The speed of light is NOT constant

Status
Not open for further replies.
The speed of light is NOT constant.

I will now prove this using logical and anthropic scientific methods.

Since it is impossible to get absolutely accurate measurements of anything, ie. there will always be errors when using real world instruments, the speed of light cannot be proven to be constant. Since the speed of light can't be proven to be constant, using anthropic principles, the lack of observable constancy of the speed of light means it does not exist. Therefore the speed of light is not constant.

For more information see Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 
You do not have a proof - you merely have a hypothesis, one that is based on a type of logic that is more or less chasing its tail.

I am saying nothing about light, which may or may not be constant. Imo, light is illogical and shows us something about where we are and the space around us, but this something is beyond our ability to directly fathom or observe.

We are about as baffled as a dog trying to understand a stereo system... maybe more so.

_-_-bear
 
The speed of light is NOT constant
Well, it's not, and all it takes to show this is some glass. Glass actually slows light down. That's how lenses work. Metals slow it down considerably, you will be surprised at how slowly an electromagnetic field may propagate in a metal. Now don't let any of this put you off, although it may be a good idea to move to West Virginia while waiting for that phone call from Stockholm.
 
I'm not sure what you are claiming. Speed of light not constant in what sense? Are you saying it varies with time, or with the speed of the light emitter? There is some possible weak evidence for the former, and clear experimental evidence against the latter. It is the latter which would disagree with modern relativistic physics, so I assume it is the latter which you are claiming.

Special relativity underlies GPS, the relationship between electricity and magnetism, and the whole of nuclear and particle physics. You really can't just say that this is all wrong, and offer only woffle as evidence.
 
Lorentz and Larmor's aether theories are alternatives. Also, if there is no known absolute speed of light, is the measured speed of light the absolute speed of light? Mass, length and time transformations can theoretically make the speed of light appear constant.

Does time dilation show time itself can be altered or just measured time as measured with real clocks can vary? Only real clocks can be observed and not absolute time based on modern physics.
 
Last edited:
7n7is said:
I never said special relativity was completely wrong. It just needs modifications such as a prefered electromagnetic frame of reference, etc.
How does that fit with Maxwell's equations? They are Lorentz-invariant, and are a good argument for special relativity.

BTW do you have a timer which expires every few months, reminding you to post yet another anti-physics comment? Are you trying to wear us down, so that eventually we either ignore you or you get banned, so then you can use this as 'evidence' that you are right because we refuse to debate with you? There are sites devoted to this type of discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.