It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by astroroach
reply to post by randomthoughts12
 


Light can be slowed down, to a rate you could probably run faster than, using a Bose-Einstein Condensate.
youtu.be...


Light is still traveling at c even through this medium. It takes a long time for the photons to propagate through the material. The amount of time is takes between the ingress and egress of a photon creates the illusion of slowed down light. Once the light reaches the other side of the medium it appears to travel at breakneck speeds again because the absorbing rate is faster in air than it is in a condensate. In a perfect vacuum light travels at c because there is nothing to absorb the photon.

The interesting part of the story is why these photons take so long between ingress and egress. I have my own theory on that. Basically inside an atom between the center and the edge, space time is warped. I believe that when the light has to travel through the inside of the atom where space is warped or compressed it still travels at c but has to take a longer trip. Light is still traveling at c inside the atom but because we are outside the atom we perceive the light as slowing down when in fact it is moving at the same speed through tiny spheres of warped space time.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
pw1.netcom.com...

A wonderful read.
edit on 25-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Soooo.... how many of you people have actually *MEASURED* the speed of light?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueler?


Anyone here have any links to ACTUAL scientific experiments that prove the speed of light is an absolute?

Anyone know WHY those experiments prove this?



I mean, if we are going to debate Relativity, perhaps we should actually have an understanding of the "Evidence" behind relativity.


Oh, and don't respond to me if the only thing you are going to say is "Well it just *IS*" because that's not how science works.

Let's get some actual SCIENCE going on in this thread.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


ok know it all, but you know what i meant



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


the issue of gathering the information from the entanglement pair is complicated, and it precludes the possibility of doing so instantaneously, even though the information, itself, is transferred instantaneously between the entanglement pair.

Put crudely, isn't that basically the time it takes to put the headphones and the goggles on?

Meaning, the information isn’t there – at least, verifiably there – till you measure it, and to do that takes time?

Still, that interval is independent of distance, isn’t it? The entangled pair could be light-years apart. Score one for superluminality.

Except... it would take a while, getting the entangled pair into position light-years apart. Because if they’re entangled it suggests that they were once physically contiguous, or more or less so.

One way or the other, I have a feeling good old Einsteinian spacetime is going to win this one in the end.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   


"If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false".
Einstein


This should open some eyes to what reality actually is. Read into those words because the reality is the sun and our solar system are in a free fall or being pulled by the black hole at the center of our galaxy.




Professor Vyacheslav Dokuchaev of Moscow’s Russian Academy of Sciences came up with this strange idea, which builds on the earlier idea that photon particles could theoretically maintain stable orbits inside black holes. He’s made the rather huge leap to saying that entire planets could possible also attain stable orbit around the singularity, which is the central part of the black hole where all the laws of physics begin to break down. Dokuchaev suggests that these planets would not have conventional orbits around the singularity, but rather orbit around it in a complex spiral pattern. The singularity and other trapped photons would provide the planet with light and warmth, potentially allowing life to evolve. Oh yes, Dokuchaev is going all-in with this idea: “This planet might even support a complex chemistry rich enough to allow life to evolve. Advanced civilizations may live safely inside the black hole without being visible from the outside.”


Our Solar system is an accelerating inertial frame. Our Solar system orbits with the accelerating inertial frame of the Milky Way. Any object in outer space beyond what we consider in our galaxy will accelerate toward a dominant galaxy or Solar system.

When we look out to our sun is it not more feasible that we are seeing the center of our galaxy as space time warps inward to the singularity itself?

Maybe light does not travel from our sun be we travel through it. Anyone can make up how the universe looks and acts but that doesn't mean anyone has figured out anything beyond conjecture.
edit on 25-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


ingress and egress

Star for you purely for using those two words.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


""If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false".
Einstein "

Actually what he means here is if the freq. of both
the source and the photon itself
are not the same,ie if the source resonates,
at a different,freq. if it is faster,
or slower,
then his c is not a constant,
but a derivivative of the source.
and if the source, fluctuates, then so
must the measurement "c" .
bobathome.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The issue is actually in the fact that we can't affect what state the initial particle chooses. And, even if we could, no real information is exchanged. If we know that, when the first particle chooses one state, then the second particle must choose the other, and then we physically demonstrate it...this isn't an exchange of information. Between the two particles, it may be, we don't know (we don't understand how entanglement works, we just know it does), but causality is a matter of observation, and the observation of entanglement allows for the exchange of no true information that we can't already predict. If entanglement is a form of faster-than-light information exchange, then so is the ability to predict any outcome.

This whole issue actually has a name: Bell's inequality.
And a side-kick: the No-communication theorem.

We also have to remember that relativity doesn't actually prohibit the exchange of information at superluminal speeds. This is an assumption borne of the "cosmic speed limit" idea. But, that limit being a universal law, there is no reason why the universe, itself, can't find ways around it...especially at the quantum level.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

edit on 25-8-2011 by CLPrime because: double post



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Soooo.... how many of you people have actually *MEASURED* the speed of light?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueler?


Anyone here have any links to ACTUAL scientific experiments that prove the speed of light is an absolute?

Anyone know WHY those experiments prove this?



I mean, if we are going to debate Relativity, perhaps we should actually have an understanding of the "Evidence" behind relativity.


Oh, and don't respond to me if the only thing you are going to say is "Well it just *IS*" because that's not how science works.

Let's get some actual SCIENCE going on in this thread.


When I was at University, we aimed a laser at a reflector that the astronauts left behind on the moon, through a telescope and timed how long it took to reflect back. We did this a few times over three weeks. We compared this to previous readings to see how much the moon had moved towards us from the start of the experiment to the end.

This told us the difference in distance as a function of the speed of light or, since we already had data on the distance that the moon would travel during the time anyway, it also verified the speed of light.

This is similar to the way Ole Roemer calculated the speed of light way back in in the 1600's, by observing orbital irregularities of Jupiter's moon Io.

Although Roemers and our measurements were not 100% accurate, they did support the accepted speed of light.

Our experiment would have been far more accurate if we had used some proper interferometry (using phase cancellation of the laser source) and far more accurate timing methods to measure the distance.
edit on 25/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

Thanks. Yes, I agree with all of that.

I understand that the metric expansion of space is superluminal at intergalactic distances. However, information can’t be exchanged, as far as we can tell, between objects being carried apart at speeds above c; they are literally invisible to each other. So no help there as far as I can see.

There is a science-fiction novel I once read features an ansible (i.e. an FTL communication device) that worked via entanglement. Information was coded as spin changes in some particles in a box on Earth (halves of entangled pairs) and was decoded by observing changes in the spin states of the other halves of the pairs, which were in another box aboard a spacecraft. If the (prodigious) engineering problems were taken as solved, what physical principles, if any, prevent this from working?

I know this is off topic, but it seems to me the OP’s assertion has been fully discussed and disposed of.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


foff mr dr picky tw t



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

I understand that the metric expansion of space is superluminal at intergalactic distances.


Actually, it doesn't. The recession velocity of objects at the edge of the observable universe, as measured by us, approaches the speed of light. The CMB is measured to be receding at very near the speed of light, but still not superluminal (it's actually short of the speed of light by a small fraction of a percent). And, of course, these are not true velocities, but are a result of the metric expansion of space, which is uniform through that space.
The expansion of the universe is a rather complicated topic, but I'd be happy to get into it further, if you want...tomorrow, when I'm more awake.


There is a science-fiction novel I once read features an ansible (i.e. an FTL communication device) that worked via entanglement. Information was coded as spin changes in some particles in a box on Earth (halves of entangled pairs) and was decoded by observing changes in the spin states of the other halves of the pairs, which were in another box aboard a spacecraft. If the (prodigious) engineering problems were taken as solved, what physical principles, if any, prevent this from working?


This is one of the conceptual methods of quantum computing. It's actually just about the simplest method there is. More complicated (but more efficient) methods would involve the quantum states of entangled atoms...or even entire molecules.
Once you get beyond molecules, you're wandering into the realm of full-on teleportation.
edit on 25-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Sorry to ask while you are tired, I can surely wait for an answer


If scientists were able to entangle sets of molecules which transmit state information to each other. Regardless if that information transfer were superluminal or not, does it work with vibration level/temperature as well? Cool or heat one set and the other exhibits that change? I searched for the answer and could not find any information about it.

All that to ask this: If one set was sunk into the earths magma and the other set was located inside a reactor housing, would we have an intense non-radioactive heat source for power generation?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by twinmommy38
 


Entanglement only involves the exchange of quantum states, not other conditions, like temperature. It's a purely quantum mechanical effect, so it only involves quantum mechanical conditions...and these conditions are, without exception, the 4 quantum numbers (though, entanglement pairs only involve one of those numbers - the spin state).



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thank You Very Much.

Not part of the equation is probably why I could not find any reference to it. Just either wishful thinking, or too much ATS for one day.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by twinmommy38
 


No problem. It turns out, I'll probably be up for a while now...since the rain, the thunder, and the lightning have started. So, if there's anything else you wanna know.... Anything at all....



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Soooo.... how many of you people have actually *MEASURED* the speed of light?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueler?


Anyone here have any links to ACTUAL scientific experiments that prove the speed of light is an absolute?

Anyone know WHY those experiments prove this?



Everyone who took one of my lab classes at the U of Chicago has actually measured by derivation the speed of light. One of the usual things that PhD candidates have to do to earn their keep at most schools is to teach, or more properly, instruct. Usually starting with labs, where basic , and I mean verybasic experiments are done. I mean like rolling stuff down an inclined plane (ramp) to demonstrate acceleration caused by gravity.
My hero and role model was Richard Feynman who really tried to have fun in his classes. So I decided to use an easy to replicate experiment using a Hershey bar to measure the speed of light. Don't laugh. Spending hours researching at the Tevatron is hard work and you get hungry. So, anyway...
Take a chocolate bar and, after removing the rotating tray in the microwave, put it in a microwave for about 30 seconds. Then take it out and find two spots that are more melted than the others. After licking the chocolate smudges from your fingers, measure the distance between the "hot spots." This will give you a measurement of the half wavelength of the wave. Now look in the book that came with the microwave (everyone keeps those, right?) to find the frequency at which the microwave operates, which is usually around 2.45 gigahertz. For the metricly.challenged, that's 2,450,000,000 hertz, or cycles per second. Since speed of a wave, or something that acts like one, is equal to wavelength times frequency you can multiply the whole wavelength by the frequency to get the speed at which the microwave travels which, since it is an electromagnetic wave mediated by a photon, is the speed of light.
Now eat the candy bar. It's a whole lot tastier than a laser interferometer, which can also be used to measure c.
Every time you use your GPS in your car you are unconsciously verifying the constancy of c. Since GPS works by measuring time differences based on clocks in the satellites,, and since the satellites are in motion, relativistic time dilation must be compensated for. And the compensation built in to the system is based on c being about 299,792,458 meters per second. If that were not the constant speed of light, your GPS would never be right. It is right, so.....



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
The only problem you have with using c as a reference is your'e assuming it's light that is constant but in reality it's TIME that is constant. At least on earth it's a constant..
edit on 26-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join