Summations Only

How do you know the value of c? You only know it because it is measured by its current value.

We also know its past value by observing cosmological bodies like SN1987a. Please try to keep up.

To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum.

Then our Sun would explode since each fission reaction would produce an infinite amount of energy. I think you forgot about this equation: E=mc^2. That c at the end of the equation is the speed of light in a vacuum.

This is true, but what if the speed of light were dependent upon the zero point energy?

Evidence? If you want to claim that 100 years of physics done by hundreds of thousands of physicists is wrong you should at least attempt to supply some evidence to back your claims.

I do believe it is according to setterfield the last time I read him.

This doesn't solve any of the problems from his earlier work:

quote:

---

Setterfield is here playing a semantic game: the ZPE increases the “magnitude” of the orbit energies, causing the actual energies to decrease! But if electrons are sustained in their orbits by the ZPE level, an increase in this level would obviously cause the electrons to gain orbital energy, and the atom to enlarge with time. This is a change in the wrong direction (if one wants to explain the cosmological redshift), and, incredibly, Setterfield has managed to revert to his earlier problem: claiming a redshift when the physics gives a blue shift.
http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison3.pdf

---

Making the changes you propose would result in an observed blue shift for distant galaxies. We observe a red shift.

In summary: e=mc2 is not a problem with higher lightspeeds because the same reality that causes greater lightspeeds also causes lighter masses.

Lighter masses means that Earth atmosphere would not have oxygen:

quote:

---

The problem occurs when we consider Setterfield’s hypothesis that mass varies . . .Unfortunately, this creates a severe problem for life on planet Earth. A molecule traveling upward with a velocity greater than the Earth’s escape velocity of 11,000 m/s will escape from the planet’s gravity, never to return. For oxygen, Figure 18 shows that the average velocity exceeds the escape velocity for æ values greater than 26.
http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison3.pdf

---

No need to worry about a flood killing life on Earth. There was no oxygen to breath to start with, at least according to Setterfield's hypothesis.

This is a fatal blow for Setterfield's claims.

So, you will not consider looking into a matter if there is no evidence?

As a juror in a murder case, would you consider leprechauns as the source of forensic evidence at a crime scene? Would you not accept forensic evidence as valid until the prosecution has ruled out the claim that leprechauns planted evidence at a crime scene? Yes or no?

The evidence is actually there. It is called the bible.

Those are claims, not evidence. Surely you understand the difference?

If you dug into the ground and came upon a stone that was dated to be 2 billion years old and on its was engraved the following message, would you not look into to the possibility that the claims made on the story had any basis in reality?

This is a fantasy, not evidence. The very fact that you can not point to such evidence is rather revealing, wouldn't you say?

If so, why aren't you interested in seeing if the claims of the bible have in basis in reality?

That is exactly what we are doing. As it turns out, the claims in the Bible are contradicted by reality.

The reason you should suppose that there ever was a change in constants is because a supernatural book written by the creator of the universe claims this world is much younger than what you all suppose it to be.

It is a book written by men.

You claim that the evidence shows it to be exactly as old as you claim. I am saying that maybe the evidence is all wrong. If the constants were ever different in the past, then the evidence would indeed be all wrong.

If constants were different in the past, the evidence would be DIFFERENT. It isn't. That's the whole point.

Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?

Can you see why the evidence contradicts changing constants in the past?

Slight quibble:

foreveryoung writes: If so, why aren't you interested in seeing if the claims of the bible have in basis in reality? That is exactly what we are doing. As it turns out, the claims in the Bible are contradicted by reality.

The claims in question are not in the Bible. Rather, the claims are based on a particular interpretation of the Bible and are firmly held because of a dogmatic belief which is extra-biblical (at least nobody has ever cited any biblical source for it). A particular interpretation which is very likely wrong to begin with, as that extra-bibilical belief blatantly is as well.

And, yes, those claims are indeed contradicted by reality.

There is no time dimension.

That is not what your posts are saying. In message 222 you said:

quote:

---

No orbit in any galaxy is following the laws of physics, which is why they have invented four times as much invisible matter as the natural visible kind.

---

Last I checked, orbital speeds are given in distance/time. You are using a time dimension in your claims. You are contradicting yourself.

We can see much more distant galaxies whose atoms shine way down in the microwave and far infrared, but it takes a huge telescope to gather enough of that very faint light to clock the atomic frequencies.

Yes, this is due to space expanding between us and the distant galaxies. This is further evidenced by type Ia supernovae data where we can observe relativistic effects consistent with expansion.

Not only did the atoms keep on changing their clock frequencies, but the star orbits (inertia) . . .

How do you measure star orbits?

the space matter takes up (volume)

How do you measure volume?

There is not a shred of visible evidence for a single constant anywhere in the whole universe

Yes there is. We have presented it. Go read the posts concerning SN1987a.

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.

That would mean it is a different universe than the one we live in.

But what you believe has no effect on reality and obviously reality has no effect on what you believe.

Please show some sort of reasoning for this idea of yours. Or is this one also to be exempt from evidence?

Foreveryoung writes

To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum.

It doesn't matter what you think it should be. Have you seen the effect on the speed of light that belief has? Try going outside and shout real loud "Hey, Light, you should have infinite speed in a true vacuum". I tried it, it made not a smidgeon of a difference.

After writing that, I can't get the sponge on a stick out of my head.

The message engraved on the stones said that it was written by the creator of the universe and that the stone was part of the bedrock sitting underneath the soil from which adam, the first human, was created from.

Is there some part of the Bible that makes this kind of authorship claim?

The bible is replete with God making claims to creation of the universe.

You really are a bitch aren't you?

It doesn't matter what you think it should be. Have you seen the effect on the speed of light that belief has? Try going outside and shout real loud "Hey, Light, you should have infinite speed in a true vacuum". I tried it, it made not a smidgeon of a difference.

What the fuck does that sarcastic comment have to do with anything? Do you really think space is a true vacuum bitch? Can you prove it bitch? Are you so fucking dumb that you think just because you measure the speed of light to be 386,000 meters per second , that it must be the TRUE speed of light. Have you even considered that there might be some substance slowing it down? Of course you haven't you dumb fucking bitch. Instead of being sarcastic to people who have ideas beyond your tiny comprehension skills, try to understand why they have these ideas to begin with.

Nothing substantive to say, eh?

Until you learn some physics and some math and a lot about what has been observed, all your handwaving fantasies will continue to have no connection with reality.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I gave a boatload of substantive last night and all you assholes can do is make sarcastic comments. You bastards and bitches are the ones who cannot say anything substantive.

What the fuck does that sarcastic comment have to do with anything? Do you really think space is a true vacuum bitch? Can you prove it bitch? Are you so fucking dumb that you think just because you measure the speed of light to be 386,000 meters per second , that it must be the TRUE speed of light. Have you even considered that there might be some substance slowing it down? Of course you haven't you dumb fucking bitch. Instead of being sarcastic to people who have ideas beyond your tiny comprehension skills, try to understand why they have these ideas to begin with.

How very christian of you.

Now how about relaxing and providing some evidence for your what if scenarios. Plenty of people has provided EVIDENCE that refutes all of your what ifs. You have provided... lets see...what have you got...something.. yes...something. Oh yeah there it is
GOD DID IT!!!!

How about you read the second line of my signature. Then after you have calmed down try posting some science in a science forum. That would be a nice change of pace for you.

Misogyny the Christian RIGHT thing to do.

I gave you a boatload of evidence you moron. I can't help it that you are stupid as hell.

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.