The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Thork on December 08, 2014, 07:52:17 PM
-
So, for a long time I have suspected the big bang not to have happened. I have many reasons for this but of course the one that really stands out is a universe appearing from nothing out of no where.
I believe the universe to be infinite and whilst Hubble and his red-shift theories suggest an explosion, I have my doubts as that actually having happened.
So what aroused my suspicions. The first was a fairly incoherent TED talk by a hippy wearing no shoes and much of what he said was stupid. But he said one thing that made me check ... the speed of light is not constant.
I mean, I had to check. its c, right? Its a constant. 299,792,457m/s
Now, further investigation says other eminent scientists have had the same suspicion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
and
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html#.VIX133lybcs
It seems the speed of light has been gradually slowing down.
Recorded measurements show it slowed quite a bit between 1928 and 1945 and then recovered before gradually declining again.
http://www.magicdave.com/ron/Does%20the%20Speed%20of%20Light%20Slow%20Down%20Over%20Time.html
(Yes the factor of error is outside of explanation for a constant).
Now back to the hippy. He suggested there are no laws of the universe. Merely habits. The universe tended towards habits but did not have fixed rules. Big G is another constant but does that move? In fact how can any of these things be constant?
Scientists have used the dogma of the speed of light being a constant for so long now, I suspect its ruining future discovery. In 1976 they fixed the metre to the speed of light ... and since then the speed of light has become fixed ... because the bloody metre changes instead. It has stopped our ability to measure light's speed. And of course we have m/s. And time isn't fixed either. That changes with relativity and gravity and all kinds of things.
So, Thork's hypothesis.
First, I think the speed of light is slowing down, because time is speeding up and a photon has to travel further in the same space of time to remain constant. It would make sense to me that time is a function of the size of the universe and as the universe expands, time alters itself. Its already sensitive to gravity and relativity. As the universe gets bigger time has to alter. For a start, the universe becomes less dense. And this helps bend all the other constants too.
Now if I extrapolate back time slows and slows and slows until it is at zero. ergo the universe never did bang, it has always been there. The further you go back, the longer you have to wait to go back more. The age of the universe is infinite. And going forward if you could go a trillion years into the future time would be so fast that you'd have to say linearly the universe was only a second old. Further forward, the universe came and went in the blink of an eye. All things are relative so it must not be treated linearly ... the universe must have always been. And it didn't take 380,000 years for the first stars. That's linear time. It likely took longer than all the time since.
Dark energy cannot be explained at the moment. But what if that is the propagation of this information at light speed through the universe. A kind of communicative friction changing the numbers and causing the effects we observe? All down to expansion stretching the universe's parameters. And that physics at the centre of the universe is different to the edges? That time is slower near the centre than the edges as it takes so long to communicate those new parameters back to the centre being as they can only do this at light speed. So measuring Doppler shift etc to gauge the universe is pointless and you can't know how much time and light speed varies between two points.
In short, I stumbled across an interesting fact ... light speed changes and I wondered how that might change things. What are your thoughts?
-
Is the acceleration of light constant? If so, what is that constant?
-
Its definitely a thought. I have been reading some material that posits that the space did not start with the Big Bang. This material, which is religious in nature, albeit NOT Jewish, speculates that Paradise is in the center of space, and that surrounding it are 7 creations called Superuniverses. Obviously the term "universe" in this material is not used the same way we use it today. It is used to refer to a collection of stars and other space matter. there are seven of these Superuniverses that rotate around the Center. The WHOLE Creation is cyclical, in that it breathes, if you will. To my knowledge, they don't get into the change of the speed of light. But the basic position that space and all that therein lies did NOT start by the Big Bang is not unheard of, and it is NOT stupid.
-
Doesn't the speed of light fluctuate depending on what medium it's going through?
Regardless, there's no evidence supporting the claim that the speed of light changes in a vacuum. Contrary to popular belief, space is not a perfect vacuum.
That's all I got.
-
Is the acceleration of light constant? If so, what is that constant?
Light doesn't accelerate. It doesn't need to, it has no mass.
Its definitely a thought. I have been reading some material that posits that the space did not start with the Big Bang. This material, which is religious in nature, albeit NOT Jewish, speculates that Paradise is in the center of space, and that surrounding it are 7 creations called Superuniverses. Obviously the term "universe" in this material is not used the same way we use it today. It is used to refer to a collection of stars and other space matter. there are seven of these Superuniverses that rotate around the Center. The WHOLE Creation is cyclical, in that it breathes, if you will. To my knowledge, they don't get into the change of the speed of light. But the basic position that space and all that therein lies did NOT start by the Big Bang is not unheard of, and it is NOT stupid.
Being as you brought up religion there is a creationist explanation, but I wanted to steer away from that and keep this sciensy.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/speed_of_light.html#creationists
additional reading
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speedlight.html
Doesn't the speed of light fluctuate depending on what medium it's going through?
Regardless, there's no evidence supporting the claim that the speed of light changes in a vacuum. Contrary to popular belief, space is not a perfect vacuum.
That's all I got.
I'm talking about the value c. The constant behind the speed of light. Nothing to do with mediums. Apparently c is changing! :o
-
Doesn't the speed of light fluctuate depending on what medium it's going through?
This is a common misconception. When light travels through a medium, the medium is absorbing and reemitting the light at various intervals, giving an observer the perceived difference in velocity. The velocity of a photon itself does not change, regardless of the medium.
-
Is the acceleration of light constant? If so, what is that constant?
Light doesn't accelerate. It doesn't need to, it has no mass.
The speed of light changes, but it doesn't accelerate? ???
-
I'm talking about the value c. The constant behind the speed of light. Nothing to do with mediums. Apparently c is changing! :o
I realize that, but c is the speed of light in a vacuum. What evidence do you have that c is changing? One of your links shows experiments measuring the speed of light since 1862, but each experiment shows a very similar result.
-
I'm talking about the value c. The constant behind the speed of light. Nothing to do with mediums. Apparently c is changing! :o
I realize that, but c is the speed of light in a vacuum. What evidence do you have that c is changing? One of your links shows experiments measuring the speed of light since 1862, but each experiment shows a very similar result.
Similar but gradually decreasing outside of the error margins. Apparently it is of some embarrassment to the scientific community so they brush it under the carpet because it busts E=mc2 and so much other science is built on that.
the original ted talk is below. it is interesting even if some of his stuff is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
-
Thork seems to be confusing gravitational lensing with a change in the speed of light.
Also, you are literally the worst engineer, etc. etc.
-
Watch the ted talk. >:(
-
Watch the ted talk. >:(
It is titled "the science delusion" and "banned TED talk" Clickbaity and dumb, I won't be watching it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, public speaker, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, known for his "morphic resonance" concept. He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.
He is not qualified to even discuss the speed of light. Also, you didn't answer my question.
What evidence do you have that c is changing?
-
Watch the ted talk. >:(
It is titled "the science delusion" and "banned TED talk" Clickbaity and dumb, I won't be watching it.
Fine, leave the thread then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, public speaker, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, known for his "morphic resonance" concept. He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.
He is not qualified to even discuss the speed of light. Also, you didn't answer my question.
What evidence do you have that c is changing?
I said he was a quack hippy from the off, but his data that the speed of light is changing I have found elsewhere and posted for you.
-
Alright, so I read on the topic, but it looks more like your data shows a change in the alpha constant, not the speed of light. A change in the alpha constant could mean a change in the speed of light or it could mean a change in electron charge or Planck's constant.
Also, the observed change was within 10^-5 of the current accepted constant. Sounds like it needs a lot more data to back up such a small change, especially ensuring data taken from different locations is concurrent.
-
It has been possible to measure the speed of light in a laboratory with almost exact precision for many years now. No residual decay has ever been observed. Also, c-decay has overreaching consequences for the entire universe. Including ripping the fabric of space time apart, or at least changing reality as we know it. Of course, you'll have to work your theory around these problems... until then, you've got nothing.
-
Alright, so I read on the topic, but it looks more like your data shows a change in the alpha constant, not the speed of light. A change in the alpha constant could mean a change in the speed of light or it could mean a change in electron charge or Planck's constant.
Also, the observed change was within 10^-5 of the current accepted constant. Sounds like it needs a lot more data to back up such a small change, especially ensuring data taken from different locations is concurrent.
And that's why this is in the philosophy section. How do you see a decreasing speed of light effecting our scientific thoughts?
-
It has been possible to measure the speed of light in a laboratory with almost exact precision for many years now. No residual decay has ever been observed. Also, c-decay has overreaching consequences for the entire universe. Including ripping the fabric of space time apart, or at least changing reality as we know it. Of course, you'll have to work your theory around these problems... until then, you've got nothing.
Again, no decay since 1972 when they fixed the value of a meter to being derived from the speed to light. Jesus, watch the ted talk already. >:(
-
Is this the FE against FE section? Why are you people fighting each other?
-
And that's why this is in the philosophy section. How do you see a decreasing speed of light effecting our scientific thoughts?
What do you mean? The science community has historically always accepted radical changes when evidence supports it.
Is this the FE against FE section? Why are you people fighting each other?
This is the Philosophy, Religion & Society section, you illiterate. Also, what do you mean "you people"?
-
It has been possible to measure the speed of light in a laboratory with almost exact precision for many years now. No residual decay has ever been observed. Also, c-decay has overreaching consequences for the entire universe. Including ripping the fabric of space time apart, or at least changing reality as we know it. Of course, you'll have to work your theory around these problems... until then, you've got nothing.
Again, no decay since 1972 when they fixed the value of a meter to being derived from the speed to light. Jesus, watch the ted talk already. >:(
The man has no qualifications in the field. Why waste my time? I already know he's a quack, a simple google search can tell you this. Fuck, common sense can tell you this.
This is a direct quote from him:
"What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day?"
What if you're a crazy man?
Again, no decay since 1972 when they fixed the value of a meter to being derived from the speed to light.
No decay ever.
-
Last time. A lot of what the man says is complete nonsense, but he mentions fundamental constants changing. and further research suggests that it does happen. I'm not interested in his views on giraffe genetics, he's a moron. But he touched on a topic that does have merit. Even a lunatic can be right occasionally when they scatter gun so many theories.
-
Last time. A lot of what the man says is complete nonsense, but he mentions fundamental constants changing. and further research suggests that it does happen. I'm not interested in his views on giraffe genetics, he's a moron. But he touched on a topic that does have merit. Even a lunatic can be right occasionally when they scatter gun so many theories.
The problem is that the evidence he presented is far from being so readily accurate that we can all say "yes, constants are apparently not constant."
-
And that's all this thread is about. So, how do you see this affecting our understanding of the universe? Its ok to guess. No one knows. That's what philosophy is.
-
And that's all this thread is about. So, how do you see this affecting our understanding of the universe? Its ok to guess. No one knows. That's what philosophy is.
Well, first someone would have to show what drives the change. Simply sitting here making things up would serve no real purpose.
-
I hypothesised that simple expansion of the universe drives change. There are things we can lean on to philosophise with. ???
-
And that's all this thread is about. So, how do you see this affecting our understanding of the universe? Its ok to guess. No one knows. That's what philosophy is.
The forces of "gravity" and electromagnetism would change resulting in a radically different universe.
What else is there to discuss?
-
different how?
Maybe I'm a weirdo. If I read and see something so profoundly different to my current understanding, it makes my brain think of the implications of change to the other things I thought I knew. I consider the possible knock on effects. I have an inquisitive mind. Seeing that there is data to suggest the speed of light actually changes immediately sent my active mind into a state of contemplation.
Am I to understand when you learn or encounter something different you shrug and ignore it? Thinking what might change gave me something to think about and challenge my brain to do the closest thing it can to creating original thought. And it enjoyed that and tried to share the same opportunity with your ungrateful lazy brain. My brain is now sorry it bothered. :(
-
Planets, stars, everything affected by these forces would form differently. Life on other planets would evolve differently as well if the universe was even habitable at that point.
Of course the Earth would be unchanged, due to its unique nature mostly explained by aether.
And yes, I usually ignore baseless pseudo-science.
-
I'm talking about the value c. The constant behind the speed of light. Nothing to do with mediums. Apparently c is changing! :o
I realize that, but c is the speed of light in a vacuum. What evidence do you have that c is changing? One of your links shows experiments measuring the speed of light since 1862, but each experiment shows a very similar result.
Similar but gradually decreasing outside of the error margins. Apparently it is of some embarrassment to the scientific community so they brush it under the carpet because it busts E=mc2 and so much other science is built on that.
The second anyone says this when talking about scientific issues, I instantly laugh and stop reading because it reveals the astounding ignorance of the person who types it.
Scientists don't brush things under a rug. One or two might (although I can't imagine why, nor recall such a case), but the very nature of science means that someone else is bound to figure it out and get their paper in a big journal/conference and consequently win awards and likely more funding. When the name of the game is competition and pumping out papers, you're not going to engage in acts to the direct contrary of your goals because it's 'embarrassing'.
-
Of course the Big Bang, as it is currently explained by science teachers, probably didn't happen. Modern physicists readily admit that we don't have enough information about the early Universe to accurately model what went on. The Big Bang is a convenient model that fits our current data and is easy to teach; much like Newtonian gravitation, which has been known to be false for a century but is still taught in schools because it is useful.
Scientists have used the dogma of the speed of light being a constant for so long now, I suspect its ruining future discovery. In 1976 they fixed the metre to the speed of light ... and since then the speed of light has become fixed ... because the bloody metre changes instead. It has stopped our ability to measure light's speed. And of course we have m/s. And time isn't fixed either. That changes with relativity and gravity and all kinds of things.
It hasn't "stopped" our ability to measure anything. Regardless of what labels we slap on the numbers that come out of our instruments, we'll still get the same numbers. Only our interpretation varies, and it's no more difficult to notice that the metre has shrunk than it is to notice that light has slowed down because they are different interpretations of the same data. Do you have a reputable source which claims that either has actually happened?
First, I think the speed of light is slowing down, because time is speeding up
How can time be "speeding up"? Speed is a function of distance over time, or in the more colloquial sense (as "rate"), of some variable over time. Naturally, time over time is always precisely 1. What is time "speeding up" relative to?
Also, you claim that light is slowing down, but one of your sources (http://www.magicdave.com/ron/Does%20the%20Speed%20of%20Light%20Slow%20Down%20Over%20Time.html) claims that it is speeding up. Which is it, Thork?
-
I hypothesised that simple expansion of the universe drives change. There are things we can lean on to philosophise with. ???
Hypotheses are for experiments and tests. You did neither of those things.
-
Question:
Wouldn't the speed of light change based on gravity (Well, appear to change anyway), time dilation caused by said gravity, and the actual size change of the area it's traveling?
I should expand on the third a bit. The universe is expanding. This is pretty well established and it's well enough established to say that space itself is expanding. However light would not expand with space so if the space light is passing through expands, wouldn't that cause the light to appear slower?
-
Question:
Wouldn't the speed of light change based on gravity (Well, appear to change anyway), time dilation caused by said gravity, and the actual size change of the area it's traveling?
Unless you accept Thork's fascinating evidence, that isn't how it works. Light relative to all frames of reference is currently denoted as c or 299,792,458 meters per second. In all current physics models, it is irrelevant where the photon is or what the energy level of an observer is. Rather than slow down, when a photon loses energy due to gravity its frequency changes.
I should expand on the third a bit. The universe is expanding. This is pretty well established and it's well enough established to say that space itself is expanding. However light would not expand with space so if the space light is passing through expands, wouldn't that cause the light to appear slower?
This might be true, but no one has concrete evidence of any expansion of space (in the sense that the scale of space is literally increasing). Most current evidence shows expansion due to acceleration, which is theorized to be caused by dark matter.