Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: "The constant 'c' has variable value" by BuleriaChk

  1. #11
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    No, Einstein dealt in thought experiments, not in reality.
    -Facepalm-
    Ok, so now to support your claims, you're going to say that Relativity is a Thought Experiment.
    Riiiight.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    But his concept of mass in inertial frame implies curvature, and if mass is conserved, a circle; the unit circle is the foundation of quantum field theory, which discusses the interaction of massive particles. If one ignores gravity, then it is true that Feynman diagrams use straight lines as propagators between relativistic evens, but the particles are still generated in a medium (for quarks, the medium is a plasma of gluons)... and the lines characterized momentum, not speed.

    A hypothetical "c as a constant" means that ct (or ct') is the radius of a circle describing mass in quantum field theory:
    The symbols on your attachment are too small to see...
    But either way, you just, again, supported my argument and undermined your own. Curvature means that something can move in a straight line through a curve.
    That aside, I think that whole post was a red herring circus side show you threw out there to distract away from how the flaws in your claims were just exposed.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    -Facepalm-
    Ok, so now to support your claims, you're going to say that Relativity is a Thought Experiment.
    Riiiight.

    The symbols on your attachment are too small to see...
    But either way, you just, again, supported my argument and undermined your own. Curvature means that something can move in a straight line through a curve.

    That aside, I think that whole post was a red herring circus side show you threw out there to distract away from how the flaws in your claims were just exposed.
    There are no flaws in my claim. Yours has been a fools' errand. If you agree with me now, it is because I explained it to you in such a way that you finally caught on. (How long did it take you to understand Fermat's formula, or even to express it properly?) There was no red herring. Your statement that curvature means motion in a straight line "through" a curve is ridiculous on its face, a true "WTF?" and I have no claims you have "exposed". You're the one who made the claim which is patently false if c is the changing medium created by the interacting group packets in the experiment.

    You mean that you don't even know about Einstein's observers in thought experiments? (see Sir Arthur Eddington's comment that "gravity waves travel at the speed of thought").

    I have always maintained that "c" was not a speed in the sense of Special Relativity, but a mass term. But then what does "c" through a medium is a constant" (your phrase) mean?

    Finally, learn to write tex if you have anything intelligent to say; your language sucks.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-21-2016 at 10:56 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  3. #13
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    How long did it take you to understand Fermat's formula, or even to express it properly?
    At no point did I present Fermats last theorum incorrectly. You are the only one who claims that and when asked to explain what was incorrect or to show the error, you always ignore the question.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    The statement that curvature means motion in a straight line "through" a curve is either ridiculous on its face, a true "WTF?"
    It's standard mainstream physics but as usual, you have no idea what mainstream physics actually says.
    I will post some links for you which you will later deny me having ever posted:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...o/einring.html
    How does gravity alter the trajectory of light?

    Seriously, later on you if we are arguing on this topic, you will claim I never posted any links. Guaranteed. You always do it. Even with me pointing it out now, you will still do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    You're the one who made the claim which is patently false if c is the changing medium created by the interacting group packets in the experiment.
    I can't even tell what you're trying to claim here. The sentence is gibberish.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    You mean that you don't even know about Einstein's observers in thought experiments? (see Sir Arthur Eddington's comment that "gravity waves travel at the speed of thought".
    The Theory of Relativity is not a thought experiment, BulariaChk.

    On Topic:
    The flaws exposed here:
    http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.c...html#post60271
    The Constant "c" is a Constant.
    http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.c...html#post60267
    You claiming that Light and "c" are the same thing, along with your misconception that "c" changes in a gravity well.
    http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.c...html#post60269
    Concise explanation of Group Velocity, that "c" is always "c"; That a beam of lights group velocity will move at less than "c" but the constant "c" does not change and that individual photons always move at "c". The interaction of photons being absorbed and then emitted by matter creates delays for the Group Velocity of the Beam.

    You do not address those on topic because you are Unable to do so.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 10-21-2016 at 11:00 PM.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    So let's be clear here. (You really suck at understanding scaling and context).

    Your links are GTR, not STR. But even so, if one considers distance to the center of the ring as ct, the distance to the circumference as ct', and the radius of the ring as vt' one has the time dilation equation. Of course one then has to explain why the ring doesn't collapse to the center if there is no medium...

    Well, you have proved that you can cut and paste Wiki links, so at least that's a start. I still think you're an idiot.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 01:03 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  5. #15
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    the time it takes the atom to emit it at the source and absorb it at the sensor.
    If you understand this concept, then you should understand that the delay that takes place between when matter absorbs a photon and when that photon is emitted due to conservation of energy is WHY there is a Lower Group Velocity for a beam of light than 'c' even though the individual photons always move at 'c' in a medium. Those delays add up to a measurable amount over the course of the beams trajectory. But at all times, within the beam, the photons move at "c."
    It is a Constant, not a variable. And it cannot be applied as a variable and arrive at any meaningful answer.
    That is Mainstream Standard Physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Suppose I have a rabbit family that produces rabbits at a constant rate c, and my neighbor has a family that produces rabbits at a different rate v that is independent of c, so it forms a vector pair (c,v). If I want a law that will relate all other possible rabbit families with the rabbit rate v to my rabbit rate c, I need scaling factors t and t' that will give an independent relation for any specific v related to by specific c, which still is a vector pair (ct, vt') If there are no other families involved, then the triangle equality applies by Occam's Razor - to wit:
    This statement is correct mathematically and by description.
    As such, all the above follows: "c" is not just constant but a Universal Constant. It is not a number that remains constant dependent on these factors, but a different number that remains constant dependent on these different factors as you suggest.
    It is a Universal Constant and as such, it is invariable no matter what the other factors are. This is why Time must dilate and why mass must contract because the value of "c" cannot be changed.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    As a mathematical abstraction related to the concept of change, "c" just an invariant characteristic of an initial rate of any process so ct is the initial condition for a constant time t.

    To say it is a "universal constant" is simply to declare it an invariant real number, without any relation to physics or any other context.

    However, to say that light travels at a constant speed is not an abstraction, it is a measured result of a local experiment. In that context, it is NOT a universal context, but depends on the measurement of the source and sensor (e.g., the MM apparatus)., even though it is very difficult to measure. However, there are experiments that show that it is possible to change the speed of light by other sources of light if interpreted correctly in terms of changes in group velocity (if one is using a wave model)

    Your point seems to be like saying "aha! I claim that 1.357 is a universal constant". How am I supposed to respond? Can I possibly think that "1.357" is NOT a constant? What am I to make of that claim? If you write "1.357" on a wall, that it won't change to "2"? How absurd... (suppose it does; would we do an experiment to find out why, since at first glance it would seem to violate our interpretation of causality?)

    is a universal constant, but it results from the relation of a perfect circumference to a perfect diameter (the actual number depends on the base of the number system and is the ratio of circumference per diameter C/D). Is that what you mean by "c = 299792458..." ? independently of the ratio of m/s?

    For physics, "c" has a very real application in mathematical physics; it represents the speed of light in a vacuum, by a coordinate system in space and time, . Which can change in a local medium. Period.

    (Along a geodesic, there is no medium (a geodesic is not a fiber optic); an Einstein geodesic exists only in the vacuum of space, so c is a constant, but the question is moot).

    How can we know the speed of light is constant to nine significant digits from here to the circumference of an Einstein ring? How can we prove that such a path is absolutely straight all the way? How would we ever measure it? Or it is a question of religious faith?
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 02:14 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  7. #17
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    And in physics, all of the constants are demonstrated mathematically. Additionally, experimental evidence does demonstrate that "c" is a universal constant and that photons always move at "c."" Again, I have posted dozens of links over the many many times we have argued this.
    You keep declaring that "c" changes in a medium. You declare it and put your foot down "period". You utterly Ignore that the physics models you try to use say clearly that it doesn't.
    You are confusing the value of "c" with the Group Velocity of a beam of light.
    Again, you are claiming that light Physically IS "c". No, "c" only represents a fixed value, nothing more.

    And in local experiments performed since the 1920's onward, the value of "c" has been repeatedly verified.

    You talk about Index refraction: Can you tell me why a pavement feels warm on a sunny day? Why are some photons emitted but some absorbed?
    What differences between materials define the ratios of absorption? Is there a reference I can access that will tell me?
    Yes, there is.
    Because all of this is Mainstream Standard Physics and it is nothing new.
    Einsteins theories of Relativity only continue to verify how accurate the models are and allow us to calculate inertial change to great accuracy and it all requires "c" to be fixed and unchanging, in a medium or in a vaccum. It makes no difference. A gravity well does not change "c." You still are confused and you think that Light IS the mathematical value of "c." No, "c" is only representative of the upper bound it is a fixed constant unchanging number.

    So, I explained above how it is that Refractive Index and Conservation of Energy relate to why a photon, once absorbed by a medium causes that matter to enter a higher energy state and also how since energy must be conserved that that same matter must emit a photon to balance that gained energy, dropping the electron into a rest energy state. That interval of time between absorption of the photon (which always moves at "c") and the emission of a photon (which always moves at "c") creates a series of delays as the BEAM of light moves through a medium, resulting in a lower group velocity for the beam, even though the photons always move at "c".

    A lot like my repeated pointing out that you never ever address what it was you claim was incorrect about the presentation of Fermats Last Theorum, you ignore it.

    You utterly ignore any evidence that is established Mainstream Standard Model that refutes your claims. You cannot accept being wrong. At All. You utterly ignore every challenge. No matter how many times I explain photons, you won't accept the challenge and stay on topic.
    No matter how many times I ask you what it was was supposedly incorrect about the presentation of FLT that day, you ignore it. No matter how many supportive links I supply, you ignore them and later claim they never existed.

    You are a Liar.

    You are a Crank.

    and worst of all...

    You are willfully Ignorant. You choose to be.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Physical measurements ALWAYS have error bars. Always, always, always. Even those experiments that measure the speed of light in a vacuum. And they are also subject to the Uncertainty Principle.

    Your claim that the speed of light doesn't change in a medium means that you have no idea of solid-state physics... particularly of electromagnetic density within an atomic lattice. Or plasma physics either, for that matter....
    Or even D and H fields....

    What you seem to be claiming is that c only appears to slow down because of a "drunkard's walk" inside matter, bouncing from atom to atom, but travels at a speed of light c between the bounces.... so if there is a high density of atoms in the lattice, there will be a lot of bounces before it reaches the other side.... And that each bounce is the absorption/emission of an atom in the lattice structure. And the space between the atoms is a vacuum, in which light travels at c. Is that it?
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 02:44 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  9. #19
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Your claim that the speed of light doesn't change in a medium means that you have no idea of solid-state physics... particularly of electromagnetic density within an atomic lattice.
    Chuck, ADDRESS THIS:
    So, I explained above how it is that Refractive Index and Conservation of Energy relate to why a photon, once absorbed by a medium causes that matter to enter a higher energy state and also how since energy must be conserved that that same matter must emit a photon to balance that gained energy, dropping the electron into a rest energy state. That interval of time between absorption of the photon (which always moves at "c") and the emission of a photon (which always moves at "c") creates a series of delays as the BEAM of light moves through a medium, resulting in a lower group velocity for the beam, even though the photons always move at "c".
    Stop dodging, weaseling, ignoring and avoiding it. Stop shifting the goalposts.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Nah, this discussion is no longer worth it. But if you have access to it, here is an interesting paper that might resolve some of the issues.

    Phys. Rev. A 35, 4661 (1987) - Quantum theory of light propagation: Linear medium

    The fact that the preamble mentions a dialectric should give a hint of what is to come.

    (Apparently you think that matter is like a pinball machine (a la Feynman) where light is slowed down during the bounces but there is a vacuum between the pins. That is a vast oversimplification of what happens (imagine acoustic/heat vibrations in the lattice when a laser burns through a plate of steel. But the model is not without merit. But one would NOT in normal terminology call the interior of a plate of steel or a diamond a vacuum, since it is the atoms that slow down and scatter the photons. But the constant speed of light within a plate of steel is a question of faith, since it is intimately related to h and momentum within the lattice; all one can really measure it the global process of time it takes to burn through the material (a carbon atom in a diamond lattice has different properties than a free carbon atom in a cloud of smoke relative to the medium in which it exists and the impingement of light on that medium.

    What you seem to be describing is a Feynman Propagator (sort of...

    It is also true that we probably disagree on what constitutes a vacuum ....

    (The vacuum state is the lowest energy state of a physical system. But the vacuum state within in a plate of steel is very different from the vacuum state within the same volume of air in the parking lot outside. QFT says that c (whatever it is) is constant within a system at a particular vacuum state, but doesn't specify the energy level of that state. Or the actual value of c for that state...)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 03:56 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •