# The Naked Scientists Forum

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« on: 10/02/2016 13:41:16 »

Part Five - Defining Constant.

It is worldly accepted that the speed of light is constant to all observers in any reference frame when measured in a vacuum.  When talking Physics, the word constant refers to the speed of light and means that the speed of light is unchanging and can be measured to being the same speed by any observer. However, the speed of light is not infinite but is widely agreed to be finite.  To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength.  However it is of importance that we understand the word constant has other meanings.

Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour.

Let us now consider gravity, relative to us it is constantly pulling us to the ground.

So in our understanding constant is more than just a constant speed, it is any observation occurring continuously over a period of time.

Section Two - Understanding

Part One - Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

#### the5thforce

• Full Member
• Posts: 74
• Thanked: 1 times
« Reply #1 on: 10/02/2016 14:51:52 »
if light moved faster or slower than the smallest or largest quanta of time- observation could not exist.

observation is the constant between space-time.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
« Reply #2 on: 11/02/2016 06:29:28 »
To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength
That is not a true statement and needs correcting as working with false assumptions will always lead you into the wild-lands of make believe.
The correct way to state the constancy of the speed of light is that it is constant for all observers in the medium it is being observed. It has a maximum speed in vacuum, but that refers to its maximum speed not its constancy.
Within that same sentence you also make a reference that connects speed to wavelength. The speed of light has to my knowledge never been shown to be a cause of wavelength, because if it was, then wavelength would remain a constant. What we do know is that the speed of light is constant for all observers. The wavelength can be affected by a number of ways, while the observed speed remains constant.
Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour.
That is only approximately true. Have that same red apple travel towards or away from you at relativistic speeds and the frequency you identify as red changes. The apple changes observed colour at relativistic speeds. The speed of light still remains constant, but the observed frequency undergoes Doppler shift.
Section Two - Understanding
Try and get the basics right before reaching any understanding.
Get the crawling under control and I will buy you a walker.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 06:32:09 by Space Flow »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« Reply #3 on: 11/02/2016 09:52:30 »
To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength
That is not a true statement and needs correcting as working with false assumptions will always lead you into the wild-lands of make believe.
The correct way to state the constancy of the speed of light is that it is constant for all observers in the medium it is being observed. It has a maximum speed in vacuum, but that refers to its maximum speed not its constancy.
Within that same sentence you also make a reference that connects speed to wavelength. The speed of light has to my knowledge never been shown to be a cause of wavelength, because if it was, then wavelength would remain a constant. What we do know is that the speed of light is constant for all observers. The wavelength can be affected by a number of ways, while the observed speed remains constant.
Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour.
That is only approximately true. Have that same red apple travel towards or away from you at relativistic speeds and the frequency you identify as red changes. The apple changes observed colour at relativistic speeds. The speed of light still remains constant, but the observed frequency undergoes Doppler shift.
Section Two - Understanding
Try and get the basics right before reaching any understanding.
Get the crawling under control and I will buy you a walker.

Dependent to the consistent ''viscosity'' of the medium.  I.e rainbows in a medium,   I know that, I am not writing a novel. To say constant in a vacuum , is consistent.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1918
• Thanked: 123 times
« Reply #4 on: 11/02/2016 10:38:59 »
I know that, I am not writing a novel. To say constant in a vacuum , is consistent.
If you were writing a novel it wouldn't matter, but you claim to be writing a theory or an explanation, and for that you need to be extra clear and precise otherwise you will always be misunderstood.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« Reply #5 on: 11/02/2016 10:42:27 »
I know that, I am not writing a novel. To say constant in a vacuum , is consistent.
If you were writing a novel it wouldn't matter, but you claim to be writing a theory or an explanation, and for that you need to be extra clear and precise otherwise you will always be misunderstood.

I understand Colin, I have tried writing consistent in my wordpress bloggs, I have had years of mockery and insults, so of course I am reluctant to spend my time writing up my  best effort, to tell you the truth I am scared I am correct, I am a nobody, I did not know I had it in me to think this way .

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1918
• Thanked: 123 times
« Reply #6 on: 11/02/2016 11:02:41 »
I know that, I am not writing a novel. To say constant in a vacuum , is consistent.
If you were writing a novel it wouldn't matter, but you claim to be writing a theory or an explanation, and for that you need to be extra clear and precise otherwise you will always be misunderstood.

I understand Colin, I have tried writing consistent in my wordpress bloggs, I have had years of mockery and insults, so of course I am reluctant to spend my time writing up my  best effort, to tell you the truth I am scared I am correct, I am a nobody, I did not know I had it in me to think this way .
That's ok, you are doing better than you ever have. Some of what you are writing is what many people would call basic or obvious, but writing it will help clarify your thoughts and people will help to refine what you write, it doesn't need to be perfect first time. Most scientist and writers send their work around to colleagues for review and comment before publication.
Just try not to get into the habit of making up meaningless phrases and think everyone will understand. Clarity is what you are aiming for.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« Reply #7 on: 11/02/2016 14:52:00 »
I know that, I am not writing a novel. To say constant in a vacuum , is consistent.
If you were writing a novel it wouldn't matter, but you claim to be writing a theory or an explanation, and for that you need to be extra clear and precise otherwise you will always be misunderstood.

I understand Colin, I have tried writing consistent in my wordpress bloggs, I have had years of mockery and insults, so of course I am reluctant to spend my time writing up my  best effort, to tell you the truth I am scared I am correct, I am a nobody, I did not know I had it in me to think this way .
That's ok, you are doing better than you ever have. Some of what you are writing is what many people would call basic or obvious, but writing it will help clarify your thoughts and people will help to refine what you write, it doesn't need to be perfect first time. Most scientist and writers send their work around to colleagues for review and comment before publication.
Just try not to get into the habit of making up meaningless phrases and think everyone will understand. Clarity is what you are aiming for.

Most of what I talk about I consider the obvious.  That is why when people say my obvious is not true I defend it .

Do we agree that light allows us a visual clarity constant of space and because of this we can observe distance?

The distance we observe is not related to how much time a photon takes to reach your eye?

The distance we observe is related to the continuous of light between the observer and observed?

« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 14:57:10 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
« Reply #8 on: 11/02/2016 18:21:23 »
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured
".
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.?

So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.

Good bye.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« Reply #9 on: 11/02/2016 21:41:13 »
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured
".
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.?

So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.

Good bye.

You do realise that you, refers to science and not actually you.  and what a way to avoid answering the question, good bye
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 22:06:05 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3160
• Thanked: 45 times
« Reply #10 on: 11/02/2016 22:07:08 »
Do we agree that light allows us a visual clarity constant of space and because of this we can observe distance?

The distance we observe is not related to how much time a photon takes to reach your eye?

The distance we observe is related to the continuous of light between the observer and observed?