|
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by RonW (Parson) on Apr 07, 2016 at 20:16 UTC
|
Interesting supposition.
The calculations that "prove" that the Universe is expanding and will continue to expand until heat death; are unreliable. Unproven.
If the speed of light is increasing, then that implies that the Universe would be expanding faster than our current measurements suggest.
Why? you ask.
Given A and B are at a fixed distance, then if the light coming from A arrives at B sooner today than it did yesterday (which it would because it's traveling faster), then A will seem closer to B than it did yesterday.
But how do we prove or disprove that? If your supposition is true, we no longer have a standard for distance. (Or anything else.)
For that, please allow me to say, "Congratulations, citizen, you are now a religious icon."1
1Ta'Lon to G'Kar in "The Ragged Edge"
| [reply] |
|
|
Given A and B are at a fixed distance, then if the light coming from A arrives at B sooner today than it did yesterday (which it would because it's traveling faster), then A will seem closer to B than it did yesterday.
Ignoring that the ratio between one day and 13 billion years is such that we wouldn't be able to detect the difference on human life scales, even if we had some means of calibrating the measurement; what is a "fixed distance"? Given, as you said, "we no longer have a standard for distance".
But what if the speed of light was proportional to the expansion of the fabric of space-time?
In the end, there's little point in arguing it; because there is (yet) no mechanism to test the theory.
But that's true for a whole bunch of other stuff also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: [OT] A prediction. (led)
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 07, 2016 at 04:33 UTC
|
Sounds silly, like you're saying , X years from now, LED's will emit light that travels faster , because the light is just going to keep accelerating, even the light that doesn't exist now ... what? | [reply] |
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by morgon (Priest) on Apr 07, 2016 at 23:16 UTC
|
Why should it be accelerating and not -say- oscillate in some range?
And why stop with the speed of light?
Why not claim that none of the fundamental constants of nature are in fact constant over time?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Why not claim
I didn't claim anything.
| [reply] |
|
|
Yes, you did claim, in big bold letters, that "The speed of light is not constant! It is, in fact, accelerating ...".
But the articles you refer to say that the speed of light may not be constant.
These are two entirely different ways of stating things.
If you had said that "it may not be constant", I would have been an agreement with you. Yes, maybe it is not constant, after all. But you said that speed of light is not constant and presented that as a fact. I can't agree with that formulation, because this is just a theory which has not been established as a fact so far. But, having said that, it is definitely an interesting question and an interesting debate.
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by Discipulus (Canon) on Apr 07, 2016 at 08:18 UTC
|
Ancient light was slower? So you can say:
Adam was the fastest man in the world: when he turned off the light, before it was dark he was already in bed.
So if light accelerates it's speed is not constant over the universe: but is this acceleration constant over the time?
I'm quite persuaded that the reality is not at all accurate and a possible god maybe he/she counts slice of bred using the square root of five as reference.
When a photon breaks it's chains and sparks into the matter it must accelerates somehow: my medieval physic understanding cannot afford the beginning of a linear motion.
That said the history of science is full of kill-previosus-dogma happening. Speed of light is one of the actual dogmas.
Also time can be be variable: are you sure you have not posted your OT on April's First?
L*
There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by jdporter (Paladin) on Apr 15, 2016 at 21:47 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Thanks for that; it is very interesting.
Another, "mysteriously increasing" phenomena; that might be accounted for if the speed of light were imperceptibly increasing over time.
Though I doubt 18 years is long enough for it to be able to account for the 8% difference they cite.
But then again, I wonder when they last checked the SoL - who bothers to check the value of a constant. And with units of both distance and time being measured in terms of that constant, would they notice anyway :)
My post was instigated from watching a pair of documentaries and some further reading on the net that lead to some strange possibilities. The Universe is weird and there is a lot that we think we know, that does not add up.
I'm condemned to being a passive bystander watching it unfold, and the chances are that I won't be around long enough to see it all resolved; but I could not help but observe that if the SoL increased slowly over astrological astronomical timescales; it might go some way to explaining a lot of the anomalous stuff that seems to plague cosmology.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
astrological timescales
ie. month to month?
;-)
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by SimonPratt (Friar) on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:27 UTC
|
Assuming the speed of light is in fact accelerating, what would this mean?
If we assume that light behaves somewhat like a bullet fired from a gun, in the sense that once the object emitting the light has emitted it, the light has no further energy capable of accelerating it, then it would mean that something that has been emitting light for 10 billion years and located, say, 5 billion light years away would have a measurably higher level of light reaching us than a similar object that is either significantly closer, or significantly younger.
Now if we assume that there is in fact some force acting on light, to continue accelerating it after it has been emitted by the object, then what we observe would depend on where that force is coming from.
If photons do indeed have mass, then that force could be coming from inside them, as they decay. In this case, the speed of light is not increasing per se, more that the speed of individual photons is increasing (for light to be getting faster, as your post implies, would require photon A's top speed at the end of its journey to somehow be applied to photon B's starting speed). This would be measurable by observing the speed of ancient light from other galaxies and comparing that with measurements of the speed of new light emitted on Earth.
Alternatively, if there is some external force acting to accelerate photons, then it would have to be capable of acting in multiple (potentially opposing) directions simultaneously, otherwise we could measure that light travelling, say, East would be faster than light travelling West. And this is not limited to measuring light emitted on Earth, we could perform the same experiment on light that has been travelling for billions of years. I don't even want to start thinking about how a force external to photons, travelling faster than the speed of light, could travel in opposing directions simultaneously.
| [reply] |
|
|
This would be measurable by observing the speed of ancient light from other galaxies and comparing that with measurements of the speed of new light emitted on Earth.
Problem. We decide what is ancient light, by how far away its origin is (via red-shift); but our measure of distance is inextricably linked to the SoL being a constant.
And we get the speed of "new light", by timing it -- in units tied to the SoL constant -- over distance -- measured in units tied to the SoL constant.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
We don't need to know the exact distance something is in order to make observations regarding it.
For instance, if your hypothesis that photons are constantly accelerating is correct, then as light emitting objects are blocked from our sight and reappear (such as having the moon passing in front of them), they would reappear at different intervals.
If this difference is not observed to occur, then I would think we could come to three possible conclusions:
- All observable objects are basically the same distance from us
- No observable objects are sufficiently distant to allow a measurable difference in speed to accrue
- The speed of light is constant
We know that the things we can observe are not all the same distance away from us because there are measurable differences in the amount of spectrum shift. This not only tells us these objects are different distances, it also tells us they are moving at different velocities and in different directions.
If the distance is insufficient for a measurable difference in speed to have built up, then presuming the speed of light is constant is sufficient for us to gain a relatively accurate distance measurement for the observable objects.
This should be a relatively simple experiment to conduct, even from your own backyard, with something as simple as a hobbyist telescope. What do you think?
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by vkon (Curate) on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:35 UTC
|
I would say that this does not invalidate older physics, it just gives more freedom.
conclusion is much like "g" - free fall acceleration constant - is not constant at all...
so what? it does not invalidate anything | [reply] |
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 16, 2018 at 07:18 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
What will they think of next ...
I'm thinking that the reduction in speed should also reduce the photon's longevity, right ?
Cheers,
Rob
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Re: [OT] A prediction.
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 07, 2016 at 20:58 UTC
|
Gee, reading such baloney, I thought that sundialsvc4 was back.
Natura abhorret vacuum. | [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: [OT] A prediction. (Told ya:)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 25, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: [OT] A prediction. (Evidence to back the speculation.)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 03, 2016 at 08:01 UTC
|
| [reply] |
| A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
