Light Speed its not the same

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You didn't post an exact quote, but whatever he actually said, what he meant was the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

Yeh in a vacuum.

My bad, it was about 3am or thereabouts on my end.

I saw a video the other day and I'll be damned if I can't find it. Truth:- the speed of light has changed a few times over the century that we have been measuring it. Sometimes it slows down, sometimes quickens up. I will really have to find it out, the speed of light has been determined by a committee since the 1930s. he speed varies on a day to day basis and can be measured differently around the Earth. So no, Einstein's theory cannot be correct because light speed, as we know it is NOT a constant. Unless you count that it's constantly changing.

a reply to: crayzeed

Think i seen a similar video or even the same one at some point.

Could that not be down to the progressively more accurate measurements we are able to make as our technology progresses?

a reply to: crayzeed
Just found the video:- Ted talk, Rupert Sheldrake. Is this allowed??? Please watch it and be amazed on what scientists say is constant and fixed, Which aint.

a reply to: crayzeed



This one?

a reply to: andy06shake
That's the one ,thanks.
Happy New Year, Andy.

a reply to: crayzeed

Same to you and yours crayzeed.

Lets hope its better than the previous two.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Just a thought I don't want to forget..

How exactly do we measure light Speed ?

The 1st Light would have traveled the most distance , What direction do we look for the beginning of the 1st light does it have a forward trajectory or did it just go boom from a center and travel all directions at the same speed . Now what happens to New light doe's it just join the old light and become the same speed ?

The first thing you need is an observer to measure it relative to the observer. No observer, no speed, no nothing.

a reply to: crayzeed
a reply to: andy06shake

That video would be a great test of our educational system. We could show it to students and see if they accept what is said at face value, or if they can refute any of what is being said, putting it in better perspective.

I read the first few pages of comments and the educational system has failed those people completely if they can't see the flaws in Sheldrake's arguments.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: crayzeed

Think i seen a similar video or even the same one at some point.

Could that not be down to the progressively more accurate measurements we are able to make as our technology progresses?

Unlike the youtube video commenters who were failed by the educational system, the educational system did not fail you, because this is exactly the kind of question a student of science should ask when watching the Sheldrake video. Good job!

The answer is more or less, yes. Michelson was thought to have done a great job of measuring the speed of light in 1870 using technology available at the time, coming within 0.02% of our current value for the speed of light. So what does Sheldrake say? That in the decades that follow there were fluctuations of 0.01%. But he doesn't represent it as 0.01%, he tried to make it sound like some big discrepancy, by citing the meters per second instead of the percent difference. There have of course been improvements in measurement technology exactly as andy06shake suspected. We now have amazing technology which can measure the speed of light accurately within rather small margins of error.

The other constant he talks about is G, the gravitational constant. That's just hard to measure with high accuracy and even today we still struggle to get more accurate measurement methods. That's partly because gravity is such a weak force.

Sheldrake doesn't even mention that scientists are looking for ways in which the constants are not constant, and I see papers from scientists published which blows his dogma claim out of the water. Any scientist could greatly advance his career if he could convincingly show that something thought to be constant was not constant. Here's an entire article about how scientists are looking for changes in constants:

Have physical constants changed with time?

The fundamental laws of physics, as we presently understand them, depend on about 25 parameters, such as Planck's constant h, the gravitational constant G, and the mass and charge of the electron. It is natural to ask whether these parameters are really constants, or whether they vary in space or time.

The article then goes on to explain how scientists have looked for changes in the constants.

In fact there's an amazing "Crisis in cosmology" taking place right now, since that was written, because constants are NOT dogma. We have at least two different ways we can measure the "Hubble constant" and we get two different values which disagree with each other. So there either has to be something wrong with our theories, or with one measurement or the other, but this is how science works, and it shows Sheldrake is misrepresenting science.

By the way that video is not official TED, it's TEDx and the TED are generally good but they were really embarassed by some unscientific TEDx talks like this one by Sheldrake, and some even worse if that's possible. Sheldrake is pretty unscientific these days though, despite his rather impressive education in science decades ago. Whatever flaws you may think science has (and the current "Crisis in Cosmology" shows it has some flaws), the flaws in Sheldrakes pseudoscientific nonsense are far worse, and his speed of light constancy claims are put in perspective here:

Rupert Sheldrake

Most of Sheldrake's ideas are clearly pseudoscientific nonsense. Morphic resonance is extremely vague and ill-defined, and can only really be described as whatever Sheldrake says it is. Crucially, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable (although some have tried).

Sheldrake's 2012 book, The Science Delusion, is an anti-scientific rant in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to conventional science, accusing mainstream scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them.

originally posted by: Blueracer
Many years ago a teacher told the class that if the sun went out, we wouldn't know it for 8 minutes. That is how fast it would darken here on earth.

Unless it's nighttime, then you won't know until morning. But it will be a helluva cold in bed.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

LoL



The other side of the planet might have an inclining after 8 mins all the same.

Plus the gravity of Earth and the rest of the solar system would be affected also if the Sun just up and disappeared one day.

After all it cannot simply be turned off without going pop far as i understand how the reaction takes place.