Don't worry, the speed of light has been fixed.
No, really!
This "scientist" named Einstein came up with this theory that said the speed of light was a constant. And everyone believed it. (well, after a careful psyop, and a rewriting of the college physics text books)
Unfortunately, the speed of light kept changing when they measured it. It was different at different times of day. Different in different parts of the world. And every year, metrology (the study of measurements) group would get together and average out all the measurements they got that year, and then publish it.
You can see this if you get old science text books.
The front cover has a table of values.
And the speed of light changed every year.
But! The speed of light was supposed to be constant, so the metrology group got together and set the speed of light.
Now the speed of light is fixed!
Its all better now.
Can you imagine that?
Can you even conceive that scientists would do such a thing?
You don't SET the speed of light, you measure it.
You get the data, and then make conclusions from it.
You do not go and discard the data because you want a different conclusion.
This is just bad science. And it is at the heart of modern physics.
But, there is something even worse.
The meter is defined as a measurement of the wavelength of light, which is directly related to speed.
So, if you measure the speed of light with the units of meters, you always get the same result. You will never know if the speed changed. The meter is a rubber ruler that is stretched or squished to keep constant with the speed of light.
Measuring things with a rubber ruler? Really scientists?
But, what do you expect from a group that threw out the notion of the luminiferous aether, with what could barely be called an experiment?
They are still arguing over whether a photon is a particle or a wave.
And with advances in the double-slit experiment, they should have thrown out all of those silly notions.
(basically, if one slit, than photons act like particles, if two slits, than photons act like waves, unless you watch it...)
So, modern scientists have hamstrung themselves twice with the understanding of light. Thus, in order to make progress, modern scientists will have to go back hundreds of years to get back to reality, to the data, and start anew their attempt to understand light.
Here is a thought experiment.
If a photon was a particle, imagine how light gets to you from a distant star.
As light gets further from its source, the photons would be spread out more and more, so, at a distance of a few light years (the closest stars) the chances of your eye running into a photon from that star is minuscule. Even if the star is sending out trillions of photons a second.
(And to make matters worse, the early astronauts stated that you can't see stars in space. Later, NASA had all the astronauts change their story.)
We have a lot of work to do to understand light, but first we have to dig ourselves out of the hole we dug ourselves into.
It is apparent from tests that the speed of light changes via all kinds of conditions.
There are many tests that show that the speed of light is slower than many other speeds. (like magnetism)
Still other tests show that light responds to consciousness.
And further, that we are not seeing all of light. Not speaking IR and UV, but that there is light in the EM range in which we see, that we do not see.
By "fixing" the speed of light, scientists have proven that science is broken.
Fortunately, there are (very) brave people who are exploring the reality around them and bringing us some fascinating new results. The future looks bright, as some non-scientists are turn on the light.
At t = 9:50 Rupert Sheldrake talks about the setting of the speed of light
When I was taking an astronomy class I thought they were assuming some other ridiculous things as well. The biggest one is the expansion of the universe. They plot a few data points a few years apart and then extrapolate the information for billions of years. It's foolish.
Everything is cyclical. The universe won't expand forever. Even the naming convention dark-matter implies that the unknown thing is matter... when really it is unknown gravity. Why wouldn't you call it what it is? It's dark-gravity. We assume the unknown gravity comes from matter but we really don't know anything about gravity to begin with.
It's all very odd.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A few billion years apart. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is limited we can actually look into to past. All the way back to the moment the Universe cooled down enough for protons to catch elections to form the first hydrogens atom and the universe became transparent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You don't see how that is also gross extrapolation prone to heinous errors? We are calculating derivatives while traveling on a curve. We are bending curves into straight lines because the straight lines make the math work. Great, it works. It is also wrong.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm sure that those who wrote the papers did make an error examination as no paper will pass peer review without. You know that magic 5σ thing the physics guys are always on about.
Physics isn't feminism where everything passes peer review without questioning.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
They are even assuming its gravity.
I prefer large/small galactic force.
That would make three sets of push/pull forces.
The galaxy spins as if all the stars were glued to a plate.
The outer stars move much faster than the inner stars.
Gravity just doesn't explain that at all.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Electric Universe!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would agree, however, we don't know much about electricity or energy.
large/small galactic force
large/small electric force
large/small nuclear force
I do not believe its electric and magnetic forces.
electric, magnetic, gravetic are all the same force in different directions.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Speaking of “galactic force” PBS one something similar just this week. The presenter doesn't quite like the idea but you might:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In order to effectively criticise current scientific knowledge you actually need to know current scientific knowledge. So I got you a video on the subject:
Best of course would be to watch the whole channel then you might be ready to make some informed critique:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I left "modern materialistic science" long ago after spending decades in universities.
I know what they taught.
And, i am poking holes in it.
I am not doing a thorough job of poking holes, nor am i writing a thesis paper about a better explanation for the phenomena.
Neither of those is really suitable to steem. No reader interaction.
And, yes, i know that the speed of light is not about light, i tried to argue that with a physics professor decades ago, he read me the riot act... and that was the beginning of the end of my college days.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fixing the speed of light is not really a problem.
Units like meter and second are convention. The original meter was someplace in Paris and the original second a subdivision of the length of one day on earth. Given these assumptions we can measure speed of light in m/s.
But there is no need to use these conventions. I can just as well say that the speed of light is one. Then I keep my definition of second and now what I can measure is what a 'natural' measure of length is. The distance light moves in one second.
Both cases are equivalent and there is no reason one or the other would be superior. And in the first case meter and second are not measured but defined and in the second the speed of light is defined and as you say the meter is now defined in relation to the speed of light and a second.
There are many problems in science, but I would not call the speed of light to be one.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is one HUGE difference between the two systems.
In your system where the speed of light is 1, can you measure changes in the speed of light?
What if the speed of light told you something extremely important, such as when the speed of light goes up, the stock market will go up, and when the speed of light goes down, war breaks out? (The speed of light is actually more important, but i don't have a better analogy)
So, measuring the speed of light is very important.
Assuming that the speed of light is constant, and so making a rubber ruler to measure it keeps you from ever knowing this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fixing suggest an active act of humans. But that's how it works.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same. Humans just took note of something that has always been the case.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fixing the speed of light isn't even bad science. It's dogma. It's turning the scientific method on it's head and creating a faith of scientism, an ism that isn't even based on observable facts.
Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I copy paste that one for your convenience)
Fixing suggest an active act of humans. But that's how it works.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same. Humans just took note of something that has always been the case.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I doubt it. There are various things that certainly impact light that exist in vacuum, such as gravity, the eruption of spacetime/particles from the vacuum pressure, and etc. How are these things measured in experiments?
They're not. We have no, none, zero conceivable ways to measure these impacts. Someday we will and dogma will not acknowledge them, or science will be reborn then.
Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I already answered that elsewhere in the discussion:
https://steempeak.com/science/@vermithrax/re-builderofcastles-the-speed-of-light-has-been-fixed-all-hail-the-metrologists-20190116t170827444z
Any scientist worth his (or her) salt will take those effects into account and mention them in the error analysis any scientific paper has.
I doubt that. The uncertainty principle doesn't only prevent us from perfect measurement. It also prevents the creation of a perfect vacuum. As well a cooling down any object to 0 kelvin.
This zero points can't exist on our universe.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that we should doubt. I note that fixing the speed of light negates any taking into account of incalculable variables, so none of the scientists that agree the speed of light is fixed are 'worth their salt'.
The uncertainty principle is based on our present incapacity. Since gravity is nothing more than the effect of forces on spacetime, and does not propagate across it, but expresses that information in realtime across the universe, the actual information regarding the state of particles exists. We just don't know what it is.
I expect that we will learn that information in time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually it's a fundamental property of the universe and we well never be able to overcome it.
To understand this you have to know that “uncertainty” is a translation error. Heisenberg was German and the original term was “Unschärferelation” which translates into unsharpness or blurriness.
It's like in photography: You can either focus on what is close or focus on what is far away but never on both.
The Universe too is fundamentally blurred and there is no way to un-blurre it.
Actually gravity does propagate across the universe. Google “Gravitational wave” which have recently proven to exist:
Gravitational waves travel with the speed of light (in the vacuum) and since they are not slowed down by non vacuum will overtake light in real live.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I note that it doesn't really matter regarding the translation from German, since it's simply noting why we can't be certain is that our optics are fuzzy.
You neglect that my point is that the nature of gravity is to actually denote the particular information we can but detect poorly, presently. The information is extant, we just don't know how to gain the information.
Also, regarding gravity waves, you misunderstand what waves are. Waves aren't gravity propagating linearly. Waves aren't water moving linearly either. The waves move linearly, a disturbance in the medium, but the medium isn't the wave. Waves move through the medium, which essentially remains in place after the wave passes.
There are theories that particles are waves, particles, strings and loops, all mathematical approximations. Not one of them is actually correct, but partially describing what actually is extant. Math is just a language, and can be made, like any language, to say anything. Maths that can describe what is real are useful, just like spoken language that conveys facts. Maths that simply speculate are nothing more than poetry, or disinfo.
The key to science is testability, and much speculative mathematics remains untestable. We have a long way to go in physics, and simply creating of our present rude and barbaric state of understanding a fixed state does nothing more than impede actually increasing knowledge.
Newtonian physics described reality pretty well, better than competing concepts of the day. Einsteinian physics is better, but had to overcome the resistance of the faith people had in Newtonian physics. This is why it is counterproductive to establish faith in extant 'best practices', as it impedes improving practices. It is also why the Copenhagen school of quantum dynamics essentially used manipulative tactics to BTFO competing theories that better reflected the evidence and has become the dominant theory. Pilot/wave theory actually better describes observable phenomena, but funding is focused on the socially dominant Copenhagen interpretation, despite complete failure of consilience.
It's profitable to simply fight for your funding by any means, rather than to honestly seek facts, particularly when funding is derived from politically driven factions. This is why science is so fraught with fraud and scientism today, after generations of such chicanery continually dominating funding and suppressing merely factual researchers.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you on that one. But it's also my understanding that all three theories (Pilot wave, Copenhagen, Many worlds) each have there own weaknesses.
But yes, pilot wave seems the most sane of the lot.
Yes. But you need lot's of funding to build a CERN or LIGO. So this vicious cycle. But that doesn't mean the measurement they make with CERN or LIGO are fraught.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Does this new knowledge affect my tomatoes?
I've been growing them on the old Einstein theory.
I knew it wasn't my lack of green fingers at fault...Shit!
...I'll go talk to them...
On a more serious note, I wonder how 'science' will look back at the last 100 years or so?
Like we do at the medieval ages?
'....they were in the right ball park, but boy, did they get it wrong'
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
About your tomatoes
Well, in the old stiff upper lip, imperial method, your tomatoes were 3 units big, now with the new rubber rulers, they will be over 7 ½ units big! That's a huge difference.
We are not even in the right ball park.
Materialistic science is not only wrong, it is so far wrong.
We will look back and say, those people actually believed the earth was a ball?
Materialistic science thinks that the brain is a computer.
(and so, assume that if we just build a computer big enough, it will be as smart)
But, what if the brain is only a physical antenna for receiving input from our mind. Or basically, the brain is just a dumb terminal to a much larger computer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's not surprising because the speed of light is only fixed for the perfect vacuum and without any gravitational influence.
But in this universe there is neither a place where you can find a perfect vacuum (The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sees to that) nor a place without any gravitational influence.
And it's not just the speed of light. It's the speed of everything without mass. Light was just the place we noticed it first. And in 4D space time it's also the speed of everything with mass.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
They don't. The discussion is pilot wave vs. Copenhagen interpretation vs. many worlds.
But they all agree that the photon is a particle and a wave. I have video on pilot wave for your which I think is easiest to understand. The preview alone shows it: a particle on a wave:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
unfortunately, these theories do not start with fields, so they cannot arrive at a correct conclusion.
Or, a correct explanation would also explain magnetism.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit