Disproving the Instantaneous Speed of Light

I just read an article on i09 about this, and here what’s strikes me as wrong.

Take the example of two stars rotating around each other and heading towards the observer.

Now,i f you posit an ether through which the lights moves…

IL: Now, wait minute…

EC: Ok, posit a fixed grid of coordinates extending beyond and behind the object upon which you can measure them…

IL: Okay!

EC: …and then take that ether you just created  as the medium for light to travel in.

IL: %^&*!

Continuing, now also take that ether as a gravitational field, essentially the same as the substances (planets, stars, people, etc) but not as dense.That is, the etherial background is a gravitational mass (or the limit of it) and things within that background are denser versions of the same. Thus, where the ones stops, the other begins. Where the planet’s edge stops, the ether starts. In reality, this would be more of a continuum, as less and less dense matter is held to the planet, and it becomes thinner and thinner until it thins out to the bare minimum that is the ether.

With this scenario, it follows that the traditional ‘additive’ experiments and/or thought experiments have not been valid demonstrations, for they posit a “moving” object, typically a star, that is emitting light as it moves. If, however, the star is a sectionally more dense portion of a continuous gravitational ether, the emitted light, needing to move through something, cannot possibly have gained any speed from what has been called the star’s “motion”: the motion of the light begins in the ether where the physicality — and therefore the “motion” — of the star ends.

Thus you would not see more than two star images in that example, not because light supposed always travels at the same speed, but rather because it does not travel through matter of more than a certain sectional density.

— — —

In order for an additive experiment to exist, a situation must performed where light, itself already moving, emits more light, which would then be compared with the original light. The old example of traveling at the speed of light and then turning the headlights on is not so much the relevant question, but rather if light, traveling at whatever speed, emits more light, what happens? The clear theoretical answer is that the newly emitted light will travel at the speed of the medium in which it is in — regardless of what speed the previous light was traveling at.

Compare with stories of light being slowed down in glass and prisms and so forth.


Related Posts

Share This

Depleted Uranium is the New Salting the Earth

Legend has it that when Rome destroyed Carthage around 150 BC, they burned it to the ground and salted the earth to prevent it from every growing food again.

I say “legend” because when Googling it, the facts seem to be in dispute among modern scholars, citing the lack of historical references for the actions taken by the Romans, although they say there is evidence for the Romans plowing a furrow around the city as a symbolic action, and for various other religious rituals performed there.

Upon inquiry the actual action of salt in the soil as to the quantity that prevents growth and whether it was feasible to apply such a quantity is also questioned… but legend or not, it is a compelling image: the victors destroying not only the extant city, but also all chances for life and regrowth on that land, forever.

Now, 4.468 billion years is not exactly “forever,” but for human purposes, it may as well be. American troops using depleted uranium rounds is exactly the equivalent, albeit a futuristic and much more sinister equivalent, of salting the earth.

Obviously the preservation of the moral order demands that this stop immediately.


Related Posts

Share This

Nuclear Weapons

If an uninhibited  rational society sits down to discuss the use, possession, and development of nuclear weapons, I think that the conclusions it reaches are inevitable:

The use of nuclear weapons on men and women is unspeakably atrocious, and there is no moral consideration that could possibly justify such a grave offense.

If that conclusion is reached, then there is no helping the arrival at a second conclusion: the possession of nuclear arms is in all cases immoral, for there is not a moral way to justify the possession of a useful object which may never legitimately be used.

In reality, this is an extremely progressive idea: and it does have a mandate. The USA, and all civilizations and civilized nations should immediately and safely decommission their nuclear arsenals forever.

— ∞ —

I realize that this statement condemns or seems to condemn our predecessors. My proximate intention is not to judge or condemn those who have gone before us, but rather to look at the facts abstractly and objectively, and make a conclusion from them directly. I have gone through them again and again, and every time the above conclusion holds.

Having talked with several WWII veterans, I understand and can legitimately discount the argument about the nuclear option being necessary to force Japan to unconditionally surrender. The real question is: “Why was it so necessary to have Japan unconditionally surrender?” It was not necessary. It was morally reprehensible.

Prior to any further discussion or exchanges on this topic A Song for Nagasaki is required reading.


Related Posts

Share This