The speed of light is NOT constant

7n7is · 31st August 2011, 02:27 PM

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]

jlsem · 31st August 2011, 02:35 PM

It seems constant to me.

John

bear · 31st August 2011, 02:57 PM

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

bbggg · 31st August 2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7n7is

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.

Nis · 31st August 2011, 03:53 PM

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

bbggg · 31st August 2011, 04:29 PM

Actually Kant did walk through all seven bridges of Koenigsberg, but two were bombed in WWII and all proof is now lost forever.

norture · 31st August 2011, 04:39 PM

CMIIW, but the measured speed of light as it is currently known is constant only in vacuum.

martinbls · 31st August 2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nis

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

That's exactly the point!
Perhaps one can say "It has not been proven to be constant" rather than "It IS not constant".

7n7is · 31st August 2011, 05:56 PM

Note that I used to same reasoning as those who argue that there is no aether or transmitting medium of light. They assume its completely undetectable and claim it doesn't exist, in spite of the results of Dayton C. Miller and also the results of stellar aberration experiments with binary stars.

DF96 · 31st August 2011, 05:57 PM

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.

31st August 2011, 02:27 PM	#1
7n7is diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: VA	The speed of light is NOT constant 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]

31st August 2011, 02:57 PM	#3
bear expert in tautology diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: New York State USA	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 __________________ _-_-bear http://www.bearlabs.com [...2SJ74 Toshiba bogus asian parts - beware! ] -- Btw, I don't actually know anything, FYI --

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cosmological constant....	mikeks	The Lounge	402	21st February 2005 03:27 PM
Constant current	PRBS	Pass Labs	6	24th March 2002 12:49 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

31st August 2011, 02:35 PM	#2
jlsem diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Dallas,TX	It seems constant to me. John

31st August 2011, 03:53 PM	#5
Nis diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2010	Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

31st August 2011, 04:29 PM	#6
bbggg diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2007	Actually Kant did walk through all seven bridges of Koenigsberg, but two were bombed in WWII and all proof is now lost forever.

31st August 2011, 04:39 PM	#7
norture diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Palembang, Indonesia	CMIIW, but the measured speed of light as it is currently known is constant only in vacuum.

31st August 2011, 05:56 PM	#9
7n7is diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: VA	Note that I used to same reasoning as those who argue that there is no aether or transmitting medium of light. They assume its completely undetectable and claim it doesn't exist, in spite of the results of Dayton C. Miller and also the results of stellar aberration experiments with binary stars.

31st August 2011, 05:57 PM	#10
DF96 diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2007	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.