Hello! Skimmy here with more rediculous theories! Ha!

 

Here ya go:

 

OK, so formula for c= (Uo*Eo)^(-1/2)

(Uo and Eo represent permittivity and permeability constants.)

Now, since Eo and Uo are constants, the speed of light was able to be derived.

However, I've reasoned that if "c" was a limit, not just in the literal term but also in the mathematical term, then Eo and Uo must also be limits. If so, then maybe that opens up new ways to abuse E/M for the purposes of FTL propulsion...so, whaddya think?

I'm not sure if that will be as easy as it seems. In actual fact, the "constants" mew not and epsilon not are not constants, but parameters that describe a certain medium. In this case the parameters in free space. In lossy mediums, you will even get complex permittivity and permeability. Permittivity and Permeability describe a kind of characteristic of how electric and magnetic fields are able to fluctuate, and knowing that light is the fluctuation of electromagnetic waves, and propagates in the perpendicular direction of these two fluctuating waves, you can see that there is a relationship. If you could tell me more about your theory, maybe it'll get interesting.

Well, I'd have to learn more about them myself ( ), but right now my hypothesis focuses on a purely mathematical standpoint. Thing is, these constants are what "define" lightspeed. Obviously these values are derived from a particular instance, but if the parameters of that instance were changed (as in the fluctuations), then I'll bet lightspeed will also change.

Hello! Skimmy here with more rediculous theories! Ha!

 

Here ya go:

 

OK' date=' so formula for c= (Uo*Eo)^(-1/2)

(Uo and Eo represent permittivity and permeability constants.)

Now, since Eo and Uo are constants, the speed of light was able to be derived.

However, I've reasoned that if "c" was a limit, not just in the literal term but also in the mathematical term, then Eo and Uo must also be limits. If so, then maybe that opens up new ways to abuse E/M for the purposes of FTL propulsion...so, whaddya think? [/quote']

 

impossible go and buy some good book on wave theory or electromagnetics.

[math] \mu_0[/math] and [math]\epsilon_0 [/math] have no physical meaning. They have nothing to do with any property of free space or anything else. They are parameters introduced in SI units due to the fact that SI units are internally incompatible. [math] \mu_0/4\pi [/math] is exactly [math] 10^{-7} [/math] in SI units. It is not a number to be measured and cannot fluctuate. It is as significant as the number [math] 10^3 [/math] for the number of meters in a kilometer. The numerical value of [math] \epsilon_0 [/math] is determined by the equation you wrote.

 

The number c first appeared in physics as the ratio [math]q'/q[/math] between the natural unit for electric charge in magnetic interactions

(as [math] {\bf F=q'v\times B} [/math]) and in electric interactions

(as [math] F=q^2/r^2[/math]). This ratio was first measured in 1856 as [math] 3.1\times 10^{10}[/math] cm/sec. It was later shown (in 1864) by Maxwell to also be the speed at which light traveled. Einstein then showed in 1905 that space and time were just two different directions in a symmetric "space-time", much like distance and altitude on a topographic map. The constant c is now understood to be just a conversion constant between cm and seconds, much like the number 5,280 is used in the US.

c just defines the meter in terms of the second. The meter is now defined as the distance light travels in 299,792,458 seconds. c is no longer a number to be measured in any experiment. So the three constants in that equation are all just conversion constants between different units. They have no physical meaning, and cannot be used for FTL (whatever that means).

So in effect you're telling me light has no velocity...

So in effect you're telling me light has no velocity...

 

No, I think he's saying that there's nothing magical about the values: they are an artifact of the units we have chosen (the meter being based on the circumference of the earth, and the second on the rotation rate, though we have since standardized these units more precisely)

 

You could define each to be 1 in different units. What is significant, though, is that they are finite.