. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
The maximum velocity of light is an assumption that is supported by all the evidence we have to date. If you want to start speculating about evidence which demostrates that this velocity can be exceeded, you'ld be best off to build a model expressing your speculation. Then run some experiments to see if your model is supported by observable evidence.
Ah!
Is the assumption that nothing can exceed lightspeed based on the physical limitations to accelerating matter or is it required in order for the math to work?
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104561
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 22nd, 2009, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
I have no particular goal in sight.
Oh so this inquiry is all acedemic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
I just think it's stupid to suggest that light travels at some magical constant.
The maximum limit of the speed of light is a constant, so far. Because all the evidence we have points to the idea that light cannot exceed that velocity.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104561
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 22nd, 2009, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
Ah!
Is the assumption that nothing can exceed lightspeed based on the physical limitations to accelerating matter or is it required in order for the math to work?
I thinks those are two lines of evidence that support the assumption. Do you have any lines of evidence that support a "more accurate" assumption?
I disagree. And I think it is very important you understand why. Math does not "describe" reality. It models it. Our ideas describe reality.
See, this is why language is such an imperfect tool.
The way I see it, a model is an attempt at a description of something. If it's a mathematical model, then math is the language used to make the description.
Whether written in English or Latin or mathematically described, models are an abstraction of reality just as words are an abstraction of the things they describe. Neither are the things themselves. It's just that mathematical descriptions are a lot more precise and a lot less open to personal interpretation and bias.
The maximum velocity of light is an assumption that is supported by all the evidence we have to date. If you want to start speculating about evidence which demostrates that this velocity can be exceeded, you'ld be best off to build a model expressing your speculation. Then run some experiments to see if your model is supported by observable evidence.
We don't have the instruments to measure it yet, do we?
Slogan/motto:
Wow! I get a slogan or life motto??? Is this a great website or what?
Reputation:
June 22nd, 2009, 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
We don't have the instruments to measure it yet, do we?
Ya know, dude, there's this thing called the interwebs?
Quote:
The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Ole Christensen Rřmer, who was studying the motions of Jupiter's moon, Io, with a telescope.
Slogan/motto:
Science without religion is science.
Reputation:
June 22nd, 2009, 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
We don't have the instruments to measure it yet, do we?
To measure what? The speed of light?
"[Knut Hamsun] was very poor and weathered the deep winter of Chicago by wearing news paper under his clothes; his colleagues liked to touch him to make him crackle."
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50225
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
June 22nd, 2009, 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by koban
We use light choppers all the time in spectrophotometers.
They wouldn't worked if the speed of light was varying all over the place.
Well, it's obvious that gravity is effecting light and the spectrophotometer in just such a way as to render such variance undetectable.
The anti-relativity crowd would do just as well to claim that the value of c is infinite, and that any attempt to measure it is based on nothing more than undemonstrable assumptions.
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."