KARL  JASPERS  FORUM
TA 106 (Müller)

 

Commentary 22 (to Beamish, C21)

 

( SPEED  OF  LIGHT )
by Robert Neil Boyd
21 April 2008, posted 26 April 2008

 

<1>
[Peter Beamish wrote: ]
THE VELOCITY (NOT "SPEED") OF LIGHT. 

"-astronomical observations have shown us that gravitation and time both
propagate with a nearly infinite velocity-" by Robert Neil Boyd 4/16/08 !
My Dear Robert Neil (& your reference of N.A. Kozyrev, & V.E Zhvirblis) !

 

[RNB :]
Which you did not read, at all.  Derogations are in order here, regarding your personal accuracy.

<2>
[PB :]
Firstly, the above "time" is "a mental reading OF a clock," & as such it is incapable of "propagating."


[RNB :]
Your limited understanding of what is time should not be foisted on the public.  Time is the rate of change occurring in a given volume, putting it in the simplest of terms.  You have obviously never properly investigated, nor even thought about in any depth, nor at any great length, on the topics of :  What is time ?  and, What causes time ?  At the very least you could bother to read the references.  Derogations ensue again.

<3>
[PB :]
If you are referring to a temporal scalar label (as one's birthdate or next birthday) then such labels, often also called "timetags" (seemingly similar to "pricetags"), are TRANSPORTED as a "cargo" ON or IN a mass and/or energy vector and are NOT "propagated."


[RNB :]
Where did my discussion involve any "temporal labeling" ?  Clearly my arguments were not directed in any such direction, not even by inference.  This is a strawman argument, on your part.  

<4>
[PB :]
Secondly, your use of the adjective "infinite," is NOT in agreement with all known physical, & biophysical measurements of "c," AND IS UNDEFINED !  


[RNB :]
Only in your limited understanding, it is undefined.  You are not the authority here, on this topic, nor have you ever personally investigated in these directions, nor have you ever personally performed any experiments in these regards.  I have.  YEARS of
them.


<5>
[PB :]

Thirdly, there are "Three and Only Three Orthogonal Spacial Dimensions,"


[RNB :]
According to whom ?  You ?  I do not, at this point, consider anything you have to say on the topic of topological physics to have any validity whatsoever, since you have here firmly demonstrated your lack of knowledge and understanding of anything having to do with topology. I've spent years of research in these directions and have provided many advances for the global community which actually IS familiar with the topic.  You, my dear sir, clearly are not.

<6>
[PB :]
& ALL temporal concepts are scalar labels like "colourtags, & shapetags"  & ARE _NOT_ "Vector Spacial Dimensions" as your concept of "space-time."  Thus the "seemingly correct" 21st century concept seems "time-in-space."


[RNB :]
You are not very creative in your debunking.  This is just pure laziness.  This is exactly the same strawman argument you just used earlier.  You haven't even bothered to change its clothing.

<7>
[PB :]
Fourthly, relativity DOESN'T have a "non-local basis," only a Mind does !  - - - For "MIND CONCEPTS" reference "end line" #13743, #14163, & #14176.


[RNB :]
Obviously, relativity as it stands today does not have a non-local basis, and that is exactly its failing.  You make the bald and unsupported statement, "only a Mind does", offering no evidence for this position other than your personal declaration.  You are no authority on this topic either, as is already more than obvious.

<8>
[PB :]
There seem no "superluminal bilinear solutions of the Maxwell equations" as NO mass, and NO energy, can possibly be "significantly superluminal."


[RNB :]
You seem incorruptably ignorant.  I provided references to this and you neglected to look at them.  If you were to take the time and bother to actually research the topic of Mobius transformations, and then go even more deeply into the investigation so as to understand what is a Mobius transformation, you would rapidly see that yu stand corrected.

<9>
[PB :]
6thly, you stated "all the" incorrigible "attempts to combine relativity theory and quantum theory vanish" - an amazing & yet unproven statement !  


[RNB :]
The proof was contained, superficially, in the term iVt.

<10>
[PB :]

"- both the frequency and the wavelength of longitudinal EM waves can be modulated independently, they can provide a virtually infinite bandwidth for communication.  They would provide for instantaneous (superluminal) communication and thus utterly destroy Einstein's relativity theory - " NOTHING should "destroy" Einstein's "Duration Dilation AND Contraction!"


[RNB :]
So, another member of the Church, are we ?  Well, I hold this concept in no religious sanctity, nor am I similarly fanatical "Believer". Your beliefs will soon be shattered by the technology that is even now being developed all across the planet, of which
you are singularly unaware of. (Of course.)

<11>
[PB :]

For "Duration Dilation" reference "end line" #14289, & #14051.

"8thly," "Certainly, the propagation velocity of light is not constant-" SMALL variations may occur, due to non isotropic character of neutrinos.


[RNB :]
Delta grad E. You did not read it. I can provide stacks of instrumented readings higher than the room you are occupying, proving that the speed of light varies depending on where and when it is measured.

<12>
[PB :]

Ninthly, (continuing) "- nor is there any upper limit to velocity." Wow!


[RNB :]
That is correct.

<13>
[PB :]
If space is filled with "near isotropic neutrinos" then "c" has a limit.


[RNB :]
I stated that Lorentz-transformation based transverse electromagnetic waves propagate at the speed of light.  I did not bring up the topic of neutrinos, much less the concept of isotropic neutrinos, nor, near-isotropic neutrinos, nor neutrinos of any variety.  If you knew me, as many others in the physics community do, you would know that I am strongly opposed to the notion of istotropic ANYTHING.

<14>
[PB :]

Such is analogous to sound waves in the ocean having a "velocity limit."


[RNB :]
What is the eikonal equation ?  How is it applied, and under what circumstances ?  Do you know ?  Of course not.  What is the WKB approximation ?  How is it applied and under what circumstances ?  What do the WKB approximation and the eikonal equation have to do with the velocity of sound in a fluid, the ocean at various depths, and temperatures, being a good example ?  You are out of your league here, dear Peter.

<15>
[PB :]

Tenthly, Your "pace of time" is a non sequitur as: "All real time is now time," & all temporal scalar labels have NO "pace" & as well, NO "flow."


[RNB :]
Again, you demonstrate only your ignorance.  I'm sorry.  You cannot rely on your habitual superficial skimming the surface of the waters, and expect to hold your own with anyone who is even moderately educated in the physics.  Please do your homework, then get back to me if you still have any remaining arguments after doing your proper studies.  Please try to refrain from such shallow arguments with me, in the future.

----------------------------------------------------


Robert Neil Boyd, Ph. D.
     e-mail <
rnboyd (at) iqonline.net >