Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
Monochromatic light (light of a given frequency) has a constant speed, through water... right?

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.
You're a theist and an agnostic.
What's your point.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you. Nobody claimed otherwise.

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
Was that so difficult?

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Well you seem to be amongst the creotard crowd when you make such a blatantly wrong statement such as that.
Especially since is was reaffirmed very recently , that it actually hold true to the mark. Being a universal constant and standard and all. Those guys at NIST all seem to think it is too , by all weights and measure. But you're seemingly convinced , so I'm thinking you must have some pretty strong evidence, I mean other than a feeling all by your oneseys that all the geniuses of the world are so wrong.
So don't be shy present your evidence that the clocks that are accurate to 1 second in 3 billion years are wrong and you are right.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even that isn't quite correct. There is a variation in speed due to density, specifically the electron density. That would be affected by temperature and pressure, for example. Generally speaking, a higher density gives a higher index of refraction and so a smaller phase velocity.
So, for 'ordinary' materials, the index of refraction depends on the frequency, the electron density of the material, and the location of absorption lines in the spectrum of the material.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
You can label you.
You can't label me.
What's your point?

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
To what statement are you referring?

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Talk to Hukt. He's now bitching at me on two threads that the speed of light is constant....

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.
Your turn.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
That's awesome, but I have no idea what it means.
I gave up on math when they started putting letters in it :)

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
He he.
Yes sir... that much I do understand (still working on phase velocity/group velocity).
We don't live in a perfect world and everything's in a state of change, so to speak. Conditions "here" aren't the same as "over there".
If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?
I think... yes?
I'm fairly comfortable with what happens when light transitions from one material to another, as at a water-air interface.
I work with optical fiber... and a particular piece of equipment called an OTDR (optical time domain reflectometer).
With regard to the machine, I'm an "end user"... but, one that tends to get lost in the intricacies of what's actually going on... more so than other techs.
Thanks for putting up with me.
It's appreciated.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Kettle, meet pot.

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
No...
You're whining on two threads.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that processors are moving into a laser light carried code, and it is nearly at c that it works in these machines.
That's the cool news , but the bad news is ...our computers are obsolete, gonna have build a pricy shiny new computer, and they gonna rake it in again.
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-17/tech/quant...

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
RR is whining on three threads.
Sorry to rat on you, RR.

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
Will they run Linux?
That's my only concern.