My instantaneous point of view

[John Gogo]

I believe that all planets that are imaged are observed instantly in the sky and not determined by the speed of light. I believe that stars are not clear images but instead some sort of composite of the star itself and the corona which it produces. I believe that when things are measured small- that the speed of light has the most application. I believe that the speed of light is a purely manmade venture and that it finds its' justification in the measurement of our essential world bound instruments.
I do not believe that the observation of Jupiter and its' moons deserves any delay as it goes through its' yearly cycle. I do not believe that the observation of Mercury is delayed (or any other measured planet). I believe that treating the varying distances of planetary bodies from Earth with a Universal speed of light is incorrect. Speed of light is special not universal.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/8/16 8/8/16 9:49 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> I believe [...]

Your beliefs do not correspond to the world we inhabit.


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

Yes, it does not correspond to the way we presently understand. But, what if you would be willing to suspend your beliefs momentarily, and "believe" alternatively? Physicists are attempting to discover a unified theory which marries QM and GR. Would it not be "good thinking" to start understanding differently- even if the thought process is seemingly incorrect?

[John Gogo]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:20:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

When I believe- I don't have to try nearly hard as you. To me, everything is easy and obvious.

[Sylvia Else]

Physicists are not going to unify QM and GR by making wild speculations
that contradict what we already know for sure.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

The point is your imagination must match experimental results. And the body of knowledge
that's necessary must therefore take into account:

(1) experimental results so far,
(2) the theories matching them so far.

This body of knowledge is called "physics", and therefore it's a waste of time to avoid
learning it before attempting to contribute to it. It's not like someone set up physics as some
sort of "barrier" intended to keep "the masses" away. Instead, it is like piano practice one
must go through before becoming a concert pianist. And even best composers like Bach or
Wagner had to _study_ music composition first (Wagner really didn't like it but unlike
many people around here, he _knew what he didn't know_ and persevered). Even Beethoven
studied under Salieri (who BTW was no mean composer despite Hollywood's attempts at
ruining his reputation :-) ).

You can't create something out of nothing.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 05:52:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> The point is your imagination must match experimental results.

Your Shit proves matching experimental results is not
necessary. Fanatic belief is enough.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 05:12:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> Physicists are not going to unify QM and GR by making wild speculations
> that contradict what we already know for sure.

:)
So innocent, so naive.

[JanPB]

No.

--
Jan

[John Gogo]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:20:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

So, let us set up a Gedankin of an instantaneous example which is part possible and part which is not possible NOW but maybe one day possible:

Title: The Moon Image vs. Signal Experiment

Often times physicists make their experiments which are so overly sophisticated that that don't realize the nature that is going on around them. We have become converted to the ways of ours measurements in present time. We cannot see with vision the future of the progress of our experiments. Let me give you an example of an instant observation which coexists with relative results.

1) assume there is a light body on the surface of the moon (a screen) which can dictate numbers which can be recognized and assimilated- such as numbers on a screen reading 1,2,3 in seconds- which screen may be observed by Earthbound telescopes.
2) assume the SIZE of the screen must be 10 meters in diameter by the power definition of today's Earthbound measures.
3) assume a satellite revolving around the moon which possesses (since it is nearer) a smaller telescope- and can observe the instant signal from the light body on the moon- and can register the same instant image by measure.
3) The limitation exists when we require the satellite to send the delayed image via radio waves.

[John Gogo]

Sorry, that was number 4.
5) There should be a fundamental distinction between when we measure an image vs. when we send a signal. When the satellite sends the signal of the image of the 1,2,3 of the screen on moon, it will be delayed by approximately one second because the distance from Earth to moon it nearly 300,000 km/s.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:97a38981-9a87-48c0...@googlegroups.com...

Yes.

[John Gogo]

This is very difficult subject matter to be made clear. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves the negatives of the possibility:
1) We cannot perform this experiment because we do not a operating screen which is large enough to provide the 1,2,3 reading of a telescope stationed on Earth or satellite.
2) the fact that the satellite can derive an instantaneous measure of the 1,2,3... as does the Earth telescope... but the radio information sent from the satellite to the Earthbound measure will be one second delayed...

[John Gogo]

Sorry, moon or satellite.

[John Gogo]

Someone, may ask, well how can this be true? My answer, would be that we have not yet established a timed baseline long enough to incorporate an instantaneous response. But there are many clues...

[Python]

Le 14/08/2016 à 06:28, John Gogo a écrit :
> Someone, may ask, well how can this be true? My answer, would be that
> we have not yet established a timed baseline long enough to incorporate
> an instantaneous response. But there are many clues...

My guess is that you are a kook talking to himself John, with too long
lines.

[John Gogo]

I can talk about this stuff all day long, heck.

[John Gogo]

We do not recognize the instantaneousness of lighted body sources is because, when we deal with occurrences like this- there is not baseline long enough to establish a time line. This is a fact, whether you like it or not monkey.

[John Gogo]

We are dealing with the speed of light here.

[John Gogo]

Obviously, if we cannot put on the moon, a 10 meter in diameter screen or 50 meter screen(which ever that maximum visual acuity plus the magnitude of our most powerful telescopes would require in order to SEE the screen) this Gedankin will never be possible.

[Sylvia Else]

How about we put a retro-reflector on the moon, fire a laser beam at it,
and measure the transit time?

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way.

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:

> It would take about two seconds if go/come to Earth, one second if one-way.
>
>

So, not instantaneous then.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

No, not any signal. But, the observation of the "largeness of the screen"(determined by maximum visual acuity) is instantaneous.

[Sylvia Else]

Suppose we had a large screen on the Moon, but it was initially covered
up. Then, when a laser pulse hits the retro-reflector, the large screen
was uncovered. Do you maintain that the largeness of the screen could be
observed before the returning laser pulse reaches the Earth?

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Yes, this is what I have been trying to say.

[John Gogo]

The fact that we cannot know this yet has to do with the fact that no screen exists that would give us the clear cut answer... but, there are always clues...

[Sylvia Else]

Your retina is sensitive to photons. For you to observe the photons
representing the largeness of the screen before the photons in the
returning laser pulse, the former would have to travel faster than the
latter. Why would they travel faster? How would they know that they
should travel faster?

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Let me attempt to give you some insight on the subject of Maximum Visual Acuity MVA:

MVA is the power of the observer's magnitude ability to make objects observable that exist in nature, large enough to be seen. If we hold our MVA up to nature and the universe, how do we fare? The answer to this is not very significant. With our eyes has evolved a power- a magnification which is limited. The general definition of MVA, according to Guyton, says that a 1mm. object's limit to be seen exists at a distance of 10 meters. The magnitude of this length and width measure is 10,000 to 1. Now, all objects which are large enough and are illuminated "fall into" this ratio are observed instantly- without a signal. It is simply the best definition of mankind's ability to measure objects. Ultimately, MVA is extremely limited. The stars and planets in the sky are limited by our observation! We do not see most of what is going on in the universe because the phenomena simply fails to register to our very limited measures of MVA

[John Gogo]

You are treating "retina" like a machine to measure "photons" from which the very nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't think like this. Think about why the object is large as it is and what makes this possible. Then you go right away to the screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal that the satellite sends back.

[Sylvia Else]

There is no image of the screen until the photons from it arrive at the
retina.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

This is the only way you are going to spatially be able to tell a time difference.

[John Gogo]

Arrive at the speed of light, right? This is the current theory, but it is only a theory. The time it take for photons to leave the source and "fall into the eyes". Trust me, there's more to it than that.

[John Gogo]

I'm just giving you the facts here... you can like it or not.

[John Gogo]

For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the six month variation of occultation of the Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do with the speed of light. I believe the 22 minutes means something else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you know what the 22 minutes mean to me?

[Sylvia Else]

It's not "only" a theory. It's a model of the behaviour of light that's
stood up to every test scientists have been able to devise. There is
nothing to suggest it's not how light behaves. Your notion, by contrast,
is just a wild speculation based on nothing at all.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly simple explanation for
what's observed, and is entirely consistent with what we know about
light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to believe that
the cause is something else when we clearly understand what's happening.

You might as well believe in undetectable dragons.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Poor idiot Tom would roar:
"We are THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS, worm!!!
We established and accepted a STANDARD!!!!!!"
Poor idiot would MAYBE accept a possibility
of his mistake, but possibility his commands
can be ignored is far, far beyond his ability
of comprehending.

[John Gogo]

So, you are like one in the audience during a magicians performance and the magician is like nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in half- you believe the woman is really being sawed in half- right?

[John Gogo]

I didn't completely understand this statement. I wish we could just talk about this freely. It seems people are threatened by this moon/satellite measure. Why can't we just explore this more? Why can't we track down the limits of a straight-lined measure?

[John Gogo]

The key is being able to measure a large screen which possesses its own knowledge- its' own 1,2,3 image and time.

[John Gogo]

I am simply trying to extrapolate the common knowledge. Why is no one willing to extrapolate their knowledge?

[John Gogo]

[John Gogo]

I am talking about a REAL situation here- a situation that is inevitable, yet not now physically possible. Or, maybe possible, but people are unwilling to explore? Why? Please, don't be afraid.

[Sylvia Else]

I don't know how you get there. The fact that the apparently
sawn-in-half woman is still alive suggests that the
women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed.

As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model of light is flawed.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE signals.

[Sylvia Else]

Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. Given its
conflict with the well established existing theory, no one else is going
to do it.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell short". The main problem is how science interprets the results.

[Sylvia Else]

Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot check, why
not provide links to official documents?

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Well, when you write the great story of physics- there tends to be predominate form of thought process. For instance, this is the so and so main theory- but it does not exist without its' paradoxes. If mankind will exist for another million or billion years, our science it bound to change. I know this sounds unconvincing and abstract... but maybe, it is the abstract that we must painfully adventure.

[Sylvia Else]

It's very unconvincing. The mere fact that science will progress in the
future doesn't mean that any theory that emerges from a bodily orifice
has merit.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about.

[John Gogo]

So, let's talk about the meaning and limit of maximum visual acuity- do you have a problem with that, or does it seem too boring and unmeaningful?

[Sylvia Else]

I suspect you think it's mysterious. It's not. It's a result in optics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

It can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical effect - the narrower the
lens aperture, the greater is the determination of a photon's lateral
position. This in turns implies a greater uncertainty in its lateral
momentum, and thus a greater uncertainty in the direction it came from.

In the context of looking at a star, this means that for the human eye,
each photon could have come from anywhere on the star's surface (or
indeed, quite a lot of the space around it), which makes forming an
image of the star impossible.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Wow, very cool. But, then again, if we took a theory like this to extremes we would find that matter would be unable to be formed. Thankfully, nature provided for our existence.

[John Gogo]

Angular resolution in the end, is dependent on mankind's ability to create a greater and greater parallax!

[John Gogo]

But... even with our parallax abilities...ie... Stellar parallax, annual parallax, diurnal parallax, lunar parallax, solar parallax, and dynamic or moving cluster parallax... we are still pretty impudent.

[Sylvia Else]

The theory describes very accurately what matter does, and certainly
does not imply that it cannot form.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become aware
of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer to, how do
you know that it's not just something someone overheard in a pub?

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved?

[John Gogo]

Why must I do it?

[Sylvia Else]

Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't do
that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible.

You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were
personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come
across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to
facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an
opportunity to check your interpretation of the results.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster results than the radar?

[Sylvia Else]

No, I can't find it.

You say it exists - point to it.

Sylvia

[John Gogo]

Look for the term "free space velocity", the invention of it and the obsoleting factors of it. You will find that we had to swallow a big fact- in order to start believing in Einstein's theories which coincidently establish ridiculous statements of time travel. Fantasy is fine and wonderful, but it doesn't make things practical and true.

[John Gogo]

You are telling me to go downstairs to my storage space and pull it out. OK, here I go.

[Sylvia Else]

You made specific claims regarding US Navy experiments in the 1950s.
Searching for "free space velocity" doesn't help me.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts to determine the velocity of light
A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in science in education
Department of education and physical science
Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson
Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened":

"The use of radar was an important factor in the successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of light as then understood was accurate.

It was not until after the war that an answer to the question could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the question of the true value of c."

[John Gogo]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:49:21 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> I believe that all planets that are imaged are observed instantly in the sky and not determined by the speed of light. I believe that stars are not clear images but instead some sort of composite of the star itself and the corona which it produces. I believe that when things are measured small- that the speed of light has the most application. I believe that the speed of light is a purely manmade venture and that it finds its' justification in the measurement of our essential world bound instruments.
> I do not believe that the observation of Jupiter and its' moons deserves any delay as it goes through its' yearly cycle. I do not believe that the observation of Mercury is delayed (or any other measured planet). I believe that treating the varying distances of planetary bodies from Earth with a Universal speed of light is incorrect. Speed of light is special not universal.

[Sylvia Else]

That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but not
reading the lines themselves.

They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, merely
that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not correct.

Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things like
measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known distance on land
between two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be used to
the infer the lengths of the other sides, being the distance of the ship
from the objects.

There's nothing here to support your wild speculations.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

continuing from the same article:

"During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher free space value."

[Sylvia Else]

Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed of
light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there to indicate
anything other than a problem with the previous measurements.

In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of microwaves in
AIR are not exactly the same.

Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not affected

by the speed of light.

There's no new physics here.

Sylvia.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'".

[John Gogo]

NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean?

[Sylvia Else]

Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the
wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same
answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between
measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement.
Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon?

[John Gogo]

[Sylvia Else]

The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the
cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then
removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only way
that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent variation vanish
is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause of them.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure?

[Sylvia Else]

I knew you wanted to construe the technical improvements as being a way
to ignore the truth that the speed of electromagnetic (EMW) waves
changes. I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to explain that
if the speed of EMW actually varied, then the technical improvements
would not have made it appear constant, because they would not be
addressing the cause of the variation.

If the speed of EMW actually varied, it would be impossible to build
accurate radar systems, which depend on the speed not varying.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

continuing...

"These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second."

[John Gogo]

So, we agree on this reality- a reality built by blocking out the noise which would make this system (such as radar) useless and incoherent?

[John Gogo]

I have no problem with the speed of light mechanically. It is one of our best inventions and miraculously continues to be so. I just think that we are getting more curios. I think the why question is starting to pique our interest, instead of just knowing that systems operate a certain way.

[Sylvia Else]

On 1/09/2016 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote:

>
> So, we agree on this reality- a reality built by blocking out the
> noise which would make this system (such as radar) useless and
> incoherent?
>

You're still trying to twist this into some kind of conspiracy by
scientists to force the perceived reality into a particular chosen form
by ignoring those aspects of reality that they don't want.

The noise is in the measuring equipment and of course one wants to
eliminate it, precisely in order to determine the reality of the thing
being measured.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote:

>
> I have no problem with the speed of light mechanically. It is one of
> our best inventions and miraculously continues to be so. I just think
> that we are getting more curios. I think the why question is starting
> to pique our interest, instead of just knowing that systems operate a
> certain way.
>

The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of
some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be
reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can
never be answered.

If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then
the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers.
In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is
because they have to.

However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some
other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why?
Because it just is.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

Sorry, just because it is- is not good enough for me. I want to know why. It is as simple as that. You might be satisfied with the way that things work now but I want more.

[John Gogo]

I'm looking for a better system!

[John Gogo]

I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm only trying to open up something- I think that we have largely forgotten.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Sylvia Else wrote:

The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of
some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be
reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can
never be answered.

If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then
the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers.
In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is
because they have to.

However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some
other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why?
Because it just is.

Sylvia.

Both gravity and em transit the Vacuum of spacetime.

Does The impedance of the vacuum regulate the speed of light or does ( em or gravity ) regulate the vacuum ?

The vacuum is a harmonic oscillator.
It is like the "spatial volume of space time" is oscillating from a negative volume to a positive volume, with the surface area being proportional to the frequency

E=mc^2 says mass is electromagnetic
E=mc^2 says spacetime is electromagnetic
E=mc^2 says radiation is electromagnetic
Gravity will be electromagnetic in nature

If spacetime is electromagnetic, gravity will be also as gravity is a curvature of spacetime.

Black holes are near-perfect black bodies, in the sense that they absorb all the radiation that falls on them. It has been proposed that they emit black-body radiation (called Hawking radiation), with a temperature that depends on the mass of the black hole.

If we are in reality on the "INSIDE" of the event horizon, the CMBR is the ("energy usage requirements" per cubic meter) to operate the universe's functions to maintain "escape velocity".

Then the "loss of volume of spacetime" by gravity is electromagnetic as the escape velocity of the event horizon is higher in proportion to the quantity of mass contained in the volume spacetime.

10e-32 / (c*G^0.5) = 1.4145101e-32


(10e-32 / (49.9790376^0.5)) / (0.376730313461^2) = 9.9665516e-32

Planck Temperature is approximately 1.41679 x 10^32 Kelvin

1 / (0.5^0.5) = 1.41421356237

(0.1 / (0.5^0.5))^0.5 = 0.3760603093

1 / (0.141679^2) = 49.818314994

0.141679^0.5 = 0.3764027098

((0.141679^0.5) / (4 * c)) / pi = 9.99130403e-11

pi = 3.13886073

Just RMS , just 0.5^0.5, just 0.707


http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg

The inside of a sphere is finite
The outside of a sphere is infinite

(1*Infinity)^0.5


Is there really a difference between

1.41679e+32 K & (2^0.5*10^32) ?

[JanPB]

The point is physics will always have the problem of "no underlying
model" at some point. _Where_ that boundary lies can of course vary
over the development of science but in the future AFAICT there will
always be a John G. asking the question: "but why is X the way it is"?

This appears to be a part of the human condition and is of course
a very interesting aspect of our relation to cosmos.

--
Jan

[John Gogo]

Thanks JanPB if it's the John G. your talking about.

[John Gogo]

continuing...

In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known.

[John Gogo]

[John Gogo]

We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short.

[Jonathan Doolin]

It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations.

If you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas.

In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false.

Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar?

[John Gogo]

Radar is not optical.

[John Gogo]

What about when circa Newton first realized that the planets such as Jupiter were not stars?

[John Gogo]

Unless, you are talking about Lidar which wasn't invented until the early 60's.

[John Gogo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope

[John Gogo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar