constant speed of light
Robert Clark
DJMenCk <djm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199803221833...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
| >> Fair enough, but can anyone tell me whether there are theories as
| >> to why this assumption is so universally accepted, and has there been much
| >> research into why velocity of light is constant in all frames of
reference.
| >
| Roberts: >Science is poorly-equipped to answer "why" questions.
|
| Dennis: This is one of the many obviously absurd statements that are
repeated
| ad infinitim by relativists--and has now become another twentieth century
myth
| among the educated. The reason for this particular statement is that
| "relativity" refuses to address causes in an adequate fashion--but instead
| simply postulates characteristics. So professors, who don't know the answers
to
| the "why" questions of their students, usually claim that science is
| "poorly-equipped" to answer such questions--or even "doesn't address" such
| questions..
| It's an absurd notion.
| Because of science, we know "why" people get sick, why the oceans come in
and
| out, why water disappears in the sunlight, why it rains, why people have
heart
| attacks, why we suspiciously resemble apes. We know why the sun rises and
sets.
| We know why food spoils, and why it is colder in winter. We know why wind
| blows, and why people are afraid of the dark. We know why friction causes
| heat, why spinning around gets us dizzy, why hunger causes aggression. We
know
| why gasses expand when heated, we know why some materials are better
absorbers,
| we know why non-continental islands never boast large indigenous mammals. And
| all of these have been answered by science. Indeed, I could literally list
| hundreds and hundreds of profoundly perplexing questions of "why" that
| scientific inquiry has answered. In fact, there is an entire book for young
| school children called "Tell Me Why," which shows the scientific answers to
all
| such similar interrogatives--and there are many, perhaps dozens, of volumes
of
| this book.
| Here's a nice anecdote to remember:
| A student raises his hand in physics class and asks, "why is the speed of
| light constant in inertial frames, when nothing else in the universe is." The
| teacher responds: "Science is poorly equipped to address "why" questions."
Now
| if the student's a future relativists, he'll write down this statement,
| memorize it, reproduce it on tests, and repeat it to others in a learned and
| solemn tone.
| But if the student is not a believing type, he'll tend to laugh or roll his
| eyes, and move one step closer to heresy and intellectual ostracization.
| --Dennis McCarthy
|
Well said. I must say I am also strenuously opposed to the scientific
philosophy that science does not address 'why' questions. The fact is some of
greatest advances in science occurred when scientists asked 'why' questions.
Now to address this specific 'why' question. If the teacher was really up to
snuff and wanted to tell his students the truth and wanted to base his answer
on logic, and on what the mathematics of modern physics actually says, and on
what experiments have verified he would tell them this:
It isn't. Einstein first proposed that the speed of light is always c in
inertial frames. But he soon realized this could not hold in accelerated frames
or when gravity is present. Under the influence of gravity, the speed of light
can be significantly reduced and within the event horizon of a black hole can
even be reduced to zero. Also, when quantum physicists wanted to include
relativity into their theories they realized that the speed of light could be
affected by the presence of electromagnetic energy in a region, with the result
being that light speed will be reduced in the presence of strong
electromagnetic fields.
Both of these cases where the speed of light is reduced have been verified by
experiment. It is also interesting to note that by verifying the slowing of
light in the presence of strong gravity fields, we have proved that in general
Nature is not Lorentz invariant.
So why does it look like it always travels at c? That's simple. The reason is
that we happen to live on a planet with very weak gravitational and
electromagnetic fields present. However, most of the matter in the universe
consists of stars, black holes, neutron stars, quasars, etc. all with very
strong gravitational and electromagnetic fields. So in actuality in most cases
in the universe, the speed of light is highly variable.
Bob Clark
Kenton W. Mellott
Robert Clark wrote in message <01bd5607$12094880$62c6...@rclark.op.net>...
>
>DJMenCk <djm...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199803221833...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>| >> Fair enough, but can anyone tell me whether there are theories as
>| >> to why this assumption is so universally accepted, and has there been
much
>| >> research into why velocity of light is constant in all frames of
>reference.
>| >
>| Roberts: >Science is poorly-equipped to answer "why" questions.
>|
>| Dennis: This is one of the many obviously absurd statements that are
>repeated
>| ad infinitim by relativists--and has now become another twentieth century
>myth
....snip
>| --Dennis McCarthy
>|
>
> Well said. I must say I am also strenuously opposed to the scientific
>philosophy that science does not address 'why' questions. The fact is some
of
>greatest advances in science occurred when scientists asked 'why'
questions.
... snip..
> It isn't. Einstein first proposed that the speed of light is always c in
>inertial frames. But he soon realized this could not hold in accelerated
frames
>or when gravity is present. Under the influence of gravity, the speed of
light
>can be significantly reduced and within the event horizon of a black hole
can
>even be reduced to zero. Also, when quantum physicists wanted to include
>relativity into their theories they realized that the speed of light could
be
>affected by the presence of electromagnetic energy in a region, with the
result
>being that light speed will be reduced in the presence of strong
>electromagnetic fields.
> Both of these cases where the speed of light is reduced have been verified
by
>experiment.
...snip...
> Bob Clark
There is one factor of speed that is not being noted
here that seems to have a harmonizing effect. That is
that time is really just an artifact of the rate of given
interaction of energy (poss as matter) in space. In a
black-hole time is said to stop, as I understand it.
If a time piece could stand the heavy electromagnetic
fields, it would probably show the same effect.
The probable reason the heavy fields would commony
slow time (or basic interaction rates) is that the particles
making up matter are are too busy just keeping themselves
in one piece in a heavily engaging envoroment.
Eleaticus
In article <6fa6rg$f...@news2.tds.net>,
"Kenton W. Mellott" <mel...@co.tds.net> wrote:
> There is one factor of speed that is not being noted
> here that seems to have a harmonizing effect. That is
> that time is really just an artifact of the rate of given
> interaction of energy (poss as matter) in space.
What in bell is a rate of given interaction
of energy?
please show us the algebraic expression involved.
and if it is something that takes place bit by
bit, how is that possible if the one bit position
is not replaced by another bit position, etc.
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
Kenton W. Mellott
Eleaticus wrote in message ...
Making it more complicated than you need to.
Though, I suppose better wording would be to say
'a given rate of interaction' implying that one is to
make sure that the same interaction is going on
in the cases in question. It is not impossible to
have the heavy fields, or what ever, alter the actual
process that occuring beyond just having a 'time
slowing' effect.
This all comes from what I've noted about Einstien's
descriptions of the effect of relativity. So I claim to
introduce no formula change there. I his description of
high speed travel, time slows down to the point
of stopping, should anything every reach light's speed.
If I were a particle of matter trying to go at relativistic
speeds, being made up of energy at light's speed,
I suppose I would spend alot of time just catching up
with myself to stay in one piece. Likely giving this
particle little time to interact with its enviroment. This
to me would explain the time slowing effect.
Gravity I suppose would have the same engaging
effect. Causing the entity to spend most of its effort
at stabilizing its own existence.
Though I cannot prove anything, or show any article
support the following view, I have to suspect that gravity
is an artifact of matters tendency to induce energy to
interact with it. Though not exactly gravity. One might
note that photon are attracted to interact with electrons
they pass near. Especially those that have a motion
harmonious with there own wave structure. It is not
impossible to assume that should mass have such
an attracting nature to energy (it is noted that they
cause light path to be bent) that the energy 'vacuum'
it creates is what we call gravity.
Sincerely
Gregory D. Mellott
(mel...@co.tds.net)
Robert Clark
Well, we're not going to agree on this issue.
Bob Clark
Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
<6fjdto$kni$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
| "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> writes:
|
| > Well said. I must say I am also strenuously opposed to the scientific
| >philosophy that science does not address 'why' questions. The fact is some
of
| >greatest advances in science occurred when scientists asked 'why' questions.
|
| But there are different classes of "why" questions. One is the the
| explanation of natural phenomena by natural causes. The other one is
| the "philosophical" reason of physical laws and constants, of which
| the "so called" (I'll go into this further down) speed of light is
| one example. Science is well equipped to answer the first class of
| questions, but has never attempted to answer the latter.
|
| > It isn't. Einstein first proposed that the speed of light is always c in
| >inertial frames. But he soon realized this could not hold in accelerated
frames
| >or when gravity is present. Under the influence of gravity, the speed of
light
| >can be significantly reduced and within the event horizon of a black hole
can
| >even be reduced to zero.
|
| Your argument is based on a confusion of two concepts who unfortunately
| have the same name:
|
| The speed we observer electromagnetic radiation travel at is indeed
| variable and depends on a number of conditions.
|
| That however is not what we mean when we talk about "the speed of light"
| in relativity. What we mean is the universal constant which we observe
| to be the maximum speed that matter or energy can travel at. _That_ limit
| is indeed observed to be the same in all frames.
|
| Greetings
|
| wolfgang
|
| --
| wo...@techno.de+wo...@berlin.snafu.de+http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/+IRC:wolfi
| dreaming of the queen visiting for tea. you and her and i and lady di
| the queen said i'm aghast, love never seems to last however hard you try
| and i replied that there were no more lovers left alive, noone has survived
|