N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Chris:

"Chris" wrote in message
k...
There is no why, it is an experimental result. That
is that.

Actually, c is a constant *by definition*. The meter is defined
by c and time...

David A. Smith

Nice dodge That doesn't explain why it was constant before the
definition was changed to the current one.

Bruce richmond

Dear bsr3997:

wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Chris:

"Chris" wrote in message
k...
There is no why, it is an experimental result. That
is that.

Actually, c is a constant *by definition*. The meter
is defined by c and time...

Nice dodge

It isn't a "dodge". Science doesn't answer "why" questions.
Only philosophy (, government, ) and religion do that.

That doesn't explain why it was constant before
the definition was changed to the current one.

There are a number of well tested theories, including ones that
aetherists like (Maxwell), that require c to be a constant.
These theories had all survived 80+ years of testing by people
that really wanted to tear the theories apart, and cared enough
to learn what it took to do so. The theories still stand so
metrology took that and ran with it.

Maxwell requires a constant for the propagation of EM in a
vacuum. c is suitable as that constant.

The answer remains "because it was established so, by caveat".

Satisfied?

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear bsr3997:

wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Chris:

"Chris" wrote in message
k...
There is no why, it is an experimental result. That
is that.

Actually, c is a constant *by definition*. The meter
is defined by c and time...

Nice dodge

It isn't a "dodge". Science doesn't answer "why" questions.
Only philosophy (, government, ) and religion do that.

That doesn't explain why it was constant before
the definition was changed to the current one.

There are a number of well tested theories, including ones that
aetherists like (Maxwell), that require c to be a constant.
These theories had all survived 80+ years of testing by people
that really wanted to tear the theories apart, and cared enough
to learn what it took to do so. The theories still stand so
metrology took that and ran with it.

Maxwell requires a constant for the propagation of EM in a
vacuum. c is suitable as that constant.

The answer remains "because it was established so, by caveat".

Satisfied?

David A. Smith

Pretty much I was just looking for something along the lines of, we
don't know why, but we have measured it to be so. It's not a crime to
admit we don't know all the answers.

Bruce Richmond

Dear bsr3997:

wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear bsr3997:
....
Maxwell requires a constant for the propagation
of EM in a vacuum. c is suitable as that constant.

The answer remains "because it was established
so, by caveat".

Satisfied?

Pretty much I was just looking for something
along the lines of, we don't know why, but we
have measured it to be so. It's not a crime to
admit we don't know all the answers.

We don't even have all the questions! ;)

David A. Smith

wrote:
There's too many topic's here for me to read to try to find a
"right" answer to this question so here is my post:

I've been trying to research the properties which define the speed
of light for a spacetime frame. Anyways I can't find any
explanation. Yet all I keep seeing is that light being this constant
speed. Interestingly gravity is also that speed.

That's hardly interesting, since Newton assumed that
the speed of gravitation propagation and the speed
of light were mathematically identically the same.

And all physicists have done for the last 350 years to that:
"yeah, verily".

And even after the DeBroglie predicted that
matter waves exist, and they were experimentally verified.
They just continued for the last 80 years to say:
"Yeah, verily", Gravity is unobservalbe gravitions.



Since I can't find
any information that backs up http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?
act=ST&f=16&t=5134&st=0 these theories I am going to guess that the
thread of space can only allocate traversing matter at
186,000mi/sec. Light is probably the threads of space which were
once allocated to matter or some function on the thread but are now
released to the speed that the space fabric can organize itself so
it can keep the balance of mater and enrgy.



Another idiotic thought I have is if you travel at the speed of
light, your time freezes and flattens out against a wall of
unformatted spacethread, like falling into water at terminal
velocity, sortta like this time dilation thing trying to explain
different perspectives from different frames. I really don't get it,
and would like to understand something for once.

Which is the same as saying that not even light
travels at the speed of light.





Usually google.com
is good for finding info, but its letting me down and theres a
million BS books on the shelves none of which I can hardly read
anyways. if anyone can link me to any good sites other than
wikipedia id appreciate it. The best site I came across was the NOVA
video http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=5134&st=0
from PBS which left me with even more questions, but I love videos

--
----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.5 Beta 3
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------

Dear

" Why is the Speed Of Light Constant? "

That's an interesting question, but the question itself needs some
explanation.
What do you mean by "Light" Do you mean the region containing a stream
of photons? Are these photons particles like tiny bullets? When you
switch on a
light bulb what happens?

G

wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Chris:

"Chris" wrote in message
k...
There is no why, it is an experimental result. That
is that.

Actually, c is a constant *by definition*. The meter is defined
by c and time...

David A. Smith

Nice dodge That doesn't explain why it was constant before the
definition was changed to the current one.

Bruce richmond

Fact is, c seems to be constant for the same reason that Plank's
constant is constant (!)
It just fits - more engineering than science.

SCW

SCW

What do you mean c is constant?
The statement is not precise enough to discuss

G

SCW

What do you mean c is constant?
The statement is not precise enough to discuss

G

"SCW" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Chris:

"Chris" wrote in message
k...
There is no why, it is an experimental result. That
is that.

Actually, c is a constant *by definition*. The meter is defined
by c and time...

David A. Smith

Nice dodge That doesn't explain why it was constant before the
definition was changed to the current one.

Bruce richmond

Fact is, c seems to be constant for the same reason that Plank's
constant is constant (!)
It just fits - more engineering than science.

SCW
Mathematicians call that "circularity", deriving what is assumed
in the first instance.
It is because it say it is, therefore it is.
Such argument is pointless.
Androcles.