On 9/16/2011 8:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 16, 7:34 am, "Stephen P. King"<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
I just cannot reconcile in my thinking these two things. Why is it
necessarily the case that the Plank scale is a fundamental lenght scalse
of physical reality and not just some derivative on a minimum ability by
observers and measurements,
Exactly. From what I gather Planck constants are derived from
measurements of photon behaviors, which are inferred from calculations
derived from fixing c to a constant which is derived from zeroing out
permittivity and permeability through a vacuum. In other words, we
assume from the start that light is a projectile phenomenon physically
traveling through empty space.
No, we don't.
If instead, there is photosemantic
Or a superluminal syntactic infindibulum.
between atoms in a vacuum, then frequency becomes rhythm
Which begets rhyme.
and wavelength becomes inertial frame overlap (perceptual viability -
the possibility>probability>certainty of making sense).
> neological >stochasticity>nonsense.
that electromagnetic waves aren't things, they are just atoms dancing
with each other in wavelike patterns (how else do you dance? ;). It's
imitation and synchronization, reflection and negation.
If that's true, and, I think that it could be if you consider it
seriously (pretend Steven Hawking said it to you), then the whole
house of Planck cards falls down. No actual waves means no actual
wavelengths - just perceptual incompatibilities. It means space is a
true void, and that c is not a true velocity,
I have no idea what you mean by "true" in that context. But c is a conversion factor
between length and time. It is not "the speed of light". It is set equal to the speed of
light *in vacuo*. It is the "speed" through proper time. As Lewis Carroll Epstein puts
it, "You can't go faster than the speed of light, because you can't go slower than the
speed of light. Everything goes at the speed of light."
but a state of zero
latency change synchronization across space. I don't understand why
nobody but me thinks this is a huge deal. I must really seem like a
crackpot, because this seems so basic and powerful and fundamental,
that if it were not true it would have been considered and rejected
long ago. I think there is a chance that it's hiding in plain sight.
Too obvious to notice. I could be wrong, but can anyone tell me why?
I certainly can't tell you why you're wrong, because I can't make any sense of
what you say.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at