Starlyte Posted May 21, 2003 #1 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I subscribe to Discover magazine and in the April 2003 issue there was an article about a scientist who is challenging Einstein's theory of relativity. The link is below. I would be interested in finding out what others think about this new theory dubbed 'VSL' which stands for Varying Speed of Light. At the Speed of Light: What if Einstein Was Wrong? Discover Magazine After clicking on the link above click on "recent issues". It is about 3/4 the way down the page for the April 2003 issue and is the cover story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j6p Posted May 21, 2003 #2 Share Posted May 21, 2003 It's been observed that the first light from supernova changes colors before becoming uniform. I would say that this makes a good argument for different wavelengths having varying speeds. Personally I believe that the speed of light is not constant but my reasons are considered unorthodox at this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlyte Posted May 22, 2003 Author #3 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I'd say that someone questioning Einstein's theory could also be considered unorthodox. To me that is the amazing thing about science; to be able to ask the questions and not be afraid of the anwers. I would like to here your theory on speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteff Posted May 23, 2003 #4 Share Posted May 23, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/...ain216905.shtml speed of light http://www.abc.net.au/news/scitech/2002/06...617070959_1.htm teleportation ok people...aliens do not exist,,,ufos do not exist right here goes you people at seti.........ufos are not visiting earth because of the time/distance between planets...right we can now prove that teleportation can happen...all be it a laser beam....a human thing on earth......so who is to say that aliens in ufos can't teleport from 1 area of space to another... we can't so that crap seti and goverments are coming out with is horse manure the arrogance of humans will be their downfall..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidhe Posted May 23, 2003 #5 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Indeed! But scientists really do know that all their theories are provisional. That's diff'rent from their take on UFOs tho.. they gets *paid* ta say that stuff.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 23, 2003 #6 Share Posted May 23, 2003 I believe that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. But you are not going to find a true vacuum anywhere in the known universe, thanks to Cosmic Background Radiation. Just about anything can manipulate the speed of light. Obviously gravity and filters can, and perhaps heat can as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdodo Posted May 26, 2003 #7 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Well as I said before ... The speed of light : 10 billion years = one light year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted May 26, 2003 #8 Share Posted May 26, 2003 *refers dj to his definition of a light year in This Thread* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God18 Posted June 4, 2003 #9 Share Posted June 4, 2003 But doesnt a black hole slow down time at its event horizon? If the gravity there is strong enough to bend time I am sure it must be strong enough to "slow down light". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 5, 2003 #10 Share Posted June 5, 2003 The laws of physics-as we know them anyway-completely break down at the event horizon. Light literally no longer exists when photons reach that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God18 Posted June 5, 2003 #11 Share Posted June 5, 2003 But how do we know it doesn't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 5, 2003 #12 Share Posted June 5, 2003 We know light doesn’t exist at the event horizon because of the nature of black holes. They are black due to the absence of light. At the event horizon, gravity is so strong that not even light can escape it. The event horizon is the point of no return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God18 Posted June 18, 2003 #13 Share Posted June 18, 2003 How is it something that can't escape doesn't exist. To not be able to escape from something you first have to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 18, 2003 #14 Share Posted June 18, 2003 I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. Light is made of photons, and photons do exist at the event horizon. The event horizon is the point at which gravity is so strong that not even light can escape it. So it’s not that the photons don’t exist at the event horizon, but that the gravity is too strong for them to escape. What we see is reflected light, and without the photons being able to escape the dense gravity of the event horizon, we can never actually see the light from that point. That is why black holes are black, because at that point there is no light capable of being reflected. Once the event horizon is crossed, the laws of physics—as we know them—break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neen Posted June 20, 2003 #15 Share Posted June 20, 2003 I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. Light is made of photons, and photons do exist at the event horizon. The event horizon is the point at which gravity is so strong that not even light can escape it. So it’s not that the photons don’t exist at the event horizon, but that the gravity is too strong for them to escape. What we see is reflected light, and without the photons being able to escape the dense gravity of the event horizon, we can never actually see the light from that point. That is why black holes are black, because at that point there is no light capable of being reflected. Once the event horizon is crossed, the laws of physics—as we know them—break down. How do you do it Homer?? sorry couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 20, 2003 #16 Share Posted June 20, 2003 How do you do it Homer?? sorry couldn't resist Good one Neen. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God18 Posted June 24, 2003 #17 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Actually the theory is time becomes space and space becomes time. They exchange characteristics. Time as we know it, is an "imaginary" number. Meaning you cannot have a negative point in time ex. "What time is it? Oh about negative four o'clock." Since the theory states they swich places you would have to take space as an "imaginary number" and time as a "real" number. ex. "What time is it? Oh about 40 kilometers." Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 25, 2003 #18 Share Posted June 25, 2003 (edited) Actually the theory is time becomes space and space becomes time Time as we know it, is an "imaginary" number Since the theory states they swich places you would have to take space as an "imaginary number" and time as a "real" number What theory are you talking about? Personally, I think that theory is garbage. In our known universe, there's 3 spacial dimensions, and 1 time dimension. The space-time continuum doesn't mean time becomes space and space becomes time. Although permanantly intertwined with each other from the beginning of time to eternity, they are not interchangable and they do not switch places. Time is the nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Edited June 25, 2003 by Homer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God18 Posted June 25, 2003 #19 Share Posted June 25, 2003 It is a theory by Steven Hawkings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 25, 2003 #20 Share Posted June 25, 2003 When you stated: "Actually the theory is time becomes space and space becomes time", it was worded in a way which implied the theory in question was the theory that explained what we were already discussing. Yes, Stephen Hawking stated space becomes time and time becomes space, on the other side of the event horizon. But they don't 'switch places', instead they merge into each other and become one with each other until they reach the singularity. It's only speculation, but I imagine that at the singularity, time and space no longer exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now