[Ghost of V]

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.

[Thork]

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.

[Rushy]

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."

[Thork]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Thork]

I hypothesised that simple expansion of the universe drives change. There are things we can lean on to philosophise with.

[Ghost of V]

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?

[Thork]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Vindictus]

I'm talking about the value c. The constant behind the speed of light. Nothing to do with mediums. Apparently c is changing! 

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'.

[xasop]

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 claims that it is speeding up. Which is it, Thork?

[Rushy]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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?

[Rushy]

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.