Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: speed of light

  1. #11
    Grandmaster AntonioLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    15,776
    Blog Entries
    10
    Likes Received
    227
    Likes Given
    84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Planck's constant is an irrational number determined by experiment as the ratio of a photon's energy divided by its frequency.

    http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/constants.htm#h

  2. #12
    White Belt
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9
    Likes Received
    0
    Likes Given
    0


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Speed of Light

    You cannot solve problems by maths alone, you have to use logic.
    Maths is a virtual device and you get unrealistic answers that are imposible in the real world - like 'multiple dimensions'.
    The speed of light is due to the time it takes in the process of converting energy into mass as in E = mc2.
    Mass is space. Nothing can move until space is created. It is the electromagnetic wave produced by a particle.
    If energy is applied to a particle it accelerates and produces space (wave), but eventually space cannot be made fast enough and so acceleration stops.
    Paul

  3. #13
    The Observer dleviwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,138
    Blog Entries
    5
    Likes Received
    16
    Likes Given
    0


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Nice idea paul, but it has the same drawbacks as our current Standard Models, no practical cause-and-effect mechanism. I might add that nature is not as complex as everyone seems to think.


  4. #14
    Orange Belt
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    46
    Likes Received
    0
    Likes Given
    0


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dleviwing
    Nice idea paul, but it has the same drawbacks as our current Standard Models, no practical cause-and-effect mechanism. I might add that nature is not as complex as everyone seems to think.

    You're right. In almost every natural phenomenon, there is a competition between order and disorder. The tendency is towards equilibrium. We happen to be far-from-equilibrium systems and so our thoughts diverge often towards the complex, but we are more of an exception than the rule. Most observable things in the universe are simple in comparison: stars, galaxies, atoms, etc. The laws of nature are basic, simple, fundamental.

    I forgot who said it (George Bataille perhaps) but it was something like: 'It is far more difficult to write one coherent sentence than it is to write an entire paragraph.'

    But at the same time history has taught us it is essential we remain on guard against over-simplifications and dubious interpretations.

    Most great ideas, though, have united two previously independent concepts, which is in effect a simplification, a unification.

    It was Einstein that stressed the importance of the geometrical relations between things. It was also he who fused the prior notion of an object as an independent concept into a system together with the proper spatiotemporal structure.

    It was he too who noted the general view that geometry together with the totality of the physical laws can predicate the behavior of real things.

    And the existence of spacetime in the real world is not independent of matter (energy) and field. The field is a structural quality of space. The field does not claim existence on its own. And so, we have a setting within which all events, happenings, fields (electromagnetic, gravitational), ponderable bodies (both animate and inanimate) along with their spatiotemporal surroundings can be described by the same natural laws.

    Not bad for starters. Though for some reason, I think there is still simplification and unification to be made on the horizon.

    coldcreation

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Speed of light is not constant !
    By apibernik in forum General Physics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 12:09 AM
  2. Speed of Light
    By davidgow77 in forum Relativity
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 05:38 PM
  3. The speed of light is 100 mph
    By Robert in forum Assume it to be true
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 03:52 PM
  4. speed of light
    By SinJin in forum General Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-03-2005, 07:30 PM
  5. why speed of light is c in vacuum?
    By pramodmaths in forum Forces of Nature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-26-2005, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •