Amazing assertion... I learned Maxwell's equations back in my first year of physics. Maxwell explained and mathematically modeled the propagation and speed of light back in the 1800s.
That is a rather odd wish list for a TOE. It appears to miss the point of a TOE completely.
So is there a formula that can determine the speed of light to an infinite number of decimal places?
Light travels at precisely one lightyear per year to as many decimal places as you wish to carry it.
That video was pure WOOO. Was the video produced by those "scientists" or was it produced by someone who presented their interpretation of what they mistakenly believe? Either way, whoever produced it is peddling WOOO.
This is what the site says in the "our mission" section:
Because of the length that we arbitrarily made a meter. There is nothing in nature that makes a meter the length it was assigned by us.
Einstein accepted Maxwell's explanation because it was right. The speed limit is set by (as I stated in my previous post) the permittivity and permeability of the medium the light is passing through. Those properties of free space determine c. Maybe you should read up on Maxwell rather than watching the videos of WOOO peddlers.
Creationists claim all sorts of things.
I mean if the distance of a metre was constant... I thought that makes sense?
I'm talking about the speed of light in a vacuum i.e. the maximum value.
Yeah it looks like many don't think that the speed of light can change:
I'm just saying that those 13 scientists seem to be agreeing with those quotes. I know hardly anything about Maxwell. I am using argument from authority.
Yet again, the video is WOO. It says all sorts of nonsense (pretty much like the nonsense of creationists). We have a damned good theory and have had one since the 1800s.
Maxwell applies (as posted earlier) not only in vacuum but in any medium. If you want c in a vacuum then look up the permittivity and permeability of free space and plug those values into Maxwell's equations. You will find c to be what you found in Wiki after doing the calculations.
Then you should question that authority and look for one that isn't so obviously flawed. I would suggest someone like Richard Feynman or Einstein since you don't like Maxwell who both Feynman and Einstein accepted as an authority.
The amount of atoms per metre would vary if the speed of light changed yet the measurement of the speed of light would be constant? (maybe I'm confused)excreationist said:
Maybe there would be videos that can explain Maxwell to someone like me who has only a high-school level knowledge of physics.
I just was trusting that organisation more than someone on a messageboard. It's odd that they can do all that research (they have a few papers) but apparently be totally wrong on such basic things.
The speed of light is what it is. We invent arbitrary time and length standards that we use to express that speed. The second could have been any span and the meter could have been any length. Suppose we had used the heart beat to define time so each pulse we would call a second. Suppose we had picked up a stick about the length of our leg as a standard and called it a meter. Now measuring the speed of light would give us a very different speed as expressed in in our new M/s but the actual speed of light would not have changed. Any arbitrary standard for time and any arbitrary standard for length can be chosen but they don't effect the speed of light, only how we express that speed in the unites we arbitrarily selected.
Yeah, their funding source is pretty much like those "scientists" (who also have PhDs) over at the Institute for Creation Science. I might also add that the "scientists" over at ICS have published a lot more papers. Reality and truth isn't determined by degrees or number of papers published but by the independent repeatability of what is claimed.
Holistic? Healthy? Metaphysical (although metamaterials exist)?
Indeed, I understand and agree. The problem is, however, that explaining scientific principles can not be done simply - it requires that the person being explained to has the background tools to understand. Science is an intellectual pursuit that requires the pearson learning it to have actual understanding based on previous experimental findings that can be built on while pseudoscience goes straight to emotional appeal and wish fulfilment frequently relying on baseless or even anti-factual assertions. Visit one of the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and demonstrate an LED flashlight. When asked how it works, they would and could not understand a description of electricity, the electronics, battery, etc. because they wouldn't have the background tool box but would embrace an explanation of "it's a gift from god".
The speed of light is determined to be a constant because of a hell of a lot of experimentation, not because science wanted it to be. In fact, that finding was contrary to what was expected by science, science had assumed a universal time.
The descriptors wave and particle are models, not necessarily reality. In some applications such as antennas, it is best to assume wave characteristics because it works. In some applications such as photoelectric effect it is best to assume particle characteristics because it works.
Because humans are not omniscient. If we were then there would be no need for science. Our understanding advances a little at a time, step by step, each step relying on the previous steps. Why didn't people understand computer technology in the 1800s so they could have had the internet?
I can give a simple description but can't guarantee you would understand it.
