Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.
There are some interesting examples of this that can be considered.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

The basis of 20th century physics are based on light in vacuo.

The claim that it is also constant in a medium is believed to be correct but is derived from the first sentence which is the basis.

Typically one states the fundamental statement and not the derivatives when discussing the matter.

There actually are no fundamental statements expressing that light is constant in a medium. That is assuming homogeneity and certain properties of matter.

Since we are discussing our most precise discipline, physics, it is beneficial that one learns and expresses the fundamentals.

If a student wrote on a test that the C was constant in a substance when asked the basis for Einstein or Lorentz if they answered as you have stated they would receive partial credit.

I have given a more precise answer. You can argue that empty space is a medium, that's fine. Nevertheless the physicist will state, "in vacuo OR in media if asked for the value of C. Since that is how those in the discipline use the terms that is how I will use it in these conversations.

If arguing that your understanding of the term is such and such that's fine. However, when discussed by those in the discipline the terms are used as I have stated.

I'm done.

And I'm giving you a C for the semester of intro physics in which you learned that space does not exist and that electromagnetic waves travel at constant velocity only in vacuum.

Since I have said neither I'm sure you'll figure out what to do with your C.

People often say that nothing can exceed the speed of light. That is an inaccurate statement. In fact experiments have measured objects traveling faster than the speed of light.

Therefore it is important that the correct statement, "that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum" is learned and stated.

Further the terms vacuo and media are used by physicist as I have stated.

I started my career as a physicist, was raised by a physicist and spent most of my career working shoulder-to-shoulder with them. I probably have about 10 semesters of physics over 10 years and then taught for 8.

You are a learned and articulate man but my initial statement -


is correct and an improvement over the prior remarks.

Odd that you need to be insulting when someone more knowledgeable makes an accurate statement. I wouldn't question your statement on biology.

You assume much about people whom you do not know.

You filled space with a mass of useless words to obfuscate that which you recognize is incorrect and your pride prevents you from acknowledging it.

Your C stands.

Most peculiar.

You are free to take any statement I have written on this thread and identify my error.

I already did such with yours.

That is, at the very least, not the fundamental statement.

1. The speed of light in a a vacuum is the physical constant. Any homogeneous substance also has a constant velocity but it is not viewed as the fundamental constant.

2. No object may exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, it may be exceeded in a substance.

3. The physicist, when referring to the speed of light uses the terms a.) vacuum & b.) media (or if you prefer substance)

These are the statements I have made in every post. Some of them are improvements over your statements. Your choice to call a vacuum a media is understandable as it turns out that the idea of pure nothingness does not exist. However, given statement number 3 above the terms vacuum and media and usually used as distinct when discussing these matters.

You decide that I have the grasp of a single semester Intro Physics student and then state that I presume about the knowledge of others. And then you repeatedly falsely mis-state my written statements & then decide that -

You've missed the mark on this one Bots.

You personalize the discussion in an ad hominem disguised as feint humor and refuse to acknowledge that which is self-evidently true.

Ding, round one goes to Botnst.

__________________
For the Saved, this world is the worst it will ever get.
For the unSaved, this world is the best it will ever get.

Clk's Ebay Stuff BUY SOMETHING NOW!!!

You don't say. Gee, I wonder who else has made such assumptions here on Open Discussion.

My amateur's prediction is that Einstein's basic principles will not be proven wrong. Rather, his theories will be shown to be a subset of a more comprehensive set of theories. One thing that stuck with me from my engineering school days is how the various physical sciences always seem to come back to the same basic equations, except for quantum mechanics which never did anything except piss me off.

I'll repeat myself.

You show me my error or where I have initiated an ad hominem and I'll completely retract and grovel.

I have improved on your less than precise statements and rebuked your referring to my level of understanding as equivalent to an introductory physics class.

You demonstrated pride and insults, not I.

For those who are interested in the physics here's some info.

1. A great paper on the relationship between the classical vacuum and quantum mechanics. I gave a seminar on this in grad school 25 years ago -

The Classical Vacuum [Zero-Point Energy]

2. The fundamental constant is the speed of light in vacuo. While it is correct that the velocity in a substance is also constant for that to actually occur the substance must be homogeneous and isotropic. In actuality if one took most real objects, let's pretend we had a cubic mile of water, and measured the speed in an east-west, then north-south, and then up-down direction they would be different because there would be slight variations. It's important in these discussions to both know how words are being used, such as 'media' and the difference between our intellectual understanding and what would actually be measured.

3. Whenever you see the physical constant C it refers to the speed in vacuo.

4. Objects have been measured to travel faster than the speed of light within a media (though since some seem to wish to refer to the fabric of space-and-time as a media, which is fine but confusing in this instance) the sentence may be re-written as objects have been observed to travel faster than the speed of light in a substance.

5. Einstein's constraint is that the speed in vacuo of an object may not exceed exceed the speed of light NOT that an object may not exceed the speed of light.

1. The speed of electromagnetic radiation varies with the medium through which it passes. You fail to recognize the validity of that and continue to assert a vacuum as special status. It is not, other than the personal value you assign. Or we could ask 10,000 people to vote. Or a convention of scientists. In each case, it's an opinion of relative importance. The standard could as easily be the velocity of EM through a tube of pure gas at STP. It (literally) doesn't matter. What does matter is that the velocity is invariant in the medium through which it passes. Everything else is some man-made standardization.

2. You decided that to make your argument it would be helpful to belittle me rather than prove your point, and thus you decided to assume a professorial rank and assign a grade. That is ad hominem, concealed with a smile.

This thread is fast becoming infraction bait. Time to sit on the fence & eat popcorn !!! Care to join me Honus & Clk ?

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

I'm innocent..

I think it is interesting to start a thread and see where it goes though.

Sometimes I think most of the dis-agreements are done out of sheer boredom.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.