On Friday, January 11, 2013 2:02:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > >>> > So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity. > >> > >> > >> No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a > >> experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether > does not > >> exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case > >> physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it > >> further. > >> > >> John K Clark > >> > > > > My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or > 'news' > > does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is > not > > literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor > > qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual. > > > > Craig > What makes you think that light is not present in a vacuum? >
My thinking is that: 1. We wouldn't know the difference if light was or was not present in a vacuum. 2. The only reason we assume that light is present in a vacuum is if we assume that light behaves like a substance. 3. Light clearly does not behave like a substance. It doesn't accumulate or exist independently of illuminated substances. 4. If light was actually only present at the source and target objects of illumination, we would get exactly the kinds of results when we looked at the behavior of light (velocity = c, mass = 0, ambiguous/paradoxical model of photon, odd non-local effects as seen in double-slit, can't slow down in a vacuum, etc) 5. What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. A microwave oven cooks water in food, but doesn't warm the walls like a conventional oven. This gives a hint at how EM effects arise from composition, scale, and structure of matter, not from bombardment by particles or waves which concretely exist in space. 6. Once we have sensitivity as a fundamental principle of matter, we don't need to assume that everything is involuntarily pushed and pulled around - there can be consensual participation on all levels. Just as we feel the conditions of our environment and it influences our disposition, so too does everything in the entire universe have detection capacities of different sorts. The capacity of all matter to detect and respond to all matter is electromagnetism - i.e. electromagnetism is what sensory-motor interaction looks like from a distance. From this, we have a clear basis for biological narratives, human consciousness, etc. We are made of sensory-motor capacities on multiple levels. We see a summary of what our retinal cells see, not an abstract code generated by 'signals' and converted invisibly in a solipsistic never-never land. Craig > Richard > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ. > > To post to this group, send email to > > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LU_9vM29gesJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
