[_ Old Earth _] Speed of Light changes???

[Sparkey]

It's not new information, no...
The speed of light is not necessarily the same today as it was yesterday.

The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth.

Quoted from: Speed of Light May Have Changed Recently by Eugenie Samuel Reich, published in NEWSCIENTIST.COM, 30 June 2004

It appears that Peter was right, not all things continue the same since the moment of creation. I bet that simple fisherman didn't know he was stating a principle of science that would not be discovered until many thousands of years later.

[2 Peter 3:3-4 NKJV] knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

 

[Ashua]

It certainly slows down upon contacting such things as water. (This is why straight objects appear bent whilst submerged) For the speed of light to be a constant, you would have to assume that it is absolutely unabated in it's passage from the source unto it's destination. As far as the mechanical properties of it's base speed, I cannot say. Natural law dictates that things slow down over distance; but the composition and attributes of light make it harder to say for sure.

 

[Strangelove]

I've got no problem with the speed of light changing.

Dont think there has to be a "speed limit".

I like to think of the universe as Electric.

Stars are huge electrical transformers rather than thermonuclear devices.

The whole universe is a giant electrical plasma grid with the transformers embedded in them. The force of electromagnetism (rather than the outdated theory of gravity) dictating motion, attraction AND repulsion.

There doesnt seem to be a barrier to the speed of light in a system like this.

 

[jasoncran]

problem , venus has no magnetic fields nor does our moon or the asteroidal moon around mars,

if what you say then all turbines should cause us to be drawn in to them, surely the large one in nuke plants produce a large enough eddy current to do that.

magnetism only works on ferrous materials.

 

[Pard]

Thank you. Light is not a constant. Lots of things are assumed to be constant, but it is an assumption and not a fact. The only way to deduce that something is a constant is to examine it from it's origin to now. With most things that is an impossible task that would require time manipulation and even then the time traveler would end up going back and seeing God create everything and the traveler would jump back into his time machine and come back to the modern day and join the clergy somewhere.

magnetism only works on ferrous materials.

That is a false statement. Ten years ago it would have held water, however today we know that electro-magnets can be built so powerful as to attract the polarity of things so small as water. They have used magnets to levitate frogs and pizza. Nothing much bigger than a bullfrog, but this is because the electricity required to do so is on the scale of an entire lightning storm.

They also have electro-magnets that can attract non-ferrous metals by giving them a charge with electric currents.

Here is a website on making a non-ferrous magnet which will attract any kind of metal.

Master Magnet: Attracts non-ferrous metal objects by AC induction!

The electro-magnet that can attract water is proving hard to find. I saw it on the Science Channel a year or two ago. I'll continue looking...

 

[jasoncran]

i am ase certified in electricity and electronics in the mechanical field.

electromagnets do they occur in nature? nope in fact they are nothing but a coil of wire around plastic these days, iron not needed for the cores of those. that is why a starter is so much lighter and fragile these days.

 

[jasoncran]

lets define what metals you are refering to:
is it these

aluminum(non ferrous)
steel(ferrous)
cobalt steel
stainless steel(no longer ferrous in nature due to carbon amounts added)

and theres this:
titanium.

or are you refering the alkali metals? or others.

 

[Pard]

My understanding from Chem class was that these magnets could attract ANY metal, so I can only assume that metals like strontium and such are included in that list. I figure it probably has to do with the way metal atoms bond to one another, so anything with a metalic bond would have a electric charge with this magnet.

I know an electromagnet cannot occur in nature, but given Strange's personal view of the universe, it sounds like a maybe it could. I am only running this as a defense of what Strange was saying, not that I agree, but you know.

 

[jasoncran]

that again is a problem since venus doesnt have a magnetic field(so how can em be produced and keep in mind that a stronger magnet overpowers a weaker one).

if you doubt one look up this ammeter that still used on some equipment. d'arseneux type ammeter

and then fuel guage and such like are two magnets fighting each other two move the needle.

so if gravity is em force then jupiter should be pulling us off the earth as its field pass through us!

i dont believe that light was constant but i wanted to adress his lack of understanding that gravity and magnetism arent related.

 

[Strangelove]

In the electrical model of the solar system, any body on a sufficiently eccentric orbit about the Sun will exhibit cometary features. For ancient people to have seen Venus as an Earth-threatening comet, Venus must have had an eccentric orbit that brought the planet near to Earth. Electrical discharging heated the crust of the planet and created the filamentary electrical scars wreathed about it. Lightning occurring in a high-pressure gas causes this filamentary "Lichtenberg" pattern. At low atmospheric pressures, cratering is more common – as we see on the Moon. The lack of craters on Venus led planetary scientists to conclude conventionally that the surface is very young. If Venus were as old as the Earth, it required a recent volcanic overturning of the entire Venusian crust.

Such an unlikely and ad hoc event is unnecessary in the electrical model. The emerging sciences of plasma cosmology and the electric universe provide the mechanism by which rocky planets like Venus are born from the core of a dwarf star or gas giant undergoing electrical and/or dynamical stress. When a planet is born, it discharges fiercely to its parent in its new electrical environment. Venus is a newborn planet with a heavy atmosphere still shedding its natal heat. It also suffered electric crustal heating in encounters with the plasmaspheres of other planets and in exchange for orbital energy in the Sun's electric field.

From - Venus isn't our twin!

 

[coffeeelover]

If light isn't a constant how can e equals mc squared be correct?

 

[Sparkey]

If light isn't a constant how can e equals mc squared be correct?

That was my point when I opened the thread. The bible clearly declares the mistake that people who think too highly of themselves make. They believe all things continue [today] as they were from the beginning. Now that is quite the assumption, especially when the only ONE who knows declares it otherwise.

[2 Peter 3:4 KJV] - [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

[Ephesians 3:9 KJV] - [9] And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[1 John 3:8, 11 KJV] - [8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. ... [11] For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
_________________________________________________

Does E=MC² reflect the truth if there is no "C" ??
I think no. Clearly, if there is no 'constant' - the theory fails.

~Sparrow

 

[coffeeelover]

That was my point when I opened the thread. The bible clearly declares the mistake that people who think too highly of themselves make. They believe all things continue [today] as they were from the beginning. Now that is quite the assumption, especially when the only ONE who knows declares it otherwise.

[2 Peter 3:4 KJV] - [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

[Ephesians 3:9 KJV] - [9] And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[1 John 3:8, 11 KJV] - [8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. ... [11] For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
_________________________________________________

Does E=MC² reflect the truth if there is no "C" ??
I think no. Clearly, if there is no 'constant' - the theory fails.

~Sparrow

but if the formula is wrong how do nuclear bombs work? Or more precisly how cam we accurately determine their power?

Or how can the formula be accurate if it is wrong?

 

[Deavonreye]

1 John 3:8 . . . my own thoughts on that verse is not for this topic, . . . but it is paramount to the reality of biblical problems that most have no clue of, yet it is right there in that verse. For another topic, though.

[2 Peter 3:4 KJV] - [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

I don't see how this verse has anything to do with the constancy of the speed of light. You are reading into a verse [which would be spiritual in nature] and transfering it to a human argument against science. Regardless, that verse [in context] in no way says that those saying such a thing were IN FACT wrong.

[Ephesians 3:9 KJV] - [9] And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

So, if god isn't giving you the whole story, then how do you know YOU have the information necessary to make a good decision? And if there was information that would have been good for man to know, but was kept hidden [occult means "hidden"], then there is a deception going on against man.

 

[Sparkey]

but if the formula is wrong how do nuclear bombs work? Or more precisly how cam we accurately determine their power?

Or how can the formula be accurate if it is wrong?

Oh, so because there is a specific link between the amount of energy that is found in all matter -- you conclude that the speed of light is exactly the same as it was at the time of the beginning.

Why should I bother trying to educate you? It is the same objection that I have about dating younger women. Why bother? I'd need to teach them before I can argue with them too. Okay, it should be stated that I am in no way an expert on relativity (not by the furthest stretch of the imagination and some of those guys who propose such things have great imaginations, I must say). Sparrow here is merely a casual onlooker but the equation E=MC² does imply that any change in the velocity of light (if it could even consider such a thing) would result in huge changes in either the amount of energy or mass in the universe. I would ask you now to look into the conundrum that motivates science toward studying theories involving dark matter and dark energy.

Check out the problems that exist unexplained centered on the total matter in the universe. We can discuss later.

https://www.llnl.gov/str//Sep07/Craig.html

Kindly ask yourself, "Why?"
"Why would it be nice if we could explain where all the matter the universe is supposed to contain went to?"
Consider the problems that are centered on the distribution of heat in the observed universe.

Rick C. Hodgin | Tue 16th Dec 2008, 06:11 pm
Washington (DC) - NASA held a phone-in press conference today wherein three astrophysicists reported the latest findings on dark energy. They have now "clearly seen" the effects of dark energy on the most massive collapsed objects in the universe.

This new evidence has aligned scientists behind the central belief that

1. dark energy exists,
2. that it explains why we are seeing the universe expanding and accelerating,
3. that Einstein's General Relativity theory is correct - so long as the cosmological constant is applied (something Einstein himself called his "greatest blunder").

 

[Sparkey]

1 John 3:8 . . . my own thoughts on that verse is not for this topic, . . . but it is paramount to the reality of biblical problems that most have no clue of, yet it is right there in that verse. For another topic, though.



I don't see how this verse has anything to do with the constancy of the speed of light. You are reading into a verse [which would be spiritual in nature] and transfering it to a human argument against science. Regardless, that verse [in context] in no way says that those saying such a thing were IN FACT wrong.



So, if god isn't giving you the whole story, then how do you know YOU have the information necessary to make a good decision? And if there was information that would have been good for man to know, but was kept hidden [occult means "hidden"], then there is a deception going on against man.

I would agree with your assessment that there is a deception going on against all man.

[1 John 3:8 KJV] - [8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

The devil is a liar and is the father of lies. He has lied from the beginning. This is very clearly explained throughout the bible. We also should know of the prophecies spoken against those who are "wise in their own sight".

Does it really startle you to find out that "there is a deception going on against man", occult or otherwise?

 

[Sparkey]

I don't see how this verse has anything to do with the constancy of the speed of light. You are reading into a verse [which would be spiritual in nature] and transfering it to a human argument against science.

Wait. I know what I am saying. You are stating my argument for me now? Please refrain from doing this in the future. You state that I am arguing against science? Where do you get this absurd idea? :

According to the website, "Science made Simple", "the word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge."

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

If you want to say that I am arguing against knowledge itself, you have the burden of proof and your opinion is counter-weighted by my opinion of your opinion.

IF you are trying to state or imply that my challenge to the general acceptance of an equation given by a genius is contrary to the field of the natural sciences, I would suggest that no advances in science could possibly have been been made if there were no challenges to the commonly accepted. What's your point again?

 

[Deavonreye]

I would agree with your assessment that there is a deception going on against all man.

The devil is a liar and is the father of lies. He has lied from the beginning. This is very clearly explained throughout the bible. We also should know of the prophecies spoken against those who are "wise in their own sight".

Does it really startle you to find out that "there is a deception going on against man", occult or otherwise?

And it is obvious that you cannot see the problem with the 1 John 3:8 verse. It's okay, . . . most don't get it.

 

[coffeeelover]

Oh, so because there is a specific link between the amount of energy that is found in all matter -- you conclude that the speed of light is exactly the same as it was at the time of the beginning.

Why should I bother trying to educate you? It is the same objection that I have about dating younger women. Why bother? I'd need to teach them before I can argue with them too. Okay, it should be stated that I am in no way an expert on relativity (not by the furthest stretch of the imagination and some of those guys who propose such things have great imaginations, I must say). Sparrow here is merely a casual onlooker but the equation E=MC² does imply that any change in the velocity of light (if it could even consider such a thing) would result in huge changes in either the amount of energy or mass in the universe. I would ask you now to look into the conundrum that motivates science toward studying theories involving dark matter and dark energy.

Check out the problems that exist unexplained centered on the total matter in the universe. We can discuss later.

https://www.llnl.gov/str//Sep07/Craig.html

Kindly ask yourself, "Why?"
"Why would it be nice if we could explain where all the matter the universe is supposed to contain went to?"
Consider the problems that are centered on the distribution of heat in the observed universe.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that a formula accurately works, or that all formulas that use C work?

You like to phrase things in such a way as to make things seem unknowable. Things are knowable.

If the speed of light is changing we would be able to notice it change.

If the speed of light is slowing down we would notice it takes longer for transitions to space craft take longer than they used to. They don't.

Those are the simple facts.

The amount of energy contained in matter has not gone down since we exploded the first nuclear bomb. If the speed of light has slowed that would have happened.

Also, E=mc2 isn't really dealing with the total amount of energy in the whole universe, but in the amount of energy contained in matter, but either way a slowing speed of light violates the law of conservation. That energy is neither created nor destroyed. If the speed of light is decreasing then the total amount of energy in matter and in the universe is getting smaller aka destroyed.

 

[Deavonreye]

Wait. I know what I am saying. You are stating my argument for me now? Please refrain from doing this in the future. You state that I am arguing against science? Where do you get this absurd idea? :

According to the website, "Science made Simple", "the word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge."

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

If you want to say that I am arguing against knowledge itself, you have the burden of proof and your opinion is counter-weighted by my opinion of your opinion.

IF you are trying to state or imply that my challenge to the general acceptance of an equation given by a genius is contrary to the field of the natural sciences, I would suggest that no advances in science could possibly have been been made if there were no challenges to the commonly accepted. What's your point again?

Don't sidetrack from what my point was. This verse says NOTHING about whether or not things HAVE been the same since "the beginning". It is so abscure about such things that it is a useless argument for OR against.