what i
say is not true eh!

keith stein
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-08 20:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Keith Stein
The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
because what can this speed be relative to ?
Any speed relates to a coordinate system.
So does speed of light in vacuum.
Post by Keith Stein
But since there is FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE,
there is no need to solve this conundrum.
As it is solved already.
There is strong convergence toward vacuum,
as I pointed out in other post.
Post by Keith Stein
LIGHT TRAVELS RELATIVE TO THE STUFF IT IS TRAVELING THROUGH,
AS DOES EVERY OTHER TYPE OF WAVE TOO.
Shouting is not more true than whispering.

Light travels relative to any coordinate system,
implicit or explicit, like any other wave.
Post by Keith Stein
Don't tell me i'm wrong, rather tell me what experiment proves what i
say is not true eh!
The education experiment.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
Tom Roberts
2018-04-09 14:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Keith Stein
The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
because what can this speed be relative to ?
Like ALL speeds, it is relative to the coordinates used to measure it.

By convention, physicists use locally inertial coordinates unless otherwise
specified. Around here that convention is not so well established (mostly
because many people don't understand the need for it).

Tom Roberts
Keith Stein
2018-04-09 15:04:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Keith Stein
The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
because what can this speed be relative to ?
Like ALL speeds, it is relative to the coordinates used to measure it.
:) What is 'silly' Mr.Roberts is to believe that the velocity of any
given light beam could possibly be the same value 'c' relative to all
inertial coordinates, irrespective of how those coordinates are moving
relative to each other.
Post by Tom Roberts
By convention, physicists use locally inertial coordinates unless
otherwise specified. Around here that convention is not so well
established (mostly because many people don't understand the need for it).
Tom Roberts
c***@optonline.net
2018-04-08 23:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Any electric, magnetic, or gravitational disturbance, will result in a
change in the corresponding field at light speed. No medium is
involved, just the permiabilities of space. Really quite simple.
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@optonline.net
Any electric, magnetic, or gravitational disturbance, will result in a
change in the corresponding field at light speed. No medium is
involved, just the permiabilities of space. Really quite simple.
Unfortunately, experimentally refuted.
--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Paul Colquhoun
2018-04-09 06:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 06:43:04 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz <***@CAPITALSgmail.com> wrote:
| ***@optonline.net Wrote in message:
|> Any electric, magnetic, or gravitational disturbance, will result in a
|> change in the corresponding field at light speed. No medium is
|> involved, just the permiabilities of space. Really quite simple.
|>
|
| Unfortunately, experimentally refuted.


Can you point to a write up of these experiments?
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Colquhoun
|> Any electric, magnetic, or gravitational disturbance, will result in a
|> change in the corresponding field at light speed. No medium is
|> involved, just the permiabilities of space. Really quite simple.
|>
|
| Unfortunately, experimentally refuted.
Can you point to a write up of these experiments?
Eh, I am sorry,
reading it again properly,
I have realized
I totally misunderstood your post :-)

I revoke my prior statement.
--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Loading...