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

[coffeeelover]

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.

Thanks.

Ok so your not trying to suggest knowledge is an illusion. let's move on.

I say light is a constant because the technology that depends on light being a constant works, and that relativity is constantly being corroborated.

Are you suggesting there is a flaw in that logic? If so what is it?

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks.

Ok so your not trying to suggest knowledge is an illusion. let's move on.

I say light is a constant because the technology that depends on light being a constant works, and the relativity is constantly being corroborated.

Are you suggesting there is a flaw in that logic? If so what is it?

No. You are not saying merely that the speed of light is constant. If that was all you were saying I would simply agree. What you allege is that the speed of light is constantly constant. You're allegation asserts that because we have GPS that have functioned for 50 years, the speed of light is necessarily the same and has always been the same since God spoke it into existence.

Was the speed of light the same before AND after Adams sin? Was the speed of light the same both before and after the Tower of Babel? What about the flood? God determines the speed of light and God alone is the only constant. I don't know if the speed of light has changed or not. How can you?

"The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics. The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic."

--Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford.

 

[coffeeelover]

No. You are not saying merely that the speed of light is constant. If that was all you were saying I would simply agree. What you allege is that the speed of light is constantly constant. You're allegation asserts that because we have GPS that have functioned for 50 years, the speed of light is necessarily the same and has always been the same since God spoke it into existence.

Was the speed of light the same before AND after Adams sin? Was the speed of light the same both before and after the Tower of Babel? What about the flood? God determines the speed of light and God alone is the only constant. I don't know if the speed of light has changed or not. How can you?

Those are mythical events, and had no effect on the speed of light.

 

[Sparkey]

Those are mythical events, and had no effect on the speed of light.

Your statements do not have any effect on the event whatsoever. Let me put it in a different way then, was the speed of light the same before the birth of [insert historical figure here] as it was after?

Pick any historical event that you consider non-mythical and answer. Then prove by your method (the GPS argument) your case. My point is my point. One can not extrapolate what is seen today back in perpetuity without assumption.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm curious. . . . . if the speed of light isn't constant, . . . . . . how much of a difference are we talking about here?

 

[coffeeelover]

I'm curious. . . . . if the speed of light isn't constant, . . . . . . how much of a difference are we talking about here?

For the universe to be 6,000 years old it would have to be a huge difference.

 

[coffeeelover]

Your statements do not have any effect on the event whatsoever. Let me put it in a different way then, was the speed of light the same before the birth of [insert historical figure here] as it was after?

Pick any historical event that you consider non-mythical and answer. Then prove by your method (the GPS argument) your case. My point is my point. One can not extrapolate what is seen today back in perpetuity without assumption.

Arbitrary events such as births or earthquakes have no effect on the speed of light so any event is the same. The speed of light was the same before as after. As to the argument as to why these events might have an effect. All I can say is that logically it is up to you to prove they do.

If you view my argument as the gps argument you just don't understand. GPS has been corroborating relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light for decades, but it certainly isn't the only thing. Nuclear reactors prove it too.

As to your contention that somehow there is a constantly constant vs only a constant I think you just fundamentally miss understand. There is no such thing as a constant constant. There are constants and those things that are not constants such as time.

 

[Sparkey]

Arbitrary events such as births or earthquakes have no effect on the speed of light so any event is the same. The speed of light was the same before as after. As to the argument as to why these events might have an effect. All I can say is that logically it is up to you to prove they do.

If you view my argument as the gps argument you just don't understand. GPS has been corroborating relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light for decades, but it certainly isn't the only thing. Nuclear reactors prove it too.

As to your contention that somehow there is a constantly constant vs only a constant I think you just fundamentally miss understand. There is no such thing as a constant constant. There are constants and those things that are not constants such as time.

You complain about my fundamental misunderstanding but you're the one talking about the earth being 6,000 years old, not me. You've stated that equations don't make comparisons. Again, the fact that two things are equal MEANS that they have been compared. Further, you're the one who spoke of the exception... one sec, let me quote you again...

Or it [lightspeed] established its current speed in the very early nanoseconds after the big bang...

By your own admission, the speed of light isn't constantly constant.
So what is it? If you can not prove anything by your GPS argument, why bring it up? Now you try to switch and say that your argument is also "Nuclear reactors prove it too." lol - I can't wait. Go ahead, make your case from "Nuclear reactors." Prove that the speed of light traveled at the exact same rate 10,000 years ago with your new "nuclear reactor" argument. I dare you. One proviso, do so without the direct assumption that all things proceed from ages past as they do today. Either that or admit your assumption(s). Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. :biglol

I've not said that arbitrary events like births or earthquakes have any effect on the speed of light. Again your absurd conclusions do not my thoughts make. Look at my previous quotes from articles such as

• "Speed of Light May Have Changed Recently" by Eugenie Samuel Reich, published in NEWSCIENTIST.COM,
• "Curious About Astronomy: Did the speed of light change over the history of the universe?" <--- link from cornell.edu

Here's another:

The speed of light and other fixed numbers (called constants) that scientists rely on to explain the universe and its formation mathematically may not be so constant, according to a new study conducted by an international team of researchers.

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

That article goes on to say, "This standard model is the basis for all assumptions about how the observable and microscopic physical worlds works, both now and in the past." I'm just reporting it. Note the word, "assumptions". (*wink*)

You've asked, "What does any of that have to do with the fact that a formula accurately works, or that all formulas that use C work?"
When I answer with formulas that use "C" as a constant and show how others have concluded that time itself does not exist you disregard it. Need me to actually copy the formula here?

 

[coffeeelover]

You complain about my fundamental misunderstanding but you're the one talking about the earth being 6,000 years old, not me. Further you're the one who spoke of the exception... one sec, let me quote you again...



By your own admission, the speed of light isn't constantly constant.
So what is it? If you can not prove anything by your GPS argument, why bring it up? Now you try to switch and say that your argument is also "Nuclear reactors prove it too."

lol - I can't wait. Go ahead, make your case from "Nuclear reactors."
Prove that the speed of light traveled at the exact same rate 10,000 years ago with your new "nuclear reactor" argument. I dare you. One proviso, do so without the direct assumption that all things proceed from ages past as they do today.

Either that or admit your assumption. Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. :biglol

Here it goes. Nuclear reactions work. We can determine the energy that will be created by the reaction with the theory of relativity. This allows nuclear subs and power stations to operate reliably. They have been doing so for awhile now. that is good evidence the theory is correct.

Relativity says that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. That means it doesn't change. That means same in the past as in the present hence constant. In equations this value is represented by c.

GPS rely on on formulas using c. If this value was ever to have changed it would have been noticed. Meaning GPS wouldn't work. It has as you admit been working for 50 years.
This evidence is two fold. The simplistic, we only know for 50 years that light didn't change, but more importantly that it is even more evidence that the theory of relativity is correct. Which means that the speed of light is a constant. Constant meaning of course that it doesn't change.

As to the part where I admit that it could of change in the few nanoseconds after the big bang. Well both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics break down when the universe is that small. We haven't devised a quantum theory of gravity. Meaning when the universe is smaller than an atom how does gravity work with quantum mechanics.

So until we have a quantum theory of gravity there is no way to know if light was a constant in those nanoseconds, but after that the rules apply and light is a constant.

 

[Sparkey]

Here it goes. Nuclear reactions work. We can determine the energy that will be created by the reaction with the theory of relativity. This allows nuclear subs and power stations to operate reliably. They have been doing so for awhile now. that is good evidence the theory is correct.

Relativity says that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. That means it doesn't change. That means same in the past as in the present hence constant. In equations this value is represented by c.

GPS rely on on formulas using c. If this value was ever to have changed it would have been noticed. Meaning GPS wouldn't work. It has as you admit been working for 50 years.
This evidence is two fold. The simplistic, we only know for 50 years that light didn't change, but more importantly that it is even more evidence that the theory of relativity is correct. Which means that the speed of light is a constant. Constant meaning of course that it doesn't change.

As to the part where I admit that it could of change in the few nanoseconds after the big bang. Well both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics break down when the universe is that small. We haven't devised a quantum theory of gravity. Meaning when the universe is smaller than an atom how does gravity work with quantum mechanics.

So until we have a quantum theory of gravity there is no way to know if light was a constant in those nanoseconds, but after that the rules apply and light is a constant.

You should at least try to quote me accurately. I've said the basis for the GPS has been around for 50 year. Not that the systems itself has. If we use a current scientific majority consensus, the earth has been around for what? 12 Billion years? What is 50 years to that? Your statement that our Global Positioning Systems (which is effected by HEIGHT, not Speed) proves that the speed of light was the same 10,000 years ago does not establish your belief.

Science can't actually prove that the sun will be there tomorrow let alone that the light from the sun tomorrow will travel at the same speed as it does today. It's a reasonable assumption though. In my lifetime I've not known of any evidence of any change to the speed of light. But then, does that mean that light traveled precisely at 299,792,458 m/s 10,000 years ago?

Let's assume it didn't for the sake of argument. Now it's your turn. Show how a change in the speed of light in times past would negate our ability to use Energy=8.987551787 E16 meters /second times Matter equation.

You're trying to say that if the speed of Light were different 10,000 years ago (or any arbitrary time in the past) our GPS and our Nuclear Reactors would not work. Based on what? Your belief? So far, you've established that the speed of light has no appreciable change in the past few decades. I will of course admit that any new speed of light, even if the change were just a few parts per billion, would seriously throw off the accuracy of GPS.

 

[coffeeelover]

You should at least try to quote me accurately. I've said the basis for the GPS has been around for 50 year. Not that the systems itself has. If we use a current scientific majority consensus, the earth has been around for what? 12 Billion years? What is 50 years to that? Your statement that our Global Positioning Systems (which is effected by HEIGHT, not Speed) proves that the speed of light was the same 10,000 years ago does not establish your belief.

Science can't actually prove that the sun will be there tomorrow let alone that the light from the sun tomorrow will travel at the same speed as it does today. It's a reasonable assumption though. In my lifetime I've not known of any evidence of any change to the speed of light. But then, does that mean that light traveled precisely at 299,792,458 m/s 10,000 years ago?

Let's assume it didn't for the sake of argument. Now it's your turn. Show how a change in the speed of light in times past would negate our ability to use Energy=8.987551787 E16 meters /second times Matter equation.

You're trying to say that if the speed of Light were different 10,000 years ago (or any arbitrary time in the past) our GPS and our Nuclear Reactors would not work. Based on what? Your belief? So far, you've established that the speed of light has no appreciable change in the past few decades. I will of course admit that any new speed of light, even if the change were just a few parts per billion, would seriously throw off the accuracy of GPS.

Your trying to say that light doesn't have to be a constant to be a constant. Relativity says its a constant. So if light changes speed it isn't a constant and relativity is wrong.

If you want to say relativity is wrong then show it.

 

[Sparkey]

Quit quoting me. You get it wrong every time.

 

[coffeeelover]

Quit quoting me. You get it wrong every time.

I didn't change the quote at all how did I get it wrong?

Relativity says light is a constant. Either the theory is correct or incorrect regarding this. Evidence supports the theory. I know of no instance where any application of the theory into technology resulted in evidence against relativity.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm curious. . . . . if the speed of light isn't constant, . . . . . . how much of a difference are we talking about here?

Pardon Deavonreye, I should not have ignored your point as it is well made. The difference cited in the various articles that I've found is very, very slight. There is further discussion about "compensating constants" that enter into the topic as well. Oftentimes the topic goes over my head and I struggle for comprehension lacking sufficient math to do more than try to get the gist of it.

I am familiar though with the scientific process sufficiently to know that it is reasonable to allow questions with the expectation of answers. Happy to fetch the exact answer to your question for you if you want? ;)

~Sparrow

 

[jasoncran]

please do post as even lets say a deviation of 100mph will affect distances of stars.

 

[Deavonreye]

If you choose to, Sparrow. I'm not that much of a mathmaticisn either, and often those physics deals ARE hard to follow.

Jason, 100 mph would affect the calculations of star distances, . . . but realistically, not by a huge margin.

 

[jasoncran]

If you choose to, Sparrow. I'm not that much of a mathmaticisn either, and often those physics deals ARE hard to follow.

Jason, 100 mph would affect the calculations of star distances, . . . but realistically, not by a huge margin.

at distance of over 10 billion light years.

keep in mind that would a shortfall of serious milleage.

thats like telling me a most land navigator that one degree of on grid azimuth to magnetic azimuth wont affect much at long distance.

nay i would miss the object if it was arty being sighted in on it or i was trying to get there.

 

[Deavonreye]

Distances would still be great.

 

[jasoncran]

Distances would still be great.

i'm glad that you dont lead me in the army from point a to b or actually are naval quarter master.

we got to fly to them planets , one might want some accuary in that.

 

[Deavonreye]

??? Why the personal attack? I'm just saying that regardless of whether or not the speed of light MAY have had some change in speed, it would still take an extreme amount of time for that light to have reached our planet.