Validating c.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Validating c. » Validating c.

Validating c.
Light is not a speed.

Validating c.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 06/30/09 - 10:02 PM: Subject: Validating c.	#1
We describe c as a speed, but light arrives at any object equally regardless of relative velocity. c is really a constant relative to motion (or change). I think since quanta have a probability of being anywhere, the arrival of a photon at an electron is inevitable, it's just a matter of time. Everything is probably anywhere, it simply can't miss. I know I'm being somewhat vague but I really just want to open a discussion which reflects upon the light constant, so please say something.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 07/02/09 - 05:09 PM:

Ever since the dawn of time, light has been.

A man himself has dual elements and can only ever achieve a balance between these.

Where a man might consider himself a good person, so too does he seek out evil to justify his lofty position, and a man seeketh truth for there is existant deception.

Perhaps I drink excessive amounts of beer for there are those who drink lesser, surely as I now speak I am but a fool as some might see themselves intelligent.

I might just say "screw the lot of ya," as I have not had sex for a while.

Light and dark; what becomes of it all in terms of absolution?

Cheers all, as there are some who feel discontent, and good luck, you're gonna need it.

neutral

I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 07/07/09 - 11:19 AM:	#3
throng wrote: Light and dark; what becomes of it all in terms of absolution? I wouldn't know: I don't speak absolution, nor have I met anyone who is even familiar with its vocabulary. Perhaps absolution is an inadequate means to discuss the finer points of physics?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6295

Posted 07/07/09 - 01:59 PM:	#4
666 post, throng! I think you should leave it at that, and never post again!
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Harbinger
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2005

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 12

Posted 07/13/09 - 05:27 PM:	#5
throng wrote: We describe c as a speed, but light arrives at any object equally regardless of relative velocity. c is really a constant relative to motion (or change). Exactly. A photon doesn't just pass through space, it passes through time. From a photon's point of view (it's "frame of reference"), it arrives at it's destination in the future the very instant that it leaves it's origin. There is no space in between and hence it takes no time. I call this "light space", where photons pop into existence as particles at rest and then disappear. The space between a photon's origin and destination, and it's behavior as a wave, only exist to us because of our point of view as material objects moving at far less than the speed of light. Or perhaps we are just particles of light within our own light space. Edited by Harbinger on 07/13/09 - 05:33 PM
I know not what I am, only that I am.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 09/04/09 - 11:07 PM:	#6
Even a physicist knows physics doesn't describe absolutes. Banno, I wouldn't give a rats bum what you think. If it weren't for freaks like me, sencible folk would have nothing to justify their sencibility. I uphold 'sencible'. I know my mind wanders into areas that that are devoid of thought. It leaves me with the distinct impression that there is a state of singularity which experiences itself by 'relatively being'. Thinking. The primal comparitive is timeless (rather than eternal), and as essential existance is absolute it rests on a foundation of inevitability, meaning there is a permanent, constant, indestructable priority to relative existance. I am impressed with the notion that duality is not seperatable from the singular. Duality consists of two differents, and if the two are different they must be completely opposite. Complete opposites aren't relative. Is and isn't. Isn't isn't a thing.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.