# What Validates A Constant?

## Recommended Posts

Of all constants c is most famous. We call it speed and measure it that, but always the same speed? It's a different kind of speed for only one quantity exists, with no relative for comparison.

As I see it, a constant is defined as a value which has no relative by which discernment can be made, so it is finite and has a 'value', but it's nature bears no definition (it's not really a speed), for there is no other value, only d=d, Hence now we say E=m so m=E, what disparity is there? m=E=m and who cares which or both it's the same thing dang it!

And it is pertinant to c, for by contraction one location is much the same as another, so if it takes zero time to traverce one distance, too must it be in all places.

So, it really is quite fundamental as to what a constant really entails, what do you think?

##### Share on other sites

always the same speed?

Yes.

##### Share on other sites

The ratio of distance traveled to time elapsed is always the same for light, so it is considered a constant.

You may be over thinking it. A constant is a constant until proven otherwise. That's the best we can say in science.

Btw, pi is the most famous constant. It's got a button on the calculator and a movie!

##### Share on other sites

Well pi is a great constant, because it is true of any circle. Even as all other parameters change pi retains its value.

Is that what validates a constant, a single finite value?

In the case of c or pi, in relation to motion or circles, there is a single finite value.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Yes.

To say it 'approaches' all objects at the same speed would usually entail departing another at the negative proportion so it might be assigned a speed, but actually it is singularily relative to motion.

Edited by throng
Consecutive posts merged.
##### Share on other sites

Given the current definition of the meter, the speed of light (in m/s) is a constant (in vacuo) whether anyone like it or not.

##### Share on other sites

Given the current definition of the meter, the speed of light (in m/s) is a constant (in vacuo) whether anyone like it or not.

Which I think pertains to a fundamental finite value. Whether we call it m/s or another thing.

How pertinant is a finite constant as a primary fundamental?

It seem geometric relationship is reliant on a primary finite measure.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

Basically - we have never observed any variation, and we would really have noticed if there were any. GPSs would be playing up, not to mention fibre optics and the cosmos would look a complete mess. Basically, there is no reason to suspect that it isn't constant.

##### Share on other sites

People have thought about variable speed of light, mostly in relation to cosmology. Have a look on SPIRES.

##### Share on other sites

I just think c is constant in relation to movement and if c varies motion varies in proportion, so we don't notice possible variation because it is measured as constantly relative to motion.

Now pi is constant to circles, if pi varies circles may not be circles, but because pi is constantly relative we observe the same value perceptively.

##### Share on other sites

I just think c is constant in relation to movement and if c varies motion varies in proportion, so we don't notice possible variation because it is measured as constantly relative to motion.
Oh, yes, that. Okay the problem here is that speed can only really be defined in terms of what we can really observe. So yeah, if light sped up and everything else sped up along with it then we wouldn't notice. If you could think up a reason why say, light, planetary motion and radioactive decay might all vary their speed in unison then I'm sure we'd be interested to hear it.
##### Share on other sites

I just think c is constant in relation to movement and if c varies motion varies in proportion, so we don't notice possible variation because it is measured as constantly relative to motion.

Now pi is constant to circles, if pi varies circles may not be circles, but because pi is constantly relative we observe the same value perceptively.

throng, mostly constants are defined to make our lives easier.

Instead of writing 3.14159265 repeatedly, we write "pi".

Instead of writing 299,792,458 m/s repeatedly, we write "c".

Instead of writing 8.854 x 10^(-12) repeatedly, we write "epsilon naught".

Only later do we analyze when, where, why and how these constants are constants. Your question is, therefore, ill defined. If you're talking about constants in general, what "makes them" is our own definition, to save ourselves repeated numerical typing. If your question is why, or why not, the speed of light is relative, or, alternatively, whether the speed of light should be considered constant - then you need to rephrase your question.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
Oh, yes, that. Okay the problem here is that speed can only really be defined in terms of what we can really observe. So yeah, if light sped up and everything else sped up along with it then we wouldn't notice. If you could think up a reason why say, light, planetary motion and radioactive decay might all vary their speed in unison then I'm sure we'd be interested to hear it.

In referance to c:

All motive matter is consistant to this value.

c itself is not a speed but a singular relative to all motion.

As distance is contracted to nil at c, all massless things are everywhere in terms of probability and simultaneously existant at an object of mass.

The electron for example is located uncertainly in quite similar fashion, and as probability would dictate a photon simply can not miss its inevitable point of arrival, as from the perspective of the photon all existance is a point, because as distance is contracted to nil so too must the photon be in all places at once.

In this way, as a primary fundamental, all things are everywhere and also at some place.

Thus c is constant with respect to massive motion.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
throng, mostly constants are defined to make our lives easier.

Instead of writing 3.14159265 repeatedly, we write "pi".

Instead of writing 299,792,458 m/s repeatedly, we write "c".

Instead of writing 8.854 x 10^(-12) repeatedly, we write "epsilon naught".

Only later do we analyze when, where, why and how these constants are constants. Your question is, therefore, ill defined. If you're talking about constants in general, what "makes them" is our own definition, to save ourselves repeated numerical typing. If your question is why, or why not, the speed of light is relative, or, alternatively, whether the speed of light should be considered constant - then you need to rephrase your question.

Hello again. Always a great pleasure.

I understand that constants are measured relative to apparent form thus pi is consistant to any circle.

Hypothetically speaking, say pi was variant and not constant, then circles would not be consistant either, but still cohere to pi's shifting value. As a ratio pi dictates a constant relationship defining circular form.

So, the relationship between circles and pi is constant. If pi changed circles would retain the exact same ratio, though the values need not be constant.

In short, the relationship is constant, so there is no apparent change, where in fact pi could be varient and only relatively constant.

It is pretty pseudo, I have to admit, and in terms of speculation, wild.

Edited by throng
Consecutive posts merged.
##### Share on other sites

I don't know about pseudo, I am just not sure what you mean.. I'm completely lost. If a constant is a constant (not a variable), then obviously the relationship to anything else constant is the same..

Pi is like that.

The speed of light is like that too.

So... I don't quite get your point.

##### Share on other sites

I don't know about pseudo, I am just not sure what you mean.. I'm completely lost. If a constant is a constant (not a variable), then obviously the relationship to anything else constant is the same..

Pi is like that.

The speed of light is like that too.

So... I don't quite get your point.

A constant is a singular value.

A constant is only measurable as itself. If it varies it is still itself.

I think c is easiest, There is only one c. It is not a relative speed.

##### Share on other sites

A constant is a singular value.

A constant is only measurable as itself. If it varies it is still itself.

I think c is easiest, There is only one c. It is not a relative speed.

Not necessarily. A constant is a single definition, not necessarily a single value.

For that matter, G is a constant, but it can be different "numbers" depending on units.. if you change units (which you're allowed to do, but Im not sure when you'd like to do that), the number changes. but its MEANING doesn't change in that context.

Here's what wikipedia says about a Physical Constant:

A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value but does not directly involve any physical measurement.

The speed of light, c, fits that definition no matter how you measure it or what units you use.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

Hello,

A single definition. You are ... eloquent.

I read what you said and I feel I am understood. It is very rare and I appreciate it.

Not necessarily. A constant is a single definition, not necessarily a single value.

For that matter, G is a constant, but it can be different "numbers" depending on units.. if you change units (which you're allowed to do, but Im not sure when you'd like to do that), the number changes. but its MEANING doesn't change in that context.

Here's what wikipedia says about a Physical Constant:

The speed of light, c, fits that definition no matter how you measure it or what units you use.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

That's great, throng, because now I have no idea what you mean.

If you agree I understand you, and I don't quite think I agreed with your point, then.. uhm.. what.. is your point?

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
That's great, throng, because now I have no idea what you mean.

If you agree I understand you, and I don't quite think I agreed with your point, then.. uhm.. what.. is your point?

A constant is measured as itself. It has a single definition.

Being singular is validation for a constant.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account