The measurement of length is based on electromagnetic force which binds
atoms and molecules together into matter. The measurement of time is
also based on electromagnetic radiation - the known emission frequency
of specific atoms, or in "thought experiments", light bouncing back and
forth between mirrors in a direction perpendicular to the direction of
travel of an "elevator".

It seems reasonable, then, since we're using lignt to measure length
and time, that one would reach the conclusion that the speed of light
is constant in all inertial frames of reference. The logic follows that
light is an upper-limiting velocity. But this seems to be a circular
way of thinking, limited only to light.

Why is it not equally reasonable to postulate propagation mechanisms
based on the strong and/or weak forces that might well vastly exceed
the speed of light. Such propagation of "information" could then
explain Bell's inequality, whereby "information" regarding the spin
state of photon pairs is communicated by these other propagation
mechanisms which we cannot yet detect? Or rather, which we can detect
by observing the spin flip of paired photons?
Regards,
JimK

i don bulive in such talk of this

nobody ever measured time

there are only changes at plank level distances

thats whay we have inertia, momentum etc becus
matter at atomic level is traped betwen these plank
distances

i hope you understan

In article . com,
"jimk" wrote:

The logic follows that
light is an upper-limiting velocity.

Light speed is neither an upper nor a lower limit. Light speed is the
ONLY speed, period. Nothing moves slower or faster. At the fundamental
level, motion consists of a series of jumps and rests. All the jumps
occur at c. There is a little bit more to motion that this but, if you
don't understand this, you'll never understand motion.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

"jimk" wrote in message
ups.com...
The measurement of length is based on electromagnetic force which binds
atoms and molecules together into matter. The measurement of time is
also based on electromagnetic radiation - the known emission frequency
of specific atoms, or in "thought experiments", light bouncing back and
forth between mirrors in a direction perpendicular to the direction of
travel of an "elevator".

It seems reasonable, then, since we're using lignt to measure length
and time, that one would reach the conclusion that the speed of light
is constant in all inertial frames of reference.

According to our current defintions of meter and second it is constant by
fiat. But the fact is expriments not involving an actual mesurment of time
or length (eg the Trouton Noble experiment
http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/...ble_experiment) indcates it is
constant.

The logic follows that
light is an upper-limiting velocity. But this seems to be a circular
way of thinking, limited only to light.

The existence of an upper velocity limit (it may be infinity) follows from
the POR. That this speed is the speed of light follows from many defferent
observations eg the decay times of muons.

Why is it not equally reasonable to postulate propagation mechanisms
based on the strong and/or weak forces that might well vastly exceed
the speed of light.

Because casualty forbids it.

Such propagation of "information" could then
explain Bell's inequality, whereby "information" regarding the spin
state of photon pairs is communicated by these other propagation
mechanisms which we cannot yet detect?


You do not understand bells inequality - information is not sent and QM
fully explains it.

Bill

Or rather, which we can detect
by observing the spin flip of paired photons?
Regards,
JimK

jimk wrote:
Why is it not equally reasonable to postulate propagation mechanisms
based on the strong and/or weak forces that might well vastly exceed
the speed of light.

It is reasonable. The universe just turns out not to work that way. That c
is a limiting velocity for all phenomena is not something we can deduce a
priori. It's only on the basis of experimental evidence that we believe it
to be true.

-- Ben

In article , Ben Rudiak-Gould
wrote:

jimk wrote:
Why is it not equally reasonable to postulate propagation mechanisms
based on the strong and/or weak forces that might well vastly exceed
the speed of light.

It is reasonable. The universe just turns out not to work that way. That c
is a limiting velocity for all phenomena is not something we can deduce a
priori. It's only on the basis of experimental evidence that we believe it
to be true.

It can be deduced a priori that a discrete universe can only have one
speed. That speed is c. Nothing moves faster or slower. c is not the
limiting speed. It is the *only* speed. Certainly at the macroscopic
level, we can measure a speed that is less than c but at the
micro-realm it consists of a series of jumps interspersed with rests.
All the jumps occur at c.

By the same token, it can be deduced a priori that there is only one
interaction time in a discrete universe. One man's opinion.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

In article ,
says...
It can be deduced a priori that a discrete universe can only have one
speed.


How can it be deduced a priori?

--
Often it is better on the usenet to agree to disagree then to fight it
out.

Observations of Bernard - No 77

[
According to our current defintions of meter and second it is constant
by fiat.
]

how "fiat"!?

what is a "second"?

what is a proper "second"?

whose "second" are yuo talkin about?

whose "second" were indicated as being constant?

"perpetual" wrote in message
ups.com...
[
According to our current defintions of meter and second it is constant
by fiat.
]

how "fiat"!?

what is a "second"?

what is a proper "second"?

whose "second" are yuo talkin about?

whose "second" were indicated as being constant?

Do a goggle search eg what is a second
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...a+second&meta=

Bill

Do a goggle search eg what is a second
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...a+second&meta=

Bill

why, you dont know?