Skip to comments.
Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein
Reuters via Yahoo! ^
| Wed Aug 7, 2:07 PM ET
| By Michael Christie
Posted on 08/08/2002 9:06:23 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241 next last
To: Momaw Nadon
This is messed up. I did a search on FR to see if the article had been posted yet.
I used all of the words in the headline, but got no results.I did the same thing when I posted this very same article yesterday. (It was deleted)
Apparently the search doesn't find articles that are posted to the "General Interest" forum.
To: Momaw Nadon
Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk EinsteinYep, red light is a lot quicker than green, just ask any driver ;-)
22
posted on
08/08/2002 9:49:20 AM PDT
by
varon
To: far sider
It's amazing how science keeps on proving the truth of creation. What relation exists between possible changes in the fine structure constant and the many various creation stories handed down to us from ancient times?
To: Momaw Nadon
Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.I would love to see a huge shuttle packed full of Star Trek fans, speeding away faster than the speed of light, toward the far side of the galaxy.
24
posted on
08/08/2002 9:55:17 AM PDT
by
caddie
To: Momaw Nadon
But if you drive faster than the speed of light are you overdriving your headlights?BWHAHAHAHAHA!
To: Momaw Nadon
...Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features Sorta like the federal government and my paycheck.
26
posted on
08/08/2002 9:58:05 AM PDT
by
SGCOS
To: Momaw Nadon
I've been making this same argument for years. I'm not trained in physics, but there were just some things in that field that I just can't help but think are irrational.
The great double nickle speed limit in the sky, the speed of light. Sure, I can buy the concept that using a ground fixed accelerator and magnetic fields, that it takes up more energy to accelerate particles as they approach light speed. But I can't buy it that this has any bearing on the speed limit of my starship Enterprise (fuel capacity might limit speed, but nothing to do with light).
For one thing, if there is some speed limit in the sky, then define for me some place that is not moving that can then be used to define when you hit the speed limit. The surface of the earth is moving. The planet is moving. Everything is moving. So there is no definable state of non-movement. Therefore, no definable speed limit.
Another problem. If nothing can travel faster than light. What about the case of an observer who observes a vehicle traveling toward his left ear at say .9 light speed. And a second vehicle traveling toward his right ear at .9 light. Then aren't the two vehicles traveling at something greater than light speed relative to each other? Einstien groopies say that there is some wierd math that proves that I might observe this condition, but that the two vehicles would observe each other traveling at less than light.
Ok.
And I've got a bridge to sell you.
27
posted on
08/08/2002 10:21:03 AM PDT
by
narby
To: Momaw Nadon
...electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble," Davies said.I knew it! We're all doomed!
Think I'll have a beer and a coupl'a shots of Jose'.
FMCDH
To: narby
The problem here is that the speed of light is not truly constant, and that is one of the things that Relativity states. People always misconstrue this.
The speed of light is constant in a relative sense. What this means is that to any observer (frame of reference) light will always travel at the same magnitude of speed no matter what the direction of it is or the velocity of the object that is emitting it. This is one reason that even with the doppler effect you still see absorption lines the same distance apart just shifted.
The speed of light itself is not a limiter of maximum speed but is instead a gauge by which to tell what the maximum speed is for a particle with any mass or energy. As an object moves faster, it's surroundings observe it as having more mass, thus relative to it's surroundings it becomes harder to accelerate it. The limit of this acceleration is the speed at which light travels.
An interesting question is what happens when you set your frame of reference to be a quanta inside a stream of light... Is the quanta next to you traveling forward away from you at the speed of light?
29
posted on
08/08/2002 10:40:11 AM PDT
by
Xenon481
To: RightWhale
What relation exists between possible changes in the fine structure constant and the many various creation stories handed down to us from ancient times? OK. In this instance I'm refering to Young Earth Creation Science rather than the creation myths you seem to be refering to.
From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla). While, I admit, it is a stretch to say this article vindicates everything Setterfield wrote, if you're familiar with his theory, you should know that he attempted to collect every measurement of c and related constants and plot them. He said there was a real, measurable trend and it seemed to be an exponential decay.
The concept that c could change in any way was laughed at then. Now it's news.
To: Stone Mountain
See #20.
To: Stone Mountain
I mean #30.
To: far sider
Okay, before you start cheering the CDK "theory" please note that the changes are on the order of one part in 100,000. That means that the universe, instead of being 15 billion years old is only 14.99985 billion years old. It pretty much canxes any ideas of it all being just a few thousand years old, doesn't it?
33
posted on
08/08/2002 10:47:02 AM PDT
by
Junior
To: narby
I'm not trained in physics, but there were just some things in that field that I just can't help but think are irrational.I think I can explain it to you in a way you will not only understand, but accept. Give me a little time.
To: Momaw Nadon
If the speed of light varies from one time to another, will it also vary from one place to another? (In fact, if I remember my relativity accurately, what is a difference in time to one observer can be a difference in place to another. Which raises another question -- again as I remember relativity, one space-time point is unambiguously earlier than another if the distance between the two cannot be covered in time at the speed of light. Otherwise, different observers can decide that two different space-time points are both earlier and later. So, if the speed of light varies, how do we decide?)
To: Momaw Nadon
I tried to post a reply to your thread yesterday. By the time I finished writing my reply, the thread had been deleted. I then failed to find another thread on the subject.
To: Momaw Nadon
37
posted on
08/08/2002 10:59:24 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Momaw Nadon
There is yet another alternative: time varies.
;^0
To: far sider
From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla).
Have you also read articles that contradict Young Earth Creationism? I guess my point is that scientific theories were meant to change and be modified - finding evidence that current theories of evolution are wrong doesn't necessarily mean that the whole concept is wrong (although it's certainly possible) but it could also mean that the theory just needs to be changed a little. Scientific theories allow this type of modification to happen, so articles that poke holes in current scientific beliefs eventually get assimilated and new theories are proposed. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, has a core set of unchangable tenets. I have no doubt that you have seen much scientific evidence that supports this belief. My question is have you seen scientific evidence that doesn't support YEC? If so, do you discount the evidence as having to be flawed, or do you change your theory? Or have you never seen scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
To: aristeides
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson