The Speed of Light is Not Constant

While we're enumerating Farsight's errors, I would like to add that he insists on creating a conundrum by referencing c to relativity and vice versa. The question of the constancy of c was established as early as Fitzeau (ca 1850). It was specifically because of this, and the nearly immediate understanding that time and space must therefore be relative, that Einstein took up the question of reconciling Maxwell's equations with the form of relativity Lorentz & Poincare had explained by then, in reference to experiments like Fitzeau's and Michelson & Morley's.
We all know about that. Surely?

My point is that Farsight is off the mark leaving this exclusively to Einstein. He needs to go back and undo all of the light speed experiments conducted between the first of Fitzeau's and the last paper by Poincare or Lorentz just prior to Einstein's seminal 1905 treatment of the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
No I don't. All I need to do is refer to The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. He refers to the wave nature of matter, and explains that when waves are all there is, you calibrate your rods and clocks using the motion of waves, then use them to measure the motion of waves. Hence you have the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 :

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

And that just reinforces that the hallmark of pseudoscience is its abandonment of all of the experiments leading to a particular postulate or theory.
I'm not abandoning experiment. I've referred to the Shapiro delay and NIST optical clocks and the GPS clock adjustment.

Farsight is always wrong mainly because he is always ignoring the evidence
Er no, I'm the guy who points out the evidence. You're the one who ignores it. And the OP and Ned Wright and Don Koks and Einstein.

leaving him unable to comprehend and articulate basic science. His second most fatal flaw is that he doesn't comprehend basic math. This is a recipe for certain disaster in a thread centered around questions of basic math and science.
Only I do comprehend basic math. You're clutching at straws.

Light doesn't need a medium to travel in.
It simply follows the geodesics of the topological structure of spacetime.
True

But the medium can change the speed at which light propagates through space
It isn't true, river. Don't listen to paddoboy, he doesn't know any physics, he regurgitates popscience myths. See the quote by Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."

brucep said:
Pretty much what Dunning and Kruger found out.
This is a physics discussion. But you're just another troll.

It isn't true, river. Don't listen to paddoboy, he doesn't know any physics, he regurgitates popscience myths. .

No, it's certainly 100% true, and your pseudo quackery take on the situation consists of taking some out of context, and misinterpreting others.
The thread being shifted to the fringe section reinforces the fact that your claims are rubbish.
What is certainly true is the fact that you would have me regurgitating your rubbish, rather then the logical accepted mainstream position.

No I don't. All I need to do is refer to The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. He refers to the wave nature of matter, and explains that when waves are all there is, you calibrate your rods and clocks using the motion of waves, then use them to measure the motion of waves.
Why do you reference a crackpot like Close? Why not JS Bell, who wrote the same thing only with better reasoning and better physics. If we adopt Bell's approach, then we accept that there is an absolute reference frame, one that we can't access through classical tests.
I'm not abandoning experiment. I've referred to the Shapiro delay and NIST optical clocks and the GPS clock adjustment.
As Ellis and Magueijo and Moffat point out, these experiments all produce a challenge for VSL theories; they support GR, which is not a VSL theory according to those authors.
Er no, I'm the guy who points out the evidence.
You only use text evidence that you can hope to use to confuse the issue and deceive some reader. When asked for measurement evidence, you refuse to produce evidence.

For example, you have not addressed the following, and that shows that you are not telling the truth about evidence: You have talked a lot about how all contemporary astronomers and physicists are wrong when they calculate galaxy rotation curves and you know that they are wrong because you interpret and understand better. So show us, step by step, what they are doing wrong in their calculations and show us, step by step, how your interpretation leads us directly to a different prediction.

Farsight, you continue to present quotes out of context to support your own objective.

See the quote by Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."

While it is true that historically the above portion in bold represents how Einstein's introduction has been interpreted, the following from his introductory paper seems to contradict the statement at least as far as what Einstein's initial intent was. Pay attention below, to the use of the word "superfluous" in bold which is the same as saying "unnecessary". Einstein did not prove the ether as non-existent, with that paper, he only demonstrated the concept of an ether was not required to explain the involved observations and conclusions. In fact the Lorentz Ether Theory remained a competitive explanation vs. SR, until the introduction of GR. At which time it was unable to make a similar transition from a local classical description of experience consistent with a flat spacetime, to a description of gravitation. The opposition to relativity Laughlin references might easily be the competing Lorentz Ether Theory, which failed to transition with SR to GR and a description of gravity.

Einstein said:
The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

Additionally, by quoting Laughlin out of context you misrepresent his intent. Whether you look at modern theoretical models, from the context of GR where spacetime is treated as dynamic, or from many of the theoretical models emerging, as explorations of quantum gravity and even inertia, as emergent and involving some interaction between classical mass and vacuum energy, "space" seems to be as Laughlin points out, a relativistic ether. (Not to be confused with the 19th century concept of the aether...)

from later in the same Wiki quote of Laughlin
...It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Most of what I have read suggests that Einstein defended his theoretical perspective, over the Lorentz Ether Theory, without going so far as to claim that there was no either of any sort. But don't mistake this comment as any suggestion that I believe Einstein accepted the existence of the aether. Again he did not find it necessary to explain experience, but at the same time he did not specifically reject the general concept as a whole, only some of the associated 19th century definition and conclusions.

Why do you reference a crackpot like Close? Why not JS Bell, who wrote the same thing only with better reasoning and better physics. If we adopt Bell's approach, then we accept that there is an absolute reference frame, one that we can't access through classical tests.

Agreed, but not in direct protect against who you quoted.

It's agreed because there HAS to be a bridge between quantum mechanics and classical, meaning we have to resolve to a semi-classical model of particles, to reason a better understanding of physics.

PhysBang said:
Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
No, rpenner made a stupid mistake saying "local" is infinitesimal,
:roflmao:

Farsight is arguing a subject that was explained to the world using calculus, yet Farsight doesn't understand the most essential fundamental upon which calculus is based: the derivative of a function.

But of course everyone who learned this in high school --or at least covered it in the first unit of Calculus I -- is wrong, and Farsight is right.

:roflmao:

:roflmao:

Farsight is arguing a subject that was explained to the world using calculus, yet Farsight doesn't understand the most essential fundamental upon which calculus is based: the derivative of a function.

But of course everyone who learned this in high school --or at least covered it in the first unit of Calculus I -- is wrong, and Farsight is right.

:roflmao:

I don't know what you find funny about it.

I bet there are large gaps in your own understanding of physics, let alone anyone else.

Agreed, but not in direct protect against who you quoted.
Please tell me you're not defending Farsight.

I don't know what you find funny about it.

I bet there are large gaps in your own understanding of physics, let alone anyone else.

In this case we have a fool who never bothered to learn the basics telling people by far his intellectual superiors what time it is.

Please tell me you're not defending Farsight.

I defend some of the things he says. He seems to have a good historical knowledge which seems to be overlooked here.

I don't defend bad science, bad science is the stuff you can't rectify. It is the science of good stuff you can engage in and discuss without the discrimination of past incarnations.

I defend some of the things he says. He seems to have a good historical knowledge which seems to be overlooked here.
:roflmao:

I don't defend bad science, bad science is the stuff you can't rectify. It is the science of good stuff you can engage in and discuss without the discrimination of past incarnations.
Huh? :bugeye:

There are high school kids who master the basics we are discussing here.

:shrug:

:roflmao:

Huh? :bugeye:

There are high school kids who master the basics we are discussing here.

:shrug:

I don't believe for a second you qualify over my understanding of physics. I base this on your arrogance in general displayed by your... equally, degrading posts. You have the mind of a child to me who has read enough sci-pop books to understand a scratching of the pork of physics.

I don't believe for a second you qualify over my understanding of physics.

If you find merit in Farsight's nonsense then you've admitted ignorance to a lot more than physics. In reference to PhysBang's post, you've admitted ignorance of the first unit of Calculus I. You can't get anywhere among educated people as an imposter. Wisdom can't be faked.

I base this on your arrogance in general displayed by your... equally, degrading posts.
Aha. So answering knotheads with facts and evidence is abhorrent to you. Noted.

You have the mind of a child to me who has read enough sci-pop books to understand a scratching of the pork of physics.
Indeed anyone who makes mention of first principles of math and science must look to you like a threat, since you obviously never bothered to study the material yourself.

Of course if you could attack my statements here through the application of math and physics, then you would have done so. Let's see how long it takes the mods to nail you, esp. now that you are already on Stryder's radar.

Where's origin when you need a good hound dog to sniff out a sock puppet . . . reiku?

If you find merit in Farsight's nonsense

That's not really fair now, is it.

As I said before, I bet you have large gaps in knowledge as well. You probably don't even have an imagination, something I can from reading his posts, has whether right or wrong.

You'll be a better person when you realize, science is about being wrong, so you can eliminate to the right.

I don't believe for a second you qualify over my understanding of physics.
:roflmao:

The other thing about people who took Calculus I is that they also had to pass English I.

:roflmao:

Indeed anyone who makes mention of first principles of math and science must look to you like a threat,

Be delusional as you wish. You are no threat to me.

:roflmao:

The other thing about people who took Calculus I is that they also had to pass English I.

:roflmao:

Weak people target weak arguments.

That's not really fair now, is it.

As I said before, I bet you have large gaps in knowledge as well. You probably don't even have an imagination, something I can from reading his posts, has whether right or wrong.

You'll be a better person when you realize, science is about being wrong, so you can eliminate to the right.

You'll be a more literate person when you go back to school. Only this time be sure to show up in class. And of course you need to study, do the homework and pass the tests.

Come back and gloat when you have the big britches on.

:shrug:

Weak people target weak arguments.

Yes, arguing in support of an actual education, in a thread that deals with college-level subject matter is really weak.