My Sunday Thought for 012818: 299,792,458 Meters/Second

...until it's broken.

"The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted c, is a fundamental constant central to much of physics, particularly Einstein’s theory of relativity. While measuring c was once considered an important experimental problem, it is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second, as the meter itself is defined in terms of light’s vacuum speed. Generally if light is not traveling at c it is because it is moving through a material. For example, light slows down when passing through glass or water." 

-- Andrew Grant, ScienceNews.org

You really can't trust speed limit signs.  The speed of light in a vacuum "is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second," or 670,616,629 miles per hour which would make the "true" maximum speed of light 186,282 miles per second, not 186,000, as stated on the "humorous" sign shown above.  If we're to believe the rest of the sign, it was created by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.  If this is NASA's idea of a law, perhaps it explains the NASA redundancy in all things, and why things in their universe sometimes go awry?

This might also be evidence of why we seem to lag behind the entire world in education and hand out participation awards as though students have done something to be proud of, like just for showing up to class.  Pass or fail is the new educational norm and to hell with being the best, at anything.  Well, why not?  We live in a society where everything is "close enough for government work," and since the government doesn't work, this all makes perfect sense.

"But", some say, "there will always be a difference between 0.9999... and 1." Well, sort of. Yes, at any given stop, at any given stage of the expansion, for any given finite number of 9s, there will be a difference between 0.999...9 and 1. That is, if you do the subtraction, 1 – 0.999...9 will not equal zero. But the point of the "dot, dot, dot" is that there is no end; 0.9999... is infinite. There is no "last" digit. So the "there's always a difference" argument betrays a lack of understanding of the infinite.

-- purplemath.com, "How Can 0.999... = 1?"

"But", some say, "there will always be a difference between 0.9999... and 1." And the counterpoint is to say the "argument betrays a lack of understanding of the infinite." No, I beg to disagree.  The counterpoint betrays the fact that there are mathematicians masquerading as people who understand the infinite. The 0.9999... that is infinite, has an equally infinite 0.1111... which all of these people of "higher" learning refuse to account for.

I first heard of this when my son was in high school.  One of the "teachers," a mathematician, told my son that "point nine times infinity equals one."  I'm not the sharpest tool in the mathematical shed, but point nine times infinity will always equal point nine infinity; there will always be point one infinity unaccounted for, perhaps as a future cause for imminent chaos. The professor worked it out for the kids in an equation, just to prove it (I have attached the link to the bottom of the quote, above).  

I was almost certain the equation included a lot of letters and symbols which gave plenty of "wiggle room" for the illogical bullshit to work, but it only included an r and an a.  All it took was an r and an a to destroy logic.  Mr. Spock's human half would be mortified.  

Personally, I think it's easier to just to say the intelligentsia is generally peopled by idiots, a claim which I've found hard to disprove as intelligence is more than just a high IQ.  Can you really make something be what it's not just by declaring it to be so?  I’m the first to admit that if you think something, it exists. But, in this case, I can imagine the tense conversation between soldiers during a heated battle, "Let's charge them.  My math says there's only a point nine infinity chance the guy shooting at us still has ammo in his weapon."  "Yeah?  Sounds great!  You go first."  Sometimes you have to temper what sounds good with a bit of logical good sense.

"The way that the background fields generate mass is rather like the way in which when light passes through a transparent medium like glass or water, it gets slowed down. It no longer travels with the fundamental velocity of light c."

-- Peter Ware Higgs, theoretical physicist

One has to laugh at defining anything "in terms of light's vacuum speed."  Doesn't that speed depend on what particles are in the vacuum interfering with the momentum of the light particles?  If water and glass can affect the speed of light, and gravity can bend the beam of light, then it stands to reason any sub-atomic particles might also affect light in a vacuum. How can this honestly be considered the "high end" for speed of light if we haven't measured it in a complete vacuum?  Is there any such thing as a true vacuum?  It was seem logical that physicists set themselves up to fail when they say "the speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted c, is a fundamental constant central to much of physics."  They've already stated the speed of light is not necessarily constant, so which is it?  I would think the speed of light in a vacuum would have to be denoted as c plus or minus an unknown; the unknown being that "point nine infinity," which science had no use for, waiting to create chaos.

I guess this is why I'm not a theoretical physicist and, probably, why I dropped out of my philosophy course on logic.  Yeah, a "logic" course; I could not get it through my pea brain why, even though I got all but one of the answers right on the first multiple-guess "logic" test, the instructor would logically give me a zero.  Oh!  You want me to show how I arrived at the answer.  Well, who would a thought you’d have to show how you arrive at answers which are logical enough to simply answer?  Well, I guess a college would.   

On the bright side, military intelligence just wanted me to be right, and to keep an eye out for chaos; this I was something I could sink my teeth into, and did, for the rest of my 23 years of service.  I didn't really want to be a psychologist, anyway.  It was much more fun screwing with people's heads than fixing them.

"When you look at a vacuum in a quantum theory of fields, it isn't exactly nothing."

-- Peter Ware Higgs, theoretical physicist

All of this science has great bearing on faith, yet science decries the existence of God, even though they've discovered the "greater power" in the universe, the Higgs boson, the "God" particle.  They have hope that science will sooner or later, and with enough funding and effort, discover what they don't know.  It is what the spiritual among us already know exists.  Science needs proof, and that proof needs to be repeatable in the lab.  But what if the "proof" doesn't want to be repeatable?  Or, what if observed results dependent on what the observer wants to see?

God handing down the Ten Commandments twice should qualify, except that we've lost the evidence.  The truly spiritual just smile at the scientific method, knowing that this "proof" will just create more questions than answers and the endless search for knowledge will continue unabated.  This is a good thing.  Science demands an equation, no matter how silly, and the spiritual applaud their effort while knowing the Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao, but the more science discovers, the more they prove the existence of a higher power at work.

“If I keep observing the uranium, which means a little more than keeping my eyes on the pot on my desk and involves something akin to surrounding it with a whole system of Geiger counters, I can freeze it in such a way that it stops emitting radiation. Although Turing first suggested the idea as a theoretical construct, it turns out that it is not just mathematical fiction. Experiments in the last decade have demonstrated the real possibility of using observation to inhibit the progress of a quantum system.”

-- Marcus du Sautoy, mathematician, author

To the spiritual, it would seem science wants to discover how to move at 299,792, 458 meters per second so they can arrive at where they already are.  Like a person speeding through traffic to be somewhere else, never realizing they are always where they are.  It bodes the question:  When they arrive at their destination, did they ever really leave where they were, or have they always been where they are?  We will soon walk on Mars... again.

Science is always searching for the answers to where we come from and where we're going.  The best answer is usually the easiest:  I came from back there, and I'm going that way.  Why we are from back then, will explain why we are here, now. Why we are here now has great bearing on why we are going forward.  Always ask why, not what.  The what is already known and is rarely impressive.  The why, on the other hand, will almost always explain what really happened when a situation goes south.

"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it."

-- Steve Jobs (1955-2011), pioneer of the PC revolution

The rules of spacetime will be bent or broken by a researcher not willing to be anchored to the impossible.  The maximum speed of light will be broken, gravity will be defied, we will visit other stars and we will come to understand that time does not exist and we have always lived forever.  Somewhere in all this we might, finally, understand the why of everything.  All of this will happen because someone will have considered the possibilities, and the minute we set thoughts in motion we begin to move from theory to fact.  The "impossible," is like "time," a human construct to inhibit progress while, at the same time, giving impetus to our desires for discovery and accomplishment.

Time and the impossible do not exist. We will continue to prove the impossible as possible, and if we must have time, we should make the most of it now.  There is, after all, no time more important than the present, if there is any time at all.

As for me, I'm going to move at the "speed of smell" back to the kitchen and make myself another martini.  I am, as usual, not in a vacuum or in possession of a whole system of Geiger counters, and just in no rush.  However, according to Graham's Law, I understand the "speed of smell" of a fart is faster than the "speed of smell" of a rose.  I not sure what that has to do with the speed of light; it would have to do more with someone actually taking the time to write a lengthy article about it, and me being glad I finished this post when I did.  Salute!

"It is what it is and it ain't what it ain't, 

unless it ain't what it is or is what it ain't."

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider another viewpoint. 

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 23 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with an Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, to wage his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as Chaplain Program Liaison, at a regional medical center.