It's enough time to correct one mistake.
Posted on 04/29/2019 9:58:11 AM PDT by Red Badger
A FORMER NASA scientist has claimed time travel is possible because the “speed of light is changing”.
==============================================================
Louise Riofrio is involved in a project that will put an atomic clock into the International Space Station to “verify” her theory.
She reached the conclusion that the speed of light is changing while working at NASA.
The scientist analysed lasers that bounced off reflectors left by astronauts on the moon, which appeared to show the moon was moving too fast.
But – when she compared it to various experiments on Earth using fossils, observations of ancient eclipses and computer simulations – she found it was actually moving more slowly.
It led her to believe that “the speed of laser light slowing had caused the moon to appear to be moving faster”.
This, she claimed, could be of huge significance when it comes to time travel.
“One thing this says is that we can certainly move forward in time and that we can also change the rate we move forward in time,” Louise told Blake Cousins of YouTube channel thirdphaseofmoon.
“As far as moving backwards in time, if that’s ever possible no equations like this will ever find out that.
“The idea that time travellers could visit us today is beyond our understanding so we really can’t say if there are time travellers among us.”
The scientist also said her theory could allow warp speed – similar to that seen in cult series Star Trek – to occur in space.
“Warping space to reach other solar systems faster than light is definitely something we might do some day,” she added.
It is not the first time there have been claims of time travel existing.
Wacky conspiracy channel Apex TV has posted several videos in the past of so-called time-travellers revealing their “proof”.
One particularly outlandish clip showed a man revealing a photo he supposedly took of a dinosaur – 66 million years ago.
I've already discovered a miscalculation in that equation. It should be c/c=-0.31 x 10-11 yr- 2.......
Ever since I was a kid the statement that the speed of light was constant seemed like it couldn't be correct. If a change in direction means a change in velocity, it seems like light striking a mirror and bouncing back or bending when it goes through water would require it to change speed.
Up until the last century, the speed of light being a constant was fine, as we couldn't really measure anything closely enough to be able to make any difference. It's like nobody worried about synchronizing time between towns until railroads and telegraphs. Before then, it didn't make any difference if one town called noon twenty minutes later than another.
I'm still not smart enough to figure out what the ramifications of this study could be, and pop media talking about flying faster than the speed of light with Whoopie Goldberg as our bartender doesn't help.
As far as time travel, they're talking about going into the future. We're doing that all the time anyway, and putting someone in stasis would be easier to accomplish, technically. Going back in time still looks to be impossible, and that's probably a good thing. Personally, I'd get a copy of Gray's Sports Almanac, 1950-2000, then go back to 1955 and bang Leia Thompson.
It's enough time to correct one mistake.
Thanks fieldmarshaldj. [singing] the lightspeed it is a-changin' [/singing]
Cool!!!
If this woman is right, what she seems to be document is light speed decay, something that was long speculated about until scientists decided the evidence for it must all be artifacts of measurement error. However, if it can be shown to be actually happening, then it throws all sorts of “settled science” into disarray, for example, calculations about the age of the universe, the size of the universe, and basing measurements of the distance to other stars on red shift.
+++++
Way late to this very interesting discussion. But I am very much in agreement with your disarray comment. I’m not sure if this effect, if real, could explain our current failure to identify the source of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY. Perhaps they don’t exist and are not needed to explain the past and future state of the universe. If so, it’s a very big deal.
Occam may turn out to be the smartest guy in the room.
So you put your thoughts to the test please, search and see how many natural clocks there are and see what apparent time each shows long ages or short. Here’s a hint even your own DNA is devolving thru mutations and can’t last more than 20,000 years.
Uniformitarianism is a big fat lie and that is exactly how you defend long ages by assuming you/science knew both the starting conditions and that all things experienced the same boring hum-drum rate of change for eons.
Here’s a website I bet you’ll dare not read nor watch the videos that systematically refutes everything you think you know about history, evolution,and long ages. It answers all the tough questions that today’s science cannot!
Center for Scientific Creation
https://www.creationscience.com/
Considering your tagline it’s time either defend the Bible or don’t - you can’t have it both ways!
There is only present. The illusion of past and future are due to spatial positioning, and there are several dimensional variables to space that we have yet to nail down.
this theory has been around since at least 2013
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
Well that is all well and good but most ATMs do indeed default to dispensing $20 bills.
I promise you I've read much of the young earth stuff. It seems like I've read that web site too, but don't hold me to it.
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.
