The speed of light is NOT constant

[SY]

Originally Posted by serengetiplains

What is non-locality if not something non-physical, or in other words something constitutive of what we call material.

It's not physical, it's a mathematical construct. The construct successfully predicts the outcome of measurements.

[serengetiplains]

I know. It's a mathematic construct that exists in potential space until it actualizes (collapses, etc). I'm asking why that construct gives prediction? What is the link between construct and result? I'm saying you will never find that link, because "linking" is of the order of actual, not potential, potentiality being fundamentally indistinctly "everywhere". That everywhereness is beyond physical.

I'm further saying quantum physics is seeing the necessity of that polarity between actual and potential and using both in the theory itself. Non-locality is baseline implied by quantum physics, and is showing up as viable in labs, as expected. Quantum physics is therefore already-metaphysical, and physical---both.

[SY]

Originally Posted by serengetiplains

I know. It's a mathematic construct that exists in potential space until it actualizes (collapses, etc).

No, mathematical constructs are roadmaps, not roads.

[kevinahcc20]

Originally Posted by Wavebourn

So, a new theory puts Inertia Constant instead of "C" in the center of the Universe?

Not new...absent the question of the life expectancy of a particle (proton for instance) I believe the accepted rest inertial mass as a fixed value is settled.

[Bonsai]

By the way, very interesting article in the February Scientific American on the Quantum Universe. Foam like structures rule space time at the tiniest levels apparently.

[sofaspud]

Maybe I utilize different definitions...
Science - study of the nature of existents.
Metaphysics - study of the nature of existence.
BIG difference.

[tvrgeek]

Originally Posted by Bonsai

By the way, very interesting article in the February Scientific American on the Quantum Universe. Foam like structures rule space time at the tiniest levels apparently.

They have been talking foam for years. One of many ideas. Has SA changed from "two paragraphs of really good stuff followed by four pages of trying to impress their friends" format? That's why I dropped it years ago. I get the first paragraph from most of the significant publications in a news feed at work (Science, Nature etc) , so I have never gone back.

[7n7is]

Originally Posted by serengetiplains

What, then, is at "absolute rest"? The phrase must have meaning, yes?

If you could measure a velocity relative to a point in space, that would be an absolute velocity based on Newtonian mechanics. This is considered impossible based on Newtonian mechanics. Since aether and space are two different things, then a velocity relative to the aether is NOT an absolute velocity, at least in the pre-Einsteinian aether theories, such as the Lorentz aether theory. Einstein fanatics were brainwashed into believing the unproven assumption that the aether would be at absolute rest if it existed. The air and oceans have their own frame of reference relative to observers on earth. Are they at absolute rest?

[GloBug]

Sure you can view the ocean at "rest" from the standpoint of any single particle.

So you have many many points of reference, all of which are at rest relative to the others around it.

So the ocean is completely at rest, all the time, depending how you want to look at it.

[tvrgeek]

A particle can only be at rest at absolute zero. So the argument is that if you are sitting on one particle and do not sense inertia as your speed is constant, then it is everything else looks to be in motion.

Kind of reminds me of a friend who owned a stereo store back in Boulder. A kid came in and asks what a cartridge cost. "$29.95" was the reply (very fair). The kid asked if he had a better price. "$39.95" "It is all a matter of perspective!"