[TheForge] YAK relativity- WAY OT, or not...

[Andy Vida]

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 
> If I'm understanding you, then you don't understand the observation 
> * it's not an assumption * that the velocity of light in a vacuum is
> a constant.

	It is true within what I will call "conventional" frames of
	reference.  This is yet to be tested at relativistic rates
	of motion.  It most certainly IS an assumption that C is the
	ULV in ALL frames of reference.  Until we put two equipment
	packages into motion toward one another at relativistic velocity
	above .5C we will never know.  Even then, I'm not certain that
	such a measurement can be relied upon.  The very relativistic
	nature of the motions and the ways in which we sense them, both
	biological and mechanical, make for some pretty freaky
	implications.  The more deeply you dig into this stuff the
	freakier it gets.  Three years of studying this stuff had me
	plenty weirded out, let me tell you.  I decided after a while
	that the galaxies were not going to give up their secrets in
	any event, so I let it go.  Some things are impenetrable and
	as far as I can see, should remain that way. :)  Ironwork is
	a whole world easier on the head.