Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: Peter Webb on 6 Feb 2010 23:13 > In any event, there is no verified law that says nothing can travel > faster than 'c' even on a local basis. There is merely empirical > evidence to suggest that light does not propagate over distances > faster than 'c'. > Again, no. That light waves cannot travel faster than c is a direct result of Maxwell's equations, which predate and are independent of SR, and provide massive theoretical support for light not travelling faster than c.
From: Ste on 7 Feb 2010 02:24 On 7 Feb, 04:13, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In any event, there is no verified law that says nothing can travel > > faster than 'c' even on a local basis. There is merely empirical > > evidence to suggest that light does not propagate over distances > > faster than 'c'. > > Again, no. > > That light waves cannot travel faster than c is a direct result of Maxwell's > equations, which predate and are independent of SR, and provide massive > theoretical support for light not travelling faster than c. Isn't that what I said? "There is no verified law ... merely empirical evidence to suggest".
From: mpalenik on 7 Feb 2010 02:31 On Feb 7, 2:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't that what I said? "There is no verified law ... merely empirical > evidence to suggest". What in physics do you think has something other than empirical evidence to suggest it? Nothing in physics is proven beyond emperical evidence that suggests it's true. How do you think a theory could be upgraded to a "verified law"?
From: Ste on 7 Feb 2010 03:53 On 7 Feb, 07:31, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Isn't that what I said? "There is no verified law ... merely empirical > > evidence to suggest". > > What in physics do you think has something other than empirical > evidence to suggest it? Nothing in physics is proven beyond emperical > evidence that suggests it's true. How do you think a theory could be > upgraded to a "verified law"? I don't think that a theory could be verified. I'm simply making clear that, if someone wanted to argue (compellingly, of course) that the speed of light is exceeded in the case of certain physical phenomena, then that would not be a wholly untenable hypothesis. I mean, one recalls how it was once a popular belief that the human body would disintegrate at above 100mph.
From: mpalenik on 7 Feb 2010 03:58
On Feb 7, 3:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb, 07:31, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Isn't that what I said? "There is no verified law ... merely empirical > > > evidence to suggest". > > > What in physics do you think has something other than empirical > > evidence to suggest it? Nothing in physics is proven beyond emperical > > evidence that suggests it's true. How do you think a theory could be > > upgraded to a "verified law"? > > I don't think that a theory could be verified. I'm simply making clear > that, if someone wanted to argue (compellingly, of course) that the > speed of light is exceeded in the case of certain physical phenomena, > then that would not be a wholly untenable hypothesis. > > I mean, one recalls how it was once a popular belief that the human > body would disintegrate at above 100mph. I very much doubt that was a belief held by scientists, at least in any point in the last 500 years. It's been known since the time of Galileo that physics behaves the same way regardless of how fast you're moving. Galileo wrote of how it was impossible to detect absolute motion. This is nothing new to SR, and so there's no reason anyone would believe that something magically happens at 100 mph that makes the human body disintegrate. Can you show me a link to evidence anywhere that scientists ever believed this was the case? |