Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
 8 online now: nwr, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric, vimesey, xongsmith (7 members, 1 visitor) Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3 Happy Birthday: Raphael Post Volume: Total: 901,439 Year: 12,551/6,534 Month: 2,044/1,988 Week: 165/460 Day: 18/147 Hour: 0/8

Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17363
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6

 (1)
 Message 244 of 309 (664860) 06-06-2012 2:33 AM Reply to: Message 235 by foreveryoung06-05-2012 11:58 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I think that I understand what you are saying.
If the vacuum energy (the zero point energy of a vacuum) was lower, light would travel faster because it would encounter fewer particles to slow it down. This is true, but only just - it would not affect the value of c, which assumes no particle interactions. So it would allow only a negligible increase in the observed speed of light.
The second assertion is that this lower energy would exactly cancel out the expected effects of faster light on the spectra of the various elements. This is not something that can be safely assumed and would need to be demonstrated.
In short, it seems that your first point is badly wrong and your second is a massive assumption.

 This message is a reply to: Message 235 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 PM foreveryoung has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 245 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17363
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6

 Message 249 of 309 (664868) 06-06-2012 5:28 AM Reply to: Message 245 by foreveryoung06-06-2012 2:47 AM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
quote:
How do you know the value of c? You only know it because it is measured by its current value.
By my understanding the value is also derived from Maxwell's equations.
quote:
To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum. Light from stars billions of light years away, should immediately be detected by radar telescopes the instant they leave the star in a true vacuum
Do you have any scientific basis for this idea, or is it just a convenient assumption?
quote:
Of course you will protest that e=mc2 dictates infinite energy for infinite speed of light. This equation was derived in the presence of the observed light speed of today
I believe that that is incorrect - it is based in the theoretical constant, not the actual measured speed.
quote:
but what if the speed of light were dependent upon the zero point energy? What if mass were dependent upon the zero point energy as well
I really doubt that mass is dependent on the vacuum energy. I also very much doubt that you have done the calculations to show that your speculations are even remotely plausible (what particle density is required to slow an infinite light speed down to the observed value ? What particle density should we expect from the current vacuum energy?) or properly considered the effects on other areas of physics.
Besides, since the equation does not rely on the measured speed, your argument is moot.

 This message is a reply to: Message 245 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17363
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6

 (2)
 Message 270 of 309 (664911) 06-06-2012 2:47 PM Reply to: Message 265 by foreveryoung06-06-2012 2:31 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
Well, it's obvious that there is very little out there.
But let's think about your speculative ideas.
You assume that the "natural" speed of photons is infinite - rather than c, as Maxwell and Einstein would have it. The time taken for light to travel is solely due to photons interacting with particles of matter.
It should follow, then, that the travel time would be roughly proportional to the number of particles encountered and that light would travel far slower in the relatively dense medium of Earth's atmosphere than it does in space. But this is not the case, the difference is tiny, as would be expected if Maxwell and Einstein were right.
The evidence is clear, the conclusion obvious.

 This message is a reply to: Message 265 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:31 PM foreveryoung has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     In Memoriam     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors