Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Venomshocker

Speed of light

33 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I came across these articles written by physiscts that claim the speed of light is not a fixed constant, and that over time the speed of light has beed changing drastically 'in a vaccum'. I really wanna know what peoples opinions are on this. If this is true it changes many things when it comes to the world of science.

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm

This next blurb added on April 14.

I dont think Ive made myself clear as to why this concept is so insane.According to some physists the entire universe would only be 8000-10,000 years old. Now thats our time measured with the current speed of light. But since time is dynamic, according to atomic time 12billion years atomic time ruffly works out to 9000 years, by current standards.

http://www.setterfield.org/combinedtimeline.htm

If the universe is only 9000 years old, then the theory of evoloution most likey would be absolutely impossible, and all our current dating methods would be way off and our current concept of time would also be innacurate. This quite literally changes everything!

This next blurb added on April 29.

In light of evidence that bathory has provided I have come to the conclusion that the few physists supporting the notion that the universe is only 8000-10,000 years old, are wrong. Their method of calculations were based on numbers that were in error. Their method of using statistical analysis and extrapolating backwards is also very questionable.

In any case, the fact the speed of light in a vaccum is not a constant remains. Also the ramifications of this will have a huge impact on our current sceintific understanding.

Edited by Venomshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light changes as it moves through different matter. They have slowed it in a laboratory to about the speed a horse can run with a special gas. As far as I know, though, light is the same speed always when it is unmodified by environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scary thing is that if this is true then the universe may not be as old as it appears to be. Maybe the young earthers are correct after all ohmy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha, I know, that even scares me!!! blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

they still need to prove allot more before their beliefs become valid

that said, in regards to the age of the universe, since we are playing with IFs couldn't it also mean that the universe is much older than previously believed?

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. we are not just playing IFs.. we are applying scientific methodology here. And this theory fits the data better than the constant speed of light or even accelerating speed of light, at least it is what the scientist claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is energy in a vaccum, if there were none, light would not be able to pass through it. In space , any given area has the same amount of energy, even though space is constantly expanding- and accelerating. A theory on why this is ; the force of acceleration pulling on the vaccum causes tension, which replaces the energy dissapated by expansion.

Light travels through this vaccum at 300,000 km/sec, which is usually assumed to be the speed limit. However, the universe is accelerating in its expansion. If it gets to a critical rate of acceleration, there will be a considerable amount more energy in empty space which would allow light to travel faster. If enough energy were to be created due to expansion, the speed of light could reach at or near infinite speed. It would not last , the tension on the vaccum energy would cause it to collapse in on itself and form matter. (In its simplest form - hydrogen). This would casually put all matter in contact and explain the uniformity of the universe.

*The speed of light would be reduced drastically at this point, and would also cause whats known as a 'horizon'. A point which cannot be seen beyond, due to light not traveling fast enough to observe objects past that point.

The result would be comparable to current big bang theories, as well as answer more of the big questions left unanswered by those theories.

I hope you find this interesting.

(I especially like the subtle hint that this could happen many times over. We may never know what the true beginning was)!

post-13-1080971616.gif

Edited by UniversalAbsurdity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my understanding of the article, the speed of light was much faster, near the beginning of the big bang. And that the speed of light has been slowing down since then.

Now if the universe is expanding, and actually accelerating, techincally shouldnt the speed of light be speeding up also instead of slowing down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if the universe is expanding, and actually accelerating, techincally shouldnt the speed of light be speeding up also instead of slowing down?

we have only just noticed the acceleration is speeding up. i assume that the speed of light is directly proportionate to the expansion of the universe. so that would mean , that slowly, but surely it is getting faster. the vidence that light is slower now than it was 10,000 years ago does support the theory that i posted, considering that recent observations show that the expansion has only begun to accelerate

post-13-1080999713.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my understanding of the article, the speed of light was much faster, near the beginning of the big bang. And that the speed of light has been slowing down since then.

Now if the universe is expanding, and actually accelerating, techincally shouldnt the speed of light be speeding up also instead of slowing down?

The speed of light being faster in the early universe is known as the Inflationary Period, or Inflationary Epoch. This is just a theory, but if true, this would be in the beginning where the universe was expanding at an astonishing rate.

The idea of light speed increasing due to the acceleration of the universe is something SaRuMaN and I discussed a little last year(the thread is around here somewhere). This idea would still make sense even if the Inflationary Period is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, i am new to this forum and just wanted to add that i have read that in January, 2001 two groups of US scientistss announced that they had slowed down light itslef to a dead stop. Light usually travels at 300,000km/sec (186,000 miles /sec)

...Anthony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes SciFi and Druidus, the speed of light does slow down when it enters a medium of some kind. If you read the articles, Im talking about the speed of light as a constant, as IN A VACCUM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speed of light being faster in the early universe is known as the Inflationary Period, or Inflationary Epoch. This is just a theory, but if true, this would be in the beginning where the universe was expanding at an astonishing rate.

The inflationary epoch theory's sole purpose was to explain the uniformity of matter in the universe. I have never heard of it being used to show that light moved faster in the beginning. The problem with inflation, is that after the tremendous hot expansion, there had to be a period of supercooling, followed by a warming period for it to be plausable.

With the theory I posed above (VSL varying speed of light) there is no need for inflation. In a nutshell, when the expansion of the universe speeds up so much so that the empty space (vaccym energy) can no longer take the strain of expansion. It 'rips' or 'colapses in on itself' whichever makes a better picture in you head. Either way, the result is that the energy contained in the emptiness of space is converted into mass.

As a side effect of this proucess, light has more energy to travel through and can reach near infinite speeds. Up untill the point of energy converting to mass.

post-13-1081108814.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inflationary epoch is meant to explain the problems of the cosmological models, including the shape of the universe, and part of this explanation is the rapid expansion of the universe. If the inflationary epoch is true, then the universe would have undergone an expansion in scale beyond what we know to be lightspeed. This theory is not meant to explain that light moved faster during this period, but that the universe expanded faster.

Although I’m not debating this either way, the speed of light as it relates to the speed of expansion is a valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the universe did not expand rapidly after formation, just after the Big Bang the universe was about the size of a pea. blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Actually kellalor, Many experts believe

the facts show that all there is now in

this massive universe was once crammed

into a single point in space smaller

than a single atom.

A pea would be thousands of times larger!

Gazz grin2.gif

Edited by Gazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted on Apr 8 2004, 05:21 AM

If the universe did not expand rapidly after formation, just after the Big Bang the universe was about the size of a pea. 

Posted on Apr 8 2004, 12:03 PM

Actually kellalor, Many experts believe

the facts show that all there is now in

this massive universe was once crammed

into a single point in space smaller

than a single atom.

A pea would be thousands of times larger!

Gazz

theories are just that, theories. The only reason the big bang/inflationary universe theory is still around is because people get stuck to their beliefs. they dont want to acknowledge that something different could have happened.

The reason that i dont believe in the big bang theory as it stands today is that there is no point in which we can say : that pea sized first step in the big bang happened here x. there is no singularity, no point which stands firm as the beginning.

when the hubble telescope looks back in time (yes thats what it does) there is a point which cannot be seen beyond. this is called the light horizon. if current big bang theory is correct, the further away hubble looks, the brighter it SHOULD get. the reason being that the big bang would have been a very hot , instntaneous expansion. heat makes light so where is the light? its been proven that the further you look back , the earlier in development galaxies are so we are looking in the right direction.

these are just 2 examples of big questions left unanswered by big bang theory. there are several more. what bothers me is that when new theories come up , more plausable theories , they are rejected by the science community , simply for being too radical , or because they go against long held beliefs in theories made by men who are long dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago an aussie scientist came out and said that the speed of light has actually been slowing down. Therfore meaning we could travel faster than the speed of light. This would also disprove Einsteins theory of relativity, naturally without solid evidence who would believe him.......and I`ve never heard of him since. Must have been wrong.lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added some more info to my initial post.Just so you guys know. dontgetit.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the universe is only 9000 years old, then the theory of evoloution most likey would be absolutely impossible, and all our current dating methods would be way off and our current concept of time would also be innacurate. This quite literally changes everything!

Which is exactly why that theory will never be accepted. laugh.gif

wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason the big bang/inflationary universe theory is still around is because people get stuck to their beliefs. they dont want to acknowledge that something different could have happened.

That is absurd! There are different theories around, but the more widely accepted theories are accepted because there is more evidense to support the theories. Although still theories, there is a lot of evidense to support the big bang and the inflationary epoch. Do you have a theory which is supported by more evidense?

The reason that i dont believe in the big bang theory as it stands today is that there is no point in which we can say : that pea sized first step in the big bang happened here x. there is no singularity, no point which stands firm as the beginning.

There is no single point in the universe that was the X spot for the big bang. Think of the raisin bread example. From our viewpoint, it would seem that we are the center of the universe because the other galaxies are expanding outward away from us. But if we go to the other side of the universe and observe from that viewpoint, all other galaxies are expanding outward from there as well. So there is no center point of origin.

what bothers me is that when new theories come up , more plausable theories , they are rejected by the science community , simply for being too radical , or because they go against long held beliefs in theories made by men who are long dead

Can you give some examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give some examples?

Faster Than the Speed of Light

a book by Joao Maguejo

he was unable to publish his theory because of the peer review system for publishing in recognised scientific journals. the reason for it was that the peer who reviewed his paper had something personal against joao.

so he decided to publish his work in other ways and has been rideculed for it. (not for the research , for the publications. which as far as the scientific community is concerned makes your work null, no matter the findings.)

i had no idea about any of this before purchasing the book.

i did find the book to make alot of sense and it seems very plausable.

also, having already studied up on big bang theories, i liked that this theory did not leave more questions than it answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the universe did not expand rapidly after formation, just after the Big Bang the universe was about the size of a pea. blink.gif

May I suggest reading the articles published in POPULAR SCIENCE on the dimensional theory. I will dig out my magazine and publish it. It talked about how we are in this one riff of two, the second being this mystical and place of nothingness. After the big bang, these riffs were ripped apart, and they are wavey expanding into inifinity at about the speed of light, thus pushing the galaxies farther and farther away from their normal position in a cluster. Eventually these riffs/dimensions collide after much time, causing another big bang and recreation. The collision of an object bigger than the known universe with an object of equal size can cause quite a large explosion.

I myself still rely on the idea of alternate dimensions/universes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.