On Sep 16, 2:03 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

Ok, so what do we think light is?

>
> > If instead, there is photosemantic
> > entanglement
>
> Or a superluminal syntactic infindibulum.

Seriously? You are going to ridicule photosemantic but have no problem
with muon flavors and electroweak unification? Sounds like jargon
bigotry to me.

>
> > between atoms in a vacuum, then frequency becomes rhythm
>
> Which begets rhyme.

You think that you're making fun of me, but rhythm and rhyme are both
1-p sensorimotive views of frequency. A frequency implies something
which exists. Rhythm or rhyme is something which insists.

>
> > and wavelength becomes inertial frame overlap (perceptual viability -
> > the possibility>probability>certainty of making sense).
>
>  > neological >stochasticity>nonsense.
>
> > This means
> > 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*.

Yes, I understand that. But the measurement of that speed, as I
understand it, is inferred by measuring the speed which light travels
through a physical medium, and then mathematically subtracting out the
resistance of that medium to electromagnetic current right? It's about
permittivity and permeability so that the assumption is that a vacuum
is a substance that is absolutely permeable and permitting.

The constant of c then is not based upon any kind of direct
observation of light in a vacuum, only the latency between nodes on
either side of the vacuum, (and any other mathematical correlations
which arise..gravitational lensing, etc to support that constant).

What I suggest is that if neither light nor space are substance, then
c is not a true velocity, but just the opposite of stasis: absolute
mobility - being many places at once. It's relativity (i.e.
perception) which accounts for the latency of light *in vacuo* but
within a single inertial frame, light always travels infinitely fast
(c).


> 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."

I agree with how he puts it.

>
> > 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.

If you can't make sense of it, but it annoys you anyways, then that
encourages me to believe that I may very well be on to something. If
you had said, 'no dummy, Bell & Howell came up with that hypothesis in
1961 and their famous 'photons are definitely bits of cold hard matter
that stand by themselves in a vacuum without any material detector
registering them' experiment soundly defeated it.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to