Doesn't Anyone Question How Weird Our Number For Light Speed Is?

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
299,792,458 meters per second

I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. A Femtosecond holds the key of 0.3 micrometers. An object with this width is going to be auto-observed ..have a physical state. The speed of light is the speed it is in order for quantum events to occur. If it was any faster a Femtosecond could cover 0.2 micrometers and prevent quantum weirdness from being a thing.

The speed of light is directly tied to the spaceTime and it seems to be a frame rate.

I suspect the default speed of light is actually 200,000,000 m/s and a multiplier of 1.49896229 is added to the frame rate to equal 299,792,458 m/s

Again, the multiplier is to ensure the quantum/classical boundary size.

If we take the speed of light and multiply it by 5 we get: 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1.49896229×10^15 Micrometers per second (1,498,962,290,000,000)

I think it is telling us 1,498,962,290 m/s is the speed of light when spacetime isn't involved.

The speed of light gets divided by 5. Is it saying time gets split between 5 different dimensions?

299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1,498,962,290 m/s or 1,498,962,290,000,000 Micrometers per second
1,498,962,290,000,000 / 5 = 2.9979246e+14 || 299,792,460,000,000

I think this is saying the auto-observe key is actually 0.29979246 Micrometers

speed of light 299,792,458 / auto-observe 0.29979246 micrometers to meters 0.00000029979246 = 999,999,990,000,000

Light has a max of auto-observing 999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second.

1000000000000000 - 999999990000000 = 10,000,000

I think that is somewhere around 1.00000001% of a difference.


"The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light"

A Meter is based on 10's, it scales.

Time is Spacetime. I bring up the parallel universes because the math implies it. It can't be a coincidence that the speed of light x 5 equals that many micrometers.

You can rest assured a femtosecond of light is a unit of spacetime. The quantum/classical boundary demands it.

The split in 5 might be telling use there are 4 parallel universes.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

This link says: 0.3 becomes 30 ..errr, maybe just for objects allowed to interact with 0.3 objects and not give them a physical state.
This explains why quantum weirdness events are allowed to occur in plants and animals.

Space and Time are directly tied. Or should I say Distance and Time? The frame rate of spacetime has been increased for light to be the speed it is.

If I'm right, the quantum/classical boundary should be different throughout the fabric of spacetime ..like time dilation.

Time dilation and the boundary must be insane in cosmic voids. This has to by why they are expanding.

Spacetime converts quantum waves that have a width of 0.3 or larger and automatically gives them a physical state. The wave is now also a particle, it is in a duality ..the quantum field and spacetime are influencing it. It isn't going to perform quantum weirdness events but will wobble like a wave. Observation can be performed on purpose with smaller objects ..what I care about are the auto-observed sizes.

Matter waves not decaying is pretty strong evidence that spacetime isn't involved with unobserved quantum waves.

Side thought: I don't think the quantum field has a causality limit for unobserved quantum waves.

The reason Einstein failed at a unifying theory is because he refused to believe anything could be without spacetime.
I think spacetime is available everywhere ..but is not enacted everywhere. I think Mass enacts it (the boundary).

If you toss a rock into a cosmic void, spacetime will form around its mass like a bubble. It will experience the maximum time dilation and quantum/classical boundary spacetime can handle. Because of the spacetime bubble size. If the rock is around the size of the new boundary (for its new bubble) it would disappear into quantum waves and so would the spacetime bubble (assuming the rock didn't have a physical state at the time).

Is this why we are seeing stars older than time? Are the stars in question living in cosmic voids?
Anything that ages, has a physical state.

lorentz doesn't apply to quantum waves without a physical state ..there is nothing to tradeoff
Oh good grief! poster wrote or copied:

"The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light"

No, the length depends on the time. There is nothing circular. All the observer need do is create a 'stationary' frame of reference by erecting three mutually perpendicular axes, and measuring three equal lengths. Then rotating the axes and repeating the experiment. The result is that c is equal and constant in all three axes.

The sophomore will then inquire about time dilation due to proper motion, which is proportional to the value of gamma = 1/1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2 But this value also turns up in the formula for the Fitzgerald Contraction of lengths along the direction of motion.

objoke:
There once was a fellow named Fisk.
Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk.
So swift was his action,
the Fitzgerald Contraction,
reduced his rapier to a disk.

And while is is tempting to create a framework of physics in which we are possessed of six axes of time, I would pull out Occam's Razor to slice away that particular Rube Goldberg machinery.
 
Last edited:
Dec 7, 2019
18
4
35
Actually, yes, many scientists question both constancy in the speed of light and also reject Einstein's theory of relativity. I am one of them, and even wrote a book which goes into the matter: The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science. https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716

Most reading this will never have read the original Michelson-Morley published paper, to know they clearly stated to have detected a light-speed variation approaching 5 to 7.5 km/sec. That was much lower than the anticipated velocity of 30 to several hundred km/sec as expected according to Newtonian static ether theory. It suggested however that there was an earth-entrained ether, slower at the earth's surface due to laminar frictional resistance, similar to how water flow slows down near the interior surfaces of a pipe. That velocity was later recalculated to be around 8 km/sec by Dayton Miller, who later worked with Morley to build the largest and most sensitive light-beam interferometer ever. The Morley-Miller experiments yielded velocities of no greater, but later Miller undertook experiments atop Mt. Wilson, over four seasonal periods in 1925-1926, obtaining light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec. His work was the most precise and ambitious ever. A few later experiments, in recent years also, obtained similar or slightly higher or lower results, depending upon altitude and other factors.

Miller's work particularly preoccupied Einstein, who worriedly wrote his anxieties to his associates, saying that if Miller's work was accurate, then his entire theory of relativity would "collapse like a house of cards".

But oh don't mention any of this if you are a university student, as odds are you will be thrown out of your study program! I know as this has happened to many. Modern astrophysics is caught up in a series of metaphysical speculations which have no unequivocal proofs, and often violate Popperian logic in that they could never be observed so as to either prove or disprove them. Einstein's space-time gravity wells, big-bang singularity billions of years past, redshifts as distance indicators, gazillions of unseen "black holes" (with one highly questionable "image" from M87), invisible MACHOS, quantum magic, all of it has been critically reviewed by top astronomers and physicists, who in every case were professionally punished and isolated, censored from publishing their criticisms in mainstream journals, and if lacking tenure, or being a graduate student, simply excommunicated. Astrophysical theory has become a religion, a belief-system that tolerates no heresy. Meanwhile empirical science continues, observations and facts as found by ordinary working astronomers, space engineering and materials science make new findings daily. Epicycles continue to exist, in new forms, and are endlessly discussed in the top ranks of astrophysics, like Ptolemaic astrologers. A sad truth. Read my book if you want full details, citations, and a re-education about the ether, which was repeatedly detected, and helps to explain our universe without the bizarre things that often are found on space.com -- which I read and enjoy, and recommend to others (with caviets) nevertheless.
Working scientists do not question the *constancy* of c. That's to say no scientists a priori questions it, with the exception of a possible few *inspired* by Michaelson & Morley who are *expecting a null result, but are open minded enough to analyse the data anyway. That said, no casual experiment which indicates the speed of light to be anything other than the accepted value of c is going to escape ridicule and be questioned for experimental error.

But if you're only here to plug a book on Amazon, well, I'll wait for the Audible version, see if you can get Mike Meyers to narrate it using a mix of Austin Powers & Wayne Campbell voices. -- That I'd pay for!
Sir, you make my point about the standard astrophysical models to be a belief system. And of course you must be a member of the "skeptics clubs", whose membership is dominated by magicians and non-scientists. So please don't read the original M-M publication, and by all means don't read my book. Since it is a scholar's work of 400 pages, with 100 historical photos, tables and graphs, filled with quotes from Michelson, Morley, Miller, Einstein, Lorentz, etc, with 16 pages of citations, the whole subject is clearly way over your head.
 
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
Oh good grief! poster wrote or copied:

"The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light"

No, the length depends on the time. There is nothing circular. All the observer need do is create a 'stationary' frame of reference by erecting three mutually perpendicular axes, and measuring three equal lengths. Then rotating the axes and repeating the experiment. The result is that c is equal and constant in all three axes.
Yes, I copied that from here https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/88948/how-do-scientists-measure-speed-light

The math equals a number of micrometers I was not expecting. The Quantum/Classical boundary is measured in micrometers. It can't be a coincidence. That would be a million to one chance.

light shouldn't have a speed limit to begin with

Finding a multiplier in our speed of light 1.49896229 matches what the speed of light times 5 equals in micrometers says there is extra time being used by other parallel universes. I don't know if it is an even usage ..I just know there is more than one universe using the same source of time.
 
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
Actually, yes, many scientists question both constancy in the speed of light and also reject Einstein's theory of relativity. I am one of them, and even wrote a book which goes into the matter: The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science. https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716

Most reading this will never have read the original Michelson-Morley published paper, to know they clearly stated to have detected a light-speed variation approaching 5 to 7.5 km/sec. That was much lower than the anticipated velocity of 30 to several hundred km/sec as expected according to Newtonian static ether theory. It suggested however that there was an earth-entrained ether, slower at the earth's surface due to laminar frictional resistance, similar to how water flow slows down near the interior surfaces of a pipe. That velocity was later recalculated to be around 8 km/sec by Dayton Miller, who later worked with Morley to build the largest and most sensitive light-beam interferometer ever. The Morley-Miller experiments yielded velocities of no greater, but later Miller undertook experiments atop Mt. Wilson, over four seasonal periods in 1925-1926, obtaining light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec. His work was the most precise and ambitious ever. A few later experiments, in recent years also, obtained similar or slightly higher or lower results, depending upon altitude and other factors.

Miller's work particularly preoccupied Einstein, who worriedly wrote his anxieties to his associates, saying that if Miller's work was accurate, then his entire theory of relativity would "collapse like a house of cards".

But oh don't mention any of this if you are a university student, as odds are you will be thrown out of your study program! I know as this has happened to many. Modern astrophysics is caught up in a series of metaphysical speculations which have no unequivocal proofs, and often violate Popperian logic in that they could never be observed so as to either prove or disprove them. Einstein's space-time gravity wells, big-bang singularity billions of years past, redshifts as distance indicators, gazillions of unseen "black holes" (with one highly questionable "image" from M87), invisible MACHOS, quantum magic, all of it has been critically reviewed by top astronomers and physicists, who in every case were professionally punished and isolated, censored from publishing their criticisms in mainstream journals, and if lacking tenure, or being a graduate student, simply excommunicated. Astrophysical theory has become a religion, a belief-system that tolerates no heresy. Meanwhile empirical science continues, observations and facts as found by ordinary working astronomers, space engineering and materials science make new findings daily. Epicycles continue to exist, in new forms, and are endlessly discussed in the top ranks of astrophysics, like Ptolemaic astrologers. A sad truth. Read my book if you want full details, citations, and a re-education about the ether, which was repeatedly detected, and helps to explain our universe without the bizarre things that often are found on space.com -- which I read and enjoy, and recommend to others (with caviets) nevertheless.

Sir, you make my point about the standard astrophysical models to be a belief system. And of course you must be a member of the "skeptics clubs", whose membership is dominated by magicians and non-scientists. So please don't read the original M-M publication, and by all means don't read my book. Since it is a scholar's work of 400 pages, with 100 historical photos, tables and graphs, filled with quotes from Michelson, Morley, Miller, Einstein, Lorentz, etc, with 16 pages of citations, the whole subject is clearly way over your head.
Filled with "quotes"; so you interviewed all those men? Color me skeptical! But if we agree you meant 'excerpts' then at least we're back on track.

But then I noticed in the Amazon description, that you omitted lots of "maths" (I hate that particular piece of butchery of the English language, but again I'll move along), so what then do you use to forward your conclusions? Adjectives? Let me ask one additional question: do you realize how far outside of the current error bars a " ... light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec." actually is? Was it good for the times? Sure, a damn fine piece of research. But today those results stand for what they were a late 19th century experimental result, and a damn good one at that!
 
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
Yes, I copied that from here https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/88948/how-do-scientists-measure-speed-light

The math equals a number of micrometers I was not expecting. The Quantum/Classical boundary is measured in micrometers. It can't be a coincidence. That would be a million to one chance.

light shouldn't have a speed limit to begin with

Finding a multiplier in our speed of light 1.49896229 matches what the speed of light times 5 equals in micrometers says there is extra time being used by other parallel universes. I don't know if it is an even usage ..I just know there is more than one universe using the same source of time.
Huh? I really have no idea what 1.49... blah-blah refers to other than 5c. Which while numerically valid, is utterly meaningless as a speed or velocity (except in a sci-fi story).
 
Jan 2, 2020
12
0
30
The Metre, (note the the CORRECT spelling!) was actually based on a French decision to make a length something simple to use. Therefore, it is at best just a subjective distance, not based on the speed of light, because that was not known at the time the Metre was invented.
As far as dark matter is concerned, my hypothesis is that it is another way of describing gravity, the most common force in the Universe.
 
Last edited:
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
That isn't possible, think about what you just said.
Not only is it possible, it's the way the universe works! Why? Because accepting that c is the same in all frames of reference, eliminates the paradoxes which arise in *your* description of the universe.

If you'd like help understanding it, might I suggest "Special Relativity for Dummies" from the well acclaimed series.

But it's you're going to cling to Newtonian ideas, then there is nothing left to discuss.
 
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
Light that travels through two different time dilation regions vs light that doesn't is going to reach a different distance.
What's your point? Two balls rolling over different regions of a trampoline weighted with different kids sitting on the surface, will traverse different paths, travel different distances, and take different times to do so.

Your example fails to identify a consistent frame of reference. While it's possible to assign a tensor field to the multiple areas of space you've described, you are confusing complexity for phenomena.
 
Dec 7, 2019
12
3
35
You are suggesting light is immune to time dilation.
Not at all. Light (in vacuo) 'moves' at c. Spacetime (the 4 dimensional agglomeration of time & space) distorts in such a way that the *observed* speed of light is constant and invariant in that frame of reference.

You are confused because you are having a difficult time interpreting which light is in your 'preferred' frame of reference (which is a disallowed concept), and your 'designated' frame of reference, which is somehow detached from your preferred one.

This is why scientists use detailed mathematics (not 'maths') to describe the universe. Much of what you are misinterpreting is removed with a simple Lorentz transformation, and the proper vocabulary.

Until you are brought up to speed, trying to explain relativistic effects is like trying to explain a cell phone to a 19th century stevedore.
 
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
I get it, if you are in the region that has time dilation, you aren't going to notice it. ..I guess I'm saying ..I don't care about that. We can't count on the speed of light alone to figure out how long it took light to get to us from stars without considering how close to mass it traveled.

Star light from beyond cosmic voids would not be correct distance wise either.
 
Last edited:
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
I suspect the quantum/classical boundary is different out in space and may be the cause of problems astronauts face.

Researchers also found abnormalities such as inversions and translocations in some of Scott’s chromosomes and some damage to his DNA, as well as changes in his gene expression. Beyond these genetic effects, Scott developed thickening in his retina and in his carotid artery. There were also shifts in Scott’s gut microbiome that differed from those of his Earth-bound twin.
 
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
No one is going to comment on post #32 where I reveal what is happening in a black hole? A sphere the size of whatever the quantum/classical boundary is - is sucking in virtual mass. When a black hole feeds, the level of virtual mass is increased.
 
Nov 20, 2019
7
1
30
The speed of light isn't even a constant. It changes in proximity to mass. The reason the number for the speed of light seems weird is that the metric is originally based on the properties of water. Which is exactly the sort of bigoted thing you'd expect from an organism that was over 2/3rds made of water, isn't it? :)
 
Dec 7, 2019
18
4
35
Filled with "quotes"; so you interviewed all those men? Color me skeptical! But if we agree you meant 'excerpts' then at least we're back on track.

But then I noticed in the Amazon description, that you omitted lots of "maths" (I hate that particular piece of butchery of the English language, but again I'll move along), so what then do you use to forward your conclusions? Adjectives? Let me ask one additional question: do you realize how far outside of the current error bars a " ... light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec." actually is? Was it good for the times? Sure, a damn fine piece of research. But today those results stand for what they were a late 19th century experimental result, and a damn good one at that!
Quotations as from the original documents, surely. "Maths" is more a British phrase, less formal, everyone knows what it means. The standard model's proofs are primarily presented in mathematical form, but in attempt to validate unreal, imaginary and never unequivocal metaphysics... things that cannot be either fully proven nor disproven. Like God in Heaven... space-time gravitational wells, big bang singularity, how to prove that? Or disprove it? It is metaphysics. And would you say Copernican and Galilean findings are no longer valid or wrong, simply because they are "old"? Small corrections were needed, but the basics were/are sound today. Same with experiments detecting the cosmic ether. And newer work on that question as by Munera in Bolivia, Galaev in the Ukraine, and others, provide additional supporting evidence, with more precise methods and equipment.
 
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
Spacetime scales when it bends. Reality is scaling. We already know about time dilation ..but a meter stick in one time scale (region of space) will shrink or expand in another time region. It will still be a meter no matter how much it scales, because, for that region ..that is the reality of what a meter length is. This is why the speed of light does not change.

If we could somehow harness spacetime, we could magnify atoms ..not optically, with reality scaling.
 
Last edited:
Dec 7, 2019
18
4
35
Filled with "quotes"; so you interviewed all those men? Color me skeptical! But if we agree you meant 'excerpts' then at least we're back on track.

But then I noticed in the Amazon description, that you omitted lots of "maths" (I hate that particular piece of butchery of the English language, but again I'll move along), so what then do you use to forward your conclusions? Adjectives? Let me ask one additional question: do you realize how far outside of the current error bars a " ... light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec." actually is? Was it good for the times? Sure, a damn fine piece of research. But today those results stand for what they were a late 19th century experimental result, and a damn good one at that!
Filled with "quotes"; so you interviewed all those men? Color me skeptical! But if we agree you meant 'excerpts' then at least we're back on track.

But then I noticed in the Amazon description, that you omitted lots of "maths" (I hate that particular piece of butchery of the English language, but again I'll move along), so what then do you use to forward your conclusions? Adjectives? Let me ask one additional question: do you realize how far outside of the current error bars a " ... light-speed variations from 9.3 to 11.2 km/sec." actually is? Was it good for the times? Sure, a damn fine piece of research. But today those results stand for what they were a late 19th century experimental result, and a damn good one at that!
Here's something to chew on:
It also has "quotes". Cheers for 2020.
 
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
If spacetime scales reality when it bends, does it tell us that spacetime is an analog simulation? Light having a speed limit was the first hint that is was a simulation.

If frames of reference scale their realities ..the Sun would scale larger than ours, resulting in the sun being smaller than we think.

"Reality Lensing" would be for everything we think is extremely large.

Gravitational waves fluctuate the scale of reality as they pass.
 
Last edited:
Dec 23, 2019
325
21
205
The Spacetime simulation rewards the largest amounts/volumes of Mass with the slowest time and the largest realities (highest definition/resolution). As if it wants these regions observed the most.

Spacetime was instructed to make mass ..physical ..and promote it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY