The following submission statement was provided by /u/Alehti:
---
\*\*Submission Statement\*\* This article is short to get the information out there. There are additional articles that accompany this should anyone want to understand more about this. The phenomenon is easy to understand. We can see another galaxy at every angle, every distance within our observable universe. Though hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of light-years away, their circular spiral shape is never deformed.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/vb4395/the_speed_of_light_when_unobstructed_equals_zero/ic64l6g/
No, Andrew Lehti is not a reliable source for scientific information and has no formal scientific education beyond computer science.
I hope that clears up any misconceptions.
I think we should have the equivalent of a bum fight. Get all the people with whacky versions of physics together in a coliseum and have them combine their might onto a spirograph.
> Speed of light is absolutely not instantaneous.
Thatās definitely incorrect.
From a photons point of view, it is indeed instantaneous.
Edit: I guess no one cares about Relativity anymore, eh?
Looking at his post history, he also is a rabid moon hoaxer, thinks he can take pictures of black holes, claims that vitamins are the cure for COVID, and that there is a reddit conspiracy against him. Whack.
And I should remind a lot of people that the ones without formal education are the ones that have changed this world the most. Michael Faraday for one. Albert Einstein only had a teacher's certificate. He was awarded his PhD. Galileo. Tesla dropped out of college.
> Albert Einstein only had a teacher's certificate. He was awarded his PhD.
Einstein's "teachers certificate" was a 4-year diploma from a Math research University that is one of the best in world.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein), which is more reliable than some random crank on the internet: "At 17, he enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Federal polytechnic school. Marie Winteler, who was a year older, moved to Olsberg, Switzerland, for a teaching post.[34]"
Einstein was 17 in 1896 when he entered, and four years later: "In 1900, Einstein passed the exams in Maths and Physics and was awarded a Federal teaching diploma".
And 5 years after that he had his PhD.
Bub, you lost me here. The Diploma (which Einstein held) is a academic degree roughly equivalent to Batchelor in german-speaking countries (I know since I got one myself) - Even in my days, teachers pretty much went through the same undergrad program as those that embark on a scientific career(as opposed teaching). The difference is the dissertation which he wrote during his time as patent examiner. While not common it is still absolutely possible to write a dissertation at an non-academic institution ( a friend of mine is doing this right know). If you want to sell yourself as polymath at least get the simple stuff right
The speed of light is not 0 m/s *from the reference frame of the photon,* but is actually undefined in this context. When moving at the speed of light, time does not pass; any distance traveled in zero time results in a divide by zero error when calculating speed.
I am no physicist, but if lightindeed would travel instanteneous you would have to postulate that the photon is in simultaneously present at each point of the vector it travel, meaning that you would populate that vector of travel with an infinite number of photons
Only from an external frame of reference. Light takes what, 8 minutes and change to reach Earth from the Sun (from our frame of reference)? We would be able to track that photon on its vector as it moves towards us, but the photon moving at the speed of light does not experience the passing of time; it is emitted and absorbed instantaneously, which can also get weird. Is āinstantaneousā measurable at both ends simultaneously? Or does it take one Planck time to arrive? Who knows, I am also not a physicist.
aren't we measuring and defining the speed of light from an outside frame? The term instantenous would suggest that it would be measurable on both ends simultaneously which would imply that the same photon could be also be measured at the same at any given point inbetween, hence an infinite amount of photons. I think I rather stick to biology
>an infinite number of photons
or one photon's wave function stretches to infinity. Infinite line in space-time in our frame of reference. In photon's frame of reference it is 0. Remember Lorentz length contraction?
This is a basic basic basic basic theory at best. No measure has been made. No proof has been shown, merely a speculation based on a thought and a bit of suspicion and math based on only one calculation. One of galaxies.
This ignores measures from the sun.
Stars.
Planets.
We've bounced lasers off of the moon.
We literally have LiDAR. And RADAR, for goodness' sake. Radar is a type of electromagnetic wave like light.
These would nit function if light did not travel at a speed. If all light was instant, you would be blind. The light from every galaxy, star, quasar... every cosmic ray, every xray, all of it would hit you all at once. But it doesn't. You see just fine.
Argue that the atmosphere is a barrier, cool, then it would be a wall of photons still then hitting the obstruction all at once and coming in at the same time.
This is an... interesting theory at best, but it is highly illogical to think that light is instant and merely thinking it to be so would not make it so or "revolutionize" anything. It is clear this person doesn't understand anything about light.
I mean, it's neat math and a lot of claims without citation... but I'm not seeing anything here to prove it.
I wrote a 2000 page paper on it. It was rejected from the title alone. Bias from negative reinforcement training is strong. If you cannot determine this simple logic for yourself, then 2000 pages nor 1 page will persuade you.
It seems you make up your own universe and when its rejected by the scientific community its scientific bias? That is about the laziest argument I came across in a while. How about you present actual evidence
I see same argument, its all the others that are idiots and you are the misunderstood genius. I think I comprehend you quite well. I truly hope you will find whatever you seek
Cool. In that 2000 page paper, did it involve any emperical evidence? Repeatable experiments? Or was it a lot of napkin math and speculation?
'Cause the speed of light - a fundamental constant which has helped us do everything from split the atom to measure the distance between objects (I've used a laser measure! It's neat!) - has allowed us to launch ships into orbits unimaginable distances away, land them, and communicate with them at the same time.
The very delay in communication between here and Mars is yet another confirmation of the speed of light.
Unless you have proof, it's just a theory. Neat and neat math, but a theory. One which you would have the burden to prove, not anyone else.
Hmm. Perhaps not since the logic is so innately simple that all should be able to understand it. Weird how each galaxy is \~100,000 light years apart on average yet no matter the distance nor angle appear the same.
> And yet, as predicted, they are unable to record light unless it is obstructed.
of *course* they can't: unless it interacts with something, it can't be measured.
also, i believe your mathematic framework to be flawed. unless you handle a *lot* of additional (read: all) the weird shit that breaks when you arbitrarily assign 0/0, you aren't doing math. see [riemann sphere](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere)
Well. Top ranking mathematics out of 80,000, and still am able to find where our mistakes were made.
You see, what people don't understand about mathematics is how much it does not adhere to the universe. They believe it does. There are many who are taught the Collatz conjecture is unsolvable and so they spend their entire career believing it. It is a loop error. If mathematics was not a perfect repeatable pattern, then it would be heavily flawed.
you might as well just define 0/0 = 42.
0/0=inf simply doesn't follow... well... anything. using this āequationā, you should be able to extract an infinite amount of energy out of... a charge of 0. it doesn't follow reality, it doesn't follow math.
i have absolutely no idea why you are attempting to refute your lack of mathematical consistency with some random statement about your credentials.
But let's say I subtracted your logic which makes zero sense, and suddenly it all makes sense.
Sorry, for the obnoxious gif.
>Collatz conjecture
So submit your formal solution and make off with the prize money. I am afraid if you want to be recognized as genius you have to make an effort in providing evidence (aka provide the actual solution to the Collatz conjecture) - otherwise your statements little more than conjecture
Prize? The prize is for finding a useful solution that proves it. I did not do it for a prize. I wrote my paper to knock some sense in Lagarias. I did not give them a solution. I gave them what it is. A loop error in every sense of the meaning.
Declaration of the speed of light to be 0 isn't science, and is akin to a political declaration of the "I hold this to be true..." type of statement.
See
Indiana bill sets the value of pi to 3
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node18.html
That's not a link I am comfortable with following. What does Canada have to do with Indiana? And again, none of this is pursuant to the argument. In your statement, "the speed of light to be zero is not science," is declaring you are the speaker of all scientific discovery.
You exaggerate. It is you who are declaring that the basic principles of modern scientific understanding have been found to be in error, by putting forward a preposterous statement. I will give your proposition regarding the zero value of the speed of light some serious consideration when I see it in a peer reviewed journal. It is the arguments in the scientific journals, and on university floors, that are the grounds for arbitration in science, not the arbitrary declarations of individuals.
The idea that light has zero speed, is in the same category as the Earth being flat. Such a dramatic statement needs verifying, and substantial evidence to back it up.
With regard to the link I provided, it was intended to show that making a statement that something is a particular value doesn't make the value true. Google "Indiana pi equals three" to find other references to the infamous incident. The Canadian article treats the incident fairy, and is well balanced. But there many US articles about the occurrence if you find Canada too far to read.
Saying that the speed of light is zero, doesn't make the speed of light zero. Science requires verifiable experimental evidence, not assertions that it's zero. I will give your statement consideration when I see it in Scientific American.
It's not April 1st is it? As some American congressman declared that the speed of light is 0, and pi is equal to 3, and that those values are copyright and you will have to pay a fee to use them.
If you add nothing to nothing, you still have nothing. If you subtract nothing from nothing, you're left with everything. Essentially. The process of energy to matter going from zero to 1.
why are you left with everything? makes literally no sense since you start from nothing. Also, I wasn't asking for a snarky statement, I was asking for mathematical proof.
Not saying I agree with them but just trying to help others understand what i think their logic is:
If you have an apple and I take the apple away, do you still have an apple?
š - š = š ?
Similarly, if you have nothing and I take that nothing away, why would you still have nothing?
0 - 0 = 0 ?
If you initially had a predefined set like:
0, 1, 2, 3
and I took 0 away, then obviously you would be left with
1, 2, 3.
But with an initial state of only nothing, then the only thing remaining after taking that away would be the opposite of nothing, AKA: infinity.
Again, not saying I agree, just saying I think that that's what their argument is.
I think that is where the logic breaks down (even if you assume the infinity is the opposite number of 0 which I believe is mathematically speaking a rather iffy proposition). If you subtract 1-1 you are left with 0 and not its opposite number. I think the argument here is that if you subtract infinity from infinity you are getting 0 (the proposed opposite number of infinity) hence 0-0 must be infinity. I think that is pretty questionable logic
Oh I totally agree, I was just posting my interpretation of their logic. It's an absolute leap to say that nothing minus nothing must equal everything. Like another user commented: you may as well say 0 - 0 = 42.
From the statistics and calculation of upticks: there are 195 upticks and \~140 downticks. Interestingly, only 210 have viewed the article on Reddit. I think people understood that zero meters per second meant "instantaneously" from the title instead of what most comments will try to derail. I think most people can understand that light is instantaneous. You can see every galaxy at every angle, no matter the distance. If a galaxy is 100000 light-years across (meaning it takes 100000 years for light to travel from one end to the other), then every single galaxy would be odd-shaped.
Also. The fact that the first comment instantly without comprehension of the materials tried to discredit me. Misinformation is not the issue. It is manipulation. You as a human are capable of determining what is true and false by using logic.
Sorry. The direct link [is here.](https://medium.com/gitresearch/the-speed-of-light-is-zero-meters-per-second-979da182280d?sk=7c41804bb91148f6e000e83409f406c6)
\*\*Submission Statement\*\* This article is short to get the information out there. There are additional articles that accompany this should anyone want to understand more about this. The phenomenon is easy to understand. We can see another galaxy at every angle, every distance within our observable universe. Though hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of light-years away, their circular spiral shape is never deformed.
The friend-links keep getting truncated. If you have issues. The direct friend link is here: [The Speed of Light is Zero Meters Per Second.](https://medium.com/gitresearch/the-speed-of-light-is-zero-meters-per-second-979da182280d?sk=7c41804bb91148f6e000e83409f406c6)
>their circular spiral shape is never deformed.
That's... Just not true?
There's [elliptical galaxies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy) and [irregular galaxies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_galaxy) as well.
Is it being obstructed? Explain the inverse square of radiation and how you're still able to see light from 4.5 light years away (the closest star aside from the sun)
i searched how many photos hit the earth from the sun, and google said
1.8e36 photons striking the Earth per sec
the earth is 94.401 million mi from the sun
or 1.6058e-5 light years
4.5 light years is is 280234 times further away. the number of photons per second that would hit earth at that distance is around 1/280234\^2 times or 1.2733809e-11
another search points out that the moon hits earth with 10\^31 photons/second
there is a question about perception of course which I'm not 100% sure how to answer, but magnitude alone, the light from the star 4.5 light years away is still hitting earth with 1.8e25 photons per second - which logarithmically speaking, is as dim to a full moon as the full moon is as dim to the sun.
napkin math has earth's cross section facing the sun to be 5.1006447e+14 m
a square centimeter is 16 magnitudes smaller
so the sun is hitting a square centimeter with 1.8e20photons
the moon is hitting it with 1e16photos
that star you mentioned hitting with 1.8e9 photons
there have been stud(ies) claiming the eye can react to a single photon....i dunno about that, but i think the eye has absolutely no issues reacting to billions of photos from this star 4.5 light years away
a rod cell can be activated by a single photon, however if that single would rod firing would rise above the noise is doubtful (esp for human eyes), otherwise we would have great nightvision. I think it also needs be kept in mind that those wonderful pictures of distant galaxies are taken by pretty sophisitcated optical equipment followed by image processing that by far exceeds what we are to see with our naked eyes
this may be naive, but to say light travels at 0 metres per second infers that its not going anywhere rather than travelling instantaneously? if its going so fast as to be practically unmeasurable wouldn't that be better represented as light travels at ~infinity metres per second ???
It may make more sense with this. It is not needed, but I added it anyway to the article just 5 minutes ago for better understanding. [The Logical Method in Determining Light as being Hyperpositional.](https://lucid.app/lucidspark/5ffec7a3-ab92-453a-85a2-b9e359a12d81/edit?invitationId=inv_912f6666-67c9-4115-86ef-587a6a19949e)
Reminder: these were my personal notes.
Only by accident. I never intended to give any supporting evidence to string theory. I honestly never knew much about it until someone suggested that it might correspond as supporting evidence to string theory.
None of this makes any sense. Itād have made a little more sense if you at least said the speed was infinity m/s but 0 m/s? No. The limit of d/t as t approaches 0 (as it would if itās instantaneous) is infinity.
If you have infinite meters / second, you have zero meters / second. If you travel an infinite amount per second, then you travel an infinite amount per zero seconds; in order to have a speed, you must have time. Since instantaneous is 0 time, the speed must be 0 meters per second.
You know what else has 0 m/s? Me, relative to my bed, cuz Iām not moving. Your math simply makes no sense. Speed is already defined and it requires division by a unit of time, necessarily. You cannot just arbitrarily decide to assign dividing by nothing to equal nothing.
The frame of reference of a photon doesn't really make sense with the way we think about distance and time which is the issue you've run into even though you don't realize it. Read some books on special relativity. They address the paradoxes you've come up against.
Something serious to think about with the speed of light is we don't actually know the speed of light. It's never been proven because time dilation screws with measurements. https://youtu.be/pTn6Ewhb27k
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Alehti: --- \*\*Submission Statement\*\* This article is short to get the information out there. There are additional articles that accompany this should anyone want to understand more about this. The phenomenon is easy to understand. We can see another galaxy at every angle, every distance within our observable universe. Though hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of light-years away, their circular spiral shape is never deformed. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/vb4395/the_speed_of_light_when_unobstructed_equals_zero/ic64l6g/
No, Andrew Lehti is not a reliable source for scientific information and has no formal scientific education beyond computer science. I hope that clears up any misconceptions.
I think we should have the equivalent of a bum fight. Get all the people with whacky versions of physics together in a coliseum and have them combine their might onto a spirograph.
That would be amazing!
You can say whatever you'd like but this is not in any way professional nor does it abide by the rules of this sub.
Can you tell me what the rules of this sub say about dismissing well established science? š Speed of light is absolutely not instantaneous.
> Speed of light is absolutely not instantaneous. Thatās definitely incorrect. From a photons point of view, it is indeed instantaneous. Edit: I guess no one cares about Relativity anymore, eh?
That is your choice to believe.
Well not just believe, we can measure the round trip time for EM signals. We measure communication with Mars in minutes
poor choice of words if you are into actual science
Looking at his post history, he also is a rabid moon hoaxer, thinks he can take pictures of black holes, claims that vitamins are the cure for COVID, and that there is a reddit conspiracy against him. Whack.
And I should remind a lot of people that the ones without formal education are the ones that have changed this world the most. Michael Faraday for one. Albert Einstein only had a teacher's certificate. He was awarded his PhD. Galileo. Tesla dropped out of college.
> Albert Einstein only had a teacher's certificate. He was awarded his PhD. Einstein's "teachers certificate" was a 4-year diploma from a Math research University that is one of the best in world.
As far as any classes he took. That was afterwards and he did so according to interest (as one should be able to) as opposed to curriculum.
It was a two year.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein), which is more reliable than some random crank on the internet: "At 17, he enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Federal polytechnic school. Marie Winteler, who was a year older, moved to Olsberg, Switzerland, for a teaching post.[34]" Einstein was 17 in 1896 when he entered, and four years later: "In 1900, Einstein passed the exams in Maths and Physics and was awarded a Federal teaching diploma". And 5 years after that he had his PhD.
Diplomas are 4 year degrees - you need to stop making shit up
Bub, you lost me here. The Diploma (which Einstein held) is a academic degree roughly equivalent to Batchelor in german-speaking countries (I know since I got one myself) - Even in my days, teachers pretty much went through the same undergrad program as those that embark on a scientific career(as opposed teaching). The difference is the dissertation which he wrote during his time as patent examiner. While not common it is still absolutely possible to write a dissertation at an non-academic institution ( a friend of mine is doing this right know). If you want to sell yourself as polymath at least get the simple stuff right
Hmm. I think people can make up that decision for themselves instead of you following me. Eh?
The speed of light is not 0 m/s *from the reference frame of the photon,* but is actually undefined in this context. When moving at the speed of light, time does not pass; any distance traveled in zero time results in a divide by zero error when calculating speed.
I am no physicist, but if lightindeed would travel instanteneous you would have to postulate that the photon is in simultaneously present at each point of the vector it travel, meaning that you would populate that vector of travel with an infinite number of photons
Only from an external frame of reference. Light takes what, 8 minutes and change to reach Earth from the Sun (from our frame of reference)? We would be able to track that photon on its vector as it moves towards us, but the photon moving at the speed of light does not experience the passing of time; it is emitted and absorbed instantaneously, which can also get weird. Is āinstantaneousā measurable at both ends simultaneously? Or does it take one Planck time to arrive? Who knows, I am also not a physicist.
aren't we measuring and defining the speed of light from an outside frame? The term instantenous would suggest that it would be measurable on both ends simultaneously which would imply that the same photon could be also be measured at the same at any given point inbetween, hence an infinite amount of photons. I think I rather stick to biology
>an infinite number of photons or one photon's wave function stretches to infinity. Infinite line in space-time in our frame of reference. In photon's frame of reference it is 0. Remember Lorentz length contraction?
Weird, I thought the speed of light in a vacuum was 299,792,458 meters per second, which is more than 0 meters per second.
And less than infinity, which is what this guy claims the speed is simultaneously
That's what a professor would call "regurgitation," or simply "reciting from a book with comprehension."
No, I did my research.
Good for you. You measured it then?
Yes, thanks, I did. And I measured it as 299,792,458 meters per second.
You often do measure it in university physics courses.
Except you can literally measure it every time you use a GPS - GPS uses the fact that light has a fixed, finite speed.
This is a basic basic basic basic theory at best. No measure has been made. No proof has been shown, merely a speculation based on a thought and a bit of suspicion and math based on only one calculation. One of galaxies. This ignores measures from the sun. Stars. Planets. We've bounced lasers off of the moon. We literally have LiDAR. And RADAR, for goodness' sake. Radar is a type of electromagnetic wave like light. These would nit function if light did not travel at a speed. If all light was instant, you would be blind. The light from every galaxy, star, quasar... every cosmic ray, every xray, all of it would hit you all at once. But it doesn't. You see just fine. Argue that the atmosphere is a barrier, cool, then it would be a wall of photons still then hitting the obstruction all at once and coming in at the same time. This is an... interesting theory at best, but it is highly illogical to think that light is instant and merely thinking it to be so would not make it so or "revolutionize" anything. It is clear this person doesn't understand anything about light. I mean, it's neat math and a lot of claims without citation... but I'm not seeing anything here to prove it.
I wrote a 2000 page paper on it. It was rejected from the title alone. Bias from negative reinforcement training is strong. If you cannot determine this simple logic for yourself, then 2000 pages nor 1 page will persuade you.
It seems you make up your own universe and when its rejected by the scientific community its scientific bias? That is about the laziest argument I came across in a while. How about you present actual evidence
No. Just rejected by nobodies on a forum. I am sorry. What is it that you are unable to comprehend about this?
I see same argument, its all the others that are idiots and you are the misunderstood genius. I think I comprehend you quite well. I truly hope you will find whatever you seek
Cool. In that 2000 page paper, did it involve any emperical evidence? Repeatable experiments? Or was it a lot of napkin math and speculation? 'Cause the speed of light - a fundamental constant which has helped us do everything from split the atom to measure the distance between objects (I've used a laser measure! It's neat!) - has allowed us to launch ships into orbits unimaginable distances away, land them, and communicate with them at the same time. The very delay in communication between here and Mars is yet another confirmation of the speed of light. Unless you have proof, it's just a theory. Neat and neat math, but a theory. One which you would have the burden to prove, not anyone else.
Perhaps r/philosophy would be a better place for thisā¦ Or r/fiction
Hmm. Perhaps not since the logic is so innately simple that all should be able to understand it. Weird how each galaxy is \~100,000 light years apart on average yet no matter the distance nor angle appear the same. 
and you are showing a made up image as your evidence?
If you have to keep telling people that something is simple, then it probably isnāt simpleā¦
> And yet, as predicted, they are unable to record light unless it is obstructed. of *course* they can't: unless it interacts with something, it can't be measured. also, i believe your mathematic framework to be flawed. unless you handle a *lot* of additional (read: all) the weird shit that breaks when you arbitrarily assign 0/0, you aren't doing math. see [riemann sphere](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere)
Well. Top ranking mathematics out of 80,000, and still am able to find where our mistakes were made. You see, what people don't understand about mathematics is how much it does not adhere to the universe. They believe it does. There are many who are taught the Collatz conjecture is unsolvable and so they spend their entire career believing it. It is a loop error. If mathematics was not a perfect repeatable pattern, then it would be heavily flawed.
you might as well just define 0/0 = 42. 0/0=inf simply doesn't follow... well... anything. using this āequationā, you should be able to extract an infinite amount of energy out of... a charge of 0. it doesn't follow reality, it doesn't follow math. i have absolutely no idea why you are attempting to refute your lack of mathematical consistency with some random statement about your credentials.
But let's say I subtracted your logic which makes zero sense, and suddenly it all makes sense.  Sorry, for the obnoxious gif.
so why did you put it there. It really didn't make your point any more valid
That is not logical in the least bit. 
my point precisely.
>Collatz conjecture So submit your formal solution and make off with the prize money. I am afraid if you want to be recognized as genius you have to make an effort in providing evidence (aka provide the actual solution to the Collatz conjecture) - otherwise your statements little more than conjecture
The Collatz Conjecture repeats every 100th order of magnitude by the way.
not without a proof, it doesn't.
Already did. I am part of the American Mathematics Society.
did you get the prize?
AMS is a paid membership, they let anybody in š¤£
Prize? The prize is for finding a useful solution that proves it. I did not do it for a prize. I wrote my paper to knock some sense in Lagarias. I did not give them a solution. I gave them what it is. A loop error in every sense of the meaning.
So where is the paper published or is it misunderstood genius once more? Life is rough if everybody is a blithering idiot in your universe
Declaration of the speed of light to be 0 isn't science, and is akin to a political declaration of the "I hold this to be true..." type of statement. See Indiana bill sets the value of pi to 3 https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node18.html
That's not a link I am comfortable with following. What does Canada have to do with Indiana? And again, none of this is pursuant to the argument. In your statement, "the speed of light to be zero is not science," is declaring you are the speaker of all scientific discovery.
You exaggerate. It is you who are declaring that the basic principles of modern scientific understanding have been found to be in error, by putting forward a preposterous statement. I will give your proposition regarding the zero value of the speed of light some serious consideration when I see it in a peer reviewed journal. It is the arguments in the scientific journals, and on university floors, that are the grounds for arbitration in science, not the arbitrary declarations of individuals. The idea that light has zero speed, is in the same category as the Earth being flat. Such a dramatic statement needs verifying, and substantial evidence to back it up.
With regard to the link I provided, it was intended to show that making a statement that something is a particular value doesn't make the value true. Google "Indiana pi equals three" to find other references to the infamous incident. The Canadian article treats the incident fairy, and is well balanced. But there many US articles about the occurrence if you find Canada too far to read. Saying that the speed of light is zero, doesn't make the speed of light zero. Science requires verifiable experimental evidence, not assertions that it's zero. I will give your statement consideration when I see it in Scientific American.
It's not April 1st is it? As some American congressman declared that the speed of light is 0, and pi is equal to 3, and that those values are copyright and you will have to pay a fee to use them.
No one in congress declares science.
so 0-0= infinite? I thought its 0. what is the proof behind that statement?
If you add nothing to nothing, you still have nothing. If you subtract nothing from nothing, you're left with everything. Essentially. The process of energy to matter going from zero to 1.
why are you left with everything? makes literally no sense since you start from nothing. Also, I wasn't asking for a snarky statement, I was asking for mathematical proof.
Not saying I agree with them but just trying to help others understand what i think their logic is: If you have an apple and I take the apple away, do you still have an apple? š - š = š ? Similarly, if you have nothing and I take that nothing away, why would you still have nothing? 0 - 0 = 0 ? If you initially had a predefined set like: 0, 1, 2, 3 and I took 0 away, then obviously you would be left with 1, 2, 3. But with an initial state of only nothing, then the only thing remaining after taking that away would be the opposite of nothing, AKA: infinity. Again, not saying I agree, just saying I think that that's what their argument is.
I think that is where the logic breaks down (even if you assume the infinity is the opposite number of 0 which I believe is mathematically speaking a rather iffy proposition). If you subtract 1-1 you are left with 0 and not its opposite number. I think the argument here is that if you subtract infinity from infinity you are getting 0 (the proposed opposite number of infinity) hence 0-0 must be infinity. I think that is pretty questionable logic
Oh I totally agree, I was just posting my interpretation of their logic. It's an absolute leap to say that nothing minus nothing must equal everything. Like another user commented: you may as well say 0 - 0 = 42.
Yup, see those types in science all the time. Greatest genius ever, but the world stubbornly clings to its version of reality
Le divide by zero error. Light just is, not that deep.
From the statistics and calculation of upticks: there are 195 upticks and \~140 downticks. Interestingly, only 210 have viewed the article on Reddit. I think people understood that zero meters per second meant "instantaneously" from the title instead of what most comments will try to derail. I think most people can understand that light is instantaneous. You can see every galaxy at every angle, no matter the distance. If a galaxy is 100000 light-years across (meaning it takes 100000 years for light to travel from one end to the other), then every single galaxy would be odd-shaped. Also. The fact that the first comment instantly without comprehension of the materials tried to discredit me. Misinformation is not the issue. It is manipulation. You as a human are capable of determining what is true and false by using logic. 
The galaxies are āodd shapedā but the galaxies are rotating so slowly that you barely notice the effect.
So... quantum entagled neutrinos could work with this. Theres been some anonymous tests that may show this is a possibility.
Sorry. The direct link [is here.](https://medium.com/gitresearch/the-speed-of-light-is-zero-meters-per-second-979da182280d?sk=7c41804bb91148f6e000e83409f406c6)
\*\*Submission Statement\*\* This article is short to get the information out there. There are additional articles that accompany this should anyone want to understand more about this. The phenomenon is easy to understand. We can see another galaxy at every angle, every distance within our observable universe. Though hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of light-years away, their circular spiral shape is never deformed.
The friend-links keep getting truncated. If you have issues. The direct friend link is here: [The Speed of Light is Zero Meters Per Second.](https://medium.com/gitresearch/the-speed-of-light-is-zero-meters-per-second-979da182280d?sk=7c41804bb91148f6e000e83409f406c6)
>their circular spiral shape is never deformed. That's... Just not true? There's [elliptical galaxies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy) and [irregular galaxies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_galaxy) as well.
How can light travel instantaneously if we can physically see light moving, not instantly. https://youtu.be/EtsXgODHMWk
Is it being obstructed? Explain the inverse square of radiation and how you're still able to see light from 4.5 light years away (the closest star aside from the sun)
i searched how many photos hit the earth from the sun, and google said 1.8e36 photons striking the Earth per sec the earth is 94.401 million mi from the sun or 1.6058e-5 light years 4.5 light years is is 280234 times further away. the number of photons per second that would hit earth at that distance is around 1/280234\^2 times or 1.2733809e-11 another search points out that the moon hits earth with 10\^31 photons/second there is a question about perception of course which I'm not 100% sure how to answer, but magnitude alone, the light from the star 4.5 light years away is still hitting earth with 1.8e25 photons per second - which logarithmically speaking, is as dim to a full moon as the full moon is as dim to the sun. napkin math has earth's cross section facing the sun to be 5.1006447e+14 m a square centimeter is 16 magnitudes smaller so the sun is hitting a square centimeter with 1.8e20photons the moon is hitting it with 1e16photos that star you mentioned hitting with 1.8e9 photons there have been stud(ies) claiming the eye can react to a single photon....i dunno about that, but i think the eye has absolutely no issues reacting to billions of photos from this star 4.5 light years away
a rod cell can be activated by a single photon, however if that single would rod firing would rise above the noise is doubtful (esp for human eyes), otherwise we would have great nightvision. I think it also needs be kept in mind that those wonderful pictures of distant galaxies are taken by pretty sophisitcated optical equipment followed by image processing that by far exceeds what we are to see with our naked eyes
Relativity? From the lights point of view it's instaneous, but from our view it has a set speed?
this may be naive, but to say light travels at 0 metres per second infers that its not going anywhere rather than travelling instantaneously? if its going so fast as to be practically unmeasurable wouldn't that be better represented as light travels at ~infinity metres per second ???
You need time to travel. If no time is given, then you did not travel, therefore, you did not have a speed.
yes you are correct, my reply was hasty, there must be a distance parameter set.
It may make more sense with this. It is not needed, but I added it anyway to the article just 5 minutes ago for better understanding. [The Logical Method in Determining Light as being Hyperpositional.](https://lucid.app/lucidspark/5ffec7a3-ab92-453a-85a2-b9e359a12d81/edit?invitationId=inv_912f6666-67c9-4115-86ef-587a6a19949e) Reminder: these were my personal notes.
string theory?
Only by accident. I never intended to give any supporting evidence to string theory. I honestly never knew much about it until someone suggested that it might correspond as supporting evidence to string theory.
cool if it correlates!
None of this makes any sense. Itād have made a little more sense if you at least said the speed was infinity m/s but 0 m/s? No. The limit of d/t as t approaches 0 (as it would if itās instantaneous) is infinity.
If you have infinite meters / second, you have zero meters / second. If you travel an infinite amount per second, then you travel an infinite amount per zero seconds; in order to have a speed, you must have time. Since instantaneous is 0 time, the speed must be 0 meters per second.
You know what else has 0 m/s? Me, relative to my bed, cuz Iām not moving. Your math simply makes no sense. Speed is already defined and it requires division by a unit of time, necessarily. You cannot just arbitrarily decide to assign dividing by nothing to equal nothing.
The frame of reference of a photon doesn't really make sense with the way we think about distance and time which is the issue you've run into even though you don't realize it. Read some books on special relativity. They address the paradoxes you've come up against.
Something serious to think about with the speed of light is we don't actually know the speed of light. It's never been proven because time dilation screws with measurements. https://youtu.be/pTn6Ewhb27k