1. Originally Posted by The Editor
That doesn't explain why that constant is the speed of light. The constant itself is just that: a constant. But attributing it to the maximum speed of light is saying that said speed is constant, and now you must prove that that is true.

You are claiming that a=0 by saying that light has a maximum speed.
Have never made such claim, in fact i mentioned it before, in my previous post. First of all, if the speed of light is constant why would insist on saying that there's a maximum speed?

Read my posts until you have fully understand what i have been telling you.

1. A is undefined. (can't be defined so therefore it's null unless you can resolve divisons by 0)
2. A constant is something that doesn't change.
3. Light speed doesn't decrease or increase because there's no A.
4. If you say there's a maximum point you are also saying there's also a minium point and lightspeed is constant so you don't have neither.

2. C is a constant by definition, actually. People have decided that you mean time by a clock, and distance by metre, and they've decided that 299,792,458 m/s is the speed of light in a vacuum. I only have a basic understanding of physics, so I may be missing something here, but that's my two cents.

Here's one. What is colour? How do I know that the colour I'm seeing is the same colour as what someone else is seeing? Maybe what I call red, actually is what is seen by someone else when they see blue. Maybe true red to me is orange, but to someone else is green. But when I paint it, I see what I've learnt to see, as has everyone else.

3. Now that's a very good question

4. c is indeed a constant by definition, and I am not challenging that. I am asking why said constant is the maximum speed of light.

1. A is undefined. (can't be defined so therefore it's null unless you can resolve divisons by 0) FALSE: an undefined value is not necessarily zero. For example, calculus finds the gradient of a chord of a curve where the length of the chord is zero. The standard gradient calculation m=(y2-y1)/(x2-x1) requires division by zero, and is therefore undefined in this case. However, calculus is used to find the gradient at that point by reducing to a limit (in this case zero), and shows that there is a gradient at this point which is not zero.
2. A constant is something that doesn't change. TRUE.
3. Light speed doesn't decrease or increase because there's no A. FALSE: light slows down when entering a denser medium, and speeds up when leaving it.
4. If you say there's a maximum point you are also saying there's also a minium point and lightspeed is constant so you don't have neither. FALSE: the speed of light has been reduced to zero: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1124540.stm

Everybody's brain (unless they have a condition affecting the region responsible) interprets light waves in roughly the same way, but it is entirely possible that other species interpret these waves differently. Colours are just an arbitrary way of differentiating between different parts of the frequency spectrum, and being able to see them could have evolved simply to aid differentiation between different objects.

5. I suspect the answer may be related to the electromagnetic property of light, but I don't know how this would act... I'll look up some stuff.

6. Are we talking about the properties of light or light going through different bodies?

I never said A is 0 and i never said undefined = 0. I know that we could find limits that's why i told you could have made a function of A long time ago.

Light doesn't change its speed by it's own. The speed i mention was observed in the void. Even in air is slower, I know. It's a well known fact that we work with ideal situations, not with situations presented in nature since they can change.

I was talking about the light speed in the vacuum there, not through air, not through glass but through void.

7. Here's what we know:

1) The maximum speed of light is approximately 3x10^8 m/s.
2) The minimum speed of light is 0 m/s.
3) Light accelerates (positive or negative) when travelling from an area of one density to an area with a different density. This is caused by the electromagnetic waves of atoms interacting with those of light. This acceleration is instantaneous and lasts for a single moment: the photon's speed jumps and then remains at the new value.

8. Originally Posted by m1n05_4
Are we talking about the properties of light or light going through different bodies?

I never said A is 0 and i never said undefined = 0. I know that we could find limits that's why i told you could have made a function of A long time ago.

Light doesn't change its speed by it's own. The speed i mention was observed in the void. Even in air is slower, I know. It's a well known fact that we work with ideal situations, not with situations presented in nature since they can change.

I was talking about the light speed in the vacuum there, not through air, not through glass but through void.
No.

You must be arguing to the conclusion that a=0, otherwise there is no maximum speed of light, which is what we are trying to prove is false.

Light's speed is indeed fixed within a consistent medium.

That doesn't make much of a difference.

9. It's weird. We know light has no mass, yet we know that it is also affected by forces. Gravity we can explain through curves in space-time (it simply follows the 'straight' line), but other forces seem able to act on light despite their being no mass, while yet more cannot. Large scale electric and magnetic fields have no effect, but the fields of atoms do. Light waves also diffract yet are made of single particles. And now I'm getting a headache...

Shall we just conclude that the reason is unknown and leave it there? I doubt we'll be able to reach an answer if physicists haven't yet

10. It's there. I can assure you. You just don't see the answer. Light has a constant speed on void. That's what you should now. And light travels slower through air than through void.

11. All this time you haven't understood what question I'm asking... I knowthat light travels at a fixed speed in a consistent medium, and that this fixed speed in free space is approximately 3x10^8 m/s. I'm not asking whether it is true or not: I know that it is. What I am asking is why it is true, and that question has yet to be answered. As far as I can see, there is no physical reason why this should be the case, and yet it is. Why is the question without an answer here.

Page 3 of 3 First 123

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•