Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Sep 24, 2014.
Yes! That's exactly what I was reffering to.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ah, my apologies then! I am not familiar with the acronym BEC and a quick google search was... well, less than helpful
No need for apologies. I should have been more clear. I'm exploring this idea a little bit more, but it appears that the speed of light remains the same even inside a BEC. Something to do with the difference between the group velocity and phase velocity of light and how we do the measurement. I need to read some more.
May I ask - what does BEC stand for? I am guessing it stands for bose einstein condensate?
AND WHEN SOMEONE IS TRYING TO LEARN PHYSICS IS LIED TO????????????????????????????????????????????????
Yes, that is correct. Though nowadays they also use crystals to slow down light.
Unfortunately, strictly speaking, the only thing we can really do is provide the truth and hope they are smart enough to see the truth for what it is... it's one of the potentia pitfalls of freedom of speech
Is rhhe s
Is the speed of light not constant?
No, the speed of light is not a constant.
Yes, the "speed of light in a vacuum" (referred to as C) is a constant.
That's the fun bit about science... you have to be specific
My textbook tells your wrong.
As normally inferred to, the speed of light "c" certainly is without any shadow of reasonable doubt, constant.
The speed of light does only appear faster/slower from another FoR, either higher or lower in a gravity well.
I was just going to mention this fact. It came up a few years ago on another forum I was participating in, and actually was referring to [dont quote me on this, I'm going from memory] that part of the EMS is interacting, and the rest of the wave, literally overtakes it.
Similar in a way to "Cherenkov radiation"
Just be be very pedantic, as I do know what people generally mean, the symbol for the speed of light is "c"....
C can be in some circumstances misconstrued for Capacitance.
"c" is also taken from the latin word "celeritas", meaning speed.
As I have often said, some people have delusions of grandeur, and set out to deride the scientific method and peer review.
Farsight is also one of the four members who so far say they have also formulated a ToE, but us poor ordinary common folk are just plain too stupid to realize that they are the holder of truth and reality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's also quite interesting to note how these alternative hypothesis pushers, with their delusions of grandeur, title their threads quite provocatively, like......
"BH's do not exist" or "the speed of light is not constant" or the "BB did not happen"
In a sense they are looking for confrontation and not debate.
It's c not C. C is a different scientific term. Look it up and be specific. Ponder this: why do you think the qualification 'in a vacuum' was added to the constancy statement? How much of the universe qualifies as a vacuum? What I explained for you assumes the path of light is through the vacuum of space. When measured in local proper frames [like the one you're walking around in over your entire life] the measurement is an invariant. GR predicts the local spacetime is flat, to some limit over distance, and the path of light is a constant over the local spacetime. If the local path is through some medium that can absorb the light it still travels at c between the stuff that makes up the medium that can absorb the light. Quantum mechanics explains this in detail. So the local speed of light is a constant. Invariant from one measurement to the next measurement regardless where the spacetime event occurs. The spacetime event 'measure the local speed of light'. The path through BEC is no different. The BEC is essentially all the bosons in a ground state together. One big boson. There's ways to manipulate the lights path trough the Bose Einstein Condensate that proofs there's very little vacuum to propagate through. Some interesting experiments are the result of this analysis.
My apologies - as I said, I never did get to take an actual Physics class - I'm working on background knowledge I've gleaned on my own Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You'd think that wouldn't be required to be stated. Being obvious in every definition of the word obvious. Instead it's politically correct to say everybody is entitled to they're scientific opinion regardless the consequences to any scientific discussion. That's one of the main reason cranks flourish on the Internet. Farsights shooting for exalted Internet crank status. Pretty much how I see it.
Have a good one paddoboy.
I really hadn't thought he was actively trolling, but it makes sense when viewed in that light, pun intended.
It seems beyond the pale to imagine that he really believes that these scholars, (who do maths for their work in the field, by the way), agree with him?
Hasn't he been given enough rope to hang himself many times over?
Separate names with a comma.