The probability of C

[bottomlander]

Some people simply spot certain eye-catchy terms then spin the settled meanings and applications. They hope that will fit their anti-establishment propaganda.

Actually, ignorance in basic knowledge concerning general science makes them assertive on the power of personal interpretations.

For example, the phenomenon "errors in measurement" has long been recognized and well accepted by science. This Fact has already been represented by "tolerance intervals".

Actually, this shows one of the improvements of science, but not an attackable mistake of science.

Please see what an educational website writes upon "Errors in Measurement" . http://regentsprep.org/Regents/Math/error/LError.htm


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[MJA]

Thanks Bottomlander,

The speed of light or C then as you say is only probable at best, and now I and science can and should move on.
But if C isn't real, certain or true, what about all of the laws and theories of physics that rest on the very foundation of C, are they wrong too?

=
MJA

[bottomlander]

The improvements of Science and Humanity, after so many contributions from our noble ancestors generation by generation, can likely progress strong enough against childish attacks!

[bottomlander]

At the beginning, hard-seeking physicists obtained C as a coefficient/constant thru nice trials and correlations upon several important electromagnetic equations. Then, other people found it very valuable in other parts of physics, e.g. relativity, quantum physics and E=MC2 by matching C as the speed of light in vacuum.

The importance of C as a coefficient among equations does not solely depend upon how its measurements are of precise down to how many decimals, as long as it is fixed in the free vacuum.
Similarly, enough there is the room to increase more decimal precision on pi π, that constant ratio in Euclidean geometry turns out to be very important among equations in modern physics also.
Correlation, matching and constrained/conditional equating are more appropriate and humble than so-called "everything is of equality"!

A person interested in Truths should be humble and make clear historical truths and scientific truths before making wild interpretations to self-prise oneself without supportive reasons as an frequent obtainer of new truths!


Best Regards. Bottomlander

p.s. this message was actually a reply to the thread "The Probabilty of C" that suddenly moved by its thread starter and stopped to allow new posts.

[dleviwing]

p.s. this message was actually a reply to the thread "The Probabilty of C" that suddenly moved by its thread starter and stopped to allow new posts.

Thanks bottomlander; it was supposed to have been moved from "General Physics" to “Physics Questions” sub-forum, not “Member Questions” forum. You should have access to post now.

[MJA]

Dear Bottomlander, if you wouldn't mind a few question to help make clear the historical facts as you say, I would surely and humbly appreciate it. My question are in blue to your statements in black.

At the beginning, hard-seeking physicists obtained C as a coefficient/constant thru nice trials and correlations upon several important electromagnetic equations.

1) C is a coefficent/constant, does that mean C is probable or certain?


Then, other people found it very valuable in other parts of physics, e.g. relativity, quantum physics and E=MC2 by matching C as the speed of light in vacuum.

2) Is light ever in a vacuum naturally (physics), and what exactly is a vacuum?
3)What exactly is light?

The importance of C as a coefficient among equations does not solely depend upon how its measurements are of precise down to how many decimals, as long as it is fixed in the free vacuum.

4) The precise measure of C is not important?

Similarly, enough there is the room to increase more decimal precision on pi π, that constant ratio in Euclidean geometry turns out to be very important among equations in modern physics also.

5)pi n is more precisely measured than C?
6)What is a pi n, is it measured in a vacuum too ?

Correlation, matching and constrained/conditional equating are more appropriate and humble than so-called "everything is of equality"!

7)Correlation, matching and constrained/condtional equating?
What is that?

A person interested in Truths should be humble and make clear historical truths and scientific truths before making wild interpretations to self-prise oneself without supportive reasons as an frequent obtainer of new truths!


Best Regards. Bottomlander

Thanks,

=
MJA

[MJA]

Help, Someone has changed the thread title from "The probability of C" to "some perceptions about C".
I would like it changed back because I wrote it the way I wanted it and changing other's words is not good or a right thing to do.

Thanks you,

=
MJA

[Profpat]

I agree with you MJA.

[bottomlander]

Dear Bottomlander, if you wouldn't mind a few question to help make clear the historical facts as you say, I would surely and humbly appreciate it. My question are in blue to your statements in black.


Thanks,

=
MJA

It is good for a child to raise childish questions.
However, for an adult that seems able to raise meaningful and useful questions then screen out some suitable ones and find answers by himself/herself, I do mind what are the purposes to raise such questions.

As for make clear the historical facts, it is meaningful.
For example, to prove the Earth is a globe was of historical importance a few centuries ago, but not nowadays.
To measure the radius of the Earth passing the north/south pole of the Earth to compare with that around the Equator to test whether the Earth is a perfect globe or not was important even in the last century, but not nowadays.
Similarly, to measure the speed of light in free vacuum was important before reached, say 30 digits. But seems not so important nowadays just to measure it a few digits more precise. (except to prove the technology level of that country or to compare those different data every a few decades to prove whether C (the speed of light) remain the same, faster or slower after a span of time.


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Help, Someone has changed the thread title from "The probability of C" to "some perceptions about C".
I would like it changed back because I wrote it the way I wanted it and changing other's words is not good or a right thing to do.

Thanks you,

=
MJA

Dear MJA,

Before complaining, it is better to make clear the historical facts first.

MJA, the real happenings in the real world have more paths, more hidden factors or more historical truths than your usual straightforward mind!
This case perhaps demonstrates your simple-minded insistence on everything equals and equality!


-----------

A few days ago, after I spent half an hour to write and reply to your thread, it could not be submitted. A pop up told me that this thread stop to accept new posting.
After a few trials for another half of an hour, I found out that the broad of Main TOE Forums showed the remark "Moved" on your thread The probability of C.

I was in a hurry to go out. But I didn't like my half an hour writing got lost. So I simply submitted it as a new thread Some Perception on C (known as speed of light).

Now I find out that a hardworking moderator does occasionally move a thread to another more appropriate sub-forum.
And there had been a time lapse. I just submitted my writing in a wrong time, during the move!

dleviwing hadn't changed your words/title. I think he just let my new thread/writing be placed at the end of your moved thread. Perhaps the software automatically showed the last/latest name of the thread.

Now, it is my thread Some Perception about C (known as speed of light) that got lost. Not your thread title that being changed.
My thread cannot be found in toequest.com as of today. Only The probability of C is now being shown.

Anyhow, I seldom make hasty complains. Better for a people to think upon it first, then try to find out what the real happenings are.

Thanks to Robert and moderators who keep the forum be well organized.



Best Regards. Bottomlander