From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de
In article <1peqwo1.1pvreq6wg61gwN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
> wrote:
> The problem with your position is that you postulate
> that what has to be shown,
> namely that there is such a thing as the speed of light,
> and that it is a constant of nature.
>
> As far as we know now there is no such a thing.
> We can formulate all known laws of nature in such a way
> that the speed of light doesn't occur in any of them.
>
> What remains is that the 'speed of light' is an artefact
> caused by maladroit choices in the definition of our unit systems.
> It has no more physical reality than Boltzmann's constant,
> or the impedance of the vacuum.
>
> If you want to have a 'speed of light' as a constant of nature
> you must invent new, and fundamentally different laws of physics
> in which there is such a thing,
Please explain. There are various sources of light. We can measure a
distance. We can measure a time. Thus, we can measure a speed. We
find that the speed of light is always the same. Similar results for
the speed of sound at a given temperature and pressure.
Your position seems to be that the speed of light is merely a conversion
factor, and might as well be set to 1 (not uncommon in some fields of
physics). However, that is possible only if the speed of light is a
constant of nature. Thus, it seems to me that you are the one making
the assumption that the speed of light is some fundamental physical
quantity.
Yes, it is possible to have units where the speed of light is just a
conversion factor, or is 1, or whatever, but that is possible only if it
IS a constant of nature.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
