What is the real speed of Light?

"I'm going to ask a favor of you."

Sure thing.

"I surmise from your statements concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics, that we may have some issues here deriving from some idealistic hierarchy between theoretical (pure) science and applied (practical) science."

Remember that practical science does not have nearly the information that theoretical science has, so practical science will not have nearly as many possible explanations or results as theoretical.

"I would like to understand your comments concerning the thermodynamic laws. Just because they were derived via practical applications does not diminish their worth, nor invalidate them (which pure science has not done to date)."

So what's your question exactly?

"I will state the context from whence I speak so that you understand my biases a little more, and then, if you don't mind, please state yours either here or in u2u. I don't need details, just a "label"."

Ok.

"I am an aerospace engineer, so YES I fall on the practical science side."

Good. A real world basis always brings interesting proof. So where's the question?



Darkhowling-
A note on high school physics programs for college:

High school physics teachers don't need that much physics. They need tons of classes on adolescent development, but not many on physics. The primary concern of a teacher is that they can teach well and convey what information they know... that does not mean they always know all of the information. I was correcting the math of my high school physics teacher before the semester was out. I still believe she was a great teacher, but physics is a much deeper rabbit hole than what you see in high school.

Okay, I'll try it in one word lines...maybe you will be able to comprehend it better that way:

What
is
your
vocation? (that means job)

What's with you??? I know you're having some heated discussions with others, that seem to be leading to a bit of aggravation for you, but don't take it out on me. And do NOT get smart-a$$ed when I have asked a simple and congenial question!

p.s. You either do or don't hold a PhD. Possibly in physics. Remains to be seen. Maybe you work in academia... But your condescending remarks concerning practical science versus theoretical AND your comments concerning mathmeticians versus physicists has answered a few questions I had, and probably done the same for those who are arguing with you right now. You have now presented yourself as an arrogant, close-minded, rote-recalling pompous member of the scientific problem.

LOL... That's possibly the rudest compliment I've ever heard! Love it!

I know physics is far deeper than we go in high school, However, I studied more in depth materials on my own, and talked to this teacher all the time. He simply told me on this particular issue that he wasn't aware of a solid proof on it, and shared his opinion with me. I'm sumply disappointed that he mislead me, instead of simply saying he didn't know.

"What is your vocation? (that means job)"

I was not being a smartass, but your post did not ask what my job is. You only stated your job.

"What's with you??? I know you're having some heated discussions with others, that seem to be leading to a bit of aggravation for you, but don't take it out on me."

My last post was completely respectful. I was just wanting a question. You said, would you answer something for me... I said sure. You stated your job and the message was over. That's all I got out of it.

"And do NOT get smart-a$$ed when I have asked a simple and congenial question!"

Reread your post and look for the question. I certainly did not see it.

"p.s. You either do or don't hold a PhD. Possibly in physics."

I don't. I am terrible at foreign languages and you are required to know 3 languages to get a Ph.D. (although I think this is changing).

"Remains to be seen."

I don't know if I will ever have, but that does not impede upon my knowledge, only the fact that I don't have a nice certificate to hang on my wall. To be even more honest, I'm not a pure physics major. I'm in a heavily modified branch that mixed engineering, computer aided drafting, electronics, computer programming, and physics.

"Maybe you work in academia... But your condescending remarks concerning practical science versus theoretical"

What condescending remarks? Pure verse theoretical is a huge gap. Applied sciences do not have nearly the amount of information as the pure sciences, thus both you and I are not part of pure mathematical or science programs, but cross-breeds.

"AND your comments concerning mathmeticians versus physicists has answered a few questions I had, and probably done the same for those who are arguing with you right now."

My comment was based on the fact that of those who take Masters entrance exams, physicists score higher on mathematical placement (#1) than mathematicians. That is a fact. I didn't think I had to prove every statement I made to gain your respect. Apparently you are taking me out of context.

"You have now presented yourself as an arrogant, close-minded, rote-recalling pompous member of the scientific problem."

A bit angry over rotten fruit, are we? I am happy to be a physicist (even as a half-breed). Am I arrogant about what I do? To an extent. I am proud of who I am, something that many people today struggle with. Plus, I have the facts to back myself up or I won't give the information. What's wrong with that? Would you rather work with a nice guy who's a dumbass or a competitant guy with pride in what he does? I am by no means an angry person, nor an asshole, but I do argue my points to prove that I know what I'm presenting is true.

Here it is from my previous post:

"I will state the context from whence I speak so that you understand my biases a little more, and then, if you don't mind, please state yours either here or in u2u. I don't need details, just a "label". "

"I know physics is far deeper than we go in high school, However, I studied more in depth materials on my own, and talked to this teacher all the time."

The truth isn't always pretty. I once thought about becoming a physics teacher, but the watered down version where I'm suppose to help students express their emotions for their happiness is not my cup of tea. It is science that interests me. Look at the requirements for the majors and you'll see that there are inherant problems in the system. Again, the truth isn't always pretty. It is true that I rather have a great teacher who doesn't know everything, yet inspires me to look for more. That is what a teacher is for.

"He simply told me on this particular issue that he wasn't aware of a solid proof on it, and shared his opinion with me."

Good. Nothing wrong with that.


"I'm sumply disappointed that he mislead me, instead of simply saying he didn't know."

Well, then why be angry with me? I present facts, rarely opinions. I'm not a pastor or preacher or salesman. What I give is what I know. Why does everyone hound on me for not giving 37 links and a list of books for proof? If you want to know whether I'm telling the truth, just do a tad of research. Looking up college programs is a pretty easy process on most college websites.

Here is an example that I just looked up at NIU:

www.physics.niu.edu...

All physics majors must have the required general chemistry, physics, and math programs of the physics major... beyond that this is what it says:

Secondary School Teaching
The goal of the secondary school teaching emphasis is to provide the necessary background in physics to teach at the high-school level. The following courses are required for this emphasis:
Required
PHYS 367 (3 hours) Waves and Vibrations (Fall)
PHYS 494 (2 hours) Use of Technology in Physical Science Teaching (Spring)
PHYS 495 (3 hours) Teaching of Physical Sciences (Fall or Spring)
ILAS 300 (1 hour) Clinical Experiences for High School Certificate


You see, I wasn't being an butthead, I was only stating that the basic college program to be a secondary educator in physics does not require an extremely extensive background in physics. You'll see how many more classes a professional physics undergrad needs if you take a glance at the various programs on the site I provided. This whole undergrad setup is typical. Don't misconstrude me as placing an opinion beyond what is presented here to you about the various physics majors.

Plain and simple, teachers don't require as much physics to teach. Teachers usually have the primary goal to help people to grow. The primary goal of a professional physicist is to help our understanding of science grow... that's why one chooses a particular field over another. Do I seem like I'm trying to lead you astray? Would you rather know the truth or have me say, "oh well, I'm sure all the information you get is going to be correct"?

Apparently I should make a public appology for valuing facts over opinion. Is this a science and technology forum or not?

Sorry, that last comment is a bit rude, but I'm the one getting stepped on now.

What country are you in???

In the US, there are no second-language requirements to obtaining a PhD in physics, or any other area (unless its foreign languages I guess).

"I will state the context from whence I speak so that you understand my biases a little more, and then, if you don't mind, please state yours either here or in u2u. I don't need details, just a "label".

So from that I'm suppose to take the words "context" and "label" to determine you wanted to know that I'm a half-breed engineer/physicist. Got it. Your fancy wording caught me off guard. I wondered if that paragraph was the one with the question. To be honest, it does help weird people like me to get a question stated like, "what is your vocation?" I'm not good with deciphering poetic wording. I never said I grew up in a complex social background... more like a simple farmboy one.

"In the US, there are no second-language requirements to obtaining a PhD in physics, or any other area (unless its foreign languages I guess)."

There use to be a requirement that you had to read and understand the texts of 2 other languages within your area of study.

That meant a fairly good amount of foreign language skills were required (not too extensive). This was only required when taking the tests to be certified during your master's and ph.d. programs. I cannot seem to find a program online that requires that, so it is very possible that the requirements are changing... or that portion is not normally publicly listed. Either way, you may very well be correct.

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Protector]

"simple farmboy life"

replace -boy with -girl...and you've got my upbringing.

Nice to meet you fellow country-man.

speed of light is how fast light goes. just imagine if it takes 400,000 years to travel to this solar system in the speed of light imagine how fast it would take us. like 4,000,000,000 years.

wow that is very interesting. i didn't know that hmmm

have you started shaving yet sam???

I've always used 186,000 miles/second for the speed of light when being cornered into a constant. Are we assuming that is wrong for this discussion? My uses are mainly practical / technical.

186kps is right for the speed of light in a vacuum. That changes once light is going through air, glass, crystal, water, etc.


If you want to travel faster than light speed, you probably need a warp drive. Although this site I'm going to present is a bit dorky, it has a lot of good information about how people put together the idea of warp drive and other things for the Star Trek shows. Yes, they are based on real sciences.

To see what they have on warp, go here:

ditl.org.../scitech/datwarpscales.htm


Enjoy.

I found the article concerning light traveling faster than 186,000 miles per second when traveling through cesium.

www.cnn.com...


Excerpt;

"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second.

But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances."

I think I already posted the idea of going faster than light in a vacuum. The article is correct and the study was done a couple years ago, as far as I know.