Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 59 (9170 total)
 1 online now: Newest Member: Neptune7 Upcoming Birthdays: Percy Happy Birthday: ameliajack Post Volume: Total: 917,263 Year: 4,520/9,624 Month: 295/1,096 Week: 0/119 Day: 0/22 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.0

 (1)
 Message 61 of 170 (674602) 09-30-2012 9:52 PM Reply to: Message 60 by LimpSpider09-30-2012 9:26 PM

LimpSpider writes:
Ok, if light was faster in the past and slowed down, (it has to have been, it could not have been slower) would not the light disappear from view as the c was reduced? Would not it, in such a case, show blueshifts?
It's your theory, I have no idea what would happen as c lessened. Here's the equation again:
E = hc / λ
Is it part of your theory that as c decreased energy would have remained constant? If so then reducing c would have reduced wavelength, which *would* be a blueshift.
But c is a constant because it is a function of the fine structure constant, and significant changes in that constant would have widespread effects on the nature of our universe, effects that we have not observed. One of the effects would be that carbon based life forms could not exist, mainly because carbon could not be produced by stars, but since we're here the fine structure constant must have been pretty much the same when life first began as it is today.
If the speed of light was much greater in the past, either the frequencies were higher due to higher excitation energies of the sources or the received wavelengths are shortened by the Doppler effect.
Frequency is the inverse of wavelength. You've just used two ways of referring to the same thing to reach two different conclusions, and if you're keeping energy constant then you've got it backwards because increasing c means frequencies must be lower and wavelengths longer.
But whatever the actual details of your ideas, they're just pointless speculation because there's no evidence for any of them.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 60 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 9:26 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 9:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2012 10:10 PM Percy has replied Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 10-02-2012 1:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 62 of 170 (674603) 09-30-2012 9:58 PM Reply to: Message 61 by Percy09-30-2012 9:52 PM

Technically, it's all just speculation. VSL has not been observed. Has it? (More details: A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem - creation.com )

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 9:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 63 of 170 (674604) 09-30-2012 10:10 PM Reply to: Message 61 by Percy09-30-2012 9:52 PM

Frequency is the inverse of wavelength.
I think this is begging the question. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related given that the propagation velocity is constant.
Edited by NoNukes, : remove erroneous stuff.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 9:52 PM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 10:33 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.0

 Message 64 of 170 (674605) 09-30-2012 10:33 PM Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes09-30-2012 10:10 PM

NoNukes writes:
I think this is begging the question. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related given that the propagation velocity is constant.
But if he's holding energy constant (which he didn't specify but I was trying to respond to his questions and so needed to assume something constant) then frequency and wavelength are still kind of locked together. If energy is not held constant then I think you're right.
AbE: After thinking about this a bit more I realized that holding the energy constant would also hold the frequency constant, so varying c while keeping energy constant would vary the wavelength.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

 This message is a reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2012 10:10 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 67 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:15 AM Percy has replied

Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 65 of 170 (674614) 10-01-2012 1:09 AM Reply to: Message 56 by LimpSpider09-30-2012 6:48 PM

I'm not saying the Inflationary Hypothesis is false.
Well, what you wrote was: "It could not have possibly taken 14 billion years. It is known as the horizon problem." Which does implicitly assume that the I.H. is false, because if it's true the radiation could have become uniform in the given time. If it comes to that, it also implicitly assumes that the speed of light can't vary.

 This message is a reply to: Message 56 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:48 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 66 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 66 of 170 (674615) 10-01-2012 1:14 AM Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate10-01-2012 1:09 AM

Your misrepresentation is rather interesting. The problem is the horizon problem. The solution offered, which has no evidence, is the Inflationary Hypothesis. Two different things, my dear Dr.

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2012 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2012 3:01 AM LimpSpider has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 67 of 170 (674616) 10-01-2012 1:15 AM Reply to: Message 64 by Percy09-30-2012 10:33 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 10:33 PM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 69 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 9:38 AM LimpSpider has replied

Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 68 of 170 (674617) 10-01-2012 3:01 AM Reply to: Message 66 by LimpSpider10-01-2012 1:14 AM

And non-existent. Perhaps that's the most interesting thing about it.

 This message is a reply to: Message 66 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:14 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 75 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.0

 Message 69 of 170 (674629) 10-01-2012 9:38 AM Reply to: Message 67 by LimpSpider10-01-2012 1:15 AM

LimpSpider writes:
1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Anyway, so what did you say in Message 62:
LimpSpider in Message 62 writes:
Technically, it's all just speculation. VSL has not been observed. Has it? (More details: A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem - creation.com)
You concede it's all just speculation and state that VSL (Variable Speed of Light) has not been observed. What is there to respond to?
Or were you maybe referring to the one sentence I didn't quote from the longest paragraph in your Message 60, the only one that continued your line of argument:
In either case, referenced against standard sources on Earth, such light would appear blueshifted.
Given that everything you were saying was speculation in the absence of information, why do you feel it was necessary to respond to this part of the speculation?
My Message 61 attempts to discuss the implications of yours ideas while pointing out that you're fairly non-specific, like not specifying whether you're keeping energy constant. I also pointed out the problems introduced by significant changes in c, which would require significant changes in the fine structure constant, making life in our universe impossible. Maybe you'd like to address that.
You have a tendency toward brevity. Next time you would like a response from anyone about something, specify which part of which message so people don't have to scramble around answering multiple messages because they don't know which the heck part of which message you're talking about.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:15 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 70 of 170 (674689) 10-01-2012 7:00 PM Reply to: Message 69 by Percy10-01-2012 9:38 AM

quote:
You concede it's all just speculation and state that VSL (Variable Speed of Light) has not been observed. What is there to respond to?
You see, I’ve never been a supporter of VSL in the first place.
Yes, I know I’ve not been specific, Thanks for the tip. Brevity is good. In some cases. Anyway. I’m keeping enerrgy constant,. (For this case, it would be just only be c that is changing. I no longer support the idea of c changing, by the way. I used to, in other forums)

 This message is a reply to: Message 69 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 9:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 7:28 PM LimpSpider has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 71 of 170 (674691) 10-01-2012 7:28 PM Reply to: Message 70 by LimpSpider10-01-2012 7:00 PM

Really?
I no longer support the idea of c changing, by the way.
I have no idea what your position is. Why did you ask us questions about c changing?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

 This message is a reply to: Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:00 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 72 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:14 PM NoNukes has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 72 of 170 (674697) 10-01-2012 8:14 PM Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes10-01-2012 7:28 PM

Re: Really?

 This message is a reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 7:28 PM NoNukes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 73 by JonF, posted 10-01-2012 8:48 PM LimpSpider has replied Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 10:11 PM LimpSpider has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 219 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 73 of 170 (674698) 10-01-2012 8:48 PM Reply to: Message 72 by LimpSpider10-01-2012 8:14 PM

Re: Really?
Perhaps you shoould have asked if we had considered the possibility of a change in c?
The answer to that question is yes.

 This message is a reply to: Message 72 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:14 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 74 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:54 PM JonF has not replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 74 of 170 (674699) 10-01-2012 8:54 PM Reply to: Message 73 by JonF10-01-2012 8:48 PM

Re: Really?
Wait a minute. I don't ask questions which you already ask. There has been such consideration. It goes back a long way.

 This message is a reply to: Message 73 by JonF, posted 10-01-2012 8:48 PM JonF has not replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 75 of 170 (674700) 10-01-2012 8:56 PM Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate10-01-2012 3:01 AM

Oh, it is real. You mixed up the horizon problem and the solution. I pointed that out to you. You ignored it. Perhaps that's the most interesting thing about it.

 This message is a reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2012 3:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2012 10:52 PM LimpSpider has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)