Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9038 total)
126 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 124 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,670 Year: 3,316/14,102 Month: 257/724 Week: 15/91 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light Barrier
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4231 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 151 of 178 (520599)
08-22-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taz
08-16-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
Space is a medium. Even if it is a very rare medium. What I am saying is that as the medium thins out in the distance between planets and thins further at the distance between stars and thins most at the distances between galaxies - that it seem reasonable that the speed of light would increase as the medium thins.

There is no such thing as complete space. Everything has something in it. Even in space there is a few hundred hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeters.

I would propose that as the medium thins the speed of light increases. This can be confirmed by the inverse in that a thicker a medium is the more you can slow light.

I would imagine no one is working on that particular equation. The speed of light is not constant and does not have a universal barrier. Nor does sound for that matter - it has a barrier at a certain temp., pressure, and is all dependent on the medium. As is light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taz, posted 08-16-2009 1:03 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Taz, posted 08-22-2009 12:54 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 153 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2009 3:06 PM Creation Guy has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 152 of 178 (520600)
08-22-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
Creation dude writes:

Space is a medium. Even if it is a very rare medium. What I am saying is that as the medium thins out in the distance between planets and thins further at the distance between stars and thins most at the distances between galaxies - that it seem reasonable that the speed of light would increase as the medium thins.


You remind me of the following proof that women are evil.

A woman takes time and money.
Women = time x money

We know that time is money.
Time = money

So, a woman is time squared.
Women = time x time = time^2

It is a well known fact that money is the root of all evil.
Money = √evil

Money squared is evil.
Money^2 = evil

Therefore, we must conclude that a woman is evil.
Woman = evil

Going back to serious mode, can you see what I did in that proof above? Here is another way at look at it. Suppose I say that chicken is good. God, we all know, is also good. Therefore, god is chicken.

Space is a medium. Just because we call it a medium doesn't mean it's the same kind of medium when we're talking about gaseous medium or solid medium. You're playing with words to come out with your conclusion. This is intellectual dishonesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 12:38 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 153 of 178 (520608)
08-22-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
quote:
I would imagine no one is working on that particular equation. The speed of light is not constant and does not have a universal barrier. Nor does sound for that matter - it has a barrier at a certain temp., pressure, and is all dependent on the medium. As is light.

Nonsense. In high vacuum, the mean free path of a photon is 100s of km. I.e. a photon will travel for 100's of km without any interaction with the "medium." Light does not need a medium to travel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 12:38 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 3:13 PM kbertsche has responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4231 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 154 of 178 (520610)
08-22-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by kbertsche
08-22-2009 3:06 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
I did not state light needed a medium to travel. I stated that we know that its speed is dependant on the density of the medium it travels through.

The less dense the medium the faster the speed.

If light can travel 100s of km without touching anything in space. And with only a couple hundred atoms per cubic centimeter that might could happen. Math could find the liklihood of this if you had the time and wanted to find how many hydrogen atoms can fit into a cubic centimeter ran against how many cm light has to travel. You could come up with the percentage risk for impact through space for photons.

If you really wanted to do some math you could inversely figure how much light could be sped up by a entirely rare medium. Absolute space with zero interference. If we know how to slow it down - we also know what could be done to speed it up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2009 3:06 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2009 3:19 PM Creation Guy has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 155 of 178 (520612)
08-22-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
quote:
I did not state light needed a medium to travel. I stated that we know that its speed is dependant on the density of the medium it travels through.
The less dense the medium the faster the speed.

You seem to be missing the point. If light can travel for 100's of km without any interaction at all with the medium, it is essentially traveling with no medium.

quote:
If light can travel 100s of km without touching anything in space. And with only a couple hundred atoms per cubic centimeter that might could happen. Math could find the liklihood of this if you had the time and wanted to find how many hydrogen atoms can fit into a cubic centimeter ran against how many cm light has to travel. You could come up with the percentage risk for impact through space for photons.

If you really wanted to do some math you could inversely figure how much light could be sped up by a entirely rare medium. Absolute space with zero interference. If we know how to slow it down - we also know what could be done to speed it up.



Yes, this is easily calculated. It is a simple, basic physics problem. I have already given you a link to the pertinent equations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 3:13 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 3:45 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4231 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 156 of 178 (520616)
08-22-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by kbertsche
08-22-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
You guys are smart. Where was the speed of light clocked at? How was it clocked?

No medium and traveling a couple hundred kilometers before interacting is different. The question then becomes - how long does each interaction take? Does it immediatly re-accelerate? How can these answers be known?

Let us say that light from the sun only has to interact once every 250km with interplanetary gas. That is still 372,000 interactions along the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kbertsche, posted 08-22-2009 3:19 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by lyx2no, posted 08-22-2009 5:03 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3615 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 157 of 178 (520626)
08-22-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 3:45 PM


Re: Why 3x10^8m/s?
That is still 372,000 interactions along the way.

That's less interactions then the photon would go though in a μm of STP hydrogen at .999868c. So 1.5•1011 meters at c, plus 1 μm at .999868c comes out to .99999999999999999999999c. All in favor of rounding up raise your hand.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 3:45 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 1507 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 158 of 178 (540340)
12-24-2009 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
03-05-2009 8:36 AM


Relativity theory is very mathematical. Physicists and cosmologists plug values into the relativity equations to make predictions, then they peer through telescopes or otherwise make measurements, and in this way they verify the predictions of relativity theory.

With any set of axioms, you can construct a perfectly beautiful mathematics. But then unless such a construct is related to reality, it remains a curiosity.

Einstein's solution of his own equations led to an expanding universe, which he refused to believe. Hence he added a "mathematical" term to make a static universe... and.. rued it.

Have you considered the possibility that you might be rejecting relativity prematurely? That perhaps a bit more study might be appropriate before drawing conclusions?

I am not rejecting relativity lock stock and barrel. Just as Newton's mechanics has not been rejected.

Light, like any wave [even longitudinal ones] travels at a speed limited by the medium. Sound to has a limit. Can you claim it be the absolute limit for all objects? If you do, then you cannot have a world view broader than that of a whale.

Mind you, if you use speed of sound in relativity equations, they will hold mathematical validity. In fact, Einstein used the analogy of sound in his original paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 03-05-2009 8:36 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2009 4:38 AM RCS has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2543 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 159 of 178 (540347)
12-24-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by RCS
12-24-2009 1:45 AM


With any set of axioms, you can construct a perfectly beautiful mathematics. But then unless such a construct is related to reality, it remains a curiosity.

And given that SR is the most successfully tested theory EVER, I guess it is on fairly good ground

Light, like any wave [even longitudinal ones] travels at a speed limited by the medium.

And what medium is light using exactly?

Can you claim it be the absolute limit for all objects?

Yes, as the most successfull theory EVER demonstrates this, and EVERY particle accelerator experiment demonstrates this PERFECTLY.

We accelerate protons at CERN to an energy of 7TeV. The Kinetic energy to reach c in Newtonian terms is 0.5GeV. And yet they refuse to go any faster than 99.9999991%c. Why is that? Bloody mindedness?

If you do, then you cannot have a world view broader than that of a whale.

One would have a world view based upon both all available evidence and remarkably solid theory. But if you want to belive in fairies, no-one is stopping you

Mind you, if you use speed of sound in relativity equations, they will hold mathematical validity.

No, they won't. An analogy is NOT an equivalence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RCS, posted 12-24-2009 1:45 AM RCS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RCS, posted 12-24-2009 5:36 AM cavediver has responded

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 1507 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 160 of 178 (540353)
12-24-2009 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by cavediver
12-24-2009 4:38 AM


With any set of axioms, you can construct a perfectly beautiful mathematics. But then unless such a construct is related to reality, it remains a curiosity.

And given that SR is the most successfully tested theory EVER, I guess it is on fairly good ground


So is the case with Newton's mechanics, within its axioms. It took man to moon and brought him back safely and accurately.

Can you claim it be the absolute limit for all objects?

Yes, as the most successfull theory EVER demonstrates this, and EVERY particle accelerator experiment demonstrates this PERFECTLY.

Fully, within its axioms.

But it has not explained why the remotest galaxies are moving faster than light. Nor how 35 billion year old quasars(?) are there in 14 billion year old universe.

We accelerate protons at CERN to an energy of 7TeV. The Kinetic energy to reach c in Newtonian terms is 0.5GeV. And yet they refuse to go any faster than 99.9999991%c. Why is that? Bloody mindedness?

For long it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier. More powerful movers broke it. Different motors with even different fuels. Are you accelerating the protons with the "right" "motors"?

One would have a world view based upon both all available evidence and remarkably solid theory. But if you want to belive in fairies, no-one is stopping you

Whoa. Relativity is not fairy tale, sure, but it is still on shaky footings. Btw, whales too have a completely valid world view.

Mind you, if you use speed of sound in relativity equations, they will hold mathematical validity.

No, they won't. An analogy is NOT an equivalence.


Try it then. Use speed of sound and it turns out to insurmontable.

Speed of light is a barrier, because it was assumed to be so. Einstein had no sceintific reason to adopt it except that it was highest known speed.

Edited by RCS, : Spellings corrected


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2009 4:38 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2009 6:32 AM RCS has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 12-24-2009 7:05 AM RCS has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2543 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 161 of 178 (540356)
12-24-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by RCS
12-24-2009 5:36 AM


But it has not explained why the remotest galaxies are moving faster than light. Nor how 35 billion year old quasars(?) are there in 14 billion year old universe.

this is child's play relativity and cosmology - the answers to these are explained in every 3rd year physics undergraduate cosmology course in every physics department around the world, every year. God knows how many times I've taught it.

You seem to be making the world's oldest mistake of assuming that just because YOU don't understand something, it means that NO-ONE understands.

For long it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier. More powerful movers broke it. Different motors with even different fuels. Are you accelerating the protons with the "right" "motors"?

Something that travels at c goes unlimited distance in zero time. What would you call faster than that?

The speed of light is not a "speed limit" - it is the point where the concept of speed has completely broken down. Velocity is actually a rotation when looked at from the 4-dimensional perspective, but this is only apparent whne you are close to c. Asking to go faster is like asking at what angle you need to turn a 1m ruler, so that it is now 1.2m long. It is utterly non-sensical.

Whoa. Relativity is not fairy tale, sure, but it is still on shaky footings.

shaky footing??? only in your head, I'm afraid

Try it then. Use speed of sound and it turns out to insurmontable.

I have. I have played acoustic relativity many times with my colleagues and students. And you are wrong. But at least you are consistent.

Speed of light is a barrier, because it was assumed to be so.

Err, no

Einstein had no sceintific reason to adopt it except that it was highest known speed.

Oh, the cluelessness knows no bounds...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RCS, posted 12-24-2009 5:36 AM RCS has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20108
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 162 of 178 (540357)
12-24-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by RCS
12-24-2009 5:36 AM


RCS writes:

Relativity is not fairy tale, sure, but it is still on shaky footings.

Relativity has passed every test so far with flying colors. The evidence from reality has validated relativity to an incredible degree, and that's the actual fact of the matter at this point in time. If you think relativity is on shaky ground then you are not drawing your evidence from reality but rather from some source outside reality.

RCS writes:

Mind you, if you use speed of sound in relativity equations, they will hold mathematical validity.

No, they won't. An analogy is NOT an equivalence.

Try it then. Use speed of sound and it turns out to insurmontable.

It's always a fun challenge attempting a response to someone who expresses two opposite points of view in successive posts, apparently both agreeing and disagreeing with himself. First you say the equations of relativity are valid if you substitute the speed of sound (which is not a constant) for the speed of light c (which is a constant), then you say using the speed of sound is "insurmountable."

Who knows what you were really trying to say, but we can easily do the substitution. I'll use the speed of sound in dry air at 1 atmospheric pressure and at a temperature of 20oC, which is 343 m/s. So the mass of an object traveling at 1000 m/s is given by this equation:

So using the speed of sound gives you an imaginary negative mass for a velocity of 1000 m/s. Since we can measure the mass of something traveling at 1000 m/s and know that it isn't negative and imaginary, we can conclude that relativity equations do not correspond to reality when we substitute the speed of sound for c.

Einstein had no sceintific reason to adopt it except that it was highest known speed.

Actually, the speed of light falls out of the Maxwell equations:

ε0 is the electric constant, μ0 is the magnetic constant. Maxwell's equations showed that c is a fundamental constant that is the upper bound on the speed of influence. In other words, no part of the universe can affect any other part of the universe faster than the speed of light.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify a tiny part.

Edited by Percy, : Another very minor clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RCS, posted 12-24-2009 5:36 AM RCS has not yet responded

  
SophistiCat
Junior Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 13
From: Moscow
Joined: 02-03-2007


Message 163 of 178 (540592)
12-26-2009 5:56 PM


"I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

Edited by SophistiCat, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2009 6:48 PM SophistiCat has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2543 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 164 of 178 (540599)
12-26-2009 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by SophistiCat
12-26-2009 5:56 PM


I saw this the other day, and was determined to post it here - but forgot

So thanks!!! And could it possibly be more appropriate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by SophistiCat, posted 12-26-2009 5:56 PM SophistiCat has not yet responded

  
creationliberty
Junior Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 7
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 09-29-2010


Message 165 of 178 (583838)
09-29-2010 10:01 AM


The Speed of Light is Not a Constant
In 1999, experiments were done at Harvard, Smithsonian, and Cambridge to slow light down using a specially treated cesium gas. The first experiments yeilded light to 38 MPH. Two years later, they stopped light, and then released it again like a material particle. It was also able to be speeded up to 300 times faster than normal.
(See David Whitehouse, science editor, Beam Smashes Light Barrier, BBC News, July 19, 2000; See also William J. Cromie, Physicists Slow Speed of Light, Harvard University Gazette, Feb 18, 1999; See also Malcolm W. Browne, Researchers Slow Speed of Light to the Pace of a Sunday Driver, New York Times, Feb 18, 1999)

Since the constant speed of light has been disproven, that means all measurements based on light speed distance cannot be determined to be accurate without claiming absolute knowledge of the universe. Red Shift, for example, ASSUMES the speed of light is a constant, it ASSUMES light has always traveled at the same rate, and it ASSUMES that the light has not traveled through anything that may change its speed and/or appearance.
(For more details, see "The Big Dud Theory," at "creationliberty.org)

Edited by creationliberty, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by frako, posted 09-29-2010 10:24 AM creationliberty has not yet responded
 Message 167 by nwr, posted 09-29-2010 10:36 AM creationliberty has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 10:58 AM creationliberty has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021