The correct number is 186,282.3971, so your figure is in error by ~1.5%.
Posted on 11/27/2016 11:30:21 AM PST by BenLurkin
Researchers suggesting that the speed of light varies have come up with a numerical prediction that will allow their theory to be tested.
Many theories in physics are built upon the idea that the speed of light is at a constant rate, but João Magueijo and Niayesh Afshordi think otherwise. In a paper published in the journal Physical Review D, they detailed the creation of an exact figure on the spectral index, a model that can be used to determine if their theory is valid or not.
All structures in the universe today were created when fluctuations occurred in the early universe. The spectral index is the record of these fluctuations that is now integrated into the cosmic microwave background.
The figure that Magueijo and Afshordi came up with is 0.96478 precise, which is extremely close to the currently used estimated readings of 0.968, give or take some margin for error, gathered from the cosmic microwave background. A Radical Physics Idea
Magueijo and Afshordi's theory that the speed of light is variable was first proposed back in the late ‘90s. It was considered as radical at the time but now that a numerical method of prediction has been developed, the theory has turned into something that physicists can validate for themselves.
"The theory ... has now reached a maturity point... If true, it would mean that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today," said Magueijo.
(Excerpt) Read more at techtimes.com ...
Isaiah 51:6English Standard Version (ESV)
6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look at the earth beneath;
for the heavens vanish like smoke,
the earth will wear out like a garment,
and they who dwell in it will die in like manner;[a]
but my salvation will be forever,
and my righteousness will never be dismayed.
The Hypothesis that Light speed is decaying
It seems like that conclusion is fairly obvious given things like the big bang and inflation.
Men are four:
He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool—shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple—teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep—wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise—follow him!
“Who’s on First?”
expanded = expended
Consider the Parable of the Seed.
Lots of places, here’s one, I just assumed most people knew this, it is just what I was taught in my physics classes.
(BTW, he did not even write it that way in his original calculations. He wrote M=E/C2) So, that is interesting that he was thinking primarily about what it took to define Mass in terms of Energy, not Energy in terms of Mass. It’s a perspective thing I guess.
Lots of good stuff to read for us science nerds. here is a reference to it in a book about the trouble with history.
e=mc2 assumes that c is constant. This is true in our locality (solar system, universe, take your pick)
No, it does not. Sorry.
So the speed of light is up for debate, but the weather 100 years from now is “settled”. Got it.
Why the heck are they messing with settled science?
The correct number is 186,282.3971, so your figure is in error by ~1.5%.
Not only that, but that the same mass can produce variable amounts of energy.
Of course it is possible to go faster then the speed of light. I watch all kinds of sci fi shows and they routinely go faster then the speed of light. It must be so.
And turn off your car radio to save electricity.
When I was doing calibration/instrumentation in pharmaceuticals folks would say to me “ so 2.2 lbs in a kg, right “. Well yes.... but no. Better use at least 2.2046 to keep it accurate enough so that when you push it out to 800 kg that you don't screw things up.
We crashed a probe on Mars because the good folks at NASA and their contractors mixed Metric with American/English/SAE etc.
(Of course we used only the American system for Apollo. That worked pretty good)
The question is, where did Einstein actually say this, if he did?
No, the equations are equivalent. One form is no more correct than the other. They don't show his thinking, as if he were sitting there wondering about the relationship of mass and energy, and just plopped the equation down as an answer. The equation derives from the rest of Relativity. It's a mathematical derivation from the rest of the theory.
I understand they are equivalent.
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.
