# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?  (Read 16520 times)

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #25 on: 27/03/2011 05:42:06 »
:)

---
So you are one of those (many) people who don't believe in General Relativity? If you don't want to simply "believe", you have only one solution: to study physics. Then you will be able to say which theory is better. Before you know physics well, you can't say a lot...
---

I'm sorry,,but i dont have read 18-19centuryes physics,,do i have?,,i can tell my thoughts what i have observe this world,,without knowing some mathematical formulaes,hmm,,i make image what i meant, hope that it help this conversation.

And what that picture should mean?

Hi.

It means to say that

If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist forces, like gravitation

Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist forces, matter motion

In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #26 on: 27/03/2011 07:45:50 »
It means to say that

If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist forces, like gravitation

Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist forces, matter motion

In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.

Since Heikki obviously is not fluent in English, and since I think I agree with him, I'll try to translate. I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.

For me, e/m waves (photons) propagate like acoustic shear waves in the ether, which is an ultra-dense, ultra-stiff solid. And for me, fundamental particles of matter consists of orbiting pairs of photons. So both e/m waves and particles cannot exist, let alone move, without a medium.

#### syhprum

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3818
• Thanked: 19 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #27 on: 27/03/2011 08:53:55 »
Perhaps we could ask correspondents whose native language is not English to add a version in their native language so that we could use the excellent 'Bing' translation service to give another insight into their post

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #28 on: 27/03/2011 09:31:30 »
You know Phractality. I know that Einstein used the word 'ether' but, as I understands it, more in the sense you assume those Chinese guys might have used it? Do you have a link to where he explains how he saw the Michelson-Morley experiment as failing in testing for a aether?

When Einstein was 16, in 1895, he asked himself an interesting question:

"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to [the theory of electricity and magnetism]. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e.. be able to determine, that he is in a state of uniform motion?" -- As later written by Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes", in Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.

He continued to work on this question for 10 years with the mixture of concentration and determination that characterised much of his work. He published his answer in 1905:

"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of [relative] motion of the emitting body .... The introduction of a `luminiferous ether' will be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an `absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties." -- Annalen Physik 17 (1905).

Put another way, the speed of light is 1,079,253,000 km/hr with respect to all observers."

It would be nice to see how he thought of it, if you have a different information? and the entanglement, Is this what you meant? About proving that 'distance' is no hindrance for a entanglement Quantum teleportation achieved over 16 km. I think the Chinese has a very practicable interest in that experiment, :) as most governments do. It will make it impossible to 'snoop' at classified information, at least without tampering with the quantum state of it, and that will be noticed. A little ridiculous in a way, as long as we don't have quantum computers though, as with asymmetric encryption (Open and private keys) over 2048 bits you should be secure enough, as I see it. But a very cool experiment indeed.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #29 on: 27/03/2011 12:57:31 »
Hi.

It means to say that

If room where is no any matter then in that room cannot
- exist forces, like gravitation

Means that room where is basic-matter in that room then can
- exist forces, matter motion

In this basic-matter can then planets, satellites, travell, and also we can send radiowaves, etc, and also example sun heat so that it can send photos, etc ,particles round on it.
If this was a little more sofisticated, it could go in the "New Theories" section, but in this way it's nothing more than meaningless words.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #30 on: 27/03/2011 12:59:05 »
Since Heikki obviously is not fluent in English, and since I think I agree with him, I'll try to translate. I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.

For me, e/m waves (photons) propagate like acoustic shear waves in the ether
For me, there are emerald green angels with blue wings...
For physics, instead, it's all another story.

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #31 on: 27/03/2011 19:05:54 »
---
I think he's saying that neither matter nor waves can move without having a medium in which to exist. I call that medium ether.
---

Hmm,, i wrote clear,,and simple words.

If is place where is no matter, there cannot exist anything.

- No water, no wave.
- No air, no voice-wave.

Hmm,,cannot write my thought more clear. :)

#### JMLCarter

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 143
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #32 on: 28/03/2011 20:45:35 »
Some summary points regards progress on the question so far

vvvvvvvvvv THE QUESTION vvvvvvvvvv
1) It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
^^^^^^^^^^ THE QUESTION ^^^^^^^^^^
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".

also
7) some people with their own theories trying to communicate them.
8) some speculation about the moon... ...not sure what's going on there :-)

a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
c) this may also be linked to a question on entanlglement I have raised separately

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #33 on: 28/03/2011 22:32:43 »
Heikki, what you are saying there is that with nothing there it shouldn't be able to express itself in 'distances'. Am I right assuming that? A 'real' nothing shouldn't be measurable, sort of. Maybe? I don't know. I'm halfway to your statement in that I differ between matter and light.

For matter the nothing (space) will be traversable, but for light? I don't think it is needed. So for light our definitions of distance has no meaning as I see it now. What we think us know, is that we have found no 'resistance' in space. So if you want to give it a property, what would it be? I give it 'distance', but only as coupled to invariant mass (and energy too, I think?)
==

Photons seems to be able to communicate inside our arrow, and they have energy, so maybe? But on the other hand I deem all interactions as defined by their surroundings and so a photon or a wave could be localized effects on a quantum plane whilst we macroscopically will express motion, as well as notice the result of interactions, including the photons. That would make different 'reality's' meeting in our observations but only in their finalization. Hope that made some sense :) You could also choose to see the idea of 'energy' as something always localized in interactions, and as a expression of the same. That makes me able to ignore 'energy' for this, and only have to bind 'space & distance' to invariant mass, with motion as its macroscopic expression. Well, it makes sense to me :)
« Last Edit: 28/03/2011 23:20:09 by yor_on »

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #34 on: 29/03/2011 13:43:30 »
Some summary points regards progress on the question so far

vvvvvvvvvv THE QUESTION vvvvvvvvvv
1) It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
^^^^^^^^^^ THE QUESTION ^^^^^^^^^^
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".

also
7) some people with their own theories trying to communicate them.
8) some speculation about the moon... ...not sure what's going on there :-)

a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
c) this may also be linked to a question on entanlglement I have raised separately

1) this is not the sort of question physics answers - why c is a universal speed limit is a good one, how c can be calculated and predicted is another good one; why the universal constants are tuned to give a certain magnitude is very difficult to answer in a meaningful way.
2) the magnitude of c in isolation and without units is a number, just go ahead and pick one.  It is only with units and comparision with other seemingly unrelated physical constants that we start to understand
3) now we are getting there.  tuning is a mystery - and it will become clearer, it might be removed as a problem, or it might remain; we just don't know, we work to lower the number of universal constants.
4) would have to read in more detail - but the misunderstanding of ether is almost as terrible as the misunderstanding of quantum entanglement, the combination of the two ... wow!
5) 6) ditto
7) 8) frustrating isnt it?

a) light actually travels between interactions in ALL media at c - in non-vacuo it is absorb and re-emitted on a regular basis as it moves through the object.  It is these interactions that cause the speed to be lower than c in vacuo
b) yeah - it is one explanation of many - I cannot see anything other than a handwavy link tho
c) ok

OK tried my best

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #35 on: 29/03/2011 17:16:26 »
---
It remains unanswered why the universal speed limit, c, has the magnitude it has and is not a little higher or lower (or even a lot).
---

Few my thoughts.

Space is not vacuum, empty, it is full of matter, space-matter, ether says old days, dark matter says somebody, but matter.
That is the reason why light-particles has own maximum speed. Of cource if we think what can influence particle-speed, there is several things;
- matter thickness where particles travell (space-matter, air, water, wood-plate, light-cable, etc.)
- sender power, means that starting power,
- all reflect particles, like other light sources,, etc,,

Simple observation to notice when light speed is 0m/s is mirror. Light goes fast to mirror, bounce to back,,meand hit the mirror and start to travel that coming direction;
- That hitting point light speed is 0m/s when it change travell-direction.

My thought is that light have that near 300000km/s speed near earth, but we dont know what is the speed near sun,,,or is the light particles get maximun speed near earth, or what is the speed about 1 000 000 000 km from sun.
- One interesting test is if we put light-impuls to travell long light-cabel and measure what is that m/s/s-change.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #36 on: 29/03/2011 19:16:23 »
2) the question is not about the units used to measure c, but the magnitude of the value itself.
It's an electromagnetic property of the void. It's like to ask why an electron's mass is 9.1*10-31 kg or Plank's constant is 6.63*10-34 J*s. You can construct theories as Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, but they won't tell you those values.
Future unknown theories could be able to determine those values, but at the moment we can't.

Quote
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
ε0 is defined by the electrostatic force between two charges in the void, which is defined from the Coulomb, the unit of charge, which is defined with the Ampčre, which is defined by the magnetic force between two conductors. At the end of the story you discover that both ε0 and μ0 are just another way of writing c.

Quote
3) Some discussion is that the magnitude of c may relate to a property of free space called vacuum potential.
4) A recent chinese experiment was cited which is leading to some talk of a "quantum ether".
5) The use of the word "ether" is noted to elicit negative skepticism in many. However it was noted that even Einstein did not see the famed Michelson-Morley experiment as disproving the existence of ether. Also that relativity would have prevented that experiment from detecting ether (as the speed of the photons is unaffected by the change in speed of the physical equipment).
6) quantum teleportation MAY in some way (I don;t understand myself) provide evidence of a kind for a "free space property" that relates to c, possibly also constituting an "quantum ether".
Whatever "ether" you consider, you will be faced with the incontrovertible fact that it is co-moving with whatever frame of reference you will choose. For example it would be co-moving with the Earth, co-moving with the Sun, co-moving with a spaceship which is moving in whatever direction at whatever speed. Do you find it possible?

Quote
a) the speed of light is limited by (non vacuum) mediums through which it travels, and thus understanding causes of refraction may provide further clues about the properties of vacuum?
Maybe, who knows. But in matter, for example a glass' crystal, you have a difference: you does have a privileged frame of reference now, it's the one co-moving with the crystal. In the void you have none.

Quote
b) The Casimir experiment may be explained by vacuum potential, pairs of particles forming and anihilating within the limits of HUP.
Sorry to tell you but:
1. virtual particles doesn't exist and
2. Casimir force can be explained without.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2011 19:22:04 by lightarrow »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #37 on: 29/03/2011 20:50:53 »
Yes, we do know Heikki. You just need to study how light bends around suns to know if it gives the value of 'C', as different speeds should give it a different 'bending' relative us (no longer a 'null geodesic'). General relativity states that light always move at 'C' in any inertial frame. And as far as I know all astronomical light measured by us on earth always comes with that same speed, only blue or red shifted, depending on strength and the sources motion, toward (blue,) or from (red) us.

Space is a vacuum, that there may be particle 'floating' in it doesn't change that. You can very easily create your own vacuum on Earth to test if it exist. there is one thing though. You might question how a nothing gets that 'distance' I talked about before. That one is weird but rather simple. Gravity is what creates the 'distance', well, as I see it. Without 'gravity' our vacuum should cease to exist as I expect. It measures out the 'distances', and as it was you that made me realize it Heikki, thnx for that one. :) I started to think of boxes of vacuum, and suddenly I realized that a vacuum in one box is the same as any other box. As a unit they are all equally 'large' if you like. So what defines the distances is gravity, not the vacuum.

I really like that one.

==
'And da*n my keyboard :)

==

So how do a expansion come to be if that was right? :)
Simple, gravity must do it.

And what happens when/where our 'SpaceTime' ends?
Simple, nothing..

We live inside distances, those depends on Gravity. Without gravity 'distances' should disappear, the rest becomes a question of how gravity will behave, form itself into a 'ball' making it appear as there is no 'end' for us? Or 'bend' SpaceTime in some other manner that we never notice the 'wall'. Pick your choice. I do not think 'SpaceTime' allows for us to see a 'nothing', furthermore I expect us to be ill equipped to recognize it, even if we were standing in front of it. We're creatures of distance.
« Last Edit: 30/03/2011 18:29:38 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #38 on: 29/03/2011 21:22:16 »
For those of you that want to argue that the 'zero energy' intrinsic to a quantum foam should differ with the area of 'Space' I will just point to the fact that you can superimpose all energy there is into one size less 'center'. It's not me being wrong here, it's you not questioning the right things :) It might also be wise to consider the Bekenstein bound.

I have other arguments for it too, but those can wait. It's so phreakinly simple, even though the 'expansion', if true, still is weird although I now defined 'gravity' as involved. And our 3D will then be 'points' of 3D, not 'three dimensions' criss-crossing each other in a 'nothing' creating a 'space'.
==

Or maybe I'm all wrong. But I don't think so, yet, that is. Consider emptying a plastic bag, it doesn't inflate with any 'distances' does it? Well, no, not on earth, here the resistance/pressure of fermions always will compress that without structural integrity. but in 'space' then? Should it expand there as the air is emptied out? No, the bag is made of fermions, they 'attract' each other and distort the 'space' around them. But the overall gravitational potential of SpaceTime will decide how noticeable such a distortion can become where they are in our Minkowski space ("or Minkowski SpaceTime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime") I still like it :)
« Last Edit: 29/03/2011 22:23:47 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #39 on: 29/03/2011 21:38:05 »
Re reading us all, we're tripping all over what's considered to be mainstream science here, myself just as happy as you :)

Would anyone mind if we moved this to 'New Theories'? Heikki?
I'll wait and see what you think, but if you agree I think that's the proper place for what we're discussing. that as it might become progressively 'worse' or as I see it, more 'interesting' as the debate goes on? :)

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #40 on: 30/03/2011 05:37:59 »
Would anyone mind if we moved this to 'New Theories'? Heikki?

Ok,,can move.

You are right,,this conversation is new theory,, hmm,,still old,,

---
Of cource we use today some mathematical constant so we can calculate things,,and i mean that these constant are enough accurace to short period,,or short time,,but long period or long time is different.

I means light-years and many many years,,

Hmm,,made image where is explain my thought.

Same behaviour( 1.fast acceleration, maximum speed, deceleration,) even if traveller is matter-particle or matter-vibration.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #41 on: 30/03/2011 17:31:15 »
Ok cool :)
==

I will really need to think about if gravity could be the perpetrator of distances (Space).
I like it, and when I got the idea it felt like some bits finally were falling in place for me, but :)
I don't know, I still want it to be true though. It would simplify a lot of things for me.

« Last Edit: 30/03/2011 18:07:23 by yor_on »

#### JMLCarter

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 143
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #42 on: 31/03/2011 23:06:34 »
Ok, some progress (well, if I am understanding)

1) c, μ and ε are most probably set by a property of vacuum / free space
2) mainstream physics hasn't determined a cause yet though. So what follows is "new theory"
3) If we were to observe a spatial variation in c the need for an explanation would be evident. So far no such variation has been measured.
4) the speed may be related to the presence of a density of matter even in a vacuum; either
4a) due to matter having gravity and gravity impact light speed according to GR.  Although it feels like we might need a very high density of matter to achieve this (Do we need the matter to get the gravity, perhaps not?)
OR
4b) due to matter absorbing and re-emitting light (which takes time) as per accepted theory of light propagation in a medium. Although I might add I'm not sure how this accepted theory is supposed to explain the change in direction at the medium boundary - it seems a bit rough around the edges?

some counters
1) "This is not the sort of question that physics can answer" -   ...pause   ...does not compute (which is pretty unusual), care to explain and substantiate? Is the anthropic principle not "a theory". See also scientific method.
2) does the length of my arm actually change depending on what units I measure it in, or whether I choose it to be my base unit of measure. (If yours does please attach video :-) ).
3) virtual particles don't exist... true if anything is (although "exist" becomes a bit ill defined under scrutiny). However, spontaneously appearing and disappearing particle/anti-particle pairs are not virtual. The force carriers in feynman diagrams are virtual, I don't think we are talking about those?
« Last Edit: 31/03/2011 23:11:20 by JMLCarter »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #43 on: 01/04/2011 09:41:15 »
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 584
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #44 on: 01/04/2011 11:20:41 »
There is no need for a 3 dimensional ether, space and time can't be separated in the 4 dimensions we perceive, that is why C is invariant. We just need one more dimension that replaces time for photons, instead of spacetime, it could be spacefrequency, x, y, z, 1/Δt... Spacetime itself is a medium. Quite convenient for quantum entanglement... SpaceFrequency could be named Fourier's dimensions... Schrodinger and Dirac would have liked it...

Even more interesting, a particle in spacetime would interact as a wave in spacefrequency and a particle in spacefrequency would interact as a wave in spacetime. Since everything is made of photons, there is a duality...
« Last Edit: 01/04/2011 11:55:23 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #45 on: 01/04/2011 15:25:33 »
:)

Time is measuring unit.

Space is existing matter thing.

If space is without ether-matter, space-matter, objects cannot move point to point.

That is my thought. :)

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #46 on: 01/04/2011 18:34:32 »
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".

Ask the local censors if there is a mainstream. Try posting your new theory in the mainstream section of this board and see how long it takes to be booted out. There was a time when Einstein was not mainstream, and he would have been booted out of most mainstream discussions of his day.

The mainstream is the crowd that gets taught in universities, published in peer-review journals and funded by the government. It is the religious establishment; anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. It is an industry driven by book sales, and perpetuated by a powerful lobby in the halls of legislative power.

A handful of today's many heretics are tomorrows gods, but most are just crackpots; so, if you're not mainstream, you're presumed to be a crackpot.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #47 on: 01/04/2011 19:05:26 »
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". There is scientific theory (usually involving a lot of tedious math) that can be can be confirmed by scientific experiment. Usually, that is referred to as "science".

Ask the local censors if there is a mainstream. Try posting your new theory in the mainstream section of this board and see how long it takes to be booted out. There was a time when Einstein was not mainstream, and he would have been booted out of most mainstream discussions of his day.

The mainstream is the crowd that gets taught in universities, published in peer-review journals and funded by the government. It is the religious establishment; anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. It is an industry driven by book sales, and perpetuated by a powerful lobby in the halls of legislative power.

A handful of today's many heretics are tomorrows gods, but most are just crackpots; so, if you're not mainstream, you're presumed to be a crackpot.

What's wrong with discussing new theories in New Theories? That is hardly censorship. The reason for the demarcation is to avoid confusing people who have a limited scientific background.

I doubt if Einstein would have been very upset if his ideas had been posted in New Theories. Until a theory makes predictions and those predictions are verified, it's a new theory, although, strictly speaking, it shouldn't really be called a theory on that basis.

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #48 on: 01/04/2011 19:19:18 »
“A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right.”

Stephen Jay Gould

#### Dominus

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 36
##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #49 on: 01/04/2011 20:00:12 »
Hello JML Carter,
Maybe this is what you wanted to hear: My assertion is supported by the very weak electric component we observe at the beginning of the process (high frequency oscillations) and by the tiny, very tiny indeed, magnetic component we observe at the opposite end (low frequency oscillations). The magnetic component would, therefore, lose its strength, as the oscillating frequency becomes lower. When the frequency becomes very low; that is to say, the cycles are fewer for each second of time; the electric component becomes the stronger of the two and takes control.
From this continuous loss of magnetic strength all along the expanding and/or extending process, one may conclude that the finite speed of 299.792.458 cycles and/or metres per second is due to the inability, at the end of the run, of the already very weak magnetic component to generate a further and new electric component.
To give my statement life and colour, allow me to say that if we were silly enough to put a finger into an ordinary power point, we would feel a lot of electricity and negligible magnetism. If we open our eyes and make contact with the visible spectrum, we will experience the equilibrium reached by electric and magnetic forces and fields with the end result that we can endure the situation indefinitely. If, on the other hand, we find ourselves in the line of fire of X-rays radiation, we are subjected to strong magnetic forces and negligible electric forces; and even though we do not feel the immediate consequences, we are, if I am allowed the crude expression, cooking ourselves. In all of these three instances we have been dealing with the electromagnetic wave oscillating respectively at 50/60 cycles per second, 4000 million cycles per second, and 700 thousand million million cycles per second.
Please note. I started off by saying: My assertion is supported etc. Here is my assertion which is also the 1st axiom of my theory: time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
« Reply #49 on: 01/04/2011 20:00:12 »