Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#11787 09/08/06 12:08 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
I mean to put forewad a hypothesis which will possibly help with black holes, and could would possibly give us an entirely different view of the universe.
The problem is that it means that Einstein was wrong about something, a big thing.

I already typed nearly a whole page on this, and then it wasn't put up because of something to do with HMTL codes, so I'll keep it very brief incase I have similar problems this time.

We think of the speed of light is constant. It may vary slightly in diffrent parts of the universe, but, it can only travel at a fixed speed.

I say differenly: light may be emitted at almost any speed.
At c, light is seen in a wave/particle dialectic, I beleive that light can travel above c, at which light energy exists in a pure, singular quantum wave form, which is almost undetectable. Very like the energy released from black holes according to hawking.

That'll do for now, I'm very tired. Thanks for reading it, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.


"The written word is a lie"
.
#11788 09/08/06 12:58 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
Oh yeah, photon energy must = amlitude x frequency x velocity.
You can sure mess with the frquency, what a beautiful rainbow man!!!!!


"The written word is a lie"
#11789 09/08/06 02:16 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
then why cant the difference in speed be detected. what evidence is there of this.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11790 09/08/06 05:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
I 'spose you're right, if c wasn't constant, the famous equation, E=mc2 would't work. I don't wish to be another person crticising it.

I have always found the idea of light having a single fixed speed hard to accept.

I stil do not discount the idea of photons being emitted at speeds lower than c, but dissipating into heat, for what that's worth.

Thanks dehammer, and anyone else who wasted their time with my midnight ramble. I knew it was contrary to what Einstein beleived, but momentarily forgot that it would change the conversion rate of matter to energy, Voops.


"The written word is a lie"
#11791 09/09/06 01:32 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Andist, welcome:

I will respond because I think the real smart people are busy on some more simple things.

In essence you appear to be arguing that the speed of light is not a constant as is currently believed to be true, but you do not offer an original view point to support the claim.
Please try again and tell us why it is so.
jjw

#11792 09/09/06 04:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179

#11793 09/09/06 07:31 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thank you trilobyte for the link.

I read about setterfield and his group contending that the speed of light was probably faster at the birth of the universe. That is a long time ago and shows nothing to alter the present contention of the speed of light as it is measured now. The key is in the method of measurement. As a practicle matter it finds its support on the understanding of the red shift in the light spectrum. I extract a paragraph from your link.

"The data used to support the idea that the universe is still expanding has to do with the redshift of light from distant galaxies. In the same way a siren's sound drops its pitch at the point of passing you, the idea is that the further away the observed light source, the more its light has 'dropped' to the red end of the color spectrum. Is this because the object emitting the light, like the fire engine where the siren sound originates, is speeding away from us at a fantastic rate? Or is there another cause for what we see - this red shifting of light from distant objects?"
I am not interested in the comparisons with bible content.

The usual logic for the application of the Doppler effect to determine if the light is from a source moving away from us or toward us is that the sound of a train, for example, will change as it passes us because the sound waves are compressed as the train approaches us and streched as the sound waves go away from us. No doubt I am over simplifying the situation.

When astronomers check the spectrograph for the light waves from the source they know that color of the light is a factor of the wave length. They have decided that the longer wave length denotes, as with the doppler streching of sound waves, that the light must be moving away from us. This appears to be very logical and it is in common use for many conclusions about the universe, one of which relates to the expansion of our universe.

I think the conclusion is a misconception and does not properly interpret what is happening with the light they see here at Earth. We can see stuff that looks to be far away but we are always seeing it here at Earth or from this Solar System.

The first curious part about the use of the "Doppler effect" as an interpretation of sound past us is that the light being measured is not past us at all. It is stopping right here in our spectograph. Light that passes us can not be seen until it is reflected back to us from some local object, like a Moon or a planet, and has no information about the original source any more.

The second curious part is that we are not giving any consideration to where we are when we receive the light for our spectrograph. We are an average of 93,000,000 miles from the Sun in a heavy gravitation density. We, I think, fail to consider the effect of our location on the light we are seeing from very distant sources. It is my unproven opinion that the red shift we want to rely on for an expaning universe is in fact due to the gravitational denisity of our location and that the variation we note in the nature of the red shift is in fact due to the speed of the light at which it enters our local area.

This can properly be labeled my gross speculation and for now that objection is accepted. Note however we have no other basis for now to make the same conclusions except by means of the alleged red shift. We need to study all the potential factors that can result in light being shited to the red end of the spectrum. The result of such study, I am convinced, will prove me to be correct. I went to the trouble of explaining this theory to have it doucmented here.
I hope I did not upset the purists too much.
jjw

#11794 09/09/06 09:12 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
I'll respond to jjw before I read the following replies, so I don't steal any possible theories which might bac kme up a bit.

What makes me think that the speed of light is not constant?


Firstly, it is the ONLY constant.
Secondly, it means that light motion is not relative. It means that photons are the ONLY thing which relativaty does not apply to.
It is almost as if there is an ether again, through which only light travels.

I suppose that the only thing which has brought this back to my mind was reading a thread about black holes.
It made me wonder if, like the energy which escapes black holes, light does travel at greater speeds, but, transforms to a "quantum" format which, just as energy penetrates gravitational fields to escape black holes, penetrates all matter, uncluding our eyes, and all measuring euipment.

I could never understand why light emmited from an object moving towards us at half the speed of light moves at only the speed of light, not 1.5 x c. I'll just have to accept it as a fact I think.

Sorry jjw, that was not even philosophical, far less scientific.

Maybe matter is moving towards us at speeds above c, such that we cannot see it coming confused


"The written word is a lie"
#11795 09/09/06 09:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
I read the the other posts now.
Again, Light is behaving diferrently, or maybe this does back me up?
The doppler effect in sound is different because it moves through air, which is still relative to us, apart from when subject to wind (which does change the speed of sound, and thus the frequency also)
Sound is the pruduct of physical entities.
If there is an "ether", it must move at the speed of the earth, relatively?


"The written word is a lie"
#11796 09/10/06 01:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
you asked if the scientist are taking into account the effect of out suns gravity.

they have studied the effect of the suns gravity on light that passes near the sun. the have compared the light from those stars to light that is coming from the opposite directions (ie, the compare the light 6 months apart). If gravity was causing the light to slow that much, and causing that much of a redshift, it would be very obvious in the frequency of the stars signature. while there is some small change, its not enough to account for the redshifting of far galaxies.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11797 09/10/06 03:02 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
JJW posted:
I am not interested in the comparisons with bible content.

Perhaps you should have read that part...pretty interesting

#11798 09/10/06 03:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Only if it happens to be your religion. its not the solo religion of the world.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11799 09/13/06 01:08 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Andist:

Keep working on the issue. There are many more educated people hot on the issue than I am that are interested in the question of the speed of light on the universal scale. They say that ignorance is bliss but in the scientific area it is soul food, good for peace of mind and offering the opportunity to "move on to an unresolveed issue."

Dehammer, comes on from the usual conclusions unhampered by reading carefully what was posted.
All measurement are made here at earth or very close there to. Do you expect to find consistency?
Your views show so little original thought or efforts at unique interpretation you really must be way ahead of us in these considerations. Great!
jjw

#11800 09/13/06 03:12 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
your forgetting they have also studied it with things that are not near the earth. there is one satilite that is between the sun and earth, it has been used to study the stars near the sun.

please explain why the gravity of earth is able to effect the speed of light, while the sun is not. If the speed of light is effected by gravity, then the sun will effect it much more than the earths gravity.

by the by, can you show where the speed of the wind effects the speed of sound. everywhere ive ever seen it listed it was always pressure and temperature that effected the speed of sound.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11801 09/13/06 12:45 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
A
Andist Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78
Regarding sound, you're right dehammer. Wind is also an effect of pressure. Not vice versa, as I implied.

A question? does C vary slightly in different areas of the universe, as I once read.
Would this increase the output of a nuclear reactor, for a given amount of Uranium?


"The written word is a lie"
#11802 09/13/06 03:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
as I understand it, the speed of light is determined by the medium though which it travels. That is why glass shaped in different forms can cause it to change its path. my guess is that if the universe is made up of different mediums it might have some differences. Other than that I dont know if there would be a difference.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11803 09/14/06 12:00 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Dear Dehammer:

If you took the trouble to develope the answers to your many questions you would gain something, but I know not what.

"your forgetting they have also studied it with things that are not near the earth. there is one satillite that is between the sun and earth, it has been used to study the stars near the sun."

Stars near the Sun? You no doubt mean stars we might see that are behind the Sun with reference to the positions of the Sun and the Earth. If your statement is correct (doubted accuracy) are you suggesting the/that satellite is not in the Solar System?

Your other gem:

"please explain why the gravity of earth is able to effect the speed of light, while the sun is not. If the speed of light is effected by gravity, then the sun will effect it much more than the earths gravity."

To me that seems like a reasonable statement if the issue related to a measure of the Suns gravitation compared to the Earth's. I said that the light from distant sources had to pass through the "high density" level of gravity in the earths location before we measure the speed or investigate its properties. I was not makin a comparison of Sun vs Earth gravitation.

Next stroke of enlightenment:
"by the by, can you show where the speed of the wind effects the speed of sound. everywhere ive ever seen it listed it was always pressure and temperature that effected the speed of sound."

Deh, I fail to see where that comment comes from unless you want to compare a strong gravitational field with a strong wind- in which even I think you have a lot more of the latter than you are entitled to.

Consider, but do not ask me for the answer; why do the planets closest to the Sun revolve around the Sun faster than those planets farther from the Sun? Is gravitation of the Sun the most likely cause? If the Suns gravitation is the potential cause is the effect most severe near the surface of the Sun?

Cheers!
jjw

#11804 09/14/06 12:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
Stars near the Sun? You no doubt mean stars we might see that are behind the Sun with reference to the positions of the Sun and the Earth. If your statement is correct (doubted accuracy) are you suggesting the/that satellite is not in the Solar System?
satalites that are outside of the atmosphere are able to see stars that are close to the sun. they do this by blocking off the suns light from the cameras. most of the time they study the sun's atmophere, but they have also been used to study the effect of the suns gravity on light.

here is a gem you might not have heard of. Gravity will bend light. A star that is near the edge of the sun, but actually on the other side, will be visible before it actually is physically able to be seen, because the sun's gravity will bend the light coming from that sun. Then as the line between the observer (satalite in this instance) and the star moves farther from the edge of the sun (more visible) it appears to move a small fraction of a degree. The star does not actually move, it only appears to be as the light from it is not being bent as much. How do they know which star it is? by the "fingerprint" of of it's visible spectrum. you see, all stars have their own unique spectrum. For the most part they are the same, but each one varies a small amount. that is how they can differate them by computer. If gravite was able to change the spectrum, it would show up when they were tracking the star as the light was bent by the sun. The earth is not strong enough to bend light enough to be measure, yet according to you, its sufficent to alter the spectrum of the light, causing it to redshift. Please pray tell, if the sun's gravity is not strong enough to alter the stars spectrum, how is the earth's able to do so.

Quote:
To me that seems like a reasonable statement if the issue related to a measure of the Suns gravitation compared to the Earth's. I said that the light from distant sources had to pass through the "high density" level of gravity in the earths location before we measure the speed or investigate its properties. I was not makin a comparison of Sun vs Earth gravitation.
how is the light coming from the opposite directions from the sun suppose to be going though the same "high density level of gravity" that the light passing near the sun would? If gravity has a density (i dont think that is the term scientist use for the increase in gravity near a gravity source), then the density would be higher near the sun that it would be away from it.

Quote:
"Deh, I fail to see where that comment comes from unless you want to compare a strong gravitational field with a strong wind- in which even I think you have a lot more of the latter than you are entitled to.
perhaps you should read some of the other post in this thread. it was stated that it was the wind speed not air pressure that caused the change in sound level, which was used as an example. the one that made that mistake has corrected it.

Quote:
Consider, but do not ask me for the answer; why do the planets closest to the Sun revolve around the Sun faster than those planets farther from the Sun? Is gravitation of the Sun the most likely cause? If the Suns gravitation is the potential cause is the effect most severe near the surface of the Sun?
you make this statement in the same post where you claim that the effect of gravity near the sun would not be different that the effect of gravity away from it? how can you not see the gulf in thinking here.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11805 09/14/06 01:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
So, some more of it:

Please note for all time that there are NO stars "close to the Sun". It is thousands of light years, as far as is known, between our Sun/star and any other star in this Galaxy.

What you want to offer is that a star behind the Sun, in a very far distance, might show its presence behind the Sun due to the potential bending of the stars light by gravitation of the Sun. That concept was used by advocates of Einstein to offer confirmation of his theory to the extent that gravitation close to a massive body could bend the light of a distant invisible star so you could "see the light" while the star itself was still hidden. It also provoked the Einstein conjecture that space was warped by gravity.

Now, you see what you made me do to just square away just one of your misconceptions.

Understand, and try to accept it, the Sun's gravitation is the cause of about everything we know of in this Solar System. The greatest is near the surface and it diminishes as you leave the Sun's surface in accordance with the inverse square rule. The Earth due to its location is withing a certain degree of gravitational force, or "density", which is less than Mercury and more than Nars (deciphered as Mars).

There is no "gulf" in the thinking I offer. You simply do not see the point. You are welcome to that view- I hope you do not have many mouths to feed.
jjw

#11806 09/14/06 02:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
please read for comprehension this time. i said the line between the star and the observer passes near the sun, not that the star itself is near the sun.

back to basic.

the earth revolves around the sun. the stars are in basic (in short term useage) non moving. therefore the stars appear to occasionally be in the night sky. This is because the earth is between the sun and that star.

some times the sun is between the earth and that star. as the earth continues to move, the star appears to be near the sun.

is this simple enough for you to understand.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5