
speed of light derived purely from math #1644 Atom Totality 5th ed
Posted:
Jul 28, 2013 3:31 PM


In this old post of 2010 below, I am going to invigorate it, by new material, learned from doing True Calculus. I am keeping the idea of a "stripe covering of a sphere surface" but I am going to inject it with the limitations of Calculus. The limitations that distance results from the fact of "empty space" between two neighboring points. So that if distance is empty space and that speed is distance divided by time, what is time? Well, time is nothing physical but merely the counting of points traversed.
So in 10 Grid where 10 is pretend infinity borderline and all the numbers that exist are 0, .1, .2, .3, . . 9.8, 9.9 and then finally the last finite number 10, that distance is the empty space between points and that time is just the number of points covered. So speed in New Calculus is dy/dx, where the dx is time and that time is a number of points traversed.
And now I think I am able to reason out the speed of light. The speed of light in physics is a conundrum, not because of special relativity, but because of how slow it is, relative to how large the numbers are in physics. That we can go all the way up to 1*10^603 and the speed of light is a mere 10^5 or 10^8 in km. If the speed of light had been say 10^200 km/sec, then we would not have this mystery. But since the speed of light is a tiny, mere 3*10^5 in km/sec we have a mystery as to why the maximum universal speed is so slow of a speed when the numbers in physics go up to 10^603.
I believe I have an answer to this mystery by looking at pi as relative to the diameter is another "small number of 22/7". The speed of light is another small number, and if we do stripe or strip geometry on a surface and use a logspiral, then we can get a solving of this mystery.
sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math Jun 22, 12:46 pm Date: Jun 22, 2010 1:46 PM Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Subject: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole ... ATOM TOTALITY
Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely mathematical considerations, without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the speed of light is. Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had actually produced the speed of light.
So let me recap how I derived the speed of light. I took any sphere, it could be the size of Earth (idealized as a sphere) or the size of a sphere globe in my home, or the size of a baseball.
Then what I do is imagine lines of meridians or lines of longitude. Then I give them a band width, depending on what units I want my speed of light to end up with. So for example on Earth sphere, I may choose kilometers per second as the ultimate form I want for the speed of light. Thus the band meridian or the stripe or width of the lines of longitude are all one kilometer wide. There are 40,000 of these kilometer wide band meridians. And each of them is 40,000 kilometers in distance. So the total distance of all these band meridians is 40,000 x 40,000 = 1,600,000,000. Now on this same Earth sphere there is a logarithmic spiral from pole to pole. I take not the full log spiral distance but rather the distance that the log spiral represents a meridian of 40,000 kilometers. It is 1/8 of the circumference or 5,000 kilometers for Earth sphere. The band meridian is the distance that light travels, or 1,600,000,000, and the time that light travels in seconds is 5,000 as representative of one band meridian. So the speed of light is 1,600,000,000 kilometers/ 5,000 seconds
And that answer, is of course, approx 300,000 km/sec. And this derivation is unitless, for I can do it in meters/second or in miles/hour or any other unit so long as the sphere can accommodate the band width.
But now the question occurrs as to whether the speed of light is actually and truly the math number "pi" to a specific decimal point. So for in the example of kilometers, that the speed of light in reality is 314159.265.. kilometers/second?? In meters per second the speed of light would be 314159265.35 meters/second.
Is there anything in physics that would suggest the old figures of 2.99 x 10^5 km/sec or the 3.00 x 10^5 km/sec are too far off and not precise enough?
I would say yes, there are two valid arguments to suggest that the speed of light is a numeric representation of the number "pi" in math, given that the Universe is an Atom Totality. Those two reasons are that the speed of light is a upper limit and cannot be obtained because the Universe has no perfect vacuum. All the earth done experiments were not vacuums. And secondly, in an Atom Totality, the curvature of the Universe is a high degree of curvature, so any measure of the speed of light would be a measure that fails to add in or subtract the curvature of the Cosmos.
So any physics experimental measure of the speed of light is going to be off the mark by a sizable percentage. A sizeable error of measure.
Now I cannot prove that the speed of light must be the digits of "pi" simply from my derivation.
But I can claim, without doubt that the speed of light using that derivation could be the digits of pi.
However, I can make a proof argument that the speed of light must be the digits of pi, given my recent foray into the derivation of the elementarycharge in physics.
I notice that these physical constants are probably all of them a form of the golden ratio number, the phi number of 1.6180339887498948482..
It looks as though, although no proof as yet that these numbers in physics are all a form of phi:
(1) elementary charge "e" as 1.6 x 10^19 C (2) Planck length 1.61 x 10^35 meters (3) the ampere (of course the conjugate of elementary charge) at 6.18 x 10^18 electrons (4) proton diameter at 1.6 x 10^15 meters
But if proof were given that they are all a form of phinumbers, then I suspect we can prove that the speed of light must be a pinumber.
Let me repeat why the speed of light would have been off by so much, since 3.00 x 10^8 m/s is far different from 3.14 x 10^8 m/s and would cause considerable changes in astronomy reckoning. The reason for the error is that the speed of light is an upper limit that exists only in the condition of a "perfect vacuum" and where the geometry of the Cosmos is Euclidean, not the bent Elliptic. In a nearvacuum and a Elliptic shaped Cosmos, you would experimentally come up with the shoddy number 3 x 10^8 m/sec for light speed and not the true 314159265.35.. m/s
Again, this needs proving.
Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies

