Thork

No big bang
« 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?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 07:57:21 PM by Thork »

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1134
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2014, 08:05:04 PM »
Is the acceleration of light constant? If so, what is that constant?
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: No big bang
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2014, 08:05:52 PM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: No big bang
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2014, 08:09:13 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 08:10:57 PM by Vauxhall »

Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2014, 08:11:44 PM »
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

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2014, 08:13:19 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 08:15:04 PM by Irushwithscvs »

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1134
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2014, 08:16:35 PM »
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? ???
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

Ghost of V

Re: No big bang
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2014, 08:18:55 PM »
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.


Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2014, 08:22:25 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2014, 08:23:54 PM »
Thork seems to be confusing gravitational lensing with a change in the speed of light.

Also, you are literally the worst engineer, etc. etc.

Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2014, 08:25:07 PM »
Watch the ted talk. >:(

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2014, 08:28:27 PM »
Watch the ted talk. >:(

It is titled "the science delusion" and "banned TED talk" Clickbaity and dumb, I won't be watching it.

Ghost of V

Re: No big bang
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2014, 08:30:56 PM »
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?

Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2014, 08:34:50 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2014, 08:43:47 PM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: No big bang
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2014, 08:45:44 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 08:49:22 PM by Vauxhall »

Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2014, 08:48:58 PM »
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?

Thork

Re: No big bang
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2014, 08:49:59 PM »
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. >:(

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2014, 08:51:39 PM »
Is this the FE against FE section?  Why are you people fighting each other? 

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
    • View Profile
Re: No big bang
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2014, 08:52:34 PM »
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"?