Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#161 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:17 PM

Just a quick hint: for those who are convinced a better answer should be pursued:

Sound travels faster at sea level than it does at an altitude of 20,000 feet. In fact, all waves vary their speeds depending on the density of the medium through which they travel.

Light therefore, would be expected to vary its speed when transiting aether of different densities. Michelson & Morley did detect an aether, and so has everyone else who ever set out to do so. There is no justification whatsoever for dumping classical physics - the kind that actually works. Reality can be presumed real, and consistent, trustworthy results obtained.

View Post



?? They did not detect an aether. More sophisticated measurements since their time have been done to detect the aether and have come up with the same results.

#162 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:29 PM

My opinion of Einstein's quite a bit lower than it used to be.


Lets ignore GRT and SRT for a moment. Einstein made enormous contributions to physics: brownian motion, photoelectric effect (won the nobel prize for that one), not to mention his numerous contributions to thermodynamics. Einstein has probably made more significant contributions to physics than any scientist in the last 100 years.

The speed of light must be assumed constant; an aether cannot exist if SR is true, yet one must exist in order for GR to be true.


How so? Please clarify this.


There are conflicts he certainly had to be aware of, and some that may have slipped by. He's on record claiming both no aether, and claiming there certainly must be one.


Careful not to confuse luminiferous aether with other aether theories - like ones that can give rise to the Higgs mechanism. Can you show me where he said there was an aether? After he proposed SRT and GRT that is.


That's a whoppin' big contradiction.


Only if you can show your whoppin' big claim.


He also loved to claim there could be no parallel lines, and no two events could actually be simultaneous.


In curved space time. Are there parallel lines on spheres?

There are lots of things that "work" on paper, yet do not correspond to reality. I don't think the public yet understood this simple principle so well in those days. Epicycles work just fine on paper, and make accurate predictions. How can the concept then be flawed?


Ptolomeic epicycles worked because the orbits of our solar system were so stable. Obervational evidence has discredited them however. Newton and Kepler's model was better because it unified the force we experience on Earth with the force that keeps the planets in motion. It had more explanatory power.

#163 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 August 2009 - 11:09 AM

This pdf looks promising. In fact, it's already profitable.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1

So the objection that SR does not apply to (essentially all observations which demonstrate it to be false) is utterly without merit. Einstein himself, when laying it out, claims it applies to all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold.

There is one very, very large set of observations which have customarily been dismissed on the grounds that SR doesn't apply to them. It is admitted by all I've ever seen that if SR did apply, it'd be falsified. Haven't decided yet if I need to start one more thread or maybe two or three.

Quickly, I'll state what's required in order for them to weasel out: a statement from a contributing supporter of SR explaining that it doesn't apply to certain frames-of-reference dated prior to the discovery of the situations which falsify SR. Einstein might plausibly have changed his mind, or someone else could plausibly be said to have "figured out" an important implication.

On the other hand, if it be as history has indicated to me thus far, and this spurious ad hoc nonsense arose simply as a means of saying "we're gonna believe it no matter what", it is as bogus as it can get. I hope nobody will be insulted that I take the time to explain stuff like this which I really shouldn't have to explain to intelligent, honest people.

#164 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:52 PM

This pdf looks promising. In fact, it's already profitable.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1

So the objection that SR does not apply to (essentially all observations which demonstrate it to be false) is utterly without merit. Einstein himself, when laying it out, claims it applies to all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold.

There is one very, very large set of observations which have customarily been dismissed on the grounds that SR doesn't apply to them. It is admitted by all I've ever seen that if SR did apply, it'd be falsified. Haven't decided yet if I need to start one more thread or maybe two or three.

Quickly, I'll state what's required in order for them to weasel out: a statement from a contributing supporter of SR explaining that it doesn't apply to certain frames-of-reference dated prior to the discovery of the situations which falsify SR. Einstein might plausibly have changed his mind, or someone else could plausibly be said to have "figured out" an important implication.

On the other hand, if it be as history has indicated to me thus far, and this spurious ad hoc nonsense arose simply as a means of saying "we're gonna believe it no matter what", it is as bogus as it can get. I hope nobody will be insulted that I take the time to explain stuff like this which I really shouldn't have to explain to intelligent, honest people.

View Post


Since CTD placed me on his ignore list for providing multiple sources demonstrating an error on his part, this reply is intended not for him but rather for anyone reading this thread that might be confused by the rather absurd statement about Special Relativity being promoted by CTD in his post.

CTD quoted the relevant part about what situations Special Relativity applies to but didn't seem to realize what it meant. Einstein wrote: "...They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

I have bolded the part that CTD clearly doesn't understand. The statement "all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" refers to coordinate systems which do not require fictional forces such as centrifugal force in order to make mechanical equations work. I.e. Special relativity only applies to situations where acceleration is not a factor. These situations are called Inertial Reference Frames.

http://en.wikipedia....me_of_reference for a detailed description of the difference between a inertial vs non-inertial reference frame.

If one reads Einsteins 1906 paper outlining Special Relativity (the paper CTD linked to), it can be seen that all the examples deal only with situations of constant velocities, (i.e. Einstein understood from the beginning that Special Relativity is not to be used for non-inertial reference frames)


Just in case it isn't clear that "all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" means frames of reference experiencing constant velocities, Einstein explicitly stated it in his paper on General Relativity.

If a system of co-ordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws also hold good in relation to any other system of co-ordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K. This postulate we call the "special principle of relativity." The word "special" is meant to intimate that the principle is restricted to the case when K' has a motion of uniform translation relatively to K, but that the equivalence of K' and K does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relatively to K.

#165 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 11:35 PM

Just a quick hint: for those who are convinced a better answer should be pursued:

Sound travels faster at sea level than it does at an altitude of 20,000 feet. In fact, all waves vary their speeds depending on the density of the medium through which they travel.

Light therefore, would be expected to vary its speed when transiting aether of different densities. Michelson & Morley did detect an aether, and so has everyone else who ever set out to do so. There is no justification whatsoever for dumping classical physics - the kind that actually works. Reality can be presumed real, and consistent, trustworthy results obtained.

View Post


Hi CTD

I'm pretty sure that direct observations show light does not behave in a classical manner: namely, it curves twice as much as would be expected. Part of its observed curvature is due to its classical behaviour, and part of it is due to the curvature of space-time, explained by GR.

Just wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression that GR has not been observationally confirmed.

Regards
SeeJay

#166 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 14 August 2009 - 01:23 PM

Speed of light isn't the same thing as amount of light. If the speed of light increased tomorrow to instantaneous, we'd get a one-time burst of an extra 9 minutes of light.

View Post


If the speed of light jumped to instantaneous...what would be...say one or two of the side effects on planet Earth of such a thing occurring?

#167 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 August 2009 - 04:44 AM

If the speed of light jumped to instantaneous...what would be...say one or two of the side effects on planet Earth of such a thing occurring?

View Post


Hello b00tleg

Interesting question. My gut feeling is, if the speed of light suddenly became infinite, the entire universe would instantly be destroyed in a massive outpouring of infinite energy.

But, just to take a simple example: one of the earliest measurements of the speed of light came from observing Jupiter's moons. The orbit of Io, for example, appeared irregular, changing depending on when it was observed. Assuming the actual orbit of Io was a regular ellipse, the reason for the observed irregularity was because at certain times Jupiter is further away from Earth than at other times (namely, sometimes both planets are on opposite sides of the Sun, and sometimes they are on the same side). The time required for the light to reach us, showing Io's orbit, thus varied.

If light were infinite, such irregularities in Io's orbit would not be observed.

Cheers
SeeJay

#168 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 15 August 2009 - 10:32 AM

Hello b00tleg

Interesting question. My gut feeling is, if the speed of light suddenly became infinite, the entire universe would instantly be destroyed in a massive outpouring of infinite energy.

But, just to take a simple example: one of the earliest measurements of the speed of light came from observing Jupiter's moons. The orbit of Io, for example, appeared irregular, changing depending on when it was observed. Assuming the actual orbit of Io was a regular ellipse, the reason for the observed irregularity was because at certain times Jupiter is further away from Earth than at other times (namely, sometimes both planets are on opposite sides of the Sun, and sometimes they are on the same side). The time required for the light to reach us, showing Io's orbit, thus varied.

If light were infinite, such irregularities in Io's orbit would not be observed.

Cheers
SeeJay

View Post



First, I'd agree that such a dramatic increase in the speed of light, even if it were contained to our solar system and only involved our sun, would not be conducive to life existing on earth.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the speed of light was ever infinite or even faster at any time in the past.

#169 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 10:38 AM

First, I'd agree that such a dramatic increase in the speed of light, even if it were contained to our solar system and only involved our sun, would not be conducive to life existing on earth.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the speed of light was ever infinite or even faster at any time in the past.

View Post

What would you say the speed of light was before it was released by the Big Bang?

#170 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 15 August 2009 - 11:14 AM

What would you say the speed of light was before it was released by the Big Bang?

View Post



What do you mean "before it was released by the Big Bang"? Do you mean after the universe became transparent? Or are you asking what the speed of light was just after t = 0? Either way the answer is c = 186,000 miles per second.

#171 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 11:24 AM

What do you mean "before it was released by the Big Bang"?  Do you mean after the universe became transparent?  Or are you asking what the speed of light was just after t = 0?  Either way the answer is c = 186,000 miles per second.

View Post

How does light move in a 'space' that is condensed into a singularity without any dimensional value? How fast does light escape from a black hole?

Posted Image

#172 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 02:34 PM

How does light move in a 'space' that is condensed into a singularity without any dimensional value? How fast does light escape from a black hole?

Posted Image

View Post

:lol:

#173 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 15 August 2009 - 03:14 PM

How does light move in a 'space' that is condensed into a singularity without any dimensional value? How fast does light escape from a black hole?

Posted Image

View Post

Adam, what makes you think that anything, even light had formed before the big bang?

#174 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 03:20 PM

Adam, what makes you think that anything, even light had formed before the big bang?

View Post

That's a good question. From your own paradigm, if the Big Bang produced light, then before the Big Bang, light in our Universe was traveling at 0mph because it dod not exist.

You see, I don't really care what the Big Bang has to say about light because the whole thing is like a mental scrub brush to wash away inconvenient aspects about reality and to call it intellectual.

#175 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 03:32 PM

Adam, what makes you think that anything, even light had formed before the big bang?

View Post

What makes you think it didn't? More specifically, what facts do you have to bring to the discussion (other than faith and speculation) that gives you an authoritative roll as to what was or wasn't before God created this universe. :)

Sort of like the attempt at authority in this statement by A.Sphere:

What do you mean "before it was released by the Big Bang"?  Do you mean after the universe became transparent?  Or are you asking what the speed of light was just after t = 0?  Either way the answer is c = 186,000 miles per second.

View Post


You do realize that he's making this statement totally on faith don't you? ;)

#176 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 03:35 PM

What makes you think it didn't? More specifically, what facts do you have to bring to the discussion (other than faith and speculation) that gives you an authoritative roll as to what was or wasn't before God created this universe.  :)

View Post

Yeah, but Ron, don't you know that it is more scientifically and intellectually satisfying to pretend that God doesn't exist?

#177 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:06 PM

That's a good question. From your own paradigm, if the Big Bang produced light, then before the Big Bang, light in our Universe was traveling at 0mph because it dod not exist.

You see, I don't really care what the Big Bang has to say about light because the whole thing is like a mental scrub brush to wash away inconvenient aspects about reality and to call it intellectual.

View Post

So.....answer my question. What makes you think that anything formed before the big bang?

#178 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:34 PM

So.....answer my question. What makes you think that anything formed before the big bang?

View Post

I don't believe in the Big Bang as commonly stated and I don't believe anything did form before the existence of the Universe. I believe the same entity that rules eternity, The Almighty God, The Great I AM, always was, is and always will be. The Alpha and the Omega.

#179 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:18 PM

So.....answer my question. What makes you think that anything formed before the big bang?

View Post


Because something cannot come from nothing. Therefore there was something before Creation (I know, you like to call it the big bang).

Now, since you're so into issuing demands for answers to questions, you can finally answer Adam's question:

How does light move in a 'space' that is condensed into a singularity without any dimensional value? How fast does light escape from a black hole?

#180 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 August 2009 - 09:51 PM

Just a quick hint: for those who are convinced a better answer should be pursued:  Sound travels faster at sea level than it does at an altitude of 20,000 feet. In fact, all waves vary their speeds depending on the density of the medium through which they travel.  Light therefore, would be expected to vary its speed when transiting aether of different densities. Michelson & Morley did detect an aether, and so has everyone else who ever set out to do so. There is no justification whatsoever for dumping classical physics - the kind that actually works. Reality can be presumed real, and consistent, trustworthy results obtained.

Hi CTD

I'm pretty sure that direct observations show light does not behave in a classical manner: namely, it curves twice as much as would be expected. Part of its observed curvature is due to its classical behaviour, and part of it is due to the curvature of space-time, explained by GR.

Just wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression that GR has not been observationally confirmed.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post

You don't appear to be a member of the set of entities to whom my post was addressed. In fact, you seem to be working to distance yourself from membership.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users