1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice

Poll:Best Screenshot of the Month?



Candidates Revealed...Cast your vote!.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

The Varying Speed of Light (VSL) Theory

Discussion in 'The Attic' started by maxd, Aug 30, 2012.

    Aug 30, 2012
  1. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    "Light Traveled Faster in the Early Universe" -- The Varying Speed of Light Theory, You must register/login in order to see the link.:
    [​IMG]
     
    4 people like this.
  2. Aug 30, 2012
  3. incrediblestuff

    incrediblestuff SearchingForTheHolyGrail! CAG webmeister

    Occupation:
    Currently: Self employed, Previously: Manager
    Location:
    Mostly the Netherlands
    It appears that your new coffee levitates you to "higher" regions automatically eh? :p
     
    2 people like this.
  4. Aug 30, 2012
  5. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    :p indeed! As it happens this VSL idea has really captured my imagination and it could -- COULD -- be a revolution in astrophysics and cosmology. What's not to love about that? ;)
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Aug 30, 2012
  7. Mousey

    Mousey Ueber Meister Mouse CAG

    Occupation:
    Pencil Pusher
    Location:
    Up$hitCreek
    Poor guy will get raked over the coals for it, but if scientists don't occasionally 'think outside the box' there would be nothing to 'ndiscover' anymore.

    Anyone remember Fred Hoyle? And I'm not saying he (Hoyle) was always right either... but there must be fresh, new, alternative thinking allowed in the scientific community.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Aug 30, 2012
  9. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    Well personally, I don't buy it. It's like trying to answer a few questions by negating almost every question that's ever been answered.

    Besides, he says one of the things that "have left cosmologists confused and other physicists in doubt over the reliability of cosmology," is that "it has been found that the cosmological expansion appears to be accelerating. This is contrary to common sense, as it implies that on large scales gravity is repulsive."

    But it's not gravity that is implied to be repulsive. The common accepted theory is something called dark energy that permeates the universe and pushes everything apart. This has not been proven but I don't ever remember anyone claiming that gravity is repulsive.

    Don't get me wrong, it's good to have new ideas but I read a couple of articles and the only reason I can see for this one is it would answer a few questions but I see no real evidence in the articles that the ideas are valid.

    Something to keep an eye on, I guess.
     
  10. Aug 31, 2012
  11. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Back in my early university days I was seriously considering theoretical Physics as a career option until I met a graduate student who was specialising in some area of quantum mechanics or another. These were back in the days when black holes were exotic and the speculations about them were running pretty rampant.

    Anyway I ended up talking to the quantum mechanics guy and listened for many hours as he tried to explain the increasingly bizarre stuff they were getting into. My reaction to his efforts was an overwhelming sense that I should not, under any circumstances, go into theoretical Physics. While a good lot of what he was trying to explain has since been proven (sort of) true I thought then, and still do I guess, that when the supposed "explanation" for an observed phenomenon is too outrageous then maybe there's something wrong with it.

    Of course "outrageous" is in the eye of the beholder but when physicists say "they universe is full of this weird stuff that we can't detect but that has to be there in order for all these other wacko theories of ours to work" it starts to sound to me a lot like "I don't know but I'm desperate and here's my theory". Fair enough, that's often how progress in science is made, but if someone comes along with a much simpler theory that _does_ promise to explain a lot of things which currently require the "magic stuff nobody can see" idea then I'm probably going to lean towards betting my pesos on the simpler theory.

    The idea that the speed of light is the one constant in the universe has always sounded like wishful thinking to me. Nothing is always and forever under all circumstances one and only one thing, so why should c (the constant representing the speed of light) be? It seems to me -- and I say this as someone with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever -- that it's more likely that c changes than it is that the universe is full of invisible crap that makes no sense but needs to be there in order for c to remain constant. I'll bet c does change, just like everything else, and it's up to the theoretical physicists to figure out what that means. I hope I'm around long enough to see them deal with that conceptual hurdle one way or the other.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. Aug 31, 2012
  13. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    Well, obviously the speed of light changes if it moves through a medium but in my opinion, unhindered, the speed of light has no reason to change. Unless he's talking about the expanding universe increasing the distance between two points of space but that would be the distance traveled that isn't constant. The velocity would actually remain the same but it would take longer for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other. If lightspeed is measured in m/s and you changed how long a meter is you change the velocity according to how we measure it but I don't think the actual laws of nature change.

    I'll put a little more thought into it and see if I can prove myself wrong. I've managed to do it before. :p
     
  14. Aug 31, 2012
  15. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    And I'd say they do change as the surrounding circumstances change. In fact I'd go so far as to say there are no "laws of nature" just "predominate behaviours within a given context" although said "context" can be as pervasive as the entire physical world that any average being such as any of us are likely to interact within our lifetime.

    Look at the "laws" of Newtonian physics: they work great at the macroscopic "everyday" level but they aren't worth spit at properly describing and predicting the behaviour of the sub- and sub-sub-atomic. Sub-atomic, etc = wholly different circumstances where a different physics, in that case quantum mechanics, rules.

    Given all the wild and wonderful discoveries of late about distant celestial bodies and their goings-on back in the small years of the universe's existence I'd say musings on "wholly different circumstances" are going to be the order of the day in the coming years, and the subject of much discussion in astrophysics and cosmology circles. What with string theory, dark matter/energy, membrane universes, etc etc, I think we're there already. VSL is just part of that broader discussion, afaict.

    Personally I don't claim for a heartbeat that I understand this stuff, I'm just an engrossed observer watching the wonderful weirdness of it all unfolding before us. It's a great time for it, an age of discovery at the outer -- and inner -- limits of our universe.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
    2 people like this.
  16. Aug 31, 2012
  17. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    Firstly at a subatomic level gravity doesn't apply. Gravity is the weakest of all the known forces. Even at a macro level gravity can't hold a candle to electromagnetism and nothing compares to the strong nuclear force. Even if Einstein's bent theory was true nothing at a subatomic level would have enough mass to bend it. So that only leaves you to deal with 3 of the 4 known forces. Then take into account that things are moving around at almost the speed of light and comprised entirely of energy so it doesn't surprise me that the subatomic world gets it's own set of rules. If things at a macro level behaved anything like electrons they would ignore Newtonian physics as well.

    As for the VLS I would have to know why he thinks this and what his evidence is. I haven't looked into it since your first post so I'm talking just off the top of my head. I'll have to see exactly what he means by light speed changing because there are many variables that would effect the speed of light. A smaller universe, denser dark matter (if it exists,) a "warmer" universe closer to the big bang. Keep in mind light is what we use to measure distance in space, universal expansion and the age of the universe. I don't want someone coming back and saying the universe is 6000 years old and then sparking a creationist debate. Once that starts the debate is over (for me.)

    Something else to think about. Light travels as a wave and the density of the wave produces the colour. So light could leave another galaxy in the ultraviolet spectrum but as it travels through an expanding universe it's stretched and if it travels far enough, by the time it reaches us it's now in the infra-red spectrum. That's why the galaxies we see on the outskirts of our viewable range are all red. Even still, light travels the same speed regardless of the colour.

    Keep in mind though, I'm not a physicist and I'm just speaking from memory and my own opinions so I welcome anyone who wants to correct me if I type anything that might be incorrect.
     
  18. Sep 1, 2012
  19. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Not sure why that was necessary but thanks for the reminder.

    As I said, I'm posting here and sharing this stuff as an enthusiastic observer of cool science and space stuff. I wouldn't know what to do with his evidence if he bundled it and sent it to me for Christmas. Maybe you would, good on ya! I didn't realise that we should be addressing you as Dr. Skiny, my bad. :p
     
  20. Sep 1, 2012
  21. Azriel47

    Azriel47 Banned User - Multiple forum accounts - flaming -

    Occupation:
    I.T Technician
    Location:
    Wellington
    Ive heard it said in the Scientific Community that Light was slowing down on a general Scale : one question that did come to mind was ...why ? why was it slowing down ? .... Our perception to light being from our planet and studying it from our perspective.
    It could be theorised that forces of perhaps Gravity are to blame for the this anomaly occuring ..it is
    said that nothing escapes a black hole .. perhaps something of this nature is to blame ? ..
     
    1 person likes this.
  22. Sep 1, 2012
  23. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    Well, you're not the only other person reading this thread. I apologize if I've upset your delicate sensibilities by pointing out something you might have already known in a thread that many people might be following. If you would like I can add a footnote to future posts stating that "Max probably already knows this."


    I thought this was just a friendly open discussion about different theories and opinions. I stated quite clearly that I'm not a physicist and my opinions may be incorrect but even among real physicists the opinions vary and I don't have to agree with every one of them. I can tell you what to do with the evidence. You read it and you try your best to understand it. Personally, I don't understand all of it myself but I take what I do understand and compare it to previous evidence that support other theories and if you have any interest at all you make a judgement call as to which theories sound most plausible since we have no way to actually prove any of them right or wrong.

    The difference in this case being that all I've seen of this VLS is an idea and a few discussions and a constant light speed has been tested and retested thousands of times and is the current accepted theory. I thought this was an interesting topic and might make for an interesting discussion. I didn't realize that being skeptical about a new theory that undermines the foundation of modern accepted physical laws and the way our universe works in general would have been so offensive.

    People I talk to that do have phDs don't actually make me call them doctor. They seem to be a lot more difficult to offend too.
     
  24. Sep 1, 2012
  25. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    Gravity does bend light. That's where Einstein got his whole bent space theory in the first place. The thing about measuring light moving through space is that there are so many things we don't know about space. What is light passing through? There are massive gravitation distortions where no apparent mass exists in space. This is where the dark matter theory comes from. It's just matter we can't see. Even the Higgs field is an accepted field that exists everywhere that we can't see. Anything that light passes through could effect it's speed and there is actually very little in this universe that we can "see." Actually all we can see is a very small portion of the full spectrum of light bouncing off "solid" objects. Wouldn't it be handier if we could see light in the more harmful frequencies? "Oh, look the ultraviolet light is really bright today. I shouldn't go outside." :p

    Here's a question. What effect would a VLS have on the theory of relativity? If energy is equal to mass * the speed of light squared and light is slowing down does that toss the whole equation? Does nature alter some other part of the equation to maintain an equilibrium? If energy gets it's mass from the Higgs field and the speed of light slows down do we (and everything else) have less mass at the same velocity or does it now take less energy to gain the same amount of mass?

    If it's true it certainly would open a whole can of worms, wouldn't it? :p
     
  26. Sep 1, 2012
  27. Azriel47

    Azriel47 Banned User - Multiple forum accounts - flaming -

    Occupation:
    I.T Technician
    Location:
    Wellington
    Do you believe that talk about planet X and that our Star Solaris might have existed in a Binary orbit with a Sister Star the Mayans Refer to as Nibru : and this could possibly explain the gravity distortions that were reported.
    Or that other one about how we were moving through a nexus cloud and all matter was being distorted and excited within it.
     
  28. Sep 1, 2012
  29. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    I really don't know that much about cosmology. I wasn't aware of a claim that the sun was in a binary orbit with another star. The only question I would have is where is it? Our sun has a lifespan of what - 10 billion years and will be quite visible for billions of years to come. For the Mayans to have detected another one 2 or 3 thousand years ago it would still have to be floating around up there in our visible range and the closest star to our sun isn't visible without a telescope. The ones we can see are much farther away (and much brighter.) So I would have to say that it's highly unlikely that the Mayans discovered another star with the naked eye in a binary orbit with our sun since it would have to have other suns they can't see inside the binary orbit.

    And I don't know what a nexus cloud is. I'd have to look it up.
     
  30. Sep 1, 2012
  31. Azriel47

    Azriel47 Banned User - Multiple forum accounts - flaming -

    Occupation:
    I.T Technician
    Location:
    Wellington
    The Mayans Described it as a Blue Star ...ill dig up the links but a long story short NASA picked up an object on the outer rim of our star system with a low heat signature back in the sixties I believe and they had to use infra red in order to see the object because of the low heat signature.
    I believe something called IRIS was dispatched to see this particular object which was upgraded from a suspected asteroid to something of a different nature ..something moving at Velocity.

    Another probe was dispatched to monitor our star by the name SOHO in order to observe the suns activity : seems like we have had a few solar flares lately hmm .. a few light shows as the gamma rays meets our magnetic field ..beautiful to look at but in truth without the field we would be toast.
    The Varying Speed of Light (VSL) Theory: postcme_strip.jpg,Sep 1, 2012

    Who knows how they knew about it and they talk about Muclepetchu the apparent planet of their "gods" that would come for their souls upon Nibrus return this Muclepetchu apparently orbits Nibru ...their entire Civilisation simply vanished ...intriguing yes ? .
    A blue star is consistant with a Neutron star hence the low heat signature ...but then again might just be all made up *shrugs* like the y2k bug.
     
  32. Sep 1, 2012
  33. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    And I didn't realise that a gentle tease about you "needing to see the evidence" would be taken as an invitation to bitch and moan and pick fights. It wasn't and that infraction you've just received is for assuming that you were at liberty to piss on the forum vibe. You aren't and please don't.

    Thread closed. If anyone has anything they'd like to add -- on topic if you please -- then feel free to PM me or any of the other mods and we'll have a second look.
     
  34. Sep 1, 2012
  35. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    A response from "Dr. Skiny."

    Sarcasm responded to with sarcasm = infraction.

    Well, I'm giving you an infraction too so I guess we're even.

    By the way, I was in the middle of a conversation when you closed that thread. In fact I had just spent a few minutes typing my response to the last post when I found out you decided we shouldn't be having our discussion anymore.

    I'll send a message to the person I was talking to so we can start it again. You don't have to join it if you don't want to.
     
  36. Sep 1, 2012
  37. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    I had clearly stated that if you had anything to add (on topic) that you should let a moderator know. Restarting the thread because you happen to feel like it is not an option. That's earned you a 2nd infraction. Keep it up and you'll earn yourself a vacation from the forums.
     
  38. Sep 1, 2012
  39. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Judging from the PM comments I've received it seems that closing this was premature. My point was to avoid it degenerating into mud-slinging but let's assume that's not going to happen and I'll reopen accordingly. Let the on-topic discussion continue, personal attacks belong in PMs or reports to the Admin.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page