Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kaon" data-source="post: 74749407" data-attributes="member: 407930"><p>The independence and invariance of the speed of EM quanta for the relatively small scale (micro) are due to the math evolution of the rest mass and reduction. This is from measuring the speed of objects <em>with respect to </em>the critical speed as it <em>appears</em>. Using the Lorentz factor to prove the speed maximum of light is akin to using the very word you are looking to define to define the word - it is circular. It is "imprudent" to calculate the properties of objects with respect to light by saying they are measured with respect to light and <em>naturally</em> produce infinity when v approaches c. It is theoretically source-independent (with the highest limit with respect to <em>itself</em>). </p><p></p><p>The constant c is the <em>inertial referential velocity</em>, but its not actually the limit velocity, and we would only be able to vindicate either side by categorically measuring from outside (like an entanglement experiment) that would <em>need</em> to be superluminal. Source-independence shouldn't be enough for us because it isn't enough. If we really want to test superluminal speeds, we need some other superluminal inertial frame as a reference. Souce-independence accepts light quanta as its own metric, but that is part of what is making SR hard to coalesce with QM. </p><p></p><p>Transmitting a signal means transmitting momentum and energy (allegedly inseparable in the TOR) which are capable of switching off/on a certain "device or trigger; it works out that there is no preferred reference frame (but there may be one velocity in all of them), but there is a problem if we forget that finite-velocity EM quanta are <em>preferred reference frames themselves<strong> in special relativity.</strong></em></p><p></p><p></p><p>The ERP problem is solved if wave packets are localized not only with respect to one frame of reference <strong>but to others as well</strong>. When wave/particles are thus allowed to have superluminal</p><p>sped, it is because it already existed in nature <em>before</em> our scope. If causation is continuous wherever activity exist in space, then this is acceptable. Geometrical moments can be non-casual, non-localized and/or absolutely continuous at some points, so a physical wave/particle's discreteness may be proof of erroneous application of QM theory to real geometric discontinuities - but "casually" continuous space-time moments. </p><p></p><p>In other words, saying the speed of light is a <strong>maximum </strong>of <em>c</em> just shows the greenness of our understanding of physical phenomena in our universe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kaon, post: 74749407, member: 407930"] The independence and invariance of the speed of EM quanta for the relatively small scale (micro) are due to the math evolution of the rest mass and reduction. This is from measuring the speed of objects [I]with respect to [/I]the critical speed as it [I]appears[/I]. Using the Lorentz factor to prove the speed maximum of light is akin to using the very word you are looking to define to define the word - it is circular. It is "imprudent" to calculate the properties of objects with respect to light by saying they are measured with respect to light and [I]naturally[/I] produce infinity when v approaches c. It is theoretically source-independent (with the highest limit with respect to [I]itself[/I]). The constant c is the [I]inertial referential velocity[/I], but its not actually the limit velocity, and we would only be able to vindicate either side by categorically measuring from outside (like an entanglement experiment) that would [I]need[/I] to be superluminal. Source-independence shouldn't be enough for us because it isn't enough. If we really want to test superluminal speeds, we need some other superluminal inertial frame as a reference. Souce-independence accepts light quanta as its own metric, but that is part of what is making SR hard to coalesce with QM. Transmitting a signal means transmitting momentum and energy (allegedly inseparable in the TOR) which are capable of switching off/on a certain "device or trigger; it works out that there is no preferred reference frame (but there may be one velocity in all of them), but there is a problem if we forget that finite-velocity EM quanta are [I]preferred reference frames themselves[B] in special relativity.[/B][/I] The ERP problem is solved if wave packets are localized not only with respect to one frame of reference [B]but to others as well[/B]. When wave/particles are thus allowed to have superluminal sped, it is because it already existed in nature [I]before[/I] our scope. If causation is continuous wherever activity exist in space, then this is acceptable. Geometrical moments can be non-casual, non-localized and/or absolutely continuous at some points, so a physical wave/particle's discreteness may be proof of erroneous application of QM theory to real geometric discontinuities - but "casually" continuous space-time moments. In other words, saying the speed of light is a [B]maximum[I] [/I][/B]of [I]c[/I] just shows the greenness of our understanding of physical phenomena in our universe. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
Top
Bottom