On Sep 16, 2:03 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/16/2011 8:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Sep 16, 7:34 am, "Stephen P. > King"<[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
