## The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:25 pm
mickthinks wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:38 pm Yes, 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.
If 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.

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,
snipped the rest

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 .
do you?

make your point without invective if you are able so we and others in this thread can discuss.
This I will respect.

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.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:19 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:11 am

playing the dick is noted. you offer wisdom sometimes, other times you are petty.

I call out a word salad when it see it...............again you offer insight sometimes, other times a word salad.

thanks for playing the ass - ego hurt?

yes you got me. I'm a dipshit, you/your views are beyond my understanding.

good call.

I'm a dumb shit unworthy of reply to.

excellent movie with Hoffman - assuming you nevrer viewed it.

carry on insulting me and assuming i have nothing to offer you.

bubba.
Gaffo... if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you "it will be alright"..."jesus loves you"...get the fuck out. Join the argument or shut up. I dont give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks I am wise or a fool. Argument, or get the fuck out.

The argument is real simple.

There is 1 variable in the void. Nothing else. If the void is in another framework, then the variable is as well.

Hence we have a basic 1...inside a 0.

1 variable and nothing else, it is stuck as self referencing.
stop being an asshole, i noted value your mind in general (outside of your word salads as times) - do you have a Physics degree? (I don't either but had education of the fundementals - have you? - not into degree elitism, but affirm others that know more than have qualification)

do you? you value invective to me over knowledge others more qualified than either of us?

You are pissing me off....................do you have anything more worthy then invective toward me or not? if not, I'll ingore anything you post henseforth.
How can I be pushing elitism when I do not care if you or anyone else views me as wise or a fool?

Elitism no, unrestrained force...I will agree to that.

Ignore or don't ignore, I don't care.

The boundaries I have are simple. Provide an argument for, against or neutral... or get the fuck out.
gaffo
Posts: 3368
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:25 pm

If 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.

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,
snipped the rest

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 .
do you?

make your point without invective if you are able so we and others in this thread can discuss.
This I will respect.
gee thanks.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
ok assuming the is no pure vacuum in the visible universe, and instead a 99.99999 percentage of............

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
??????????

there are plenty of theoretical physics. string theory/etc.............all theorems/beliefs within math

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.
[/quote]

you are full of it per Physics. come back to me when you have some knowledge there if bubba.

Humility is a virtue BTW. strive toward it.
gaffo
Posts: 3368
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:43 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:19 am

Gaffo... if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you "it will be alright"..."jesus loves you"...get the fuck out. Join the argument or shut up. I dont give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks I am wise or a fool. Argument, or get the fuck out.

The argument is real simple.

There is 1 variable in the void. Nothing else. If the void is in another framework, then the variable is as well.

Hence we have a basic 1...inside a 0.

1 variable and nothing else, it is stuck as self referencing.
stop being an asshole, i noted value your mind in general (outside of your word salads as times) - do you have a Physics degree? (I don't either but had education of the fundementals - have you? - not into degree elitism, but affirm others that know more than have qualification)

do you? you value invective to me over knowledge others more qualified than either of us?

You are pissing me off....................do you have anything more worthy then invective toward me or not? if not, I'll ingore anything you post henseforth.
How can I be pushing elitism when I do not care if you or anyone else views me as wise or a fool?

Elitism no, unrestrained force...I will agree to that.

Ignore or don't ignore, I don't care.

The boundaries I have are simple. Provide an argument for, against or neutral... or get the fuck out.

return when you know more about physics .

humility is a virtue,

until that time show me why your posts concerning your understanding of physics (i don;'t think you know anything at all about such IMO) is relivent/worthy of reply.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:28 am

snipped the rest

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 .
do you?

make your point without invective if you are able so we and others in this thread can discuss.
This I will respect.
gee thanks.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
ok assuming the is no pure vacuum in the visible universe, and instead a 99.99999 percentage of............

We are left with speed having a fraction of change, however small, which will effectively magnify through time like a ripple causing light to manifest several speeds simultaneously.

Second, if the vacuum has a second variable, however small, this variable becomes a focal constant point from which light is measured against. This variable, as unchanging, is effectively both infinite and existing in the void.

So you have light which has speed, and a second variable which is infinite speed, making it faster than light.

This is all pure logic/math from this point.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
??????????

there are plenty of theoretical physics. string theory/etc.............all theorems/beliefs within math

And no empirical evidence is observed, leading to a question of what is physics?

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.

you are full of it per Physics. come back to me when you have some knowledge there if bubba.

Humility is a virtue BTW. strive toward it.

Stop projecting, if you read the argument it breaks down to a problem in categorization and measurement...something physics is not qualified for philosophically.

It is a little arrogant to come off as know all of physics, when all I am questioning is one axiom, which you cannot explain. So save the insults.

I am not arguing pure physics. I am arguing metaphysics.

You have 1 variable, nothing else...how do you measure its speed?

The question is one of categorization....a problem physics has for a variety of reasons.

[/quote]
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:43 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:36 am

stop being an asshole, i noted value your mind in general (outside of your word salads as times) - do you have a Physics degree? (I don't either but had education of the fundementals - have you? - not into degree elitism, but affirm others that know more than have qualification)

do you? you value invective to me over knowledge others more qualified than either of us?

You are pissing me off....................do you have anything more worthy then invective toward me or not? if not, I'll ingore anything you post henseforth.
How can I be pushing elitism when I do not care if you or anyone else views me as wise or a fool?

Elitism no, unrestrained force...I will agree to that.

Ignore or don't ignore, I don't care.

The boundaries I have are simple. Provide an argument for, against or neutral... or get the fuck out.

return when you know more about physics .

humility is a virtue,

until that time show me why your posts concerning your understanding of physics (i don;'t think you know anything at all about such IMO) is relivent/worthy of reply.

Lol...better yet show me what you know about the problem of categorization.
gaffo
Posts: 3368
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:28 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am

This I will respect.
gee thanks.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
ok assuming the is no pure vacuum in the visible universe, and instead a 99.99999 percentage of............

We are left with speed having a fraction of change, however small, which will effectively magnify through time like a ripple causing light to manifest several speeds simultaneously.

Second, if the vacuum has a second variable, however small, this variable becomes a focal constant point from which light is measured against. This variable, as unchanging, is effectively both infinite and existing in the void.

So you have light which has speed, and a second variable which is infinite speed, making it faster than light.

This is all pure logic/math from this point.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
??????????

there are plenty of theoretical physics. string theory/etc.............all theorems/beliefs within math

And no empirical evidence is observed, leading to a question of what is physics?

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.

you are full of it per Physics. come back to me when you have some knowledge there if bubba.

Humility is a virtue BTW. strive toward it.

Stop projecting, if you read the argument it breaks down to a problem in categorization and measurement...something physics is not qualified for philosophically.

It is a little arrogant to come off as know all of physics, when all I am questioning is one axiom, which you cannot explain. So save the insults.

I am not arguing pure physics. I am arguing metaphysics.

You have 1 variable, nothing else...how do you measure its speed?

The question is one of categorization....a problem physics has for a variety of reasons.

[/quote]

all yous sophistry aside;

light is without mass - and it not confined by Time, be moving at fastest in a vacuum or at slower speed through solids.

do you have a point? or just assuming more than you know about physics out of ego - if the latter look within and stop wasting my time.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:28 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:12 am

gee thanks.

ok assuming the is no pure vacuum in the visible universe, and instead a 99.99999 percentage of............

We are left with speed having a fraction of change, however small, which will effectively magnify through time like a ripple causing light to manifest several speeds simultaneously.

Second, if the vacuum has a second variable, however small, this variable becomes a focal constant point from which light is measured against. This variable, as unchanging, is effectively both infinite and existing in the void.

So you have light which has speed, and a second variable which is infinite speed, making it faster than light.

This is all pure logic/math from this point.

??????????

there are plenty of theoretical physics. string theory/etc.............all theorems/beliefs within math

And no empirical evidence is observed, leading to a question of what is physics?

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.

you are full of it per Physics. come back to me when you have some knowledge there if bubba.

Humility is a virtue BTW. strive toward it.

Stop projecting, if you read the argument it breaks down to a problem in categorization and measurement...something physics is not qualified for philosophically.

It is a little arrogant to come off as know all of physics, when all I am questioning is one axiom, which you cannot explain. So save the insults.

I am not arguing pure physics. I am arguing metaphysics.

You have 1 variable, nothing else...how do you measure its speed?

The question is one of categorization....a problem physics has for a variety of reasons.

light is without mass - and it not confined by Time, be moving at fastest in a vacuum or at slower speed through solids.

[/quote]

Is the first statement an axiom you are proposing or are you repeating what you believe I am saying?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Yes, physics is circular and self-referencing. It is obvious right from the very graph of the SI units.
Every unit is derived from either time and mass.
SI units.png (20.48 KiB) Viewed 1142 times
So what are time and mass defined/derived from ?

Mass:
6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s
Joule-second. So mass is a function of time and energy? Cool.

M=f(J, T)

What is a Joule defined as?
kg⋅m2⋅s−2
Kilogram, meter^2/second^2

So... J=g(M, L, T)

But M = f(J,T), so J=g(f(J,T), L, T).

So energy is a function of itself? What?

Physics doesn't care about aesthetics or Truth. Physics cares about working predictive models. Pragmatism is all.
A good physicist knows that.

This rabbit hole bottoms out at the question: What is measurement? All scientific measurements are relative to something else.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:58 pm Yes, physics is circular and self-referencing. It is obvious right from the very graph of the SI units.
Every unit is derived from either time and mass.
SI units.png
So what are time and mass defined/derived from ?

Mass:
6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s
Joule-second. So mass is a function of time and energy? Cool.

M=f(J, T)

What is a Joule defined as?
kg⋅m2⋅s−2
Kilogram, meter^2/second^2

So... J=g(M, L, T)

But M = f(J,T), so J=g(f(J,T), L, T).

So energy is a function of itself? What?

Physics doesn't care about aesthetics or Truth. Physics cares about working predictive models. Pragmatism is all.
A good physicist knows that.

This rabbit hole bottoms out at the question: What is measurement? All scientific measurements are relative to something else.
Mass density and volume also have a circularity as well.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:27 am
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:58 pm Yes, physics is circular and self-referencing. It is obvious right from the very graph of the SI units.
Every unit is derived from either time and mass.
SI units.png
So what are time and mass defined/derived from ?

Mass:
6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s
Joule-second. So mass is a function of time and energy? Cool.

M=f(J, T)

What is a Joule defined as?
kg⋅m2⋅s−2
Kilogram, meter^2/second^2

So... J=g(M, L, T)

But M = f(J,T), so J=g(f(J,T), L, T).

So energy is a function of itself? What?

Physics doesn't care about aesthetics or Truth. Physics cares about working predictive models. Pragmatism is all.
A good physicist knows that.

This rabbit hole bottoms out at the question: What is measurement? All scientific measurements are relative to something else.
Mass density and volume also have a circularity as well.
Graph theory.

The SI system is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_graph
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Save it. The *** Marks show the correction ...
They do and then a few lines later you repeat your errors, which was my point. Is that you are just cut-pasting previous stuff?
In light of the beginning statement, your just proving you look for chicken shit details to pick.
lol why am I not surprised that facts are chicken shit to metaphysicIans.

Personally I'm surprised no-one talks about the most interesting aspect of Light and that's that it measures as the same speed no matter how fast or what direction we are going or at least that used to be the claim.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Arising_uk wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:14 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Save it. The *** Marks show the correction ...
They do and then a few lines later you repeat your errors, which was my point. Is that you are just cut-pasting previous stuff?
In light of the beginning statement, your just proving you look for chicken shit details to pick.
lol why are I not surprised that facts are chicken shit to metaphysicIans.

Personally I'm surprised no-one talks about the most interesting aspect of Light and that's that it measures as the same speed no matter how fast or what direction we are going or at least that used to be the claim.
Yeah, because the whole point is the speed is irrelevant, I can put in 1573835544 and because of it the argument it won't matter what the number is....that is the point.

The framework doesn't make sense, it is a public secret.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am This I will respect.

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.
Everything else is spot-on except point 7.

Variables are mental constructs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed. That is all you have to take away from it.

From there onwards. You require a mind to quantify this speed. A mind to assign it a unit such as 'meters per second".

Measurement. Experience. They are the same thing.

You are observing the symbol-grounding problem at play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

When you start asking "what are the meter and the second defined in terms of?" you will spot the circularity.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:45 am Yeah, because the whole point is the speed is irrelevant, I can put in 1573835544 and because of it the argument it won't matter what the number is....that is the point.

1573835544 rogmols per smurfon

Rogmols per smurfon -> relativism. Dualism. etc.