Einstein was wrong, the speed of light cannot be constant because it's immeasurable by his own theo

something really bugs me about the papers relating to this case, what is a photon precursor supposed to be? quarks? a quantum energy state? this is the first I am hearing of any photonic precursor phenomena

ed: the only source I can find is the hong kong experiment, science by definition needs replication to prove such anomolies, therefore I call bunk on that, and the bbc for posting the story until such replication is performed, nothing has been proved or disproven thus far.

reply to post by whatsinaname

Then prove that superluminal light-speed is possible. Thus far, it has not been.

So there's nothing to disprove, really.

On the one side we have a dodgy few experiments that make bold unsubstantiated claims.

On the other we have mountains of evidence (100+ years), and now this hong kong study.

Which side do you want to be on? Maybe you just like the thrill of being alone?

I think some people are contrarian by nature. Disagree because it's fun to them.

Stop being a desperado. Don't you get bored of that.
www.youtube.com ...

Remember, we only have one life to live.[

reply to post by libertytoall


Actually, a lab most beginning physics student perform is to measure the speed of light. It's easy to do with a few mirros, a laser and an oscilloscope.

Guess what ... whether you are at "rest" or moving at an arbitrary velocity, you always get the same result: ~3x10^8 m/s.

Relativity has been experimentally confirmed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ......... (biiiiiggggg breath) ... over and over and over ..... and over again

reply to post by mobiusmale


The light photons never slowed down in the water, they were absorbed and emitted at lightspeed from the molecules of water. They resume their initial speed once there are no longer molecules to interfere with their path.

reply to post by twinmommy38

In the process of being absorbed and re-emitted, it loses energy right?

Does would high energy be on the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum?

So as it lost energy it would go on the low end of the spectrum?

So seeing how there's so much cosmic 'dust' and particles out there, if we wanted to send a beam of light to a distance stellar neighbor, it would need to pack a lot of energy to get there.

Originally posted by twinmommy38
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

The light photons never slowed down in the water, they were absorbed and emitted at lightspeed from the molecules of water. They resume their initial speed once there are no longer molecules to interfere with their path.

there is no such thing as a constant in this reality....didn't you guys learn that the line in a graph isn't even considered a line? it's considered not even a part of the graph other than a visual helper for us....nothing is constant....

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

That old experiment was recently disproven, leaving no doubts.

Here:
news.discovery.com ...

"Professor Du's study demonstrates that a single photon, the fundamental quanta of light, also obeys the traffic law of the universe just like classical EM (electromagnetic) waves."

The possibility of time travel was raised 10 years ago when scientists discovered superluminal -- or faster-than-light -- propagation of optical pulses in some specific medium, the team said.

It was later found to be a visual effect, but researchers thought it might still be possible for a single photon to exceed light speed.

Du, however, believed Einstein was right and determined to end the debate by measuring the ultimate speed of a single photon, which had not been done before.

edit on 24-8-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Ahh thank you. Interesting because that was one of the four hypothesis, optical illusion of some sort.

I also agree that reverse time travel is probably impossible. Time is just a measurement of a concept, so if the measurements don't add up I wouldn't call it time travel I would look elsewhere for the culprit, perhaps some gravitational or electro-magnetic effect or what have you.

I however strongly disagree with the c= speed limit theory because we do not have the technology level necessary to even begin to test it out seriously in real conditions.

I would happily bet on there being ways around this so called light barrier. I've seen ufos in real life so I know there is something better out there, but I don't expect anyone to understand that unless they have seen it themselves. I am convinced that space travel is easy by default of my own disposition, so forgive my eagerness.

reply to post by jonnywhite


The light beam is diffused due to photon scattering, but through a completely transparent medium, the total energy amount remains constant. The amount lost due to energy exchange (light to heat) plus what remains would be eactly equal to the energy input.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by whatsinaname

 

Then prove that superluminal light-speed is possible. Thus far, it has not been.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

We simply lack the technology levels to even give it a serious shot. It's like saying building a base on Mars is impossible because no one has built one yet.

To prove it's possible equates to creating a FTL device which can prove it. Which would jump us ahead on the tech ladder significantly. Hundreds or thousands of years even?

Do aliens visit Earth? We simply don't have definitive proof that is conclusive yet, and if there is any it must have been covered up or lost in some way. Only personal sightings will truly convince any skeptical person. But if they are indeed visiting, than FTL traveling devices become highly probable.

Going at speed c it would take far too long to travel throughout our own galaxy. They would have to be going several times the speed of c for it to make any sense.

I realize it's a poor argument against c, because it's reactionary to the effect and still is not addressing the causation. But if I could correctly address the causation of c being violated, I would be either super rich or thrown into a black ops secret lab.

That's what the whole debate about c really boils down to. Can we visit other worlds hastily or do we have to take hundreds of years just to get to the nearest stars ? That is the ultimate question.

And although I realize we humans don't publicly have the answer available to us, due to my own sightings I would lean heavily towards yes, FTL is probable.

reply to post by patternfinder


A photon of light from a galaxy cluster at the edge of our universe has exactly the same identical energy profile as a photon of light from a freshly lit candle. Meaning that the "older" photon is unchanged for over 13 billion years. How much more "constant" can you get?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I would happily bet on there being ways around this so called light barrier. I've seen ufos in real life so I know there is something better out there, but I don't expect anyone to understand that unless they have seen it themselves. I am convinced that space travel is easy by default of my own disposition, so forgive my eagerness.

There are theoretical concepts allowing above light speed travel which leave the light barrier intact. Warp travel, for instance. As someone already noted, space expands above light speed. The speed of light is measured by distance (space) per time, so naturally the restriction does not apply to space itself.

But even with conventional concepts and a whole lot of energy we could imagine interstellar travel. I think it helps to understand that from the perspective of a photon time is on hold. So while a photon travels for a billion years, from the perspective of a photon no time has passed at all.

Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by AnnoyingOrangeX

 

Can you please state your source?

sure I can but this won´t help you much. I knew that Faraday disproves Einstein from a documentary I had watched a while ago and this page was the first that turned up in a quick google search. Unfortunately it is an austrian site in german and also not something you would call a "reliable" source.

ATS member CLPrime (who is coincidentally an honest to goodness practicing physicist) contributed a post some weeks ago regarding a similar topic which puts the idea of Faraday's Law disproving Einstein's special relativity definitively to rest.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by CLPrime

 

So, like I promised, short and sweet. And to the point. One of Essen's key issues with Relativity is the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. On the surface, such a constancy seems counter-intuitive, but this is typically based on a failure to understand the consequences of Faraday's Law and the Ampère-Maxwell Law.

Faraday's Law:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9ba807c1f52.png[/atsimg]

After a whole lot of math, this leads to the following constraint:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae5fe4e27efa.png[/atsimg]

The v term is the speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation.


The Ampère-Maxwell Law:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef333d0136d4.png[/atsimg]

This leads to a separate constraint:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f56249dbb2.png[/atsimg]


The only possible way both constraints can be true is if:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77089e87ad4d.png[/atsimg]

Both terms inside the radical are constants. Therefore, the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation must also be constant. This velocity has been defined as exactly 299,792,458 m/s. If light were to travel at any speed other than this, it would be unable to self-propagate and the EM wave would collapse.

The less-obvious consequence of this is that, even ignoring Relativity for a moment, as light is travelling through a vacuum, it has no frame of reference for measuring its velocity (a vacuum has no defined coordinate system). Therefore, no matter what reference frame its velocity is measured from, that measurement can be considered correct. However, since the velocity of light must always be a very specific constant value, every reference frame must measure the speed of light to be equal to that value.

Thus, the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. Relativity, then, follows naturally from this.

Special relativity is not a convenient device to explain an unknown property of nature in the vein of the Luminiferous aether.

C must be a constant regardless of inertial frame of reference for EM waves to self propagate.

I hope this helps some that are struggling grasp the fundamentals supporting the immutable facts in support of special relativity.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Thank you. I was just about to track that down.

I wish I had the energy to reply to everything that's been said so far in this thread. Unfortunately, I don't, so Drunkenparrot, I appreciate the quote. It saves me from having to do it.

im not asking you to replicate light speed im asking any scientist to replicate a photon precursor =/

the speed of light cannot be constant ,,
it can within the boundaries,,,
of the planet earth.

how much was the constant off by,, when they lasered the moon?

ya thats about right.

reply to post by libertytoall


LOL yup he was wrong, light isnt a constant.

abcnews.go.com...

scienceblog.com...

Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
If you are moving at 20mph light coming from you will still be traveling at 186mps no matter where the light is observed. If you throw a ball at 6mph out of car at 20mph you could say that the ball is moving at 26mph. Balls thrown from moving vehicles follow different rules than light. You cannot add the 20mph to the 186mps because it is already going at max speed.

no ...you are assuming that it travels at max speed and therefore behave other than the ball because this is implied by what einstein said but this is actualy not the case. Why should light behave otherwise than anything else?

because light is a form of energy;
softballs are matter and have mass
(Apples and oranges really):
two different things though the unification theory states at some level both are the same .

Basic logic tells me light speed would have to be infinite in order for it to remain constant for an observer regardless of motion or at rest, in relation to the source.

Originally posted by libertytoall
The speed of light as a constant is wrong and impossible to measure. You can't possibly calculate yourself as an observer at rest when there is no place on earth or anywhere else for that matter where you are completely at rest. It's immeasurable. So how did the brilliant Einstein come up with this flawed theory?

Time travel is real, General Relativity is highly flawed, Einstein new the truth but covered it up with GR.

As claimed by Einstein the constant light speed hypothesis is only valid when observer and source are within a non-accelerating reference frame. There is no place in the known universe this happens or is possible. Throw this theory out immediately.

the speed of light is not constant and certainly not limited to 299792.458 km/s.

edit on 24-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

I suppose that this is why Einstein called it his theory of "Absolutivity".

... or perhaps not.

Every frame of reference is at rest compared with itself.

This does not actually imply that the speed of light is constant.

reply to post by randomthoughts12

I never really understood how light could be a set speed.

It certainly isn’t easy to understand; the theory of relativity is difficult science.

No need to blame yourself for not understanding, but no reason to disbelieve it either. Relativity has been proved and c has been accurately measured any number of times. There really is no doubt about it. Hasn’t been any for nearly a century.

Your response raises an interesting problem, though. Science is an empirical tool, meaning that the understanding we gain from it is based on what we deduce from observing and measuring real things. That is to say, science is based on the assumption that seeing (and testing) is believing. However, most of us lack the knowledge and training, not to mention the instruments and experimental apparatus, to observe and test scientific propositions ourselves. We are therefore obliged to take what scientific experts tell us on faith. Somebody else has seen and believed on our behalf.

When you think about it, this is just the same as most people’s experience of religion. Most believers have no conclusive ‘personal experience of the divine’, they simply accept that others have seen God, talked to Him, experienced miracles, etc. Somebody else, again, has seen and believed on their behalf.

Thus, to scientifically uneducated people, science appears no different from religion.

There is a real difference, of course; the observations and deductions of science are testable and repeatable. Anyone with the training and resources can repeat the experiment and see for themselves.

But most of us aren’t in a position to do that. I think your problems with relativity, like most people’s problems regarding science, stem from this.