bucket foundation — inverse omegabucket.foundation

speed of light

don't. That's why. Why is the speed of light the same for all observers in all inertial frames? because the trace of an end cycle is an end cycle when I take so it's always the same speed one state per
Concept
speed of light
Score
5 · always · because
Status
candidate — not yet promoted to canon

Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

  1. 01 · _intake0.981

    > don't. That's why. Why is the speed of light the same for all observers in all inertial frames? because the trace of an end cycle is an end cycle when I take so it's always the same speed one state per

    _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/speed-of-light/003-don-t.md

  2. 02 · _intake0.892

    > inertial frames? because the trace of an end cycle is an end cycle when I take so it's always the same speed one state per step one new state per step in an end cycle so what what Einstein has to

    _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/einstein/009-inertial-frames.md

  3. 03 · yt0.840

    Maxwell says there is something called the speed of light. It is the speed at which waves in the electromagnetic fields move. And naively, you look at the equations and everyone measures the same value for the speed of light. It's a constant of nature. How can it possibly be the case that everyone measures the same speed for light even if they're moving with respect to each other? So for a long time, for decades, people, physicists, bashed their heads against this problem. They came with very elaborate schemes to get rid of it. And it was Einstein, Albert Einstein, in his great paper in 1905,

    yt/_TBNJyztai0-sean-carroll-explains-the-biggest-ideas-in-the-universe-full/transcript.txt

  4. 04 · yt0.831

    I expect you to get a speed c/2. But you keep getting c. You go three fourths of the velocity of light; you still get the velocity of light. That is very contrary to what we believe. In fact, that's in violent opposition to this law here. If this V were not a bullet but a light beam, suppose for me traveling at a speed c and you're traveling to the right at speed u, you should get c - u. That's the inevitable consequence of Newtonian physics. And you don't get that. And that was a big problem. So, people tried to fix it up by doing different models of ether, none of which worked. And nobody kn

    yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt

  5. 05 · yt0.821

    If you see a distance between two masses to be one meter, I'll also think it's one meter. If the force is 1 over the square of the distance, we'll agree on the force, we'll agree on the acceleration, we'll agree on everything. And once you've proven F = ma is valid, it follows that every mechanical phenomenon will behave the same way. That's the reason things behave the same way. Yes? Student: If for some weird reason, suppose different frames of reference, the rule F = ma was to fail, what would happen? Professor Ramamurti Shankar: You mean if the rule failed in the other frame? Student: Hypo

    yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt

  6. 06 · yt0.818

    Now, here's where your intuition starts to bleed because you've been quietly worshiping one more hidden assumption. You assume there's one universal clock, one master metronome [music] in the sky, one cosmic now that everybody shares everywhere. That's the secret religion of everyday life. Relativity murders it. Not with philosophy, [music] with measurement. Put a precise clock in a different gravitational field, [music] it ticks differently. put it in motion relative to you. It ticks differently. Time is not a single sheet laid over the universe. It's stitched into the way you move through sp

    yt/q95GYzJlyYY-werner-heisenberg-explains-time-like-you-ve-never-seen-befor/transcript.txt

  7. 07 · yt0.813

    So, at the time of Galileo and Newton everybody agreed that you cannot detect it. Remember that if you started out and Newton's laws worked for you, you are called an inertial observer. One of the laws you want is, if you leave something, it should stay where it is. When the train is accelerating, that won't be true. You leave things on the floor when it's accelerating, things will slide backwards. So, with no apparent force acting on it, things will begin to accelerate; that's a non-inertial frame. We are not interested in that. You started out as an observer for whom the laws of Newton work,

    yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt

  8. 08 · yt0.813

    And so so this raises an important point about science and it's very elementary. Scientific theories start with assumptions. Like Einstein, the special theory of relativity, he started with the assumption that um the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames and that there is no special inertial frame. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. And he said if you grant me those two assumptions then he could build actually um relativistic spacetime with all the the changing clocks and and meter stick lengths and the whole bit came from those assumptions and but he didn't d

    yt/xaeafKPfs1M-the-greatest-discovery-about-reality-the-consciousness-behin/transcript.txt

  9. 09 · yt0.810

    You're  saying it's just the wrong direction.  It's a wrong direction because it packages  together two things that are really ... Space   and time in our common experience don't seem  like the same kind of thing. You can go to a   lot of effort to make them seem like the same kind  of thing by telling various relativity stories and   so on. But the fact is our common experience  of space and time, they're somewhat different.   And in our models, the fact that T squared minus  x squared and know Lorentz transformations

    yt/yAJTctpzp5w-can-space-and-time-emerge-from-simple-rules-stephen-wolfram-/transcript.txt

  10. 10 · yt0.810

    The question is, "Can you tell if it's you who's responsible for this relative motion, or maybe nothing happened to you and the other train is moving the opposite way?" And the claim of relativity is that you really cannot tell. You can tell there is motion between the two trains that wasn't there before. That's very clear if you look outside but there is no way to tell what actually happened when you were sleeping. Whether you were given the velocity of 200 to the right or the other train was given a velocity of 200 to the left or maybe a combination of the two, you just cannot tell. That's t

    yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt

Curation checklist

  • ☐ Verify excerpt against source recording
  • ☐ Tag tier (axiom · law · principle · primary derivation · observation)
  • ☐ Cross-cite to ≥1 primary source (PubMed / arXiv / archive.org)
  • ☐ Promote to bucket-canon/02-physics/