Remember this one? http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
*Scientists create light from vacuum* The speed of light in a vacuum can be effected by EMF based influences such as magnetic fields, spin entanglement, and squeezing. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, it might be wise to choose one main concept to analyze closely > first as a basis. When many different ideas are introduced into a > discussion it is entirely too easy to wander off into regions that confuse > the issues. > > Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as > either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference > frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start > by making your cases either for or against. I harbor the expectation that > the speed of light as measured in any inertial reference frame with the > instruments moving along at that observational velocity will be constant > and c. This of course only applies within a vacuum. The measured velocity > does not depend upon motion of the source of the waves since that type of > motion shows up as Doppler shifting of the frequency. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:54 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > > Are you arguing that this is impossible? >> This is a thought experiment so it only has to be theoretically possible >> to make such a measuring instrument. >> >> I would consider it obvious that such an instrument is possible. >> > > I have no need to argue that it's impossible. Clarity of thought > suggests that we start from something we already know about, rather than a > hypothetical measurement I've never seen before. > > About the possibility of the instrument -- I would assume any photon > would be likely to be scattered during the first reading, and then, even if > it was not, the act of being retransmitted to en route to the second > detector would add in an unacceptable time delay that would invalidate our > measurement. > > According to SR, no we wouldn't. >> But if what was moving was anything else including a particle moving at >> almost the speed of light. >> If it was anything that can possibly be understood we would. >> >> Right now you are using circular reasoning that seems very much like >> arguments for belief in God. >> > > I think you misunderstand. You're claiming that SR is logically > inconsistent. I'm hoping you can help me to understand this and come to > the same conclusion. In order to do so, I have to be convinced that you're > not setting up a straw man. Right now I'm persuaded of exactly the > opposite. SR claims, as an assumption, that light in a vacuum, measured in > an inertial frame, will be detected to be moving at *c*, no matter the > reference frame. This is an axiomatic assumption based on empirical > evidence. Einstein saw evidence that the speed of light would always be > measured at the same velocity in an inertial frame, and then he asked the > question of what would happen if this observation was turned into a fixed > point, i.e., made into an axiom. He then derived a bunch of weird stuff > about length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz invariance, etc. These > were conclusions that were based on the earlier assumption (and other > assumptions). > > I'm not arguing that he was correct. I'm arguing that if we're to show > that he was incorrect, we should stick to SR and not something that is > different from SR. It's a question of logical reasoning, not faith. If we > start talking about how time dilation and length contraction show how the > speed of light will not be measured to be *c* in a vacuum traveling in an > inertial frame, we've either come across a trivial logical inconsistency > (unlikely, but possible I suppose), or we've misunderstood one or two > applications of the basic assumptions in SR. You cannot say that R is > illogical, describe R,' pick apart R' (or attempt to pick it apart), and > then transfer any conclusions back to R. I'm trying to help you to help me > to better understand why SR is incorrect by helping you to avoid setting up > a straw man argument. I'm pessimistic that this is going to go anywhere. > > Eric > >
