Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#701 Ophiolite

Ophiolite

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Peripatetic

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:27 AM

Nice try Jason but no cigar. They see a cloud of gas and dust and assume that it is forming stars.

View Post

In fairness Adam it is an assumption based upon many observations.

We saw some 'snapshots' of what might have been a continuous process. We postulate the full character of that process. We predict intermediate stages that must exist if the process is 'true'. We find those intermediate stages. This encourages us that our proposed process - that of star formation - is real.

Of course we could be wrong, but the evidence says we are most likely right. Most likely is as good as it gets in science. It's the great weakness and the great strength of the system.

Personally I don't see any problem for YECs with the apparent age of stars and galaxies. You need only postulate that God not only created them, but created the light, already en route, that appeared to be coming from them. If Adam was created as described in Genesis then he was created with the appearance of having matured to adulthood. Why should the same appearance not be granted a galaxy?

#702 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 02 August 2010 - 11:32 PM

Surely this must create a paradox for the Creationist point of view. As the speed of light is measuarble and imperical, how then can one hold the view that the Universe is only a tad over 6,000 years old?

View Post


First, I don't think that you possess a correct concept about the speed of light. The speed of light is a stable constant, while distance varies as time varies. So unless we assume that time is also a stable physis unit, we can't calculate the exact distance.

Is it time a stable unit and an "evenly distributed" quantity as well? When 2 light beams travel in the opposite direction towards each other, what will there relative speed? The relative speed is also the speed of light. So can you explain this before you assume too fast that time is an evenly distributed quantity. :rolleyes:

Regarding to Relativity, no others can be said (about time and space) except for that "the speed of light is a constant". It's just that, no less no more. B)

#703 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 August 2010 - 01:42 AM

First, I don't think that you possess a correct concept about the speed of light. The speed of light is a stable constant, while distance varies as time varies. So unless we assume that time is also a stable physis unit, we can't calculate the exact distance.

Is it time a stable unit and an "evenly distributed" quantity as well? When 2 light beams travel in the opposite direction towards each other, what will there relative speed? The relative speed is also the speed of light. So can you explain this before you assume too fast that time is an evenly distributed quantity.  :rolleyes:

Regarding to Relativity, no others can be said (about time and space) except for that "the speed of light is a constant". It's just that, no less no more.  B)

View Post


That is if the laws of physics were always the same.

1) Science cannot explain where they came from or formed.
2) Science cannot explain how they are balanced to work with one another.
3) Science cannot explain how they are just so to allow life to exist on this planet.

The laws of physics explain:
1) How light exists.
2) Why light exists.
3) Why today we can determine that it's speed is constant.
etc...

So can anyone prove that the laws of physics stayed the same from the beginning?

#704 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 04 August 2010 - 10:51 PM

So can anyone prove that the laws of physics stayed the same from the beginning?


Something else scientists are in denial about is the fact that light, like a bullet, has mass. We have never measured the speed of light leaving a star. All matter eventually runs out of energy and slows down.

#705 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:12 AM

So can anyone prove that the laws of physics stayed the same from the beginning?


Something else scientists are in denial about is the fact that light, like a bullet, has mass. We have never measured the speed of light leaving a star. All matter eventually runs out of energy and slows down.

View Post


Light doesn't have a mass. The energy of photon is based on it's frequency.

#706 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2010 - 05:32 PM

So can anyone prove that the laws of physics stayed the same from the beginning?


Something else scientists are in denial about is the fact that light, like a bullet, has mass. We have never measured the speed of light leaving a star. All matter eventually runs out of energy and slows down.

View Post


Really?!!?!? Seeing as how the truth of this has eluded physicists for a century I would love for you to explain how it is true. Why do you think this???

So can anyone prove that the laws of physics stayed the same from the beginning?


If you read a book on modern physics you would know that no physicist would ever say that. The laws of physics were created by humans to explain who we see today, but they do conflict. That's why physicists are searching for an all-encompassing theory.

Stop trying to think of physical laws as being analogous to legal laws.

#707 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 05 August 2010 - 08:17 PM

The laws of physics were created by humans to explain who we see today, but they do conflict.  That's why physicists are searching for an all-encompassing theory. 


Rather, the laws of physics are existing rules discovered by humans. But humans usually can't reveal the rules to its full extent because,

1) humans have to rely on their rational sense to develop things. And their rational sense is developed through their living environment which is a 3D ball with energy/mass trapped inside. It is thus difficult for them to develop anything 'out of there sense'. That's how Einstein gave up the chance to dedicate on quantum physics.

2) humans can't explore outside of the 3D ball (called by humans as universe) they are contained within, there's even a limit for them to explore inside such a 3D ball, as their travelling capability is limited to within the solar system at the moment, which is more like a drop of water in a sea.

That's why their formulation of the existing rules is limited to what it is, which is managed to be understandable to a human mind (actually quite marginal as no one actually claim to be able comprehend what quantum physics is in a humanly rational sense), and contained within a 3D ball (comprehended by humans as universe).

#708 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 August 2010 - 03:14 AM

The laws of physics were created by humans to explain who we see today, but they do conflict. 

View Post


Can you explain to me which humans "created" the laws of physics, and what they were created out of?


Until you can do so, I'll have to go along with the preface by Hawkins (in post # 710 above) on this one.

#709 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2010 - 06:14 PM

Rather, the laws of physics are existing rules discovered by humans. But humans usually can't reveal the rules to its full extent because,

1) humans have to rely on their rational sense to develop things. And their rational sense is developed through their living environment which is a 3D ball with energy/mass trapped inside. It is thus difficult for them to develop anything 'out of there sense'. That's how Einstein gave up the chance to dedicate on quantum physics.

2) humans can't explore outside of the 3D ball (called by humans as universe) they are contained within, there's even a limit for them to explore inside such a 3D ball, as their travelling capability is limited to within the solar system at the moment, which is more like a drop of water in a sea.

That's why their formulation of the existing rules is limited to what it is, which is managed to be understandable to a human mind (actually quite marginal as no one actually claim to be able comprehend what quantum physics is in a humanly rational sense), and contained within a 3D ball (comprehended by humans as universe).

View Post



Yes, but the natural laws we have discovered don't always hold. Our ability to explain and understand the universe is limited by what we've observed as you have said, and that's all we'll ever be able do understand.

Can you explain to me which humans "created" the laws of physics, and what they were created out of?


Until you can do so, I'll have to go along with the preface by Hawkins (in post # 710 above) on this one.


Every single one of them was created by humans from observed data. Why would ask something like that??? Actually answer me this, is force the derivative with respect to time of momentum??? Is that a law???

#710 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 August 2010 - 06:43 PM

Every single one of them was created by humans from observed data. 

View Post

Actually, that would be incorrect again. Every single one of them was “described” by humans from observed data. There is a difference, and you should know that.

#711 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2010 - 07:41 PM

Actually, that would be incorrect again. Every single one of them was “described” by humans from observed data.  There is a difference, and you should know that.

View Post


Stop dodging the issue and answer my question.

#712 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 08 August 2010 - 11:55 PM

Really?!!?!? Seeing as how the truth of this has eluded physicists for a century I would love for you to explain how it is true. Why do you think this???


No two particles of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. That's why a shadow is cast when something is in front of a light source; if it didn't have mass it would pass right through you without casting a shadow.

#713 Phil

Phil

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 29
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Canada

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:17 AM

Really?!!?!? Seeing as how the truth of this has eluded physicists for a century I would love for you to explain how it is true. Why do you think this???


No two particles of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. That's why a shadow is cast when something is in front of a light source; if it didn't have mass it would pass right through you without casting a shadow.

View Post

I don't think that this argument about mass can work. If light can't pass through us because we have mass, then how could it pass through glass?

I could never read through all of the posts in this thread to catch up on the conversation, but I wanted to give a few links that may be useful. It appears that light does not have a mass but has an "effective mass" which cannot be measured. It's confusing, so I'll just refer you to a couple of my sources on it. (They are short.)

http://musr.physics....MC2/node11.html
http://imagine.gsfc....ers/961102.html
http://www.newton.de...00/phy00358.htm

I'm not sure why light having mass would even matter for the creationists, if anything, light would go slower with mass and make the problem of distant starlight even worse for a young universe. But this is a very long thread and I'm sure this has been discussed so I'm willing to let it go if nobody wants to rehash it.

#714 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2010 - 05:38 AM

No two particles of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. That's why a shadow is cast when something is in front of a light source; if it didn't have mass it would pass right through you without casting a shadow.

View Post


I hate to sound like a jerk, but you really need to read a book on optics. EM radiation(which light is) travels at different wavelengths and frequencies. Whether it's absorbed, reflected, or unhindered depends on the material the photons are traveling through. Like Phil said, glass has mass, but it doesn't cast a shadow when light is shined on it. Clothes have mass, but infrared light travels through them without trouble.

#715 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 09 August 2010 - 08:32 PM

I don't think that this argument about mass can work. If light can't pass through us because we have mass, then how could it pass through glass?


Not all of it does. The glass is transparent and porous under a microscope, so the light is visible through it. UV light filters are made from glass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_filter

It all depends on the specific wavelength. Another example would be blue light reaching deeper in the ocean depths than red light. If it didn't have mass it would shine in the deepest parts of the ocean.

I'm not sure why light having mass would even matter for the creationists, if anything, light would go slower with mass and make the problem of distant starlight even worse for a young universe.


No, Phil, it would have the opposite effect. Light has little resistance in the vaccum of space, so it would slow down when it hits our atmosphere; the same reason small meteorites burn up before they hit the ground.


Clothes have mass, but infrared light travels through them without trouble.


Clothes are made of fabric, which has tiny little holes in it, yet it still blocks much of it. Notice the mans face compared to the rest of his body which is clothed.

Posted Image

#716 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:52 PM

No, Phil, it would have the opposite effect. Light has little resistance in the vaccum of space, so it would slow down when it hits our atmosphere; the same reason small meteorites burn up before they hit the ground.


Clothes are made of fabric, which has tiny little holes in it, yet it still blocks much of it. Notice the mans face compared to the rest of his body which is clothed.

Posted Image

View Post


Then why doesn't visible light pass through those little holes??? Why can't you see the man's hand???

X-Rays are another good example.

It all depends on the specific wavelength. Another example would be blue light reaching deeper in the ocean depths than red light. If it didn't have mass it would shine in the deepest parts of the ocean.

View Post


You're right, it does depend on wavelength. The reason light doesn't make it to the bottom is because it's absorbed, reflected, refracted by the water.

You're not going to overturn a century of physics with this. Even matter can pass through other matter. If you don't believe me google "Rutherford scattering" and "neutrinos" separately. I would also suggest checking if Schuams has an optics outline because you'll see that the things you're saying are wrong.

#717 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 09 August 2010 - 11:46 PM

You're not going to overturn a century of physics with this. Even matter can pass through other matter. If you don't believe me google "Rutherford scattering" and "neutrinos" separately.


I think your the one trying to overturn physics. Neutrinos are smaller than most particles, but they do eventually slow down and have been collected under hundreds of meters of granite. Once again, they wouldn't slow down unless they had mass that produces friction as they pass through objects.

When scientists add up the mass of all the visible matter in the Universe, they arrive at a total of just 10 percent of what they know should exist. For years, neutrinos were not thought to have any mass, although that theory has been challenged by experiments at Japan's SuperKamioKande lab, which suggested that they may have a mass, albeit a very tiny one. The new experiment seeks to amplify and confirm this finding.


http://www.cosmosmag...e.com/node/1670

You're right, it does depend on wavelength. The reason light doesn't make it to the bottom is because it's absorbed, reflected, refracted by the water.


Your missing the point. Blue makes it deeper into the ocean. If mass wasn't a factor then red light would penetrate just as deep.

When light hits a substance, it can do
one of three things: it can be scattered,
by hitting molecules of the substance and
bouncing off in different directions; it can
pass through the substance; or it can be
absorbed by the substance—either wholly
or in only some wavelengths.


http://www.biology.d...ubs/oceanus.pdf

"Bouncing off" is something that happens when two particles of mass collide. Blue light, being a shorter wavelength, is able to penetrate deeper.


Then why doesn't visible light pass through those little holes??? Why can't you see the man's hand???


His hand isn't emitting light; You would have to look inside the bag to see any light that may be passing through the bag. Infrared is only visible as a heat source, which is visible from outside the bag.

X-Rays are another good example.


Yes. Bones are denser than tissue, so they appear darker because less x-rays are able to pass through. If they had no mass the entire x-ray would appear as a white sheet without any detail. Once again, the density of the object determines how much is able to pass through; Look at the ring in the x-ray below. It is almost black because it is much denser than bone.

Posted Image

#718 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 August 2010 - 11:00 AM

"Bouncing off" is something that happens when two particles of mass collide. Blue light, being a shorter wavelength, is able to penetrate deeper.

View Post


Materials being opaque or transparent to certain frequencies of light can be better explained by the interaction of photons with the electron shells of the atoms that make up those materials.

His hand isn't emitting light; You would have to look inside the bag to see any light that may be passing through the bag. Infrared is only visible as a heat source, which is visible from outside the bag.

View Post


As far as I'm aware infra-red is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum of light.

#719 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 04:58 PM

I think your the one trying to overturn physics. Neutrinos are smaller than most particles, but they do eventually slow down and have been collected under hundreds of meters of granite. Once again, they wouldn't slow down unless they had mass that produces friction as they pass through objects.

View Post


I'm not saying neutrinos don't have mass. Read about them and Rutherford scattering.

http://www.cosmosmag...e.com/node/1670
Your missing the point. Blue makes it deeper into the ocean. If mass wasn't a factor then red light would penetrate just as deep.
http://www.biology.d...ubs/oceanus.pdf

"Bouncing off" is something that happens when two particles of mass collide. Blue light, being a shorter wavelength, is able to penetrate deeper.

View Post


So you're saying there's a correlation between what colors a substance absorbs and what colors it appears to us?? I know that. That's why we have water that appears green, brown, and black as well as blue.

His hand isn't emitting light; You would have to look inside the bag to see any light that may be passing through the bag. Infrared is only visible as a heat source, which is visible from outside the bag.

View Post


If the hand can be seen through the little holes in the fabric, why can't visible light go through the holes, be reflected by the hand, and be seen from outside the fabric through the little holes???

Yes. Bones are denser than tissue, so they appear darker because less x-rays are able to pass through. If they had no mass the entire x-ray would appear as a white sheet without any detail. Once again, the density of the object determines how much is able to pass through; Look at the ring in the x-ray below. It is almost black because it is much denser than bone.

Posted Image

View Post


No, you said photons had mass, and your proof was because light doesn't go through us, and you can't claim it's because of wavelength because microwaves pass through our bodies every day.

I would love to know why physicists would lie about light having mass. It would have made physics a much easier place to be from 1890 to 1930.

#720 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 10 August 2010 - 08:57 PM

I would love to know why physicists would lie about light having mass. It would have made physics a much easier place to be from 1890 to 1930.


They ignore it because it would cause problems for special relativity. It has even been confirmed by experimentation.

A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.

    Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.

    The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China (junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al., Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)


http://www.aip.org/p...plit/625-2.html




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users