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

1. ## "The constant 'c' has variable value" by BuleriaChk

Originally Posted by Neverfly
I could also say that, "In avoiding confrontation, one also avoids defeat."

Neverfly couldn't solve a simple algebraic equation if he had to.... (and has little understanding of physics); he just wants to be entertained by confrontations that have no intellectual content.... (kind of like professional wrestling)

His personal interpretation of the quote from Tyson in his signature is a fricken joke.

This topic was moved to "Against the mainstream" without my permission; Neverfly has no understanding of basic concepts such as refraction, taught in high school physics classes; as a moderator he is imposing his ridiculous prejudices (that the "speed of light does not change in the presence of a medium", a concept based on a simplistic (and wrong) approach to geometric optics, and is wrong by comparing it to elementary optics in every high school physics text on the planet.

Neverfly is a fraud, as bad as John Gabriel in his rejection of more than one dimension (his misunderstanding is closely related, since he rejects curvature - change of path - in light through a lens as a fundamental concept).

As a moderator, his pious attempt to preserve his ridiculous point of view is indefensible, and the concept of refraction has been well known since Newton and before (google it).

I didn't avoid confrontation - it is just that one can try to explain fundamental concepts only so long before it becomes ugly and a bore, especially w.r.t. idiots like Neverfly trying desperately to foist off their ignorance and fundamental misconceptions as scientifically valid...

2. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by Neverfly
I do not find it entertaining. I know some do but I'm not one of them. It's not about entertainment. It's about examining the data in order to extract the most accurate model.

Your avoidance is based on the lack of accuracy in your models. You understand enough to know that your models will be found flawed, just as they repeatedly are. By avoiding confrontation, you avoid exposure and defeat.

A scientist does not fear being shown wrong. But, you do fear it.

This is just bullshit. You haven't shown where any of my models are wrong (since they are consistent with basic theory), and have no ability to judge them for lack of accuracy, since you deny fundamental concepts (like the speed of light slowing down in a medium, since you have a high school understanding of what those terms mean to those who work in the field), and have no knowledge of basic physics yourself. You quote no equations, and not even any sources for your "ideas". You couldn't even express Fermat's equation correctly.

I use equations to explain physical ideas and mathematical concepts; these equations can be shown to be valid by a cursory investigation using Wikipedia - all you can do is quote questionable sources without understanding any of the mathematical of physical foundations for your misleading opinions. (I do appreciate correction of typos... I try to anticipate them, but tex equation and diagrams take some time.)

You are a pious pseudo-intellectual who pontificates about "science" but have done none of the hard work necessary to understand their foundations. If you think you have, try answering with equations, not dimly understood buzz words.

The only thing I fear is wasting time trying to explain upper division concepts of physics and math to idiots like those in the Peanut Gallery, who spam my threads by name calling without providing content in response (as I said, grapes at least tried unitil it became obvious he was trolling...)

FEAR? At the intellectual level of this forum? You gotta be kidding.....

3. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
This is just bullshit. You haven't shown where any of my models are wrong (since they are consistent with basic theory), and have no ability to judge them for lack of accuracy, since you deny fundamental concepts (like the speed of light slowing down in a medium,
You believe that "c" is not a constant but a variable. You have expressed this numerous times. You have written equations showing 'c' as a variable. You've even tried to use the Time Dilation equation to do so!
I have clearly and simply shown your errors, but you slip into a deep rooted angry denial, each time.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
You quote no equations, and not even any sources for your "ideas".
In the posts in which I demonstrate your errors, I posted equations and sources. Initially, you backed down. But later, you forgot the whole thing and went right back into denial, again.
many worlds and the collapse of the wave function
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
You couldn't even express Fermat's equation correctly.
I have expressed it correctly each time. You are the only person that claims otherwise and each time you are asked what was incorrectly stated, you ignore the question.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
I use equations to explain physical ideas and mathematical concepts;
More often than not, you post nonsensical equations that do not follow, misuse symbols and misapply formulas. See the part about Time Dilation equation, above.

4. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You believe that "c" is not a constant but a variable. You have expressed this numerous times. You have written equations showing 'c' as a variable. You've even tried to use the Time Dilation equation to do so!
I have clearly and simply shown your errors, but you slip into a deep rooted angry denial, each time.

In the posts in which I demonstrate your errors, I posted equations and sources. Initially, you backed down. But later, you forgot the whole thing and went right back into denial, again.
many worlds and the collapse of the wave function

I have expressed it correctly each time. You are the only person that claims otherwise and each time you are asked what was incorrectly stated, you ignore the question.

More often than not, you post nonsensical equations that do not follow, misuse symbols and misapply formulas. See the part about Time Dilation equation, above.
I read that thread you quoted again, and it is true I was trying to be polite to humor an idiot, who has no idea of what "in vacuo" means, and what it doesn't. v < c refers to a velocity of a signal traveling at less than the speed of light inside a lens. What do you think v refers to, if not a photon? It means c slows down to v inside the lens, but is v = c outside the lens, where v =(v/c)c inside the lens, and v is the velocity inside the lens.

Duh! What an idiot; you didn't demonstrate shit. But the real point is that something (mass) slows the light down, and therefore v/c must refer to the interacting mass inside the lens (which slows down the light by that ratio).

I can't believe that after all this time you still maintain your bullshit position against all textbooks of physics at the lower division junior college level.

(I can POSTULATE the speed of light as a constant (like Einstein) and derive the time dilation equation, but it doesn't PROVE the speed of light is a constant. In fact it is not a constant, but a difference is very difficult to measure in vacuo because it has practically no mass (but it does have some, from Maxwell's result) It also can be polarized, and interact with sunglasses...

As a start:

What is the difference in meaning between c = x/t (as a "speed") and ? (back solving the "time dilation" equation)

Hint: you have to deconstruct v/c in terms of x and t, whatever that means to you...

If you can't do that, you have no idea of how to interpret STR in contrast to Galilean coordinates.... Until you can do that, I am not interested in traveling further with you, since you have no idea where the station you're coming from is, let alone the destination you're traveling to.

pm me if you think you can explain it.... otherwise, you are back on my ignore list, and again, I am not going to respond further to your posts .... since there is no point in carrying on the conversation..

It is not that I fear you or anyone in the Peanut Gallery, it is that I think you're idiots ....

5. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Duh! What an idiot. But the real point is that something (mass) slows the light down, and therefore v/c must refer to the interacting mass inside the lens (which slows down the light by that ratio).

I can't believe that after all this time you still maintain your bullshit position against all textbooks of physics at the lower division junior college level.

What is the difference between c = x/t and ? (back solving the time dilation equation) I read that thread you quoted again, and it is true I was trying to be polite to humor an idiot, who has no idea of what "in vacuo" means, and what it doesn't. v < c refers to a velocity of a signal traveling at less than the speed of light inside a lens. What do you think v refers to, if not a photon? It means c slows down to v inside the lens, but is v = c outside the lens, where v =(v/c)c inside the lens, and v is the velocity inside the lens.

What is the difference between c = x/t and ? (back solving the time dilation equation) ?
No, "c" does not slow down in a medium. It is a constant.

6. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by Neverfly
No, "c" does not slow down in a medium. It is a constant.
(To the reader; now you know why Neverfly is on my ignore list).

Declaring c a constant is equivalent to declaring 1 an integer... (where the symbol "c" means "1")

See this link, or many, any others (I Googled "The speed of light in a medium", and this was the first reference other than Wikipedia article, which may be too complicated for you), and then show me even one that substantiates your position.

The speed of light in a medium.

(this is high school physics)

n = 1 / = c/v "index of refraction"

(read the article. for (covariant) STR characterizes optical density, and and characterizes the effect of the increased density on the speed of light relative to the vacuum, with the interaction energy characterized by the product in terms of the unit circle.

"Indeed, c is the ultimate speed limit of the universe." - provided there are no galaxies or CBR.... or other rocketships.... or red shifts or Einstein rings... or, alternative, no earth or solar system..,..

(Even it there were tachyons (e.g., in the space between our local vaccuum on earth and Andromeda), they would violate our perception of causality, so we would look for alternative interpretations if we could even detect it).

For relativity, the medium is other photons, with which light interacts via polarization spin, which translates into a change in group velocity in the experiment that you tried to disprove by referring to a paper from a couple of guys who didn't understand quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, and time is interpreted in terms of the energy transferred during the group interactions, but because it is a covariant transform, the space-like interpretation is used rather than the time-like (contra-variant) interpretation.

Photons are electromagnetic, so the scattering between water molecules is due to the photon field interaction rather than a Newtonian collision....

From the Wikipedia article:

"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light c with respect to any inertial frame is a constant and is independent of the motion of the light source.[5] He explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the theory of relativity and in doing so showed that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism"

Important: note the phrase "inertial frame" and then google "inertia"

(One could also say that he postulated thought experiments which makes experimental evidence irrelevant... and these experiments are at the heart of many "paradoxes" which create mental anguish for the ignorant. The "wow" of physics...)

Changes in c like this are a fundamental characteristic of light traveling through wave guides (or fiber optics) (why? Google it.)

(Some writers reverse the meaning of co- and contra- variance in their texts)

7. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

None of your links claim that "c" is the same thing as light: Which is one of your many errors. The constant "c" is the speed limit of light, but "c" is not light itself as you believe.

In regards to Index of Refraction, you are referring the Group Velocity of a beam of light being reduced in a medium. The Group Velocity is similar to being the "averaged out speed" after photons have interacted with matter, causing minute delays in the absorption and emission of photons, which is why a beam of light can slow down in a medium, but individual photons always move at the constant "c" without exception.
This ongoing argument began when it was raised to address your misconceptions about the constant "c" and "group velocity" and my posts contained all the math, links to a great many peer reviewed journal articles on the topic, many links to actual Educational Institutions and Universities on the topic.

You ignore anyone who provides rebuttals to your misconceptions because you cannot handle being wrong.

You continue to misuse "c" in your equations.

8. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by Neverfly
None of your links claim that "c" is the same thing as light: Which is one of your many errors. The constant "c" is the speed limit of light, but "c" is not light itself as you believe.

In regards to Index of Refraction, you are referring the Group Velocity of a beam of light being reduced in a medium. The Group Velocity is similar to being the "averaged out speed" after photons have interacted with matter, causing minute delays in the absorption and emission of photons, which is why a beam of light can slow down in a medium, but individual photons always move at the constant "c" without exception.
This ongoing argument began when it was raised to address your misconceptions about the constant "c" and "group velocity" and my posts contained all the math, links to a great many peer reviewed journal articles on the topic, many links to actual Educational Institutions and Universities on the topic.

You ignore anyone who provides rebuttals to your misconceptions because you cannot handle being wrong.

You continue to misuse "c" in your equations.
From the Wikipedia article:

"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light c with respect to any inertial frame is a constant and is independent of the motion of the light source.[5] He explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the theory of relativity and in doing so showed that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism"

Important: note the phrase "inertial frame" and then google "inertia"

c in STR is a "rate of mass creation", which differs within a medium, so is a "rest mass" for a given mass creation time.

The "speed" of light can be related to this c by deconstructing v/c with a common space element (contravariant formulation).

For STR, space-time is irrelevant, since the analysis is in inertial frames (ct, vt') characterizing the mass-energy relation of a photon-equivalent particle via h in quantum mechanics.

I have been making the distinction between x = ct (space-time) and since I started here. A change in ct due to vt' means a change from the rest mass (initial condition) of a fundamental particle to a final mass ct' via the perturbation vt'. ct' can then be taken as a new rest mass c't so that c't -ct = (c'-c)t characterizes the difference between the final state and the initial state.

This only occurs as a change of medium (which changes locally according to (c'-c)t. If there is no medium (or change in medium) , then ct'=ct; i.e.,

That is exactly the context I have ALWAYS used c in any discussion of STR.

A change in is an inverse change in index of refraction where c is a reference to the measured speed of light, so light moves slower as measured (experimentally) as opposed to hypothetical theory (Einstein's POSTULATE), in which measurement is irrelevant.

9. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
From the Wikipedia article:

"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light c with respect to any inertial frame is a constant and is independent of the motion of the light source.[5] He explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the theory of relativity and in doing so showed that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism"

Important: note the phrase "inertial frame" and then google "inertia"
Note the part I put in bold and the part I underlined.

You just completely undermined your own arguments and supported mine.

10. ## Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Note the part I put in bold and the part I underlined.

You just completely undermined your own arguments and supported mine.
No, Einstein dealt in thought experiments, not in reality. In that sense, he was a solipsist, and for him mass was curvature, so mass interaction changed the travel geodesic of a free particle (this is the province of General Relativity, NOT Special Relativity) Einstein's principle goal in STR was to reconcile Newton's laws with Electromagnetism. 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:

, dividing by ct' (the final state) yields:

(Of course one can declare "1" to be the radius of the universe (as Einstein and Cosmologists are wont to do), but good luck with an experiment on that...) (Basically the declaration of "c" a constant simply means c is an invariant, whether it is conceived as a local rest ruler or rest mass creation rate, or simply the rate of an initial condition of any process, global law where the total initial condition is characterized as ct; t can be thought of a scaling factor on c.

again, and .

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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