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

[Sparkey]

"I choose to take their word and work for lack of any other credible information."

To clarify, I am not debating from a position that 'since scholars argue amongst themselves they must know nothing' or any such thing, not trying to state that "knowledge is unknowable" or "an illusion" but contrary to the assertions made in thread, scientists do consider the assumptions made by their peer group (well accepted or otherwise). As I've tried to state before, this is the essence of science. Casting dispersions simply because people (whether they be individuals of members of groups) are capable of thought leaves me disgusted. Here then, more proof to my main assertion:

"The Natural Laws of the Universe : Understanding Fundamental Constants"

Constants, such as the gravitational constant and the speed of light, are present in all the laws of physics, yet recent observations have cast doubt on one of them. This book examines constants, the role they play in the laws of physics, and whether indeed constants can be verified.

... evoking major discoveries from Galileo and Newton to Planck and Einstein and raising questions provoked by ever more current accurate observations.

...investigate the solidity of the foundations of physics and discuss the implications of the discovery of the non-constancy of a constant.

... highly instructive survey explores the paths of gravitation, general relativity and new theories such as that of superstrings.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In order to make the speed of light constant, Einstein replaced absolute space and time with new definitions that depend on the state of motion of an observer."

Inconstant Speed Of Light May Debunk Einstein
By Michael Christie
8-7-2

SYDNEY (Reuters)
"A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed."

I have proven my point (without any fear of contradiction) and proven it often. The question, "Is it possible for the speed of light to change?" is not a question that lies in the domain of the minds of "young earthers" only but this very question is being considered by some of the best minds of science even now. I've quoted from Cornell University, Cal-Tech, the Encyclopedia Britannica, have quoted books that are used for university level instruction. These sources carry substantial weight and what counter-argument has been brought? "I don't get it," and "What's your point," and general assertsions, "I want to believe their word [the word of the 'general scientific community'] for LACK OF ANY OTHER CREDIBLE INFORMATION."

The ad hominem attacks brought against me, asserting that I am a 'young earther" or that I believe the world is 6,000 years old fail miserably. Simply put, that is not the case. Further attempts to attack me personally have also failed. Unsubstantiated claims that I've said, "knowledge is an illusion" are only false; they demonstrate the desperation of those who want to oppose any thought labeled (in their minds) as "Christian".

Some have come pretending that they have participated in this thread without knowing what it was about. They ask, "What is the point [of the thread]?" when I deny drawing any conclusion about the quality of knowledge itself (that it is an illusion). Okay. I'll accept their word. Why should I argue? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the title of the thread is a question. "Speed of light changes???" My point when making the thread was to indicate my surprise when I saw credible sources in the scientific community challenge something that I've always been taught is one of the basic and founding principles of Science. It's been more than a century since Einstein published his theories. Such concepts that have traditionally been brought against his theories of were formed primarily from scholastic (top down) methods. Is it possible that there could be a convergence between the two different methods in the future? I hope so. It is as yet unknown.

Cordially,
~Sparrow


Citations____________________
Uzan, Jean-Philippe, and Bénédicte Leclercq. The natural laws of the universe : understanding fundamental constants. Berlin ; New York : Springer ; Chichester, UK: Praxis Pub., 2008. Print.

 

[Sparkey]

I

Ok sorry if I miss understand. What is the point of this thread?

Is that your version of a retraction? I have NEVER said that knowledge is an illusion.

 

[coffeeelover]

Is that your version of a retraction? I have NEVER said that knowledge is an illusion.

What did you say then? If light isn't a constant why do the formulas, and the technology that rely on those formulas work?

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[Deavonreye]

In response to the article by Michael Christie, if there is variation, it wouldn't be much. . . hardly measurable, yet even if there was a measurable difference, it still would place that speed in the same ballpark. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Sparkey]

What did you say then? If light isn't a constant why do the formulas, and the technology that rely on those formulas work?

What is the purpose of this thread?

You're on ignore, sir. Read below.

 

[Sparkey]

In response to the article by Michael Christie, if there is variation, it wouldn't be much. . . hardly measurable, yet even if there was a measurable difference, it still would place that speed in the same ballpark. But that's just my opinion.

True enough. I'm not trying to present an exhaustive summary of those who have suggested that the speed of light changes, actually my memory fails me. There was a radio show that I recall vaguely (the host is fairly famous - maybe somebody remembers) who had a series of articles posted on the web - but he's hardly what I would call a reputable source of scientific information.

If I do recall and can get the information I'll be happy to share for further discussion.

 

[Deavonreye]

I think that would be fine. I'll take a look if posted.

 

[Sparkey]

I think that would be fine. I'll take a look if posted.

Ahhh... nevermind, it's entertainment radio - not science. I did remember where i heard it though - the Art Bell show, from years ago. Easy to Google if you like. Not the most credible source. lol

 

[Sparkey]

Given the well known equation, E=MC² as a relation of energy showing how it compares to matter and a ratio of light "speed" (distance over TIME) we come to the subject "Tempus Incognito" --Does Time Exist?

Does proper understanding of our observable consider ultra-tiny building blocks beyond which ties can not be expressed? Does anything that we (mankind) can not observe exist? Do our limitations form the structure of the universe or merely our perception of it?

Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", asserts amid the many intricate scientific concepts that time has to be analyzed based on three keys: the cosmological arrow, which explains the universe's expansion, the thermodynamic arrow, which explains the constant change of things, and psychological arrow. It is the psychological "arrow" of man together with the creative focus of God that seems (to me) to be an area of neglect.

 

[coffeeelover]

Given the well known equation, E=MC² as a relation of energy showing how it compares to matter and a ratio of light "speed" (distance over TIME) we come to the subject "Tempus Incognito" --Does Time Exist?

The formula is not comparing matter and energy to the speed of light. Matter is energy, they are in fact the same thing.

Also time exists. We are all traveling in it.

 

[Sparkey]

The formula is not comparing matter and energy to the speed of light. Matter is energy, they are in fact the same thing.

Also time exists. We are all traveling in it.

Contrary to what you state, any equation is a comparison - just because the result of the comparison is an equivalency does not mean that a comparison has not been made.

Your critique (false on the face of it) further fails to address my main point.

 

[coffeeelover]

Contrary to what you state, any equation is a comparison - just because the result of the comparison is an equivalency does not mean that a comparison has not been made.

Your critique (false on the face of it) further fails to address my main point.

Matter is energy, and I am still waiting for a point. Your point seems to be knowledge is not real. If you have another point I would love clarification.

The equation 2+2=4 is not a comparison. The equal sign shows they are the same thing.

 

[Sparkey]

The equation 2+2=4 is not a comparison. The equal sign shows they are the same thing.

Go ahead and say the same thing 1,000 times - it won't change facts. You have compared the sum of two numbers to another number and found a true statement. Try to do it without comparison. If your purpose was merely to side-track the conversation, why bother? This is a fairly stale thread. Your false observation serve no purpose.

Again, Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", asserts that time must be analyzed based on three keys: the cosmological arrow, which explains the universe's expansion, the thermodynamic arrow, which explains the constant change of things, and psychological arrow (subjectively).

According to the well known equation a man who travels at the speed of light ages considerably slower than one who does not. Our "thought experiments" and math itself fail to consider infinity - hence they fail to acknowledge the real.

 

[coffeeelover]

Go ahead and say the same thing 1,000 times - it won't change facts. You have compared the sum of two numbers to another number and found a true statement. Try to do it without comparison. If your purpose was merely to side-track the conversation, why bother? This is a fairly stale thread. Your false observation serve no purpose.

Again, Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", asserts that time must be analyzed based on three keys: the cosmological arrow, which explains the universe's expansion, the thermodynamic arrow, which explains the constant change of things, and psychological arrow (subjectively).

According to the well known equation a man who travels at the speed of light ages considerably slower than one who does not. Our "thought experiments" and math itself fail to consider infinity - hence they fail to acknowledge the real.

The faster one travels the slower time passes. That is true for sure, and has to be taken into account for gps to work.

Ice is not equivalent to water. Ice is water.

It has been awhile since I read a brief history of time, but I am fairly confident you misunderstand the analogy.

 

[Sparkey]

Ice is not equivalent to water. Ice is water.

Orly? :

That's like saying, "2+2 is not equivalent to 4. 2+2 IS 4".
PARDON ME?

My use of the term equivalent carries the meaning of two sets that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence.

 

[Sparkey]

The faster one travels the slower time passes. That is true for sure, and has to be taken into account for gps to work.

I know of no GPS system that attempts to account for time dilation of a person traveling in a car. Again, you fail to understand the basis of your own contention.

Quoting WIKI:

One of the most significant error sources is the GPS receiver's clock. Because of the very large value of the speed of light, c, the estimated distances from the GPS receiver to the satellites, the pseudoranges, are very sensitive to errors in the GPS receiver clock; for example an error of one microsecond (0.000 001 second) corresponds to an error of 300 metres (980 ft)

Einstein's insight means that what we think of as the influence of gravity is really matter following the quickest path through what he calls space-time. The flow of time becomes a function of location, so the quickest path could now be an elliptical orbit seen as a plumb line to the ground. My point here has not been to try to contend that Albert Einstein was wrong when he compared Energy and Matter but only that we can not know the speed of light AT THE TIME OF CREATION and consequently the rate of time itself as it flows outside our experience. Have you even tried to google the term, "Tempus Incognito" ?

 

[coffeeelover]

I know of no GPS system that attempts to account for time dilation of a person traveling in a car. Again, you fail to understand the basis of your own contention.

It wasn't my contention that GPS accounts for time dilation do to the speed of a person in a car. What a GPS accounts for is the difference in speed Of the Satellites to the receiver and atomic clock on the ground. These systems are accurate to one nanosecond, that taking into account the speed of light gives an accuracy of about one foot. Which oddly enough is the distance light travels in one nanosecond.

GPS systems have shown conclusively that the speed of light has been constant (and relativity correct) for as long as GPS systems have been working.

Quoting WIKI:

Einstein's insight means that what we think of as the influence of gravity is really matter following the quickest path through what he calls space-time. The flow of time becomes a function of location, so the quickest path could now be an elliptical orbit seen as a plumb line to the ground. My point here has not been to try to contend that Albert Einstein was wrong when he compared Energy and Matter but only that we can not know the speed of light AT THE TIME OF CREATION and consequently the rate of time itself as it flows outside our experience. Have you even tried to google the term, "Tempus Incognito" ?

Einsteins insights were that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the speed of time is not a constant, and that time and space are intertwined.

Also Einstein didn't compare matter to energy. He proved they are the same thing. You seem to be having a hard time getting your head around that concept.

As far as the speed of light at the time of creation. Well if the speed of light is a constant and doesn't change the only logical conclusion is that is was the same then as now. Or it established its current speed in the very early nanoseconds after the big bang so it makes no practical difference.

As for Tempus, Incognito Quantum mechanics has many odd things about it, and makes some pretty out of this world predictions, but so far it has been proven true again and again. Don't be alarmed that you can't wrap your head around how it works with Relativity, because the brightest minds in physics have been trying to for decades.

To summaries. Time exists, but isn't a constant, and is inherently intertwined with space, but is undetectable at quantum sizes. The speed of light in a vacume is a constant.

 

[Sparkey]

It wasn't my contention that GPS accounts for time dilation do to the speed of a person in a car.

Read your post again. What you actually said was, "The faster one travels the slower time passes. That is true for sure, and has to be taken into account for gps to work." <--- "The faster one travels..." Who were you in reference to then? Obviously your statement was about a person traveling at a rate of speed.

OH! I see, when you said, "the faster one travels" you meant the speed of one of the satellites? Okay. Are you sure this time? Let's see, hmmmm... "What a GPS accounts for is the difference in speed Of the Satellites to the receiver and atomic clock on the ground." So, maybe you meant the speed of all of the satellites. But in any case, you surmise somehow that satellites don't maintain a consistent velocity? In your mind the speed of one or more of the GPS satellites has variable speeds and that is the problem? Question, have you never heard of geosynchronous orbits ? (Just by the way, as far as I know, GPS do not make use of those orbits, just saying). That aside, it is NOT the speed of the satellite or satellites that presents the problem that you are struggling with. Rather, it is the height of the satellites (actually the height of the clocks) and their distance from the nearest gravity well (the earth) relative to the clocks in the ground receivers that must be accounted for. There are atomic clocks now that are accurate to the 17th digit BUT lifting them by 3.4 feet will effect the 16th digit. GPS accuracy with 17 digit (expensive and not implemented) clock systems in place would be to the nearest millimeter.

GPS systems have shown conclusively that the speed of light has been constant (and relativity correct) for as long as GPS systems have been working.

Lol. So, your contention is that since we can show that for the past 50 years or so the speed of light is a significant factor in determining synchronized time between satellite and surface clocks - all other possibilities are necessarily ruled out. Let's look at your next attempt to say this, shall we?

As far as the speed of light at the time of creation. Well if the speed of light is a constant and doesn't change the only logical conclusion is that is was the same then as now.

I AM 100% in agreement with you on that single statement. It is absolutely true. Given the assumption of your "IF"

.IF. the speed of light is a constant...
.AND IF. the speed of light does not change...
.THEN. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ...​

Perfect. Bravo. Coffeelover, you did it! A true logical syllogism well stated with succinct clarity. Well done. But wait... you go on to give an alternative to "the only logical conclusion" in your next breath, don't cha?

".OR. it established its current speed... after ...​

So what is it? Are your assumptions true or not? You've asserted that the speed of light IS INDEED constant. You've asserted that if this condition is true .AND IF. the speed of light does not change ---> there is ONLY ONE (1) conclusion.

I agree and would thank you for your brilliant analysis. You've stumbled your way into stating my point precisely.

 

[coffeeelover]

Read your post again. What you actually said was, "The faster one travels the slower time passes. That is true for sure, and has to be taken into account for gps to work." <--- "The faster one travels..." Who were you in reference to then? Obviously your statement was about a person traveling at a rate of speed.

OH! I see, when you said, "the faster one travels" you meant the speed of one of the satellites? Okay. Are you sure this time? Let's see, hmmmm... "What a GPS accounts for is the difference in speed Of the Satellites to the receiver and atomic clock on the ground." So, maybe you meant the speed of all of the satellites. But in any case, you surmise somehow that satellites don't maintain a consistent velocity? In your mind the speed of one or more of the GPS satellites has variable speeds and that is the problem? Question, have you never heard of geosynchronous orbits? That aside, it is NOT the speed of the satellite or satellites that presents the problem that you are struggling with. Rather, it is the height of the satellites (actually the height of the clocks) and their distance from the nearest gravity well (the earth) relative to the clocks in the ground receivers that must be accounted for. There are atomic clocks now that are accurate to the 17th digit BUT lifting them by 3.4 feet will effect the 16th digit. GPS accuracy with 17 digit (expensive and not implemented) clock systems in place would be to the nearest millimeter.



Lol. So, your contention is that since we can show that for the past 50 years or so the speed of light is a significant factor in determining synchronized time between satellite and surface clocks - all other possibilities are necessarily ruled out. Let's look at your next attempt to say this, shall we?


I AM 100% with you on that single statement. It is absolutely true. Given the assumption of your "IF"

.IF. the speed of light is a constant...
.AND IF. the speed of light does not change...
.THEN. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ...​

Perfect. Bravo. Coffeelover, you did it!

But wait... you go on to give an alternative to "the only logical conclusion" in your next breath, don't cha?

".OR. it established its current speed... after ...​

So what is it? Are your assumptions true or not? You've asserted that the speed of light IS INDEED constant. You've asserted that if this condition is true .AND IF. the speed of light does not change ---> there is ONLY ONE (1) conclusion.

I agree and would thank you for your brilliant analysis. You've stumbled your way into stating my point precisely.

The faster matter travels the slower time passes. That is a fact. The speed of light is a constant. That is also a fact. Why contend it isn't if you aren't trying to show knowledge is an illusion. Nuclear reactors and gps works because einstein was right.

 

[Sparkey]

It is your unsupported contention that my motivation has anything to do with knowledge being "an illusion". I can not for the life of me understand where you got that red herring. For the record, I've never been to a "Christian Science Reading Room".

As for why I continue to discuss this with you? I dunno, it's 'cause you're cute, I guess.

.IF. the speed of light is a constant...
.AND IF. the speed of light does not change...
.THEN. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ...​

Perfect. Bravo. Coffeelover, you did it! A true logical syllogism well stated with succinct clarity. Well done. But wait... you go on to give an alternative to "the only logical conclusion" in your next breath, don't cha?

".OR. it established its current speed... after ...​

So what is it? Are your assumptions true or not? You've asserted that the speed of light IS INDEED constant. You've asserted that if this condition is true .AND IF. the speed of light does not change ---> there is ONLY ONE (1) conclusion.