Prev: How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?
Next: THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 Jun 2010 05:13


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Let me try to explain what I mean with the theory of light. We all
> know that light has a speed
> designated as "c" of which it is travelling in a vaccuum. But is there
> a perfect vaccuum? Is there a
> vaccuum at all? Probably not. And is not the Universe an elliptic
> geometry meaning it has
> a curvature and thus any light travelling in curved space is not going
> to speed at "c". And so there is no light, ever, travelling at "c"
> itself. So if all light is travelling at less than "c" does it mean
> that the physics of light is wrong? No. It simply means
> that light has a upper bound, an upper limit. Another place in physics
> where we meet such
> a condition is the absolute zero temperature. Nothing in the Cosmos is
> 0 Kelvin, but that does
> not mean 0 Kelvin is nonexistant. It only means 0 Kelvin exists but is
> an upper limit.
>

In sci.math, recently I outlined how we derive the speed of light
purely out of math
without ever doing experimental measurement. Let me recap that
procedure. We are
given a sphere surface, or it could be a elliptical surface. And we
make the lines of
longitude as bands rather than lines. So to use Earth as an example,
and to use the
speed of light in meters per second, the bands that are the lines of
longitude are
a meter thick bands. Then we use a logarithmic spiral for the time
coordinate. So the
speed of light is the full coverage of a light ray that races through
all the longitude bands
and the length of the logarthmic spiral is the time factor (keep in
mind that only a 1/3,
if memory serves me, of the
log spiral from pole to pole is used due to geometry). So it matters
none whether
the speed of light is in meters a second or in miles per hour because
the bands are compensated for different units.

Now the speed of light as most experiments reveal is approx 2.99... x
10^8 m/sec
or 3 x 10^8 m/sec.

But the reasoning for this post is that those figures are probably,
highly inaccurate, even
though they are touted as super accurate.
The reason I say this is because in my prior post, I said that there
is no actual physics
vacuum and all measurements of the speed of light were committed in
nonvacuum conditions.
Even space is highly occupied, even in the voids space there is no
vacuum to be found.
And another feature of Space is that it is highly curved or bent since
it is not Euclidean geometry. So any measurement of light speed is
going to be a slower speed than what
"c" actually is, due to no vacuum and bent space.

My hunch is that the speed of light is probably 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/
sec. In other words, the
speed of light in vacuum in Euclidean geometry is the digits of pi.

Now there is a nice test of this conjecture. Simply see if the
construct I proposed above:

distance of bands of longitudes/logarithmic spiral one third from pole
to pole

to see if that formula is in fact the digits of pi in mathematics. No
matter what the size
of the sphere is, we divide the band distance by 1/3 log spiral
distance and end up with a
number that is the digits of pi.

Now this monopole idea by Dirac makes me want to explore whether the
electric charge:

1.60 x 10^-19 C is also able to be assertained purely from mathematics
without ever doing
a physics experiment. I think so. More in next post.

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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?
Next: THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH?