Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light

[Ophiolite]

And my point has been that you cannot call that which is incomprehensible proof for anything until it can be comprehended.

If that argument were valid you would be unable to fly in a plane until you had mastered aerodynamics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And my point has been that you cannot call that which is incomprehensible proof for anything until it can be comprehended.

No. It meets the standards of proof for the people who do comprehend these things.

If you don't comprehend it, you may not be able to appreciate the proof.
You may find yourself unable to feel personally confident enough in the proof to accept it as proof.

But nevertheless, a proof is a proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And my point has been that you cannot call that which is incomprehensible proof for anything until it can be comprehended.

When it comes to maths, comprehension is the beholder's responsibility. As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument, but I cannot find you an understanding".

 

[Larniavc]

And my point has been that you cannot call that which is incomprehensible proof for anything until it can be comprehended.

It’s not incomprehensible, though. Anyone who puts in the effort can learn it.

French isn’t incomprehensible for the same reason.

 

[Contenders Edge]

If that argument were valid you would be unable to fly in a plane until you had mastered aerodynamics.

I hope you mean "fly a plane."

 

[Contenders Edge]

No. It meets the standards of proof for the people who do comprehend these things.

If you don't comprehend it, you may not be able to appreciate the proof.
You may find yourself unable to feel personally confident enough in the proof to accept it as proof.

But nevertheless, a proof is a proof.

But you can't really know that it is a proof unless it can be demonstrated as such and therefore the one who claims a thing to be proof for something has the responsibility to explain how it is proof and how it lead him to the conclusion that it led him to.

You only accept it as proof simply because you are told that it is, even if you cannot comprehend the equational formula itself in order to verify the claim.

 

[Contenders Edge]

It’s not incomprehensible, though. Anyone who puts in the effort can learn it.

French isn’t incomprehensible for the same reason.

But until there is comprehension, we cannot be sure if what we are seeing is actual proof. Anyone can claim an equational pattern to be proof of anything to those who cannot comprehend its meaning, even though it might not be proof of anything.

 

[Ophiolite]

I hope you mean "fly a plane."

No. I meant "fly in a plane". If you have been unable to prove aerodynamic principles then aerodynamic principles are, but your argument, unproven. Therefore, aeroplanes cannot fly.

That is the logic you are using in regard to the proof present in the OP equations. Of course, as you clearly saw, it is a silly idea in regard aerodynamics. Hopefully you can now see it is equally silly in regard to the thread topic. The point has been made by at least two other members, though more directly.

 

[Contenders Edge]

When it comes to maths, comprehension is the beholder's responsibility. As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument, but I cannot find you an understanding".

Which renders the argument meaningless until the argument is explained in a way that can be easily understood. Until then, it is gibberish.

 

[Contenders Edge]

No. I meant "fly in a plane". If you have been unable to prove aerodynamic principles then aerodynamic principles are, but your argument, unproven. Therefore, aeroplanes cannot fly.

That is the logic you are using in regard to the proof present in the OP equations. Of course, as you clearly saw, it is a silly idea in regard aerodynamics. Hopefully you can now see it is equally silly in regard to the thread topic. The point has been made by at least two other members, though more directly.

This is a far different matter than flying a plane or in a plane. Everyone knows that in order for a plane to fly, there are laws of physics that its design and construction must follow. We also know that there are certain controls within the air craft that are operated in order to make it fly, but an equational pattern tells us nothing about whether or not the speed of light is constant unless an interpretation is given.

 

[essentialsaltes]

the one who claims a thing to be proof for something has the responsibility to explain how it is proof and how it lead him to the conclusion that it led him to.

In this case, that already happened in the 19th century.

You only accept it as proof simply because you are told that it is

No, my degrees are in physics. I comprehend the proof.

 

[Contenders Edge]

In this case, that already happened in the 19th century.

If it did, that knowledge is lost to many because the academic establishment is not doing the job of educating that it was expected and established to do.

No, my degrees are in physics. I comprehend the proof.

Then, as one who has that kind of knowledge, it is your responsibility to enlighten those who might not have that comprehension of that proof in such a way that they will be able to comprehend the proof. Otherwise, the equation pattern claimed as proof will be meaningless to them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then, as one who has that kind of knowledge, it is your responsibility to enlighten those who might not have that comprehension of that proof in such a way that they will be able to comprehend the proof.

I gave it a shot in post #77.

But you will not comprehend the proof unless and until you learn the mathematics of differential equations and the relevant physics leading up to Maxwell's equations. And it is not my responsibility to teach you that.

 

[Contenders Edge]

I gave it a shot in post #77.

But you will not comprehend the proof unless and until you learn the mathematics of differential equations and the relevant physics leading up to Maxwell's equations. And it is not my responsibility to teach you that.

I wasn't talking about you specifically but I was referring in a general sense to those who have that kind of knowledge. I apologize for the lack of clarification.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I gave it a shot in post #77.

That is textbook physics that defines c and involves 2 other quantities defined as constants. A definition is not a proof (which do not exist in physics). The empirical evidence is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.
This thread can be replaced by the link Electromagnetic wave equation .