It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 7
3
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
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)

Not if Hendrik Lortenz was right, and he was.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
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)

Do you have any actual real-world data to support your assertions?

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
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)

This is not true. If you are on the top floor of a sky scraper time will move faster than on the bottom floor. The difference is too small for us to notice but it has been scientifically measured as a fact.
edit on 26-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: faster not slower

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:44 AM
Do you remember when they said the world was flat? You would laugh today right? The universe is like a flat sheet of paper and the only thing that gives it extra dimensions beyond 2 is time itself flowing through the present! Time and space are one in the same.

When I roll a ball across the floor what you will see is the ball enter from the future to the present and flow into the past. It is the fact that we are locked in the present that allows us to experience an animated reality. This is also why in order to travel into the past you would have to go beyond c. Because you would have to overtake the speed of time if it's even possible to exit our locked state of the present.

When Einstein split the atom it is my theory that he tore the fabric of space and time and the future past and present all came together in a fiery mess. This is why ancient civilization may have said we come from the sun and the sun we will return.

If you think about time and space as actual locations, or points of reference on a map, you begin to realize the sun, which is that giant ball of fire we trail behind in our galaxy, is in front of us. This may in fact be a singularity inside the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Fire is our future but somehow we remain in a locked state of the present allowing us to live with time and space flowing through us. We are locked in the present through entanglement or the singularity will continue to get smaller and smaller to infinity and we will never catch up with it.

edit on 26-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by libertytoall
Do you remember when they said the world was flat? You would laugh today right?

Science never said the world was flat.

The universe is like a flat sheet of paper and the only thing that gives it extra dimensions beyond 2 is time itself flowing through the present! Time and space are one in the same.

When I roll a ball across the floor what you will see is the ball enter from the future to the present and flow into the past. It is the fact that we are locked in the present that allows us to experience an animated reality. This is also why in order to travel into the past you would have to go beyond c. Because you would have to overtake the speed of time if it's even possible to exit our locked state of the present.

When Einstein split the atom it is my theory that he tore the fabric of space and time and the future past and present all came together in a fiery mess. This is why ancient civilization may have said we come from the sun and the sun we will return.

If you think about time and space as actual locations, or points of reference on a map, you begin to realize the sun, which is that giant ball of fire we trail behind in our galaxy, is in front of us. This may in fact be a singularity inside the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Fire is our future but somehow we remain in a locked state of the present allowing us to live with time and space flowing through us. We are locked in the present through entanglement or the singularity will continue to get smaller and smaller to infinity and we will never catch up with it.

No offence but this really is a load of gobbly-gook.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:13 PM
Without ruining all existing scientific discovery this solves the flaws proposed in GR and SR. You sir need to do better then personal insults based on ignorance. If you can't provide anything scientific to refute what I've said, well, I can only assume I've overloaded your brain capacities.
edit on 26-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by libertytoall
Without ruining all existing scientific discovery this solves the flaws proposed in GR and SR. You sir need to do better then personal insults based on ignorance. If you can't provide anything scientific to refute what I've said, well, I can only assume I've overloaded your brain capacities.
edit on 26-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

I'm not trying to insult you, I am only telling it as I see it. There is nothing for me to refute as the onus is on you to provide evidence for your unsubstantiated assertions.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:33 PM
I gave numerous examples. That beautiful shaped bowl we like to call gravity in GR is nothing more then time and space flowing around/through matter. Seems like it makes much more sense then creating an unsustainable theory that does not offer answers.. GR is a phenomenon giving a fancy name and you are told "just go with it." Why do you all go with it if it doesn't explain things without living in fantasy? Why do you think they are still looking for another force to explain gravity? Because gravity is nothing more then a result of space and time flowing through/around matter.
edit on 26-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:35 PM

No, not examples, data. Experimental data. To refute the existing data that says otherwise.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:40 PM
So what you're saying is you refuse to look into my explanations and will stick to the one(GR) that doesn't explain things? I think that's what you're saying but to me that doesn't make sense.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:44 PM

The recession velocity of objects at the edge of the observable universe, as measured by us, approaches the speed of light.

According to Davis and Lineweaver, visible objects may be receding at speeds greater than c:

Superluminal Recession Velocities

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

Enjoy!

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM

Hm...that's an interesting tweak to cosmological expansion.
However, the point (which was actually hidden in my original post) is the same. Even those objects that are moving at superluminal recessional speeds are certainly not invisible. Information can be, and is, exchanged between such objects, as, again, recessional velocities due to cosmological expansion are not the same as actual ("peculiar") velocities.

In fact, the entire last page of that paper you linked to is dedicated to explaining this, and you said so yourself, so I'm not sure what your initial statement (about superluminal invisibility, as it were) was about....
edit on 26-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:37 PM

When I was at University, we aimed a laser at a reflector that the astronauts left behind on the moon

Yup... you sure did... but what you *DIDN'T* do, was take account of the fact that for the first, and last 260km of the round trip... the Laser light was actually passing through an *ATMOSPHERE* of varying levels of thickness, and refractivity.

Did you know that the speed of light in AIR is less than the "Speed of light in a vacuum"?

OH, and another thing... if you are measuring the speed of light by timing how long it takes to bounce off the lunar surface....

*AND*

You are basing the DISTANCE between the Lunar surface and the Earth's surface off of the TIME it takes for light to complete a round trip....

Do you see where you messed up?

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:37 PM

Your "theory" is as nonsensical as you're claiming GR to be. The difference is, GR has been experimentally proven with impeccable accuracy, and, indeed, is forced into existence by a set of fundamental equations that can't possibly be wrong (Maxwell's equations). Your "theory" is just a baseless claim with no real substance whatsoever - and, just as GR is forced into existence by Maxwell's equations, your "theory" is forced into the realm of absurdity by those same equations.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

... what you *DIDN'T* do, was take account of the fact that for the first, and last 260km of the round trip... the Laser light was actually passing through an *ATMOSPHERE* of varying levels of thickness, and refractivity.

That's 6 hundredths of a percent of the distance from the Earth to the Moon. To account for such an insignificant variance would be pointless.

Did you know that the speed of light in AIR is less than the "Speed of light in a vacuum"?

299,702,547 m/s as opposed to 299,792,458 m/s.

OH, and another thing... if you are measuring the speed of light by timing how long it takes to bounce off the lunar surface....

*AND*

You are basing the DISTANCE between the Lunar surface and the Earth's surface off of the TIME it takes for light to complete a round trip....

Do you see where you messed up?

Now, this is a fair point.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:06 PM

That's 6 hundredths of a percent of the distance from the Earth to the Moon. To account for such an insignificant variance would be pointless.

The difference it would make would be quite small, I grant you that... but pointless? Hardly.

Even if the difference IS vanishingly small, why not account for it in measurements?

I mean, we HAVE data on the refractive index of the Earth's atmosphere... I see absolutely no point to disguarding this from our final calculations.

The MAIN reason that I bring this up, is that Earlier "Proof's" of SR and GR were based off of the inconsistency in bouncing radar waves off of Venus from earth.

and Einstein drug out his "General Relativity" and ""Frame Dragging" as a sort of "El-Nino" excuse for the lag time of some 200 milliseconds.

But they never actually accounted for the ULTRA DENSE atmosphere of Venus, with refractive index measured in the THOUSANDS!

So, they didn't even NEED GR to explain the delay, because Refraction already explains it.

Therefore, one of the PRIMARY PROOFS of GR, is basically NOT a proof of GR, but a misunderstanding of the medium that the light was travelling through.

Now, this is a fair point.

Ya... thanks!
edit on 26-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

But they never actually accounted for the ULTRA DENSE atmosphere of Venus, with refractive index measured in the THOUSANDS!

If you'll notice, the refractivity of Venus' atmosphere versus altitude, as shown in the graph, is measured in N-units. The N-units value is the number of millionths by which the refractivity exceeds 1.
For example, at the surface, the refractivity approaches 5000 N-units. That's equal to a refractive index of n = 1+(5000 x 0.000001) = 1.005.
edit on 26-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:48 PM

While I'm waiting...

The N-unit refractivity of:

- air at STP = 277
- carbon dioxide = 450
- liquid helium = 25,000
- ice = 310,000
- water = 330,000
- human eye = ~390,000

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:04 PM

If you'll notice, the refractivity of Venus' atmosphere versus altitude, as shown in the graph, is measured in N-units. The N-units value is the number of millionths by which the refractivity exceeds 1.
For example, at the surface, the refractivity approaches 5000 N-units. That's equal to a refractive index of n = 1+(5000 x 0.000001) = 1.005.

Yes, I am aware of that.... Go ahead and calculate the time it takes for light to cross the Venusian atmosphere, factoring in the reduced speed of light.

And contrast that against the time it would take in a vacuum.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:25 PM

Alrighty, let's give it the greatest chance of making a difference. Let's say Venus is at it's closest - at a distance of 38,200,000 km.
The atmosphere of Venus has a height of about 250 km.
The atmosphere of Earth has a height of about 100 km.
That gives a total distance 38,200,350 km (defining, of course, the distance between Earth and Venus to be the distance between their atmospheres).

To travel the distance between the two planets, assuming their atmospheres have no effect, would take light 127.42265184002728 seconds.

To travel the distance between the two planets, excluding their atmospheres, would take light 127.42148436569408 seconds.
The reduced speed of light through Venus' atmosphere is, at maximum (which we will assume is actually the mean), 298300.95323383084577 km/s. This gives a time, for light to pass through its atmosphere, of 0.00083807978919 seconds.
The reduced speed of light through Earth's atmosphere is, at maximum (which, again, we will assume is actually the mean), 299704.64453915002904 km/s. This gives a time, for light to pass through its atmosphere, of 0.00033366182948 seconds.
Combined, this gives a time of 127.42265610731275 seconds.

That's a difference of 0.00000426728547 seconds.
Accounting for a round trip, that's 0.00000853457094 seconds.
Which is 0.00853457094 milliseconds.

So, what was that about 200 milliseconds?
edit on 26-8-2011 by CLPrime because: dumbing down the numbers

top topics

3