This I will respect.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:28 amsnipped the restEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:25 pmIf light is electromagnetism, and we use electromagnetism as the framework for determining an accurate measurement of light, then the framework is self-referencing. What you need to understand is that the experiment is flawed because it necessitates a form of self-referencing, leading us to quantum entanglement in one respect, while the experiment never really took place. Light in a perfect vacuum and light as "x" in a "near perfect" vacuum are two different things entirely.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:38 pmYes, Eodnhoj, I still can't follow a word you say, and I have enough physics and mathematics to be pretty sure it's because you don't know what you are talking about.
If the vacuum is nearly absolute then the measurement is nearly perfect. I believe it is near enough perfect to introduce no discernable error in the measurement. I might be wrong, but you haven't begun to even address that point let alone provide a convincing case. (for more on this, see here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ts-tell-us )
If ... electromagnetism exists and forms the movement of light ...
You seem to be casting doubt on electromagnetism. Light is electromagnetism.
1) Relative to the "accuracy", .1 contains .01, .001., .0001, .00001 to infinity when observing a distance between .1 and 0. The issue of "perfection" if off by a mere fraction results in infinite variation.
With light as the "only" framework in a vaccuum, a 100% accuracy rate is inevitable,
light travails at light speed - and slower in in the real world - through solids.
and yet does not experience "Time".
you point? do you have knowledge of Phyisics?
if so - outside of insulting me - clarify that knowlede to me and others here.
..................and do you have a point to make? - outside of insulting me. I do have some rudementary knowlelge of Physics .
make your point without invective if you are able so we and others in this thread can discuss.
1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
3. The identity of physics, in light of theory being core axioms, becomes muddled with metaphysics, math, logic, psychology, etc.
4. Light in a pure vacuum, because it is not empirically proven (as no perfect vacuum exists and what is close to a "perfect" is still inside a non vacuum framework) is not physics.
5. Physics delves outside it's own boundaries for certain core axioms.
6. Light in a pure vacuum is strictly 1 variable. The vacuum can have no other variable, nor can the vacuum be inside of a non vacuum framework as the light in turn is inside the other framework. Even light inside a vacuum with someone staring at it from the outside introduces a non vacuum state.
7. Because it is only 1 variable, and nothingness, the variable inevitable is self referencing.