Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Speed of light changing?

Expand Messages
  • Ian Robinson
    Article in this weeks New Scientist. Haven t read it yet. Online at - Ian -- Ian Robinson - Belfast -
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 1, 2004
      Article in this weeks New Scientist. Haven't read it yet. Online at -

      <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092>

      Ian
      --
      Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK <http://www.canicula.com>
      Soapbox - <http://homepage.mac.com/ianrobinson/index.html>
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Interesting, though still highly debatable. And I predict that creationists will use it as proof that the universe is only 6000 years old even though
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 1, 2004
        On 1 Jul 2004 at 12:14, Ian Robinson wrote:

        > Article in this weeks New Scientist. Haven't read it yet. Online at -
        >
        > <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092>

        Interesting, though still highly debatable. And I predict that
        creationists will use it as "proof" that the universe is only 6000
        years old even though the DATA only suggests that the speed of
        light was 4.5 MILLIONTHS of a percent higher some two billion years
        ago.



        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: Ian Robinson To: Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:14 AM Subject: [DebunkCreation] Speed of light
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 2, 2004
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Ian Robinson" <net@...>
          To: <DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:14 AM
          Subject: [DebunkCreation] Speed of light changing?


          > Article in this weeks New Scientist. Haven't read it yet. Online at -
          >
          > <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092>
          >
          > Ian


          Interesting but something is missing. The speed of light is not changing
          and you cannot alter classical physics with quantum physics. I am not a
          physicist although Dr. Einstein wanted me to take that route. Instead I
          wanted to study what makes living things tick rather than the
          universe....but I still detect something wrong so I will continue to trust
          relativity.

          JK
        • Eric Martichuski
          ... It s radically enough that I m leery too...but nothing is actually missing from the picture they present. If they re wrong, it s only in the recorded data
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 2, 2004
            >Interesting but something is missing. The speed of light is not changing
            >and you cannot alter classical physics with quantum physics.

            It's radically enough that I'm leery too...but nothing is actually missing
            from the picture they present. If they're wrong, it's only in the recorded
            data and measurements, not the theory (as far as I can discern).

            The speed of light _is_ changing (in their model) but relativity remains
            unharmed because everything still travels slower than light, which is all
            Einstein really cared about. The actual number attached to "c" is
            irrelevant, so long as nothing goes faster. The sort of cosmological
            changes they're talking about occur on the level _behind_ relativity. They
            alter the medium upon which relativity is imprinted, not the domain of
            relativity itself. It's like changing the size of the Monopoly board while
            leaving the rules alone.

            A messy metaphor, but that's usually the best you can do with high-level
            physics

            ...and you can alter classical physics with quantum mechanics since both are
            demonstrably incomplete. Classical physics equations break down in the
            realm of the really, really, really small...which is the domain the
            fine-structure constant et. al. is concerned with. The speed at which light
            travels in a vacuum depends on the nature of that vacuum, which depends on
            the properties of the Plank-Length scale "space-time foam" of which it
            consists. And that is _definitely_ under the jurisdiction of Quantum
            Mechanics.

            So; healthy skepticism but somewhat faulty justification for same.

            Eric
            ______________________________________________________________________
            "There is no other wisdom,
            And no other hope for us
            But that we grow wise. -- Diane Duane
            ______________________________________________________________________

            _________________________________________________________________
            Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up � now 2 months FREE!
            http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
          • lflank@ij.net
            ... Not exactly ----- C is a universal constant which is also connected to mass and energy, and thereby to some of the most fundamental laws of quantum
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 2, 2004
              On 2 Jul 2004 at 1:36, Eric Martichuski wrote:

              > >Interesting but something is missing. The speed of light is not changing
              > >and you cannot alter classical physics with quantum physics.
              >
              > It's radically enough that I'm leery too...but nothing is actually missing
              > from the picture they present. If they're wrong, it's only in the recorded
              > data and measurements, not the theory (as far as I can discern).
              >
              > The speed of light _is_ changing (in their model) but relativity remains
              > unharmed because everything still travels slower than light, which is all
              > Einstein really cared about. The actual number attached to "c" is
              > irrelevant, so long as nothing goes faster.



              Not exactly ----- "C" is a universal constant which is also
              connected to mass and energy, and thereby to some of the
              most fundamental laws of quantum physics. If "C" changes,
              so too do lots of other things, which would result in a
              radically different universe.



              ==========================================
              Lenny Flank
              "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

              Creation "Science" Debunked:
              http://www.geocities.com/lflank

              My Reptile Page:
              http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
            • Eric Martichuski
              ... I should have said is irrelevant in relation to relativity. The exact speed doesn t matter so long as causality is preserved. That s what the initial
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 2, 2004
                >>The actual number attached to "c" is
                >>irrelevant, so long as nothing goes faster.
                >
                >Not exactly ----- "C" is a universal constant which is also
                >connected to mass and energy, and thereby to some of the
                >most fundamental laws of quantum physics. If "C" changes,
                >so too do lots of other things, which would result in a
                >radically different universe.

                I should have said "is irrelevant in relation to relativity." The exact
                speed doesn't matter so long as causality is preserved. That's what the
                initial objection was in relation to: the apparent contradictions of such a
                discovery with General Relativity (contradictions that don't truly exist).

                And while 'c' is connected to many other fundamental constants, if I read
                the article correctly, the change in 'c' is a _result_ of changes in other
                constants like the fine structure constant and some associated with nuclear
                decay. So a lot of other values did the changing first. ;-)

                Of course, given that no one is positing more than a nanoscopic change in
                any of these parameters...something like four billionths of s shift, I'm not
                sure how well the phrase "radically different" might apply regardless of
                which alteration came first or how many equation/laws they touch. ;-)

                Eric
                ______________________________________________________________________
                "There is no other wisdom,
                And no other hope for us
                But that we grow wise. -- Diane Duane
                ______________________________________________________________________

                _________________________________________________________________
                MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in
                your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.