geordief

Just on that point (before looking at your post in more detail) it may refer back to why I thought this (not so much trying to justify it:perhaps I may be able to do that,I don't know yet) btw I think there may be a difference between "infinite for practical purposes" and actually infinite which might really occur if the values of permeability/permittivity were zero.( which would imply in my mind a different kind of vacuum that that which has been observed)

So speculative I should have known. Still quantum fluctuations are not speculative and so we have to start connecting the dots somewhere.

Have I understood this correctly? Is it really proposed that this may have happened with with a symmetric or asymmetric balance of negative and positive "energy? Any evidence or proposed experiments along those lines? Quantum fluctuations don't normally "run away with themselves do They?

I have often wondered whether c might be another way of seeing a speed as infinite. but I think I have decided in my own mind against that (1) for the reason I gave above but also (2) because I am supposing that the process of transfer of information and the process of cause and effect are identical. I feel that there is nothing to distinguish information carriers from any other form of matter. So in the same way that information cannot be everywhere at the same time , the information carriers (along with any form of matter) must travel at a finite speed. Why this should be the c that has been measured I do not know.... Well ,that is how I have reasoned this out over the past period of months or years and I accept it may be(badly) flawed and that I may have to fill it a few (or many ) gaps to find an explanation that I will be comfortable with.

Can the photon travel at less than c if it is making its way out of a gravity well? Would it have a FOR then? Also can its FOR when it does travel at c be expressed as a limit? (if it is the zeros/infinities involved that are the reason it can't have a valid FOR)

Can time be seen as a property of something rather than a thing in its own right? If so, must there always be a something for time to be a property of ** and can this something always be described as a system of some sort? Would radioactive decay be described as a system ?

Yes I see.

Not directly but the "operator" of the clock could add that info ,could he or she not? (and thus synchronize the two clocks) Not sure what your "what post did I reply to?" is getting at.... but no I don't think you replied to any of my posts in this thread. I did "cut across" your conversation with Taingorz though.

I thought it did when account was taken of relative movement and gravitational effects....(we are saying the same thing in different ways?)

You are doing a great job of explaining it . Carry on.

These two must be up for an award of some kind. This is extreme ignorancism at its finest.

Have you an alternative explanation that fits the evidence so far gathered?

Not an answer to my question . Bye.

They do say that. But they make their best stab at explaining the evidence on the table. Unlike your good self who again didn't answer my question. Go back and find it yourself.

Do you also need to define "objects" and "processes" ? (unless it is obvious) "Properties" means types of measurements that can be taken of the above?

True. It feels like the pass has been sold. Not only have they elected that embarrassment in the first place but they are yelling that it was no mistake and they may do so again. I don't want to speak kindly of Chinese policies but sure ,if comparisons are worth anything they do appear to be showing a better front in this case.

OK , good points. I may have over reacted.(to the story)

Yes a very good principle but are we complicit in disinformation and keep whole populations in the dark about,say Tienanmen Square if we support search engines that delete that history? Are we actually holding back their progress by helping to place the blinkers over their eyes? And giving international credibility to an undemocratic regime? Should we not say "censor your population if you insist ,but not with our help"? The Berlin Wall was torn down as a result of TV signals being captured over the other side against the will of the East Germans and the USSR. Are there still parallels that apply or has the world changed so much?

Yes I am not going to get into "something out of nothing" (interesting but beyond me). But you started by claiming that the Big Bang Theory implied this. Do you now agree that that is not the case?

Where does "Hawkins** says it"? Show us the quote. **It's "Hawking"

How do you personally understand the "Big Bang" ?

It is a mathematical equation (so it is "equals" ,not "is"). The numbers move from one column to another but it doesn't help to define energy as a "thing" Well prepared to be shown my error ,but that is my present understanding.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45041671 "" Google in China: Internet giant 'plans censored search engine' "" If Google acquiesces in in censoring vital search terms that are politically incorrect in anti democratic regimes such as China ,should it be regarded as anti democratic itself (even if those search terms remain usable on the other side of the firewall)? Would google be "going over to the enemy" and would its actions be indistinguishable from those of the captive populations of dictatorships like China **? How can this be prevented? Will the Chinese population simply learn to avoid Google and find ways around this new censorship tool (if it comes about)? **fair description?

I understand the c fills this role but I would like to ask if that is a purely experimental finding or if there is an underpinning of a theory to it. The argument I think goes like this. There has to be a maximum speed of information transfer ,otherwise things would occur at the same time. Now we do have a maximum speed that has been observed and it is the speed of any massless object in a vacuum. Connect the dots and they are the same speed... Any more to it than that? Could it actually be higher if we came across objects that actually traveled faster than c in a vacuum? By the way ,if dolphins communicate by sonar how would their communication systems be affected if we gave them mobile phones? (a good analogy?)

What "centre of the universe" question of mine are you referring to. Was that a different thread? I did talk about centres in this thread ,but not of the universe . eg here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1062138