Prev: Martingales
Next: Why the Ignorant / Stupid Are the First Responders to Good Math / Science / Tech OPs
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 22 Jun 2010 13:46
Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
mathematical considerations,
without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
speed of light is.
Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
actually produced the
speed of light.

So let me recap how I derived the speed of light. I took any sphere,
it could be the size
of Earth (idealized as a sphere) or the size of a sphere globe in my
home, or the size of
a baseball.

Then what I do is imagine lines of meridians or lines of longitude.
Then I give them a
band width, depending on what units I want my speed of light to end up
with. So for example on Earth sphere, I may choose kilometers per
second as the ultimate form I want for
the speed of light. Thus the band meridian or the stripe or width of
the lines of longitude are
all one kilometer wide. There are 40,000 of these kilometer wide band
meridians. And each of
them is 40,000 kilometers in distance. So the total distance of all
these band meridians is
40,000 x 40,000 = 1,600,000,000. Now on this same Earth sphere there
is a logarithmic spiral
from pole to pole. I take not the full log spiral distance but rather
the distance that the log spiral represents a meridian of 40,000
kilometers. It is 1/8 of the circumference or 5,000
kilometers for Earth sphere. The band meridian is the distance that
light travels, or
1,600,000,000, and the time that light travels in seconds is 5,000 as
representative of
one band meridian. So the speed of light is 1,600,000,000 kilometers/
5,000 seconds

And that answer, is of course, approx 300,000 km/sec. And this
derivation is unitless, for
I can do it in meters/second or in miles/hour or any other unit so
long as the sphere can
accommodate the band width.

But now the question occurrs as to whether the speed of light is
actually and truly the
math number "pi" to a specific decimal point. So for in the example of
kilometers, that the
speed of light in reality is 314159.265.. kilometers/second?? In
meters per second the
speed of light would be 314159265.35 meters/second.

Is there anything in physics that would suggest the old figures of
2.99 x 10^5 km/sec
or the 3.00 x 10^5 km/sec are too far off and not precise enough?

I would say yes, there are two valid arguments to suggest that the
speed of light is
a numeric representation of the number "pi" in math, given that the
Universe is an
Atom Totality. Those two reasons are that the speed of light is a
upper limit and cannot
be obtained because the Universe has no perfect vacuum. All the earth
done experiments
were not vacuums. And secondly, in an Atom Totality, the curvature of
the Universe is
a high degree of curvature, so any measure of the speed of light would
be a measure
that fails to add in or subtract the curvature of the Cosmos.

So any physics experimental measure of the speed of light is going to
be off the mark
by a sizable percentage. A sizeable error of measure.

Now I cannot prove that the speed of light must be the digits of "pi"
simply from my
derivation.

But I can claim, without doubt that the speed of light using that
derivation could be
the digits of pi.

However, I can make a proof argument that the speed of light must be
the digits of
pi, given my recent foray into the derivation of the elementary-charge
in physics.

I notice that these physical constants are probably all of them a form
of the golden
ratio number, the phi number of 1.6180339887498948482..

It looks as though, although no proof as yet that these numbers in
physics are all
a form of phi:

(1) elementary charge "e" as 1.6 x 10^-19 C
(2) Planck length 1.61 x 10^-35 meters
(3) the ampere (of course the conjugate of elementary charge) at 6.18
x 10^18 electrons
(4) proton diameter at 1.6 x 10^-15 meters

But if proof were given that they are all a form of phi-numbers, then
I suspect we
can prove that the speed of light must be a pi-number.

Let me repeat why the speed of light would have been off by so much,
since
3.00 x 10^8 m/s is far different from 3.14 x 10^8 m/s and would cause
considerable
changes in astronomy reckoning. The reason for the error is that the
speed of light
is an upper limit that exists only in the condition of a "perfect
vacuum" and where
the geometry of the Cosmos is Euclidean, not the bent Elliptic. In a
near-vacuum
and a Elliptic shaped Cosmos, you would experimentally come up with
the shoddy number
3 x 10^8 m/sec for light speed and not the true 314159265.35.. m/s

Again, this needs proving.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Frederick Williams on 22 Jun 2010 16:21
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
> mathematical considerations,
> without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
> speed of light is.
> Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
> actually produced the
> speed of light.

The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition.

--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: David R Tribble on 22 Jun 2010 18:20
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> It is 1/8 of the circumference or 5,000 kilometers for Earth sphere.

If you mean the actual Earth, it has a circumference slightly
larger than 40,000 km. Its equatorial circumference is 40,075 km
and its meridional (polar) circumference is 40,008 km. Which
means, of course, that the Earth is not a perfect sphere.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm
From: David R Tribble on 22 Jun 2010 22:54
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
>> mathematical considerations,
>> without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
>> speed of light is.
>> Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
>> actually produced the
>> speed of light.
>

Frederick Williams said:
>> The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition.
>

Owen Jacobson wrote:
>| You're trying to correct someone who sincerely believes that if a
>| measurable quantity is "close enough" to one of his favourite numbers,
>| then the measurement is somehow wrong and the number is *really* his
>| favourite number -- even when the experimental value is known to far
>| too many places for that to be feasible or when the value is defined by
>| fiat.
>| In other words, a crazy person.
>

Androcles wrote:
> The one that is crazy is the one that defined the metre in terms of
> the speed of light and then defined the speed of light in terms of
> the metre. It doesn't get any more psychotic than that.

The metre is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458
of a second. A second, in turn, is defined as the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of radiation from a certain hyperfine
transition of a cesium atom. So, technically, the speed of light
is defined in terms of a subatomic event.

The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
8 km).

At any rate, I think we all know who is the craziest person here.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Martingales
Next: Why the Ignorant / Stupid Are the First Responders to Good Math / Science / Tech OPs