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

Page 4 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Nov 20, 2019
7
1
30
"Quantum weirdness" exists in order to sidestep the requirements of the "Born Secret" act. It's a layer of bullshit necessary in order to the government from disapearing all your hard work. Some things just aren't measured anymore.

But, the published number for the speed of light isn't one of the secrets, and its accurate.
 
Oct 16, 2020
3
0
10
"Quantum weirdness" exists in order to sidestep the requirements of the "Born Secret" act. It's a layer of bullshit necessary in order to the government from disapearing all your hard work. Some things just aren't measured anymore.

But, the published number for the speed of light isn't one of the secrets, and its accurate.
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
"Quantum weirdness" exists in order to sidestep the requirements of the "Born Secret" act. It's a layer of bullshit necessary in order to the government from disapearing all your hard work. Some things just aren't measured anymore.

But, the published number for the speed of light isn't one of the secrets, and its accurate.
Seems like you need to learn a bit more of the English Language to get your point across!. What you have written is intelligible!
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
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
There is one IMPORTANT thing you are missing from your post! That is, what type of METER are you talking about, electricity, Gas, water, mileage or some other type? Any one who has any knowledge about science knows that if you are talking about distance it is measured in METRES!
 
Feb 28, 2020
50
22
555
There is one IMPORTANT thing you are missing from your post! That is, what type of METER are you talking about, electricity, Gas, water, mileage or some other type? Any one who has any knowledge about science knows that if you are talking about distance it is measured in METRES!
Depends where you live! Metre in UK or Meter in US.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
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
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. I understand this is so simple it is hard to believe it has gone overlooked, but I am right.
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe. Invoking Dark Energy or any other explanation besides a simple mathematical principle is unnecessary.
 
Jan 27, 2020
123
50
680
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
 
Oct 16, 2020
3
0
10
We like to set speed of light at 1.0 for calculation purposes. The complaint is about the size of the physical units that customarily describe things that move much much slower than light.
 
Feb 28, 2020
50
22
555
Thinking of the speed of light in terms of metres won't shed light on anything because meters is just an arbitrary human invention. A better way would be to compare the speed of light with all the other constants of nature and see if a pattern emerges, then you might find some real meaning.

Why stop at the speed of light? why are other things as they are? why is there something rather than nothing? some of these questions we may never be able to answer. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
Thinking of the speed of light in terms of metres won't shed light on anything because meters is just an arbitrary human invention. A better way would be to compare the speed of light with all the other constants of nature and see if a pattern emerges, then you might find some real meaning.

Why stop at the speed of light? why are other things as they are? why is there something rather than nothing? some of these questions we may never be able to answer. :)
Yes, there are many things that cannot be answered, like why do so many people believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming, something that is totally unproven and probably never will be!
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Yes, there are many things that cannot be answered, like why do so many people believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming, something that is totally unproven and probably never will be!
How much evidence do you need before you are convinced of "proof"? You know Exxon has had internal data supporting the existence of Global Warming for decades and has spent millions trying to convince the public otherwise right? You know a seminar at a Koch-funded conference talked about how future humans will evolve curved spines and other anatomical mutations to survive underground after the climate goes to s*** right? You know the government has data on future conflicts and mass exodus of refugees that will occur when parts of the Earth become unlivable right? The big oil companies have an obvious vested interest in preventing the public from knowing the truth. Our government knows if fossil fuel use slows down our economy is screwed because we are the biggest holder of fossil fuel reserves on the Earth. When we left the gold standard we switched to the fossil fuel standard, and in order to prevent the value of the US dollar from collapsing that is where we are going to stay. Why do you think Gaddafi is dead in Libya? Because he threatened the global financial order, and all these idiots care about is power and staying rich to maintain it. They will literally destroy the entire Earth and the future of humanity just so long as they keep their power, and these are the people who have convinced you to doubt the truth. We have enough understanding of our atmosphere to know that methane and CO2 trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. The lag effect from these impacts prevents us from seeing the impacts to come across generations. The arctic is thawing out and releasing massive stores of greenhouse gases,the Amazon is burning, releasing carbon and eliminating a potential resource for absorbing said carbon in the future. The oceans are reaching their breaking point in terms of how much they can absorb, Hurricane Theta formed in the Northeast Atlantic IN NOVEMBER and Nicaragua was hit by a category 4, then a category 5 hurricane IN NOVEMBER. Before the end of the decade, Britain will see their first ever landfall of a hurricane, New England and Canada will begin to see impacts from major hurricanes on an annual basis, and the US mainland will see impacts from 10+ major hurricanes every year. Billions upon billions of dollars in damage will be done every year, and the wealthy think they will be safe and that disaster relief will be the economic bedrock of the future, until we can start to terraform Mars and go through this whole process all over again. But the wealthy will not be safe, nobody will be anywhere on this Earth, and we will not survive on Mars. And that's just the coming decades. Within 2 centuries, every single complex lifeform on Earth will be dead, and by 2500 the atmosphere on Earth will smother out even the hardiest of single-cellular life through an auto-catalytic cycle that has long since spiraled out of control and left our landscape as hellish as Venus, a planet that has also been decimated by a runaway greenhouse effect. If intelligent life beyond Earth wanted to wipe us out, they wouldn't attack with primitive laser weapons or bombs. They would manipulate us into killing ourselves, which would require very little patience on their part and could very well be exactly what is happening. We act like economics is one of the laws of nature, and it is ridiculous. It is the ultimate barrier to human progress, one that could easily be turned into a weapon against us by beings of superior intelligence, and there is hardly a single person on thie Earth who has thought about how we need to change that in order to survive moving forward. Do not allow yourself to be so easily wielded as a tool for human destruction.
 
Feb 28, 2020
50
22
555
Yes, there are many things that cannot be answered, like why do so many people believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming, something that is totally unproven and probably never will be!
Looks like you've hijacked my post to change the subject, but thanks for reacting anyway.

Why do you want absolute proof? A good estimate of the probabilities is good enough to act on for something as important as this, so why chance it?

Anyway, regardless of global warming, wouldn't it be nice to be in a city without the noise and fumes from dirty diesel engines? Pollution kills. :)
 
Feb 28, 2020
50
22
555
How much evidence do you need before you are convinced of "proof"? You know Exxon has had internal data supporting the existence of Global Warming for decades and has spent millions trying to convince the public otherwise right? You know a seminar at a Koch-funded conference talked about how future humans will evolve curved spines and other anatomical mutations to survive underground after the climate goes to s*** right? You know the government has data on future conflicts and mass exodus of refugees that will occur when parts of the Earth become unlivable right? The big oil companies have an obvious vested interest in preventing the public from knowing the truth. Our government knows if fossil fuel use slows down our economy is screwed because we are the biggest holder of fossil fuel reserves on the Earth. When we left the gold standard we switched to the fossil fuel standard, and in order to prevent the value of the US dollar from collapsing that is where we are going to stay. Why do you think Gaddafi is dead in Libya? Because he threatened the global financial order, and all these idiots care about is power and staying rich to maintain it. They will literally destroy the entire Earth and the future of humanity just so long as they keep their power, and these are the people who have convinced you to doubt the truth. We have enough understanding of our atmosphere to know that methane and CO2 trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. The lag effect from these impacts prevents us from seeing the impacts to come across generations. The arctic is thawing out and releasing massive stores of greenhouse gases,the Amazon is burning, releasing carbon and eliminating a potential resource for absorbing said carbon in the future. The oceans are reaching their breaking point in terms of how much they can absorb, Hurricane Theta formed in the Northeast Atlantic IN NOVEMBER and Nicaragua was hit by a category 4, then a category 5 hurricane IN NOVEMBER. Before the end of the decade, Britain will see their first ever landfall of a hurricane, New England and Canada will begin to see impacts from major hurricanes on an annual basis, and the US mainland will see impacts from 10+ major hurricanes every year. Billions upon billions of dollars in damage will be done every year, and the wealthy think they will be safe and that disaster relief will be the economic bedrock of the future, until we can start to terraform Mars and go through this whole process all over again. But the wealthy will not be safe, nobody will be anywhere on this Earth, and we will not survive on Mars. And that's just the coming decades. Within 2 centuries, every single complex lifeform on Earth will be dead, and by 2500 the atmosphere on Earth will smother out even the hardiest of single-cellular life through an auto-catalytic cycle that has long since spiraled out of control and left our landscape as hellish as Venus, a planet that has also been decimated by a runaway greenhouse effect. If intelligent life beyond Earth wanted to wipe us out, they wouldn't attack with primitive laser weapons or bombs. They would manipulate us into killing ourselves, which would require very little patience on their part and could very well be exactly what is happening. We act like economics is one of the laws of nature, and it is ridiculous. It is the ultimate barrier to human progress, one that could easily be turned into a weapon against us by beings of superior intelligence, and there is hardly a single person on thie Earth who has thought about how we need to change that in order to survive moving forward. Do not allow yourself to be so easily wielded as a tool for human destruction.
Don't be too pessimistic, here in the 'dis-United Kingdom' and Europe, we take it very seriously. There are already massive programs of investment in wind turbines. 40% of our electricity now comes from renewables and that's increasing all the time.

Your new president may also take it more seriously.:)
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
Sorry NO, only in the US is the illiterate use of Meter used for length! The rest of the World is literate and uses METRE, derived from the METRIC system!
It's a regional difference in spelling, not illiteracy. Languages are used differently depending on where it is, which is natural.
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
How much evidence do you need before you are convinced of "proof"? You know Exxon has had internal data supporting the existence of Global Warming for decades and has spent millions trying to convince the public otherwise right? You know a seminar at a Koch-funded conference talked about how future humans will evolve curved spines and other anatomical mutations to survive underground after the climate goes to s*** right? You know the government has data on future conflicts and mass exodus of refugees that will occur when parts of the Earth become unlivable right? The big oil companies have an obvious vested interest in preventing the public from knowing the truth. Our government knows if fossil fuel use slows down our economy is screwed because we are the biggest holder of fossil fuel reserves on the Earth. When we left the gold standard we switched to the fossil fuel standard, and in order to prevent the value of the US dollar from collapsing that is where we are going to stay. Why do you think Gaddafi is dead in Libya? Because he threatened the global financial order, and all these idiots care about is power and staying rich to maintain it. They will literally destroy the entire Earth and the future of humanity just so long as they keep their power, and these are the people who have convinced you to doubt the truth. We have enough understanding of our atmosphere to know that methane and CO2 trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. The lag effect from these impacts prevents us from seeing the impacts to come across generations. The arctic is thawing out and releasing massive stores of greenhouse gases,the Amazon is burning, releasing carbon and eliminating a potential resource for absorbing said carbon in the future. The oceans are reaching their breaking point in terms of how much they can absorb, Hurricane Theta formed in the Northeast Atlantic IN NOVEMBER and Nicaragua was hit by a category 4, then a category 5 hurricane IN NOVEMBER. Before the end of the decade, Britain will see their first ever landfall of a hurricane, New England and Canada will begin to see impacts from major hurricanes on an annual basis, and the US mainland will see impacts from 10+ major hurricanes every year. Billions upon billions of dollars in damage will be done every year, and the wealthy think they will be safe and that disaster relief will be the economic bedrock of the future, until we can start to terraform Mars and go through this whole process all over again. But the wealthy will not be safe, nobody will be anywhere on this Earth, and we will not survive on Mars. And that's just the coming decades. Within 2 centuries, every single complex lifeform on Earth will be dead, and by 2500 the atmosphere on Earth will smother out even the hardiest of single-cellular life through an auto-catalytic cycle that has long since spiraled out of control and left our landscape as hellish as Venus, a planet that has also been decimated by a runaway greenhouse effect. If intelligent life beyond Earth wanted to wipe us out, they wouldn't attack with primitive laser weapons or bombs. They would manipulate us into killing ourselves, which would require very little patience on their part and could very well be exactly what is happening. We act like economics is one of the laws of nature, and it is ridiculous. It is the ultimate barrier to human progress, one that could easily be turned into a weapon against us by beings of superior intelligence, and there is hardly a single person on thie Earth who has thought about how we need to change that in order to survive moving forward. Do not allow yourself to be so easily wielded as a tool for human destruction.
"Do not allow yourself to be so easily wielded as a tool for human destruction". Well, you have just proven with that predictable rant that YOU are one of those being used by the Marxists to totally wreck the economy of the Western world. I doubt YOU have even done any research into the causes and have just accepted the left wing mantra about CO2 without question, just because some "Professor" has said so. You are using the term "the wealthy" as a derogatory comment, that is total MARXIST! The Amazon and other forests are burning because green arsonists are setting fire to them to try and prove their false claims that CO2 is the cause, another typically MARXIST ploy.
According to your prophets, Australia would be a desert wilderness by 2020, and at the moment its being drenched by TOTALLY NORMAL monsoon rains.
I have said repeatedly that Climate Change IS happening, and we should be taking steps to mitigate the effects, BUT concentrating on CO2 is NOT GOING TO HELP! In fact a left wing climate change commentator said a day or so ago that even if we did reach the co2 targets for 2050, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE AT ALL! So what's the point of all these ridiculous leaders summits?
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
"Do not allow yourself to be so easily wielded as a tool for human destruction". Well, you have just proven with that predictable rant that YOU are one of those being used by the Marxists to totally wreck the economy of the Western world. I doubt YOU have even done any research into the causes and have just accepted the left wing mantra about CO2 without question, just because some "Professor" has said so. You are using the term "the wealthy" as a derogatory comment, that is total MARXIST! The Amazon and other forests are burning because green arsonists are setting fire to them to try and prove their false claims that CO2 is the cause, another typically MARXIST ploy.
According to your prophets, Australia would be a desert wilderness by 2020, and at the moment its being drenched by TOTALLY NORMAL monsoon rains.
I have said repeatedly that Climate Change IS happening, and we should be taking steps to mitigate the effects, BUT concentrating on CO2 is NOT GOING TO HELP! In fact a left wing climate change commentator said a day or so ago that even if we did reach the co2 targets for 2050, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE AT ALL! So what's the point of all these ridiculous leaders summits?
Buddy you wouldn't know a Marxist from an Ostrich
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
Buddy you wouldn't know a Marxist from an Ostrich
Yes I do! A Marxist is a being that hides it's head in the sand, or whatever else is available, to stop hearing people telling the truth about Climate change that they have been taught by their Marxists masters (and Professors!)
An Ostrich is an intelligent flightless bird that has a small head, but a bigger brain and is more intelligent than a Marxist, and DOES NOT hide its head in the sand when possible conflict emerges or at any other time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Jan 27, 2020
123
50
680
While we think the units which describe the speed of light are "weird", perhaps we're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

We had certain units for distance long before we calculated the speed of light and we have applied these units to the almost inconceivable speed of light.

The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris. It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures, created in 1875, upgraded the bar to one made of 90 percent platinum/10 percent iridium alloy.

In 1960 the meter was redefined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange-red light, in a vacuum, produced by burning the element krypton (Kr-86). More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals.
None of the definitions changed the length of the meter, but merely allowed this length to be duplicated more precisely.

The U. S. Congress legalized the use of the metric system in 1866 on the basis that one meter is exactly equal to 39.37 inches. In 1959 a number of English-speaking countries agreed that an inch is exactly equal to 2.54 centimeters so that the International foot is exactly equal to 0.3048 meters. The United States retained the old 1866 equivalency and called it the U. S. Survey foot so that 1 U. S. Survey foot equals 1.000002 International feet.

In the English-speaking world, 16th – 21st century, and in the Sudan , 20th century, a unit of distance = 5280 feet = 1760 yards = 8 furlongs, approximately 1.609 344 kilometers. Often referred to as the statute mile, from its having been defined in a statute* proclaimed by Elizabeth I of England (1592-93) which forbade building within 3 miles of the gates of London.

Although as early as 1607 legal authorities like John Cowell** regarded the 5280-foot mile as the one intended in contracts and statutes, it did not in fact become the legal mile throughout the United Kingdom until the passage of the Act** establishing the imperial system of weights and measures in 1824. Scotland, however, adopted the 1760-yard mile only in 1685.

In the 16th century and before miles other than the statute mile were certainly in use in Great Britain (see old English mile, below). Those miles were gradually superseded largely through government use of the 5280-foot mile. The Letter Office and later postal services relied on the statute mile. The postal act of 1660***, for example, paid contractors carrying letters 3 pence per 5280-foot mile for each horse. Roads improved by the Turnpike Acts had milestones placed at 5280-foot intervals. Such measures accustomed people to thinking of a mile as 5280 feet.

* And that a Myle shalbe reckoned and taken in this manner and note otherwise, That is to saye, a Myle to conteyne Eight Furlongs, and everie Furlonge to conteyne Fortie Luggs or Poles, and every Lugg or Pole to conteyne Sixtene Foote and Halfe.

“An Acte againste newe Buyldinges,” 35 Elizabeth chapter 6, sec 8. (1592 – 1593) First known legal definition of the mile.

** Mile (milliare) is a quantitie of a thousand paces, otherwise described to containe eight furlongs, and euery furlong to conteine forty lugs or poles, and euery lugge or pole to containe 16. foote and a halfe. anno 35. El. cap 6.

John Cowell.
The Interpreter: or Booke containing the Signification of Words: Wherein is set forth the true meaning of all, or the most part of such Words and Termes, as are mentioned in the Lawe Writers, or Statutes of this... etc.
Cambridge: John Legate, 1607.

*** V. And it shall and may be lawfull to and for such Post Master Generall and his Deputy and Deputyes to aske demand take and receive of every person that he or they shall furnish and provide with Horses Furniture and Guide to ride post in any of the Post roads as aforesaid Three pence of English money for each Horses hire or postage for every English mile and Foure pence for the Guide for every Stage.

An Act for Erecting and Establishing a Post Office. (12 Car. II., cap. 35, 1660)
Statutes of the Realm. Volume 5: 1628-80.
London: 1819.

Let's turn to measuring the speed of light.

Galileo Galilei was the first person to attempt to measure the speed of light, in the early 1600s. Galileo and an assistant each stood on a different hilltop with a known distance between them, the plan was for Galileo to open the shutter of a lamp and then for his assistant to open the shutter of a lamp as soon as he saw the light from Galileo's.

Using the distance between the hilltops and his pulse as a timer, Galileo planned to measure the speed of light. He and his assistant tried this with different distances between them, but no matter how far apart they were, he could measure no difference in the amount of time it took for the light to travel between them.

Galileo concluded that the speed of light was too fast to be measured by this method, and he was correct. We now know the speed of light very precisely, and if Galileo and his assistant were on hilltops one mile apart, light would take 0.0000054 seconds to travel from one person to the other. It is understandable that Galileo was unable to measure this with his pulse!

The Danish Astronomer, Ole Römer was the next to try to measure the speed of light. In an experiment that made Römer determined that an experiment should always involve outer space. Thus, he based his observations on the movement of planets themselves, announcing his groundbreaking results on August 22, 1676.

Unfortunately, the exact calculations he used were lost in the Great Copenhagen Fire of 1728, but we have a pretty good account from other scientists from that time who used Römer’s numbers in their own work. The gist of it was that using a bunch of clever calculations involving the diameter of the Earth’s and Jupiter’s orbits, Römer was able to conclude, however, that it took around 22 minutes for light to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Christiaan Huygens later converted this to more commonplace numbers, showing that by Römer’s estimation, light traveled at about 220,000 kilometres per second, off by about 27%.

In 1848–49, Hippolyte Fizeau determined the speed of light between an intense light source and a mirror about 8 km distant. The light source was interrupted by a rotating cogwheel with 720 notches that could be rotated at a variable speed of up to hundreds of times a second. Fizeau adjusted the rotation speed of the cogwheel until light passing through one notch of the cogwheel would be completely eclipsed by the adjacent tooth. Spinning the cogwheel at 3, 5 and 7 times this basic rotation rate also resulted in eclipsing of the reflected light by the cogwheel teeth next in line. Given the rotational speed of the wheel and the distance between the wheel and the mirror, Fizeau was able to calculate a value of 315000 km/s for the speed of light. It was difficult for Fizeau to visually estimate the intensity minimum of the light being blocked by the adjacent teeth, and his value for light's speed was about 5% too high. Fizeau's paper appeared in Comptes Rendus: Hebdomadaires de scéances de l’Academie de Sciences (Paris, Vol. 29 [July–December 1849], pp. 90–92).

In 1850, Fizeau engaged L.F.C. Breguet to build a rotary-mirror apparatus in which he split a beam of light into two beams, passing one through water while the other traveled through air. Beaten by Foucault by a mere seven weeks he confirmed that the speed of light was greater as it traveled through air, validating the wave theory of light.

Between 1877 and 1931, Albert A. Michelson made multiple measurements of the speed of light. His 1877–79 measurements were performed under the auspices of Simon Newcomb, who was also working on measuring the speed of light. Michelson's setup incorporated several refinements on Foucault's original arrangement. As seen in the figure below, Michelson placed the rotating mirror R near the principal focus of lens L (i.e. the focal point given incident parallel rays of light). If the rotating mirror R were exactly at the principal focus, the moving image of the slit would remain upon the distant plane mirror M (equal in diameter to lens L) as long as the axis of the pencil of light remained on the lens, this being true regardless of the RM distance. Michelson was thus able to increase the RM distance to nearly 2000 feet. To achieve a reasonable value for the RS distance, Michelson used an extremely long focal length lens (150 feet) and compromised on the design by placing R about 15 feet closer to L than the principal focus. This allowed an RS distance of between 28.5 to 33.3 feet. He used carefully calibrated tuning forks to monitor the rotation rate of the air-turbine-powered mirror R, and he would typically measure displacements of the slit image on the order of 115 mm. His 1879 figure for the speed of light, 299944±51 km/s, was within about 0.05% of the modern value. His 1926 repeat of the experiment incorporated still further refinements such as the use of polygonal prism-shaped rotating mirrors (enabling a brighter image) having from eight through sixteen facets and a 22 mile baseline surveyed to fractional parts-per-million accuracy. (See fire below) His figure of 299,796±4 km/s was only about 4 km/s higher than the current accepted value. Michelson's final 1931 attempt to measure the speed of light in vacuum was interrupted by his death. Although his experiment was completed posthumously by F. G. Pease and F. Pearson, various factors militated against a measurement of highest accuracy, including an earthquake which disturbed the baseline measurement.

Michelson's_1879_Refinement_of_Foucault.png

See:





 
Last edited:

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Yes I do! A Marxist is a being that hides it's head in the sand, or whatever else is available, to stop hearing people telling the truth about Climate change that they have been taught by their Marxists masters (and Professors!)
An Ostrich is an intelligent flightless bird that has a small head, but a bigger brain and is more intelligent than a Marxist, and DOES NOT hide its head in the sand when possible conflict emerges or at any other time.
Sorry, I was in a bad mood when I wrote to you. What I should have said is this: by no means are you obligated to agree with me, but I am not parroting what I hear/read on the news (much of which is influenced by marxist/maoist propaganda operations, as far as I can tell). I actually believe debate over this issue is being intentionally limited by the failure of both "sides" to recognize the true extent of the problem. The leftist media wants to trumpet the "success" of the Paris Climate Accord and castigate Trump for withdrawing from it, but the truth is by 2050 20-50% of Earth's human population will have met their demise directly at the hands of climate catastrophe or indirectly at the hands of increased global conflict and the emergence of destablizing forces such as crop-destroying pests and vicious pandemics. Question: do you see any of the left-wing media telling us that climate change will create a runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy life on Earth as we know it? As far as I can tell all they talk about are ocean levels and hurricanes. Note that the liberal talking heads are happy to b**** and moan but they still drive their fossil-fueled automobiles to work and have endless excuseses for doing so. I am saying the problem is far worse than anybody is letting on, I believe in freedom not communism but we can't be free if we're dead.
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
Sorry, I was in a bad mood when I wrote to you. What I should have said is this: by no means are you obligated to agree with me, but I am not parroting what I hear/read on the news (much of which is influenced by marxist/maoist propaganda operations, as far as I can tell). I actually believe debate over this issue is being intentionally limited by the failure of both "sides" to recognize the true extent of the problem. The leftist media wants to trumpet the "success" of the Paris Climate Accord and castigate Trump for withdrawing from it, but the truth is by 2050 20-50% of Earth's human population will have met their demise directly at the hands of climate catastrophe or indirectly at the hands of increased global conflict and the emergence of destablizing forces such as crop-destroying pests and vicious pandemics. Question: do you see any of the left-wing media telling us that climate change will create a runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy life on Earth as we know it? As far as I can tell all they talk about are ocean levels and hurricanes. Note that the liberal talking heads are happy to b**** and moan but they still drive their fossil-fueled automobiles to work and have endless excuseses for doing so. I am saying the problem is far worse than anybody is letting on, I believe in freedom not communism but we can't be free if we're dead.
Thank you, I agree that we are free to disagree, that is one of the wonders of democracy. I have NEVER claimed that Climate Change is not happening, it is, but NOT, but my research, which is limited to reading scientific papers from Geologists, Astronomers, Oceanographers and Volcanologists among etal, entirely because of CO2. It may be having a 5% effect as has been admitted by several Universities investigating climate change, especially the University of Columbia, where the students and peers of the late Wallace Smith-Broecker at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Sciences Laboratory have admitted that HIS claims about CO2 do not stand up against the research of Milankovitch. The interaction of the ever changing orbits of the Earth and the other planets, and the ever changing tilt (to use the layman's description) of the planet has more to do with the changing climate of Earth, despite those who claim that such changes are not happening as fast as the supposed changes caused by CO2, but I personally disagree with them, which I am entitled to do. They may come up with their charts and numbers, but to me, they are not proof, they are suppositions and modelling that have nothing to do with reality, as the actual weather reports around the World are showing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Thank you, I agree that we are free to disagree, that is one of the wonders of democracy. I have NEVER claimed that Climate Change is not happening, it is, but NOT, but my research, which is limited to reading scientific papers from Geologists, Astronomers, Oceanographers and Volcanologists among etal, entirely because of CO2. It may be having a 5% effect as has been admitted by several Universities investigating climate change, especially the University of Columbia, where the students and peers of the late Wallace Smith-Broecker at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Sciences Laboratory have admitted that HIS claims about CO2 do not stand up against the research of Milankovitch. The interaction of the ever changing orbits of the Earth and the other planets, and the ever changing tilt (to use the layman's description) of the planet has more to do with the changing climate of Earth, despite those who claim that such changes are not happening as fast as the supposed changes caused by CO2, but I personally disagree with them, which I am entitled to do. They may come up with their charts and numbers, but to me, they are not proof, they are suppositions and modelling that have nothing to do with reality, as the actual weather reports around the World are showing.
My concern is this: if there is even a 1% chance CO2 and Methane emissions could damn the entire future of our species, we should have our s*** together as a society to the point where we can do *something* about it. And I believe for a starting point, we should all agree that the decimation of natural habitats such as the Amazon Rainforest is upsetting to the natural balance of life in our biosphere. The fact that as an "advanced" civilization we cannot provide the Brazilian people with a form of economic empowerment that does not require burning acres of forest to the ground is quite sad. Is that fair to say?
 
Jan 2, 2020
24
2
35
My concern is this: if there is even a 1% chance CO2 and Methane emissions could damn the entire future of our species, we should have our s*** together as a society to the point where we can do *something* about it. And I believe for a starting point, we should all agree that the decimation of natural habitats such as the Amazon Rainforest is upsetting to the natural balance of life in our biosphere. The fact that as an "advanced" civilization we cannot provide the Brazilian people with a form of economic empowerment that does not require burning acres of forest to the ground is quite sad. Is that fair to say?
I totally agree with you about the Amazon and other forest areas, they are our lungs, and being cut down for unnecessary palm oil production in many cases, especially Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Unfortunately, countries like those do not have Western style governments, they are run by despots who just use, in many cases, military rule and/or religion to govern their countries. Unfortunately, short of getting the U.N. to oust these despots is impossible, so, just like in the West we have to put up with terrorists and drug dealers which our law enforcers are having trouble dealing with, it will take probably another millennia before those countries are actually developed into rational law abiding and human rights recognising countries.
 
Jan 27, 2020
123
50
680
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

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
The length of a meter is tailored to the distance light travels in a second. Any sane person would question why massless light has such a weird number.
If the numbers thing isn't your bag ..Matter Waves not decaying is another avenue to my theory. Matter Waves that don't decay are not using spacetime.


I'd like to refer you to an interesting paper titled "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants"
by M. J. Duff, Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Randall Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1120, USA.

In it the author states, "...the time variation of dimensional constants, such as ̄h, c, G, e, k. . . , which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from one choice of units to the next, has no operational meaning."

Further, "the claim that the fine-structure constant, α-the measure of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between photons and electrons-is slowly increasing over cosmological time scales has refuelled an old debate about varying fundamental constants of nature. In our opinion, however, this debate has been marred by a failure to distinguish between dimensionless constants such as α, which may indeed be fundamental, and dimensional constants such as the speed of light c, the charge on the electron e, Planck’s constant h ̄, Newton’s constant G, Boltzmann’s constant k etc, which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from one choice of units to the next and which have no intrinsic physical significance."

To reiterate: assigning a change in α to a change in e (Planck) or a change in ̄h (Stoney) or a change in c (Schrodinger) is entirely a matter of units, not physics. Just as no experiment can determine that MKS units are superior to CGS units, or that degrees Fahrenheit are superior to degrees Centigrade, so no experiment can determine that changing c is superior to changing e, contrary to the claims of many scientists and lay people alike.

In summary, it becomes meaningless and a waste of time to talk about time variation of arbitrary unit-dependent constants whose only role is to act as conversion factors. For example, aside from saying that c is finite, the statement that c = 3 × 108 m/s, has no more content than saying how we convert from one human construct (the meter) to another (the second). Asking whether c has varied over cosmic history (a question unfortunately appearing on the front page of the New York Times, in Nature and on CNN, where commentators poorly versed in science bandied the ideas about, is like asking whether the number of liters to the gallon has varied over time.

See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23678697_Competing_bounds_on_the_present-day_time_variation_of_fundamental_constants

See: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/72620/2/0208093v4.pdf

See: https://physics.aps.org/articles/pdf/10.1103/Physics.7.117

Hartmann352
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts