THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

by **glubglubglub** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:37 pm

EM doesn't slow light down, at least not in any of the ways you're thinking of it. If you're thinking of recent 'slowed light' or 'stopped light' experiments in the news (last year or so), well, you should check out the details of how those experiments worked and come back, too.

by **Homeless Halo** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:41 pm

Well, that's what they taught me in Introduction to Astronomical Physics. I know that a lot of other assumptions in science rest heavily on constants being constant and that a whole can of worms would emerge if we abandoned that premise without a VERY VERY strong case, which I haven't seen yet, although I was taught that light is slowing down in Christian school... "Slowed light" and "stopped light" experiments are typically misleading, they should probably be called "trapped light" experiments.

by **smiths** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:49 pm

surely discussions on the physical space around us are always relevent to truth seekers, our culture and forward path are defined by the world we think we inhabit, not only does the post tie into the musings of mr dolphin and SRI but it ties into the recent post on wilbert smith which i read here (buggered if i can find it though), wilbert tells how the aliens explain that our ideas of physics are just plain wrong, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2546/smith.html">www.geocities.com/Athens/...smith.html</a> "For one thing they told us that the velocity of light was not a constant. As a matter of fact they seemed to be rather pointed in their statements that light doesn’t travel, it is. And we told them that from our point of view it appeared to travel with a certain definite velocity of 186,000 miles per second. They said that’s the way it looks to you because you are looking at it from a region having certain conditions, certain influences, but they said if you were to go away from this region you would find that a different set of circumstances prevailed. Another thing they told us cast a great deal of doubt on our ideas of time. They told us that time wasn’t at all what we thought it was, namely what might be marked off with the ticking of a clock, that time was, in fact, a field function, the result of there being a universe." for a genuinely alternative model have a look here, <a href="http://www.spaceandmotion.com/summary-faq-wsm.htm">www.spaceandmotion.com/su...aq-wsm.htm</a> "The Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter is founded on One Principle which describes One Substance, Space, and its Properties as a Wave-Medium. Matter Exists as Spherical Standing Waves in Space. The discrete 'particle' effect of matter is formed by the Wave-Center of the Spherical Standing Waves. Time is caused by wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter's activity and the phenomena of time). Forces / Fields result from wave interactions of the Spherical In and Out Waves with other matter in the universe which change the location of the Wave-Center (and which we 'see' as a 'force accelerating a particle'). Effectively we are combining the Absolute Space assumed by Newton (167<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> with the spherically spatially extended structure of matter as assumed by Albert Einstein in his Theory of Relativity (1905 - 1916) and the scalar wave properties of matter discovered by Schrodinger and de Broglie (foundations of Quantum Theory, 192<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> ." "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)" so if light has no 'speed' and time is an enjoyable illusion then almost anything is possible, ha ha, and its always relevant and i love it

by **banned** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:51 pm

...with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy Increases? banned <--------liberal arts major, be kind. I mean, if the whole universe is slowing down, eventually the light will be too tired to go very fast and the universe will be like one big refrigerator with the door shut.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>EM doesn't slow light down, at least not in any of the ways you're thinking of it<hr></blockquote> I hold my hand up. I aint no scientist myself, more of philosophical scientist, and probably not a very good one at that. I was thinking, that maybe a strong balanced magnetic field which could for instance make a 10 zillion ton rock slow down, or even make it appear to "levitate", might be able to influence light too, without neccesarily altering its direction. I guess a rock is just energy after all isnt it ? Not quite as pure a form ( rapidly vibrating ) as light itself, but still simply energy nonetheless ? - edit I was also thinking in terms of time involved in its overall movement between two given points ( such as the sun and earth) Just thinking out loud here. I gladly stand corrected <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/11/05 8:01 pm

by **glubglubglub** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:54 pm

anyone claiming light has slowed as fact is certifiably bonkers, and the high degree of implausibility is a vote against. Creationists love the idea b/c it explains how the universe could be $smallnum years old, and people with the misfortunate of dealing with such fundies tend to be reactionary, but it's just another highly-unlikely but not yet ruled out proposal. It's in the ranks of 'the universe is a giant computer', though, in terms of how seriously it's looked into, versus string or the various quantum foam ideas...the big problem is a meaningful version of the conservation laws, and after that you arrive back at newtonian physics basically unchanged...good luck on getting this to work with GR, though; to my knowledge no one's shown that a theory with dc/dt < 0 is either internally consistent or internally inconsistent.

by **Homeless Halo** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:50 pm

The biggest single issue with many "new" interpretations of physics is that they contain no testable hypothesis, one of the must haves for any theory. If your theory cannot be tested, it is not a theory. Many people tend to overlook this on their way towards creating a metaphysics, for example, that aliens gave to them. You'd think the aliens would be able to explain their theory in mathematical terminology that was straightforward (relatively speaking, of course). Of course, we don't need aliens to tell us that time's ticks are illusions created by our limited perceptions. Einstein already told us that.

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:11 am

I was indoctrinated into Kreationism at a young age, and know of several places where Setterfields work is still being taught as gospel. Literally. Although the best critique I've ever found of his work is at TalkOrigins. I'll add it below: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html</a> --------------------- The Decay of c-decay by Robert P. J. Day Copyright © 1997-2003 [Article: 1997] [Edited by admin for formatting issue] Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 10/11/05 10:51 pm

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:12 am

That didn't work very well. Sorry.

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:22 am

there's an assload of math developed since the 50s/60s ( ie, pretty much all of Grothendiek's work, in particular -- and very literally -- the categories he introduced ) and a radical change in the kind of concepts employed / sorts of statements made, and so a physical theory that required truly higher math to state properly might've been impossible to communicate except as gibberish and hints. That said, I'll believe dc/dt != 0 when someone makes a free energy device powered by taking advantage of the gradual decrease in c; in the meantime, it's just a good mental exercise.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That said, I'll believe dc/dt != 0 when someone makes a free energy device powered by taking advantage of the gradual decrease in c; in the meantime, it's just a good mental exercise.<hr></blockquote> So. You cant actually slow any form of energy down ? Everything that you see, hear, breathe, touch, smell, or taste is simply energy. If a football - essentially little more than a mass of energy- comes my way, I cant stop it or slow it down ? Of course I can. I know it vibrates far slower than light, which helps. But that football is nothing more than energy of itself. Light is the big one for sure. But isnt light just a pure form of energy, which just like a football can be slowed down and, ultimately stopped ? Discuss <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **monster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:20 am

the universe cares what agenda is behind a certain idea, i.e. creationists/slowing light. Politicizing universal truths is Bad. The universe is what it is, and if light is slowing down, then it's slowing down. That's not a "victory" for creationists. Decreasing C doesn't mean there's a white-bearded dude named Jehovah sitting on a throne somewhere tinkering with the universe. What I find fascinating is that photons are linked to each other by a totally unknown mechanism. I think it's called "non-locality." <a href="http://tinyurl.com/co6yj">tinyurl.com/co6yj</a> How the hell does that work?

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:08 am

I think it is merely important to assess the stated goals of the scientific reseachers in question (in this case, specifically to create a worldview with a 6000 yr old universe, it says so in his book...). I think it is obvious from basic "fact checking" that he misrepresents much of the data he is surveying as his subject pool. (That is his misquotes his own sources a LOT) I think its important, when a researcher has a stated political goal in mind, to consider that when assessing his research. Most scientists don't start with their conclusions. And his research leads to the conclusions that the universe is about the age the Catholics once maintained it was. I think that's important, because it taints his entire credibility. Of course, his lousy application of the scientific method taint it more. As for non-locality, I can't tell you anything. Not my area. But I find it fascinating.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In this case: who is Dolphin's manager? That's the question at hand in light of Jeff's previous two posts (both on SRI-related issues). The rest is mostly trivia: depending on the real facts on the ground we've got a little window into the internal politics of SRI.<hr></blockquote> glub, Well, yes, but that's the weaker version IMHO. This guy Lambert Dolphin gets unrestricted access to the Giza Plateau and the Temple Mount. That's a wet dream for many a scientist and researcher. Remember that German guy who sent a video camera up one of the shafts and found an unopened door? He was thrown out of Egypt and not been back. (note: corrections to ALL my posts are welcome, maybe I'm out of date on Giza.) Then he leaves SRI in 1987. It now turns out he was FIRED. After THIRTY ONE YEARS! They couldn't even offer early retirement? And not only Dolphin, but his entire team OUT. And in the fifth year of the great Reagan boom.... That peculiarly British word "redundant". The outfit that carried out the seismic mapping of the Sphynx and of Solomon's stables. Redundant???? The two sites in which virtually all myths being brought into play today are grounded. Redundant??? Something funny here. What was this horrible sin? That they published a paper on the diminishing speed of light? C'mon. Rigorous Intuition playing up.

by **vondardenelle** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:43 pm

i know absolutely nothing about science, or light, beyond how to turn on a light. but let's assume that the speed of light is decreasing, what are the implications of this? will time behave differently or something? should there be an expected outcome of light slowing? anyone?

THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

slimmouse: Homeless is right here

hm

relevance

Does this have anything to do...

Re: slimmouse: Homeless is right here

right right, we talk past each other here

yep

Creationism.

well

at this point just playing devils' advocate

Re: at this point just playing devils' advocate

I don't think

of course not.

Re: yup, read my earlier post

Re: yup, read my earlier post

Who is online