Jump to content


Photo

Universe


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#41 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 November 2011 - 08:01 PM

Your film example is a bit flawed, the initial speed of light would be the rate at which the film is recorded. The final speed of light at the observation point (earth) would be the rate at which the film is viewed. If the recorded speed is greater than the viewed speed, that's the definition of slow motion.

I don't know what you mean by not ruling out all light slowing down. My examples apply to all light slowing down. It doesn't matter whether light moves faster than events, we could replace light speed with something moving at a literal snails pace and demonstrate the same effect.

Imagine you are standing 10 feet from away from your friend.
Your friend has a bucket of snails that are trained to always move at some speed limit which could be constant or variable.
Imagine your friend starts a snail crawling toward you every minute.
Lets say it takes 10 minutes for a snail to reach you. i.e. initial speed limit is 1 foot/minute

If the speed limit is constant:
After 10 minutes the snails will start to arrive at you, one reaching you every minute.
Your observations (one snail arrival per minute) will match reality (one snail released per minute).


I'm intentionally using variables for this next part so you can replace them with any numbers you'd like to prove to yourself this works for any case.
If the speed limit starts at some initial speed limit C and decreases at a constant rate of -X every minute:

The distance equation for this is D=(initial velocity)*(time)+ .5 * (acceleration)(time)^2
D=distance snail has traveled
time=minutes since snail is released
initial velocity=speed limit at time of release
acceleration= -X

0 minutes: The first snail starts moving at the initial speed limit toward you. Speed limit is C
1 minute: The second snail is released. The first snail is (C-.5X) in front of second snail. Speed limit is now (C-X) feet/minute, both snails are traveling at the speed limit.
...skipping repetitive parts
10 minutes: The first snail is still (C-.5X) feet in front of second snail. speed limit has become (C-10X) feet/minute, both snails are traveling at the speed limit.

To mimic the apparent halt in any decrease of light speed on earth in the present day, lets say the snail speed limit bottoms out at (C-10X) feet/minute.

The first snail arrives after the 10 minute mark. The second snail now has (C-.5X) feet to cover before it reaches you. The second snail is traveling at (C-10X) feet/minute.
time=distance/speed so...
the second snail arrives (C-.5X)/(C-10X) minutes after the first snail.

Since .5X <=10X that means that (C-.5X) >= (C-10X). It will always be the case that the second snail arrives greater than 1 minute after the first snail.

Your observation (snail 2 arriving more than 1 minute after snail 1) does not match reality (snails released every minute). It appears to you as if your friend is releasing snails at a slower rate than he actually is. You can plug in any initial velocity to prove that it doesn't matter whether light/snails are moving faster than the events we are watching.

I undersand what you are saying, but you are forgetting that the "reality" of what you observe light years from the event is not possible. You're not able to be at a star 100 light years away to see how long it's rotation takes. So you're going to see it as taking a certain amount of time, and if you assume C has always been constant, then you'll record it as "reality." And this is what scientists do--because it's all they are ABLE to do. No one can say whether what they're seeing is actually slower than how it happened.

However, the decay of cobalt is not motion. But I would ask you what is the decay rate of cobalt-45?

#42 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:50 PM

I undersand what you are saying, but you are forgetting that the "reality" of what you observe light years from the event is not possible. You're not able to be at a star 100 light years away to see how long it's rotation takes. So you're going to see it as taking a certain amount of time, and if you assume C has always been constant, then you'll record it as "reality." And this is what scientists do--because it's all they are ABLE to do. No one can say whether what they're seeing is actually slower than how it happened.

However, the decay of cobalt is not motion. But I would ask you what is the decay rate of cobalt-45?

I included "real" values as a way to demonstrate that actual wouldn't match observed. We don't need to know the actual value, only that whatever it is, it is faster than our observations by some amount related to the proposed decrease in the speed of light. Also realize that it is not just motion that appears slower, it could be motion, rotation, increase in brightness, decrease in brightness, etc. Anything that could be observed will appear to happen at a slower rate that it actually does.

Point 1: slowing light causes slowed down observations. This is because the distance traveled by slow light is less than the distance traveled by fast light. t*c>=t*(c-x) where t=time, c=initial light speed and x represents the total decrease in light speed.
Point 2: slowing light with a eventual flatline causes slowed down observations that are gradually increasing in speed. This is because going from a high speed to a low speed is a bigger change than going from a medium speed to a low speed. c-(c-x)>=(c-y)-(c-x) where c=initial light speed, x=total amount of decrease, y=intermediate amount of decrease between 0 and X.
Point 3: there are observations which are inconsistant or impossible if light has slowed down by the amounts proposed by creationists
Conclusion: therefore light has not slowed down by the amounts proposed by creationists


Points 1 and 2 are simply mathematical facts, we don't need to know anything other how to add/subract/multiply/divide in order to prove them.
Point 3 can be shown in a few ways and does not in any way depend on knowing actual rates of events in space

Radioactive decay:
From point 1: If light has slowed down, observed rates of decay in space should be slower than rates on earth.
From astronomy: We observe rates in space that are consistant with rates on earth.
Conclusion: Light has not slowed down.

cobalt 46 has a half life around 77 days on earth which matches what was seen in supernova 1987A.
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false


Motion:
From point 1: If we observe something spinning at Y rotations per second, and the proposed initial velocity of light we are seeing was Z times faster than present day, this means that the actual rotation would be Y*Z rotations per second.
From physics: The strength of gravity puts an upper limit on how fast a particular star can spin before it flies apart. Any faster than this limit and the star cannot exist.
conclusion: If the speed calculated from the proposed initial velocity exceeds the limit for a star, then we can know light has not decreased by the proposed amount.

From point 2: If we see something spinning at Y times per second, and the light we see experienced a initial decrease in light speed of K% per year before reaching a ~0% change per year at present day, this means that the observed spinning rate should increase by K% per year.
From astronomy: Massive stars are among the most regular objects in the universe, pulsars rival atomic clocks for long term precision.
conclusion: When we fail to observe pulsars changing at the proposed rate we can know that light we are seeing has not decreased in speed at the proposed rate.

Note that nowhere in any of these examples is the actual rate of anything in space needed. We only need our observations on earth and the suggested changes in light speed by creationists. We then compare our observations with the mathematical consequences to see if there are contradictions.

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:40 AM

I included "real" values as a way to demonstrate that actual wouldn't match observed. We don't need to know the actual value, only that whatever it is, it is faster than our observations by some amount related to the proposed decrease in the speed of light. Also realize that it is not just motion that appears slower, it could be motion, rotation, increase in brightness, decrease in brightness, etc. Anything that could be observed will appear to happen at a slower rate that it actually does.

Point 1: slowing light causes slowed down observations. This is because the distance traveled by slow light is less than the distance traveled by fast light. t*c>=t*(c-x) where t=time, c=initial light speed and x represents the total decrease in light speed.
Point 2: slowing light with a eventual flatline causes slowed down observations that are gradually increasing in speed. This is because going from a high speed to a low speed is a bigger change than going from a medium speed to a low speed. c-(c-x)>=(c-y)-(c-x) where c=initial light speed, x=total amount of decrease, y=intermediate amount of decrease between 0 and X.
Point 3: there are observations which are inconsistant or impossible if light has slowed down by the amounts proposed by creationists
Conclusion: therefore light has not slowed down by the amounts proposed by creationists


Points 1 and 2 are simply mathematical facts, we don't need to know anything other how to add/subract/multiply/divide in order to prove them.
Point 3 can be shown in a few ways and does not in any way depend on knowing actual rates of events in space

Radioactive decay:
From point 1: If light has slowed down, observed rates of decay in space should be slower than rates on earth.
From astronomy: We observe rates in space that are consistant with rates on earth.
Conclusion: Light has not slowed down.

cobalt 46 has a half life around 77 days on earth which matches what was seen in supernova 1987A.
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false


Motion:
From point 1: If we observe something spinning at Y rotations per second, and the proposed initial velocity of light we are seeing was Z times faster than present day, this means that the actual rotation would be Y*Z rotations per second.
From physics: The strength of gravity puts an upper limit on how fast a particular star can spin before it flies apart. Any faster than this limit and the star cannot exist.
conclusion: If the speed calculated from the proposed initial velocity exceeds the limit for a star, then we can know light has not decreased by the proposed amount.

From point 2: If we see something spinning at Y times per second, and the light we see experienced a initial decrease in light speed of K% per year before reaching a ~0% change per year at present day, this means that the observed spinning rate should increase by K% per year.
From astronomy: Massive stars are among the most regular objects in the universe, pulsars rival atomic clocks for long term precision.
conclusion: When we fail to observe pulsars changing at the proposed rate we can know that light we are seeing has not decreased in speed at the proposed rate.

Note that nowhere in any of these examples is the actual rate of anything in space needed. We only need our observations on earth and the suggested changes in light speed by creationists. We then compare our observations with the mathematical consequences to see if there are contradictions.

Thanks Miles. I had to let some of this sink in. But especially on the cobalt45, I looked it up. It has a decay rate of around 77 days. So if the light came off of it at a certain wave frequency, and then changed to Fe45 after 77 days, and then x years afterward it is observed for 77 days, the light in travel has not slowed down.

The only way this could be falsified is if someone could show that there is something different in the pattern of decay--hence change in light wave frequencies (possibly by using other isotopes). The possibility could then be opened that they are not seeing cobalt 45, but because light has slowed down, the wave frequencies are showing different colors for the isootopes.

But then you have a strong argument for star spin also, if there is a truly a maximum star spin. Do you have a link for this?

#44 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:55 AM

Thanks Miles. I had to let some of this sink in. But especially on the cobalt45, I looked it up. It has a decay rate of around 77 days. So if the light came off of it at a certain wave frequency, and then changed to Fe45 after 77 days, and then x years afterward it is observed for 77 days, the light in travel has not slowed down.

Correct. A easy way to think of it is to focus on distance between bits of light. Two pieces of light start out and are initially a certain distance apart. Traveling that distance takes a certain amount of time. Initially that amount of time matches the time between the creation of those pieces of light. If speed decreases, the time it takes to travel that same distance is now longer than the time between the creation of those pieces of light.

The only way this could be falsified is if someone could show that there is something different in the pattern of decay--hence change in light wave frequencies (possibly by using other isotopes). The possibility could then be opened that they are not seeing cobalt 45, but because light has slowed down, the wave frequencies are showing different colors for the isootopes.


The problem with that is there would be different rates of slowdown at various distances. If we see two stars at the same time, that means the light from each reached us at the same time. If one of those stars is at X distance from earth and the other is a X+Y distance from earth, the light we see from the further star must have been emitted before the light from the near star. The old light would have traveled Y distance, at which point it was the same X distance from earth as the near star, then the light we see from the near star would have started on it's way. This leads to the relatively common sense conclusion that that the light from distant stars is older than light from near stars.
Creationists propose a continuously decreasing speed of light, so the older light would have had a higher starting speed the younger light did. Since the slow motion effect is based on the difference between initial speed and final speed, this means the slow motion effect is greater for more distant stars than the closer stars.

Your suggestion is that our 77 day decay observation is not cobalt 46 but some other isotope where (actual decay rate + slow down effect)=77 day decay rate. Because the slow down effect is different for different distances this would mean that a 77 day observation of a near star involves a different actual decay rate from a 77 day observation of a further star and that both observations are 'calibrated', for lack of a better term, to appear as if they are both cobalt 46. This would almost require that whatever was responsible for making the universe appear the way it does is attempting to deceive us.

But then you have a strong argument for star spin also, if there is a truly a maximum star spin. Do you have a link for this?

That there is a maximum spin rate is just physics. Gravity is what holds stars together and what holds you on the surface of the earth. You are standing on the surface of the earth, being pulled down at 9.8m/s^2. If the earth started spinning faster and faster, eventually you would be moving at such a high speed gravity would be unable to hold you on the surface. You and anything else moving as fast as you (including pieces of the earth's surface) would fly off into space. The same thing applies to stars.

g > v^2/r is the basic equation for how fast something can spin without flying apart. r = distance from center of rotating object. v = tangential speed at distance r. g=gravitational acceleration inward at distance r.

When the acceleration inward is greater than the acceleration v^2/r the object or the part of the object moving at v holds together.
http://electron9.phy...m5/circular.htm (third problem is most relevant)

The exact maximum rate for a particular star will vary based on it's mass and size.

http://en.wikipedia....lisecond_pulsar
Pulsar PSR J1748-2446ad, discovered in 2005, is, as of 2010, the swiftest spinning pulsar currently known, spinning 716 times a second.

Current theories of neutron star structure and evolution predict that pulsars would break apart if they spun at a rate of ~1500 rotations per second or more.


http://en.wikipedia....SR_J1748-2446ad
The pulsar is located in a globular cluster of stars called Terzan 5, located approximately 18,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius

The minimum initial speed that would allow light to cross 18,000 light years in 6000 actual years is 3c, assuming light traveled at that velocity for 5999.99 years and then yesterday dropped down to 1c. Actual creationist ideas have a higher initial velocity coupled with a longer period of traveling at c, which only makes the slow down problem worse.
A minimum 3 fold drop in c produces a minimum 3 fold decrease in observed speed compared to actual speed. If the limit is 1500 rotations per second and we see this star spinning at 716 rotations per second, a 3x decrease in c would mean it actually was spinning at about 2100 rotations per second which exceeds the limit. We can therefore conclude light from this star was not initially moving at 3c or higher.

#45 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:50 PM

Alright guys here's a new take from Humphreys:

Time is faster at the edge of our universe than it is in the center. Evidence of this comes from atomic clocks; At sea level and at 5,000 feet above sea level the time difference is 5 milliseconds a year. If God stretched out the heavens as the scriptures say, then the faster time at the edge would get the light here faster and as space stretched behind the stars the time would then be in equilibrium with us.

I think it's the opposite argument that Miles was making about a faster speed of light. Instead, Humpreys is suggesting a faster speed of time, but I'm skeptical about time being connected to light.



Any thoughts?

#46 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 11 December 2011 - 04:07 PM

Two pieces of light start out and are initially a certain distance apart. Traveling that distance takes a certain amount of time. Initially that amount of time matches the time between the creation of those pieces of light. If speed decreases, the time it takes to travel that same distance is now longer than the time between the creation of those pieces of light.


I'm a bit new to the concept of light speed variation but I sould like to take a stab at something here and ask a question or 2.

For me light is the emission of radiation at certain wavelengths which is described as photons or discreet particles with no mass (not sure about the no mass thing, kinda illogical) So if photons are being emitted at a certain rate from a source then these discreet particles are in transit at a specific speed right? so when it is inferred that the speed of light has changed does this apply to every photon at every distance from the original emmision source? also does this mean that the emmision source is now emmiting at a slower rate?

The next thing I want to dabble with is the idea that someone brought up about light being slowed by its transmission through a substance. If light from a star has been observed by us over a period of time and during the time we observe the light a cloud of whatever one might consider comes between us and the emmiter there should be a moment where the light stops right? that time of darkness would be the time it took the light to transmit through the substance interfering with its normal movement right?

I would like to also consider the idea brought earlier in the thread that light in a vacuum travels faster which would be in accord with my previous paragraph. If photons could travel through an absolute vacuum nearly instantly then what should we expect to happen when it encounters the same transit interference as I alluded to last chapter?. wouldn't there be a buildup of photons occuring on the sar side of the cloud? since it is in effect acting as a dam to the photons normal speed? think about this a line of photons traveling from an emmision source in a continuous line strikes a cloud, so the first photon is slowed during the time it is transmitting through the cloud which means that photons behind it actualy can catch up to the first since they don't encounter the resistance at the same moment.
Now when the light exits the cloud on the far side and resumes its original speed (I suppose) wouldn't it now be brighter since the photons have become more concentrated by the medium they are transmitting through thus making the emmiter look brighter than it was before the obstruction occured?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users