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

> 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.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to