A linear sequence is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
In lines, one followed by 2 etc. the 2nd part follows the 1st part etc.
A linear speed is based on a sequence of accounting…using time and distance to calculate speed, assuming the distance involves linear spacing and the time involves linear durations.
In order for this to work we must assume each value to be static, whereby we equate each second as equal to the next etc. and each measure of distance such as miles or meters to be equal to the next etc. and so on.
In our minds each second and each meter can in fact be equal, but in practice in the physical world we cannot demonstrate the accuracy of our mental assessment.
You mention GPS which involves 3 satellites carrying atomic clocks and these orbiting clocks must correspond with the ground based clocks, which means the clocks must be routinely adjusted to compensate for the dynamic time differential existing between the ground based clocks and those in orbit. Otherwise GPS would be less than helpful.
It is my contention that light does not have a speed corresponding to a physical distance traveled in a specific duration of time, in that light itself is not in motion as is a train or bus.
Light is the product of an electromagnetic response and as such is itself a dynamic effect corresponding to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference.
Light is also a distortional effect, which is why a laser is possible, but the light itself is not in motion in a manner corresponding to the stated value of light speed.
You might ask why then should it be possible to bring a light pulse to a complete standstill if it was not in motion? (As in Hau’s Frozen Light Experiment)
It was the condition of field which was modified in this experiment and not the linear motion of the light pulse. A frozen cloud of sodium atoms affected the condition of field allowing the light pulse to not only appear to stop but to vanish from view. Time was itself brought to a stand still which in turn forced the light pulse from the present condition of field, which allowed it to vanish.
The apparent motion of light is comparable to the increasing acceleration of gravity, yet gravity is not itself in motion.
Of course there is a change from here to there but we are not talking about changes or rates of change, we are talking about the measured speed of light.
The physical motion of light, such as the physical motion of a bus, is not something light is capable of.
One of you suggests anti-relativity, this is not anti-relativity, because even Einstein noted that his static evaluation of universe was his greatest mistake.
He also stated very clearly that time was different for every system in motion and every system is in relative motion. So it follows that we have time differentials existing between all systems.
A time differential does not constitute what I refer to as linear motion.
Linear motion requires a physical force to cause the motion to occur, which is the basis of a push-cart.
You mention optics, an optical lens does what exactly? Now that is an interesting question, which would require its own thread.
Go back to Mike and Morley who wanted to show the world the aether wind would alter the speed of light…guess what no change.
If there had been a change then you could say the light was itself in linear motion but that is not what happened.
Not because there is no aether but because light is simply an effect of the field condition and if you take a time differential into account, guess what?
The differential amounts to 1/299,792,458ths of a second more or less over one meter.
But this does not mean the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.
Does that make any sense to you folks?
