The 1950’s were before my time but I remember all of what you mentioned. I grew up listening to shortwave radio and am an amateur radio operator. There is still a lot to do with amateur radio - even digital modes, even satellites designed and built by amateurs (there are some who are also engineers). There is not so much shortwave broadcasting anymore. Even Radio Australia no longer is on shortwave. I remember as a child I would hear distant AM broadcast stations at night and I wondered why I couldn’t get them during the day. I guess a normal kid would have dismissed it as noise. I found everything I could at the library about how the sun affects the ionosphere. There was an old tube-type shortwave receiver in the house stuck away somewhere that I got to work. I kept accumulating radios. I have gotten to do some interesting things over the years and experimented with some technology before it became mainstream.
I have a lot of experience debating Flat Earthers. I don’t think I have ever convinced any of them to reject Flat Earth on the spot, but I managed to get some to recontemplate the issue, which is really the more realistic thing one can hope from these debates.
The key with debating them is not to introduce new evidence that they can easily dismiss as conspiracies, but use statements (can be data, axioms, etc) that they believe and show that they contradict each other.
its not mere language but concepts.
anyways i just rewatched a video on light I watched six months ago and commented on.
Its youtube “The speed of light is not about light”. It answered some questions.
They are saying that there is a speed for all non=mass things and light is just one more.
the narrator was agreeing there is movement to light. yet the talked about here/ther instantly and relativity.
Je used a term SPEED OF (I can’t remember) .
it makes more sense this way.
Interested folks should watch it.
another video was there of a tattoed guy, lots of views, denying light moves but instead a poking moves within it.
like me. I’m not recommending him but just pointing out there is others questioning things.
Do you mean this video: The Speed of Light is Not About Light?
Nothing he says contradicts what I am saying here. He is merely saying that the speed of light is the maximum speed for all particles, not just light - light simply happens to be the first thing we discovered that could travel at that speed, due to its massless nature. He does not deny that light has a speed.
It is only a language difference if you cannot show that your concepts do not result in any difference that can be detected by a scientific experiment. In this case, there is no scientific experiment that we can test to see if light is “poking out of darkness” or actually traveling with a speed. They are merely different ways of describing the same thing that scientists measure in the lab.
Where did you debate them? In person or online? I’m curious…
Online, there was a time when I procrastinated in Flat Earth Discord servers. These servers are similar to group chats, but also support voice chats. I actually do not recommend people joining them - the debates are usually very low quality, though there are a lot of interesting people there.
Yes thats the video. Yes all particles/massless stuff moves at THAT SPEED. Light does too.
Yet its not the speed of light but the speed generally.
Wiki does a bad job on this.
Yes he agrees light is speeding along.
I question this very much.
If its just a provoking out of a light essence in the universe it would be hard to experiment on it.
have to think how it could be done to show it or show its not happening.
In the video there seems to be hints about everything being everywhere at once etc etc.
Then indeed this general speed does suggest how less likely it that light is moving. Instead its the stone in the pond energy that is.
Then we have genesis and issues about starlight etc that seal that there is a problem in p[resent humanoid understanding.
Unless i misunderstand something.
It is indeed hard, which is why it took quite some time for people to figure it out. But this is because light moves so fast. One of the first successful experiments to measure the speed of light was the Fizeau-Foucault experiment in the 1850s. You can learn about it here: Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia.
But the principle behind this apparatus is simple: you take a light source, such as an intense lamp, set up some mirrors a good distance away, and measure the time it takes for the light to travel that distance and back. You can set this experiment up in your garage if you are patient enough.
If it is provoking light out of the universe, why does it slow down when passing through materials such as water and crystals?
Parts of the Earth are quite flat…
You know what I mean.
Since light is easy to test experimentally I guess this means that it isn’t “provoking out of a light essence”. Light is one of the most well understood phenomena in science. We can measure its wavelength, speed, absorption, emission, polarization, quantum state, and so on. I use light all of the time in my own work, be it luminescence, absorption, or fluorescence.
Einstein demonstrated that light is a particle, and he won a Nobel prize for that work. It is called the Photoelectric Effect.
You misunderstand how light works. Stars shine for the same reason that an incandescent light bulb shines. In fact, we describe the light spectrum in the same way, in degrees Kelvin. It is also of interest that the light spectrum of emitted light from a heated object was one of the first observations that hinted at light being a particle.
My high school chemistry teacher (yeah, not the physics teacher) went to a lot of work setting up an “updated” version of a similar experiment using mirrors and an oscilloscope on our football field. Sadly, we found that the oscilloscope was not quite up to the task by a factor of 10. It was one of many profound disappointments of my high school years. (Another, using that same oscilloscope, was discovering that many of the cool sounds coming from the Moog synthesizer on Walter Carlos’ Switched-on Bach and performances from The Well-Tempered Clavichord were nothing more than sine waves.)
Well any electronic representation of sound consists “just” of sine waves…I think it is actually cool that any waveform can be broken down into such a coherent way. It is similar to my realization that the Ptolemy’s epicycles were not wrong, they were just inefficient mathematics.
Yes, at their most fundamental, obviously. But I was expecting to see them combined a bit more “magically” into complex harmonics and rich overtones. There were also some square waves and sawtooth waves but in those days there wasn’t the kinds of synthesized complexity which might produce a convincing trumpet or saxophone timbre. The ultimate result of Moog’s and Carlos’ work was indeed amazing but it was interesting how easily the ear was fooled into hearing complex tones where the sounds were not as complex as I had thought.
Of course, the square waves from the Moog synthesizer were clipped-off sine waves.
It was that point in my life that I resolved to better understand Fourier transforms. That culminated in grad school when an elective course was offered that would allow us to work with raw data from magnetic resonance imagining experiments. It was then that I decided that I’d never be a top-flight mathematician—or even a mediocre one.
For a bit of fun . . .
Measuring the speed of light can be done at home with a chocolate bar or an egg and a microwave oven.
That might be a good point for the option its just provoking light.
It shows that interference is controling speed. SO all one needs is a interference to explain light not be instantly here/there. or rather giving the impression its moving.
One could invoke a decay, since the fall, is affecting things.
anyways I understand, newly , now its just that light is something else that moves at that speed.
From the video mentioned here.
So its wrong to say Speed of light as if the light has that speed. This seems a error.
I read/heard somewhere Einstein at the end of his life said HE didn’t know what light was…other men may but not him. In his book on physics he talked about light being a particle, then a wave, then a particle then both.
It was not clear whatsoever.
I agree stars shine for reasons like fire etc. I think it is just a ‘explosion’ that pokes out light from a general light essence.
The measuring you talk of is STILL measuring the results of the source.
I question the source as the source of light. Its the provoking agent only possibly.
In fact if light is just one of many things that goes that fast, according to the video, then your measuring not just light movement but something else I think.
It’s very clear. The probability of finding a photon in spacetime is described by a wave function.
That sounds like something you made up on the spot.
The sun glows because it is hot, the very same reason that a light bulb glows. The light we see is emitted by hot gases at the surface of the Sun (i.e. the photosphere), and they aren’t exploding gases. The light they emit is due to excited electrons moving between energy levels.