Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#721 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:58 AM

They ignore it because it would cause problems for special relativity. It has even been confirmed by experimentation.
http://www.aip.org/p...plit/625-2.html

View Post


I don't think that that experiment shows what you think it shows.

#722 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 August 2010 - 01:26 PM

Rather than start a new thread I'll just post this here. It seems relevant:

Pauli Exclusion Principle Violated

The orderly way in which electrons fill up atomic levels provides stability and structure to matter, as well as dictates the chemical properties of elements on the Periodic Table. Underlying this stability is the ability to pinpoint the location of objects (electrons, protons and neutrons) almost exactly in space and time. The new model posits that at the level where quantum gravity is significant, this picture of space-time continuum breaks down, deeply affecting the rotational symmetry of the atoms and triggering electron transitions (movement from one shell to another) that violate the Pauli principle.

"The Pauli principle is not obeyed in the model we built," Balachandran says. "We then used existing experimental evidence to put limits on when these violations in transitions can occur."

According to the model, violations of the Pauli principle would theoretically occur in nature in a time span that is longer than the age of the universe—or less frequently than once in the proverbial "blue moon."

"Though this effect is small, scientists are using high-precision instruments to try to observe the effect," Balachandran says. "If found, it will profoundly affect the foundations of the current fundamental physical theories. "

"Additionally, chemistry and biology in a world where such violations occur will be dramatically different," adds co-author Padmanabhan.

The fact that the Pauli principle can be violated may also help explain how matter behaves at the edge of black holes, Joseph says: "While we don't know what happens to matter in a black hole, our model may give hints about how matter behaves as atoms collapse from the gravitational pull of black holes."


#723 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 August 2010 - 08:16 AM

Rather than start a new thread I'll just post this here. It seems relevant:

Pauli Exclusion Principle Violated

The orderly way in which electrons fill up atomic levels provides stability and structure to matter, as well as dictates the chemical properties of elements on the Periodic Table. Underlying this stability is the ability to pinpoint the location of objects (electrons, protons and neutrons) almost exactly in space and time. The new model posits that at the level where quantum gravity is significant, this picture of space-time continuum breaks down, deeply affecting the rotational symmetry of the atoms and triggering electron transitions (movement from one shell to another) that violate the Pauli principle.

"The Pauli principle is not obeyed in the model we built," Balachandran says. "We then used existing experimental evidence to put limits on when these violations in transitions can occur."

According to the model, violations of the Pauli principle would theoretically occur in nature in a time span that is longer than the age of the universe—or less frequently than once in the proverbial "blue moon."

"Though this effect is small, scientists are using high-precision instruments to try to observe the effect," Balachandran says. "If found, it will profoundly affect the foundations of the current fundamental physical theories. "

"Additionally, chemistry and biology in a world where such violations occur will be dramatically different," adds co-author Padmanabhan.

The fact that the Pauli principle can be violated may also help explain how matter behaves at the edge of black holes, Joseph says: "While we don't know what happens to matter in a black hole, our model may give hints about how matter behaves as atoms collapse from the gravitational pull of black holes."

View Post


How would this proposed violation of the Pauli principle affect the speed of light? or even correlate with that?
A true violation of that principle would really change a lot of physics and chemistry, depending on how high the probability of the violation is.
There are already some violations of spin transitions known which result in effects like phosphorescence. A relatively often violation of the pauli principle would have major impacts which would already be known.

#724 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 05:57 PM

The speed of light is only constant within a Vacuum! The speed of light will slow down outside of a vacuum, and in real world conditions we constantly see light changing its speed. Even GPS has to be corrected to real world conditions.

Lightspeed within a Vacuum is not relevant.

Why?

Because if I throw a baseball into a Vacuum, it will have a constant speed, and it will not slow down because there is no friction/gravity from incoming matter.

Atheist/evolutionist will have people to believe that lightspeed is always constant anywhere you go, even when light slows down significantly after it passes through matter.

They try to compensate this loss of speed with formula's that correct it, but the same could be done with the baseball if it was given the exact same energy I used to throw everytime I put it into a Vacuum.

Light speed is not constant, and using the Vacuum as evidence is just a cop out, because a bullet shot through a Vacuum will have a constant speed as well, because there is no friction/gravity.

#725 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:29 AM

The speed of light is only constant within a Vacuum!  The speed of light will slow down outside of a vacuum, and in real world conditions we constantly see light changing its speed. Even GPS has to be corrected to real world conditions. 

Lightspeed within a Vacuum is not relevant.

Why?

Because if I throw a baseball into a Vacuum, it will have a constant speed, and it will not slow down because there is no friction/gravity from incoming matter.

Atheist/evolutionist will have people to believe that lightspeed is always constant anywhere you go, even when light slows down significantly after it passes through matter.

They try to compensate this loss of speed with formula's that correct it, but the same could be done with the baseball if it was given the exact same energy I used to throw everytime I put it into a Vacuum.

Light speed is not constant, and using the Vacuum as evidence is just a cop out, because a bullet shot through a Vacuum will have a constant speed as well, because there is no friction/gravity.

View Post

Wow, thats completely rubbish, sorry. Light is slower in a medium than in vacuum, thats right, but this doesn´t affect the results of general relativity like time dilatation. To calculate these effects you need the speed of light in a vacuum.
Light in a medium doesn´t slow down because of friction or something similar, but because of absortion (or more correct because of the different coupling of the electric and magnetic fields). At the point light leaves the medium it has immediately the speed in a vacuum again. This wouldn´t happen with a bullet or something similar.
I wouldn´t ever be able to accelerate a baseball to the speed of light, because it has mass. They do this million times a second in the accelerator worldwide.
What do you people think physicists do the whole day? Planning the big world conspiracy?

#726 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 07:51 AM

Wow, thats completely rubbish, sorry. Light is slower in a medium than in vacuum, thats right, but this doesn´t affect the results of general relativity like time dilatation. To calculate these effects you need the speed of light in a vacuum.
Light in a medium doesn´t slow down because of friction or something similar, but because of absortion (or more correct because of the different coupling of the electric and magnetic fields). At the point light leaves the medium it has immediately the speed in a vacuum again. This wouldn´t happen with a bullet or something similar.
I wouldn´t ever be able to accelerate a baseball to the speed of light, because it has mass. They do this million times a second in the accelerator worldwide.
What do you people think physicists do the whole day? Planning the big world conspiracy?

View Post


Sorry but saying light is slower through a medium is just a cop out, because it's not in a Vacuum.

What I'm saying is not rubbish, because light's only constant within a Vacuum.

If I throw a baseball in a Vacuum its speed will be constant.

If I throw a dead chicken in a Vacuum its speed will be constant.

If I shoot a Bullet in a Vacuum its speed will be constant.

The fact is that you nor any other human on this planet cannot prove that Light is constant outside of a vacuum. You just can't, and the game is over.

Plus your putting words into my mouth, because I never said that the Baseball would be as fast as light. I said that in a Vacuum it's speed would remain a constant of 85 MPH, if that's how fast it's going, and how much energy I used to throw it.

The same thing goes for light. You are absolutely wrong, and so are the rediculous Ideas of many believers of constant lightspeed, because they really think light is constant outside a Vacuum. Sorry, but it isn't.

#727 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 31 August 2010 - 08:10 AM

hm, ok sorry, but then what is your argument, because you lost me here.

The speed of light is also a constant in whatever medium it is. It´s slower than in a vacuum but still constant. If it weren´t it would get slower depending of the distance it goes through that medium. That doesn´t happen.
How do you think it propagates through a medium? slowing down? how? how is it when it leaves that medium into a vacuum again?

#728 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 08:38 AM

hm, ok sorry, but then what is your argument, because you lost me here.

The speed of light is also a constant in whatever medium it is. It´s slower than in a vacuum but still constant. If it weren´t it would get slower depending of the distance it goes through that medium. That doesn´t happen.
How do you think it propagates through a medium? slowing down? how? how is it when it leaves that medium into a vacuum again?

View Post


Lightspeed is contant, but only in a Vacuum. Everytime light has to pass through a medium it slows down, which shows that it has some sort of mass, because it is having to react. If it was supernatural, and had no mass then it shouln't even be effected by a medium.

You know that light has zero rest mass. It's speed 186,000 miles per second will always be that fast whenever it's in a Vacuum, or when it gets done passing through a medium. Light is observed to slow down outside the Vacuum, and I think that nuclear reactors also have the ability to charge particles faster than light.

How can people claim that light has no mass, especially when people cannot even see atoms even with the best of Microscopes. If light had no mass, then Nuclear Bombs shouldn't work, because the light emitted would just pass through the human body, never effecting or damaging anything because it didn't have mass (atoms/particles) to collide with other mass(other atoms/particles), and it also should never create heat, because heat is created through friction. Heat couldn't happen if light had no mass.

Are we then going to claim that an Atom contains no mass? Are we also going to claim that Electrons and Protons have no mass? Are we going to say that Photons contain no mass? Any Building block must contain some mass.

If Photons had no mass, then why do they react with matter that has mass? Of course we have never even contained a single Photon to actually see if it has rest mass. We are putting our faith in special relativity, and things that we cannot see.

#729 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2010 - 11:38 AM

Lightspeed is contant, but only in a Vacuum.  Everytime light has to pass through a medium it slows down, which shows that it has some sort of mass, because it is having to react.  If it was supernatural, and had no mass then it shouln't even be effected by a medium.

You know that light has zero rest mass. It's speed 186,000 miles per second will always be that fast whenever it's in a Vacuum, or when it gets done passing through a medium.  Light is observed to slow down outside the Vacuum, and I think that nuclear reactors also have the ability to charge particles faster than light.

How can people claim that light has no mass, especially when people cannot even see atoms even with the best of Microscopes.  If light had no mass, then Nuclear Bombs shouldn't work, because the light emitted would just pass through the human body, never effecting or damaging anything because it didn't have mass (atoms/particles) to collide with other mass(other atoms/particles), and it also should never create heat, because heat is created through friction.  Heat couldn't happen if light had no mass.

Are we then going to claim that an Atom contains no mass?  Are we also going to claim that Electrons and Protons have no mass?  Are we going to say that Photons contain no mass?  Any Building block must contain some mass.

If Photons had no mass, then why do they react with matter that has mass?  Of course we have never even contained a single Photon to actually see if it has rest mass.  We are putting our faith in special relativity, and things that we cannot see.

View Post



Sigh, radio waves and EM waves are light, but they pass through our bodies all the time.

All the rest mass of a photon means, is its energy is determined by its motion only. By mass-energyequivelancy, they can interact with matter.

Atoms do have mass. Electrons do have mass. Protons do have mass.

Photons don't have mass.

There are other ways of generating heat besides friction.

There's so much wrong in the way of physics with your post.

#730 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:12 PM

Photons don't have mass.

There are other ways of generating heat besides friction. 

There's so much wrong in the way of physics with your post.

View Post



In theory Photons have no mass, but we have neither seen atoms, or photons at a level at which we can see them.

There is another way to generate heat besides friction? That's a new one... Please explain. Hint: Even chemical reactions are friction on a molecular level.

Plus you need to be the first human being to see a photon to prove it has no mass. Mass energy-equivelency is just a cop out for people who live on whole grain faith based diet of not actually proving the facts as facts, especially when the evidence points to Photons having mass.

So, give me a picture of a single Photon having no mass.

#731 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:23 PM

Sigh, radio waves and EM waves are light, but they pass through our bodies all the time. 

View Post


This is exactly what I was mentioning in my post. Thanks for not reading it.

Anyways, yes electromagnetic radiation also causes cancer and mutations. It effects the body, which proves it has mass.

Something that has no mass shouldn't effect anything, as a matter of fact you are stepping into the realm of the spiritual if you believe that light has no mass.

Of course, we already have definitive proof that light contains mass, but I guess you may continue to have faith that Light contains no mass, and that even without mass it can actually do something.

No Tharock220, there is something very wrong with the way you, and many other people are tauting physics these days. Without mass you cannot affect anything with mass.

What is the absence of matter? Nothing! If light has no mass, then it contains no matter, therefore it is indeed nothing according to that logic. Unless you believe that light comes from God, Light has no mass/is matterless, and is supernatural.

#732 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:22 PM

wow, I fear about the american education system.

Why does something need to have mass to interact? How does Light interact with matter in your opinion? Chemical reactions have nothing to do with friction, really. I´m a chemist I should know that.

Do you believe me when I tell you that light travels at a certain speed while travelling through matter and after leaving into vacuum again it travels at c again? how is it in your model the photons loose kinetic energy by passing the medium and accelerating again when leaving it? how does it accelerate again?

Do you know something about potentials? electrostatic potential? Coulomb, Yukawa? You could really measure the mass of a single particle and the mass of the photon, if it ever has one it is below 1,8*10^-33 g.
If it would be different from zero the maxwell equations won´t work and that means radio, tv and all other things depending on electromagnetic waves won´t work like they do.

do you know something about physics, really?

#733 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:10 PM

Plus you need to be the first human being to see a photon to prove it has no mass.  Mass energy-equivelency is just a cop out for people who live on whole grain faith based diet of not actually proving the facts as facts, especially when the evidence points to Photons having mass.

View Post


Saw this and just had to reply. I think Mr. Mushroom Cloud here has a disagreement with you on mass/energy equivalence:
Posted Image

#734 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:15 PM

wow, I fear about the american education system.

Why does something need to have mass to interact? How does Light interact with matter in your opinion? Chemical reactions have nothing to do with friction, really. I´m a chemist I should know that.

Do you believe me when I tell you that light travels at a certain speed while travelling through matter and after leaving into vacuum again it travels at c again? how is it in your model the photons loose kinetic energy by passing the medium and accelerating again when leaving it? how does it accelerate again?

Do you know something about potentials? electrostatic potential? Coulomb, Yukawa? You could really measure the mass of a single particle and the mass of the photon, if it ever has one it is below 1,8*10^-33 g.
If it would be different from zero the maxwell equations won´t work and that means radio, tv and all other things depending on electromagnetic waves won´t work like they do.

do you know something about physics, really?

View Post


Wow, good for you! Thanks for the Ad hominem attacks!

Until you prove that Photons have zero rest mass, then you can keep having faith in your little theory, but before you spew your hate, you need to show your proposed fact that Photons have zero rest mass by actually having a picture of one single Photon. For which you don't have.

How do Chemical Reactions that create heat, create heat without friction? Are their molecules not moving? Are you serious?

Me, I state that light is constant inside a Vacuum. I follow all the rules, but light is slowed down through a medium, and I have faith that through the zero mass of Photons that lightspeed will slightly remain constant after the medium, but not completely because we don't live in a true vacuum.

This also creates more problems for the Atheist. How does light remain constant? How does it keep it's energy? This is truly on the edge of the supernatural, because natural laws can't explain it.

I do partially agree with the old ideas, but I like to think for myself, instead of being traped by the Dogmatic control of people who spew hate to those who try and think logically outside the rediculous box of Special Relativity.

#735 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:18 PM

Saw this and just had to reply. I think Mr. Mushroom Cloud here has a disagreement with you on mass/energy equivalence:
Posted Image

View Post


I think Mr. Mushroom cloud can prove to you that his mass will destroy everything in it's path away. If you seriously think that Mr. Mushroom cloud contains no mass, then you can safely stand in it's way.

It lends proof all by itself that it does in fact contain mass, because that which does not contain Mass/Matter does not exist.

#736 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:22 PM

Question: What is nothing?

Nothing contains no Matter/mass.

By atheist definition, light therefore= nothing. Even though it shows it's effects of mass through radiation.

If you believe light contains no mass, then why does sunlight hurt your eyes if it doesn't contain mass/matter.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim Light ( Photon) is a form of matter, and then say it has no mass.

Mass/energy equivelance is just a theory created to show that light can act like it has Mass, so that atheist can still claim that light has no mass, even though light clearly shows evidence of having mass.

#737 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:40 PM

I think Mr. Mushroom cloud can prove to you that his mass will destroy everything in it's path away.  If you seriously think that Mr. Mushroom cloud contains no mass, then you can safely stand in it's way.

It lends proof all by itself that it does in fact contain mass, because that which does not contain Mass/Matter does not exist.

View Post


Do you know where nuclear energy comes from? It comes from small amounts of mass turning into energy according to E=mc^2. You know, Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. That's what you're arguing against right now.

#738 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:44 PM

Another thing to think about, which is my main point.

If this is an instance of having your cake, and eating it too. Then the implications are supernatural.

It proves that since light is constant, that it comes from an eternal source. The energy never depletes, and it's speed never decreases ( except when it comes in contact with the real world outside a Vacuum.)

God is the creator of light, and He is the source of this eternal energy. Natural Laws cannot explain it, and therefore is outside the realm of Science.

The Speed of Light is a testament of God just as the Bible says.

So I'm on a 2 way street.

1. If light is not constant, then it is natural, and the Naturalist wins.

2. If light is constant, then it is supernatural, and Christians recieve the upper hand... even though atheist will claim hold on not fair, and want us to have faith that Light is Natural, when it's not.

#739 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:52 PM

Do you know where nuclear energy comes from? It comes from small amounts of mass turning into energy according to E=mc^2. You know, Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. That's what you're arguing against right now.

View Post


Yes, but you don't know if Photons have mass or not. Photons in theory have no mass.

Of course, if Photons have no mass, and they are in fact able to remain at zero rest mass. Then you have proven the supernatural.

I'm actually showing you that your views aren't as natural as you'd like them to be. If you believe that Photons have mass, then that would be more of a Naturalist view, but if not, then they are supernatural.

As matter of fact I'd be glad to be wrong, and I probably am... which in turn shows that my Belief in God has even more evidence, because light is supernatural.

#740 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2010 - 08:10 PM

In theory Photons have no mass, but we have neither seen atoms, or photons at a level at which we can see them.

View Post


We have never seen electrons either, but we can approximate their mass. Our understanding of electrons, despite never seeing them, has a ton of uses.

There is another way to generate heat besides friction?  That's a new one... Please explain. Hint: Even chemical reactions are friction on a molecular level.

View Post


Lol, this is just so far from true. The heat produced by the sun is a result of energy release from fusion. The heat released in other reactions is a result of breaking chemical bonds.

Plus you need to be the first human being to see a photon to prove it has no mass.  Mass energy-equivelency is just a cop out for people who live on whole grain faith based diet of not actually proving the facts as facts, especially when the evidence points to Photons having mass.

So, give me a picture of a single Photon having no mass.

View Post


Mass-energy equivelincy is not a cop out. It's an incredibly useful scientific principle.


Anyways, yes electromagnetic radiation also causes cancer and mutations. It effects the body, which proves it has mass.

View Post


Photons have energy and they can interact with matter because of it, but mass is not at all required.

Something that has no mass shouldn't effect anything, as a matter of fact you are stepping into the realm of the spiritual if you believe that light has no mass.

View Post


You're just saying something because you want it to be. Why is mass required to interact with mass??? What exactly is wrong with mass-energy???

Of course, we already have definitive proof that light contains mass, but I guess you may continue to have faith that Light contains no mass, and that even without mass it can actually do something.

View Post


This is the 2nd time in this thread this has been said, but I haven't seen any proof beyond a little bit of rhetoric.



No Tharock220, there is something very wrong with the way you, and many other people are tauting physics these days. Without mass you cannot affect anything with mass.

View Post


Lol, yeah there is something wrong with actually understanding physics. Photons do not have mass, and do affect objects with mass. I'm not sure why this is something about which physicists would lie. Do you realize how much easier physics would be if photons did have mass???

What is the absence of matter? Nothing! If light has no mass, then it contains no matter, therefore it is indeed nothing according to that logic. Unless you believe that light comes from God, Light has no mass/is matterless, and is supernatural.

View Post



You can't undo a century of physics with rhetoric man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users