Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #451431 > unrolled thread

Light Slowing Down

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Light Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 16:31 +0000
    Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-04 18:08 +0100
      Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-03-05 19:08 +1100
        Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 11:58 +0100
          Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-06 08:22 +1100
            Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 22:51 +0100
              Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-06 19:08 +1100
                Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-06 11:57 +0100
                  Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-06 23:01 +1100
                    Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-06 13:56 +0100
                      Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-03-07 13:54 +1100
                        Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 06:57 +0100
                          Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-07 17:19 +1100
        Re: Light Slowing Down Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:52 -0500
          Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-12 02:24 +0100
    Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-03-05 19:06 +1100
      Re: Light Slowing Down Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 12:39 +0100
        Re: Light Slowing Down mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 05:38 -0800
          Re: Light Slowing Down mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 12:12 -0800
        Re: Light Slowing Down mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 17:33 -0800
      Re: Light Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:18 +0000
        Re: Light Slowing Down SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-03-06 08:34 +1100
          Re: Light Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 21:53 +0000
    Re: Light Slowing Down mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 12:39 -0800
    Re: Light Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 08:59 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#451431 — Light Slowing Down

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is 
10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a 
whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly 
10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be 
alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to 
reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been 
holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 
10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly 
10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.

Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because 
the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer 
on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the 
same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss 
any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. 
This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well 
with what is found in practice.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#451435

Keith Stein wrote:

> [The same nonsense as refuted before]

,-<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>
| 
| The Crackpot Index
| 
| John Baez
| 
| A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to 
| physics:
| 
|  1. A -5 point starting credit.

> […] assume that i am on a galaxy which is 10,000,000,000 light years from
> the earth. […] i shine this laser at you for a whole year. The front of
> this laser beam will take exactly 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Earth […] If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 10 billion
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> per year […]

|  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
| […]
|  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful 
|     correction.
|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
|     of a widely accepted real experiment.

> […] the number of waves sent […]
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly 
|     defining it.

> the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1

|  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful 
|     correction.

> and corresponds reasonably well with what is found in practice.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects#Notably_distant_objects>
| 
| […]
| LAE J095950.99+021219.1  z=6.944  13.03 Gly [light-travel distance] Galaxy

|  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
| […]
|  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful 
|     correction.
|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
|     of a widely accepted real experiment.

Total: 32.  Congratulations :->


F’up2 where it belongs

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451514

On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.

Please which experiment is this?

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451520

SolomonW wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
> 
> Please which experiment is this?

I don’t know, how about *all*?

<https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451586

On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:58:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 
>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
>>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>> 
>> Please which experiment is this?
> 
> I don’t know, how about *all*?
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
> 
> 
> PointedEars

What a shame I was hoping for a paper showing such an experiment.Something
real.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451597

SolomonW wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:58:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
>>>>|  results
>>>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>>> Please which experiment is this?
>> I don’t know, how about *all*?
>> 
>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
> 
> What a shame I was hoping for a paper showing such an experiment.Something
> real.

You *really* need to learn how to *read*.  Details of the research can be 
found under “Advanced Information”, also information about this is all over 
the Net.

On the other hand, Bayes’ theorem suggests that it is unlikely that you 
would understand the paper, and if surprisingly you did to some extent,
that it is probable that you would deny its findings anyway.

So, what’s the point?


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451671

On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 22:51:17 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:58:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
>>>>>|  results
>>>>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>>>> Please which experiment is this?
>>> I don’t know, how about *all*?
>>> 
>>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
>> 
>> What a shame I was hoping for a paper showing such an experiment.Something
>> real.
> 
> You *really* need to learn how to *read*.  Details of the research can be 
> found under “Advanced Information”, also information about this is all over 
> the Net.
> 
> On the other hand, Bayes’ theorem suggests that it is unlikely that you 
> would understand the paper, and if surprisingly you did to some extent,
> that it is probable that you would deny its findings anyway.
> 
> So, what’s the point?
> 
> 
> PointedEars

Here is the advanced section

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf

Now where is the proof that C is a constant?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451679

SolomonW wrote:
^^^^^^^^
It is considered polite here to post under one’s real name.

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 22:51:17 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:58:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
>>>>>>|  results
>>>>>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>>>>> Please which experiment is this?
>>>> I don’t know, how about *all*?
>>>> 
>>>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
>>> 
>>> What a shame I was hoping for a paper showing such an
>>> experiment.Something real.
>> 
>> You *really* need to learn how to *read*.  Details of the research can be
>> found under “Advanced Information”, also information about this is all
>> over the Net.
>> 
>> On the other hand, Bayes’ theorem suggests that it is unlikely that you
>> would understand the paper, and if surprisingly you did to some extent,
>> that it is probable that you would deny its findings anyway.
>> 
>> So, what’s the point?
> 
> Here is the advanced section
> 
> https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf
> 
> Now where is the proof that C is a constant?

Ah, *that* is your problem?

    [Sadly, you are still not paying attention.

     The symbol used for the speed of light nowadays is a *lowercase* “c”.
     The capital “C” is the symbol for the unit of the charge, the coulomb,
     instead.

     You are still looking for proof in the natural sciences, but you will
     only be able to find *confirmation* of *models* proposed by 
     *theories*.]

If you are looking for direct confirmation, you will have to look elsewhere.  
You see, the work is a *scientific* one, so its conclusions are based on the 
assumption of local light speed constancy¹.  It is *implied*, as you can see 
in phrases like

  · “6 billion light years”;
  · “we have set the velocity of light to unity (c = 1)”;
  · “It is straightforward to measure the wavelength of light
    (e.g. from a given atomic spectral line) that a distant object emits”;
  · “a distance of 160 000 light years”;
  · “The very successful Standard Model for Particle Physics”;
  · “relativistic quantum physics”, and
  · “the velocity of light, c”.

The assumption of local light speed constancy is not really debated in 
science anymore (beyond crackpot circles) because all experiments in the 
past 300+ years have confirmed it without a reasonable doubt.  And AISB 
often, if it were fundamentally wrong, you would not be here: *beyond* 
experiments, it turns out that local light speed constancy is essential to 
processes in nature, and to how modern technology works.  Thus it is 
accepted as scientific truth since *at least* 1983 (35 years ago).

See also the BIPM resolution on the metre definition of 1983, and the recent 
discussions here about it, for details.


HTH

PointedEars
___________
¹  As you can read in Davis & Lineweaver 2003: “The speed of photons
   relative to us (the slope of the light cone) is not constant, but is
   rather v_{rec} − c. Photons we receive that were emitted by objects
   beyond the Hubble sphere were initially receding from us (outward
   sloping lightcone at t ≲ 5 Gyr). Only when they passed from the
   region of superluminal recession v_{rec} > c (gray crosshatching)
   to the region of subluminal recession (no shading) can the photons
   approach us”.  [Speeds away from the observer have a positive
   sign, speeds towards the observer a negative sign, by convention.]
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451680

On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:57:20 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^
> It is considered polite here to post under one’s real name.
> 
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 22:51:17 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:58:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
>>>>>>>|  results
>>>>>>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>>>>>> Please which experiment is this?
>>>>> I don’t know, how about *all*?
>>>>> 
>>>>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
>>>> 
>>>> What a shame I was hoping for a paper showing such an
>>>> experiment.Something real.
>>> 
>>> You *really* need to learn how to *read*.  Details of the research can be
>>> found under “Advanced Information”, also information about this is all
>>> over the Net.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, Bayes’ theorem suggests that it is unlikely that you
>>> would understand the paper, and if surprisingly you did to some extent,
>>> that it is probable that you would deny its findings anyway.
>>> 
>>> So, what’s the point?
>> 
>> Here is the advanced section
>> 
>> https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf
>> 
>> Now where is the proof that C is a constant?
> 
> Ah, *that* is your problem?
> 
>     [Sadly, you are still not paying attention.
> 
>      The symbol used for the speed of light nowadays is a *lowercase* “c”.
>      The capital “C” is the symbol for the unit of the charge, the coulomb,
>      instead.
> 
>      You are still looking for proof in the natural sciences, but you will
>      only be able to find *confirmation* of *models* proposed by 
>      *theories*.]
> 
> If you are looking for direct confirmation, you will have to look elsewhere.  
> You see, the work is a *scientific* one, so its conclusions are based on the 
> assumption of local light speed constancy¹.  It is *implied*, as you can see 
> in phrases like
> 
>   · “6 billion light years”;
>   · “we have set the velocity of light to unity (c = 1)”;
>   · “It is straightforward to measure the wavelength of light
>     (e.g. from a given atomic spectral line) that a distant object emits”;
>   · “a distance of 160 000 light years”;
>   · “The very successful Standard Model for Particle Physics”;
>   · “relativistic quantum physics”, and
>   · “the velocity of light, c”.
> 
> The assumption of local light speed constancy is not really debated in 
> science anymore (beyond crackpot circles) because all experiments in the 
> past 300+ years have confirmed it without a reasonable doubt.  And AISB 
> often, if it were fundamentally wrong, you would not be here: *beyond* 
> experiments, it turns out that local light speed constancy is essential to 
> processes in nature, and to how modern technology works.  Thus it is 
> accepted as scientific truth since *at least* 1983 (35 years ago).
> 
> See also the BIPM resolution on the metre definition of 1983, and the recent 
> discussions here about it, for details.
> 
> 
> HTH
> 
> PointedEars
> ___________
> ¹  As you can read in Davis & Lineweaver 2003: “The speed of photons
>    relative to us (the slope of the light cone) is not constant, but is
>    rather v_{rec} − c. Photons we receive that were emitted by objects
>    beyond the Hubble sphere were initially receding from us (outward
>    sloping lightcone at t ≲ 5 Gyr). Only when they passed from the
>    region of superluminal recession v_{rec} > c (gray crosshatching)
>    to the region of subluminal recession (no shading) can the photons
>    approach us”.  [Speeds away from the observer have a positive
>    sign, speeds towards the observer a negative sign, by convention.]


Here are two papers, that argue otherwise

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732389002471

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9211020

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451681

SolomonW wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:57:20 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> […]
>> The assumption of local light speed constancy[¹] is not really debated in
>> science anymore (beyond crackpot circles) because all experiments in the
>> past 300+ years have confirmed it without a reasonable doubt.  And AISB
>> often, if it were fundamentally wrong, you would not be here: *beyond*
>> experiments, it turns out that local light speed constancy is essential
>> to processes in nature, and to how modern technology works.  Thus it is
>> accepted as scientific truth since *at least* 1983 (35 years ago).
>> 
>> See also the BIPM resolution on the metre definition of 1983, and the
>> recent discussions here about it, for details.
>> […]
>> ___________
>> ¹  As you can read in Davis & Lineweaver 2003: “The speed of photons
>>    relative to us (the slope of the light cone) is not constant, but is
>>    rather v_{rec} − c. Photons we receive that were emitted by objects
>>    beyond the Hubble sphere were initially receding from us (outward
>>    sloping lightcone at t ≲ 5 Gyr). Only when they passed from the
>>    region of superluminal recession v_{rec} > c (gray crosshatching)
>>    to the region of subluminal recession (no shading) can the photons
>>    approach us”.  [Speeds away from the observer have a positive
>>    sign, speeds towards the observer a negative sign, by convention.] 
> 
> Here are two papers, that argue otherwise

Otherwise than *what*, full-quoting idiot?
 
> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732389002471

Of 1989.  Disproved by COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc.

> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9211020

Of 1992/1998.  Also, it does say already in the abstract: “After the
critical time t_c, local Lorentz (and diffeomorphism) invariance is
restored and light travels at its presently measured speed.”

You really need to read beyond the title and the first sentence.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451774

On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:56:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:57:20 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> […]
>>> The assumption of local light speed constancy[¹] is not really debated in
>>> science anymore (beyond crackpot circles) because all experiments in the
>>> past 300+ years have confirmed it without a reasonable doubt.  And AISB
>>> often, if it were fundamentally wrong, you would not be here: *beyond*
>>> experiments, it turns out that local light speed constancy is essential
>>> to processes in nature, and to how modern technology works.  Thus it is
>>> accepted as scientific truth since *at least* 1983 (35 years ago).
>>> 
>>> See also the BIPM resolution on the metre definition of 1983, and the
>>> recent discussions here about it, for details.
>>> […]
>>> ___________
>>> ¹  As you can read in Davis & Lineweaver 2003: “The speed of photons
>>>    relative to us (the slope of the light cone) is not constant, but is
>>>    rather v_{rec} − c. Photons we receive that were emitted by objects
>>>    beyond the Hubble sphere were initially receding from us (outward
>>>    sloping lightcone at t ≲ 5 Gyr). Only when they passed from the
>>>    region of superluminal recession v_{rec} > c (gray crosshatching)
>>>    to the region of subluminal recession (no shading) can the photons
>>>    approach us”.  [Speeds away from the observer have a positive
>>>    sign, speeds towards the observer a negative sign, by convention.] 
>> 
>> Here are two papers, that argue otherwise
> 
> Otherwise than *what*, full-quoting idiot?
>  
>> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732389002471
> 
> Of 1989.  Disproved by COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc.


How?

> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9211020
> 
> Of 1992/1998.  Also, it does say already in the abstract: “After the
> critical time t_c, local Lorentz (and diffeomorphism) invariance is
> restored and light travels at its presently measured speed.”
> 
> You really need to read beyond the title and the first sentence.
> 
> 
> PointedEars

So do we agree that VSL might have occured then?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451786

SolomonW wrote:
^^^^^^^^
I will ignore further postings from you if you keep posting pseudonymously, 
impolitely.

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:56:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Otherwise than *what*, full-quoting idiot?

One would have thought that this line would already have been strong enough 
indication to you that something in your quoting style is very wrong.
  
>>> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732389002471
>> Of 1989.  Disproved by COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc.
> 
> How?

tl;dr: Observational results have either disproved older VSL theories or 
made them obsolete.

The cited paper, received by MPLA for publication in 1989-07, is titled 
“Gauge Cosmological Model with Variable Light Velocity: III.: Comparison 
with QSO Observational Data”.  It is one in a series of papers that proposes 
an alternative cosmology based on alternative laws of physics, that are 
shown to be in good agreement with *one* survey of radio quasars by 
(probably only) *one* *terrestrial* observatory (Marseille Observatory, 
where Petit and Viton were working at the time).

It can be read for free at

<https://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/modern_physics_letters_a3.pdf>

However, the measurements made by the mentioned *space* missions that 
surveyed *the whole sky* (COBE launched: 1989-11; results published: COBE 
1998; WMAP 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012; Planck: 2013, 2015), and other 
observations, including those for which the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was 
awarded (1998), all confirm, with increasing precision, the now-standard 
ΛCDM model (established as such in 1998 based on the latter observations – 
which was the reason for awarding the Prize to those making them).

>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9211020
>> Of 1992/1998.  Also, it does say already in the abstract: “After the
>> critical time t_c, local Lorentz (and diffeomorphism) invariance is
>> restored and light travels at its presently measured speed.”
>> 
>> You really need to read beyond the title and the first sentence.
>> […]
> 
> So do we agree that VSL might have occured then?

No.  (Have you even read the paper[s] that you cited to support your 
opinion?)

Cosmic inflation has been confirmed by all CMB observations since WMAP, 
especially by that of the Planck Collaboration’s results in 2013 and 2015.  
So neither Petit/Viton’s 1989 nor Moffat’s 1992/1998 model etc. is required 
to solve the horizon and homogeneity problems.

    [And while I would categorize Petit/Viton’s as a VSL model – they give
     c ≈ 1∕√R(t), with R(t) the time-dependent scale factor – I would not do
     so with Moffat’s: to me, there is nothing “variable” in a quantity that
     from one instant (t = t_c) to the next (t > t_c) conveniently jumps
     from one larger constant value (to solve the horizon problem) to the
     constant value that we are measuring now.]


Learn to quote.  Signatures of any kind are *also* _not_ to be quoted, 
unless *explicitly* referred to.  Further negligence in that regard will 
also cause your postings to be ignored by me as by that you would continue 
to waste *my* resources to *your* advantage.  You have been warned.

<https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>


PointedEars
-- 
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

  —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451788

On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:57:33 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^
> I will ignore further postings from you if you keep posting pseudonymously, 
> impolitely.
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:56:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Otherwise than *what*, full-quoting idiot?
> 
> One would have thought that this line would already have been strong enough 
> indication to you that something in your quoting style is very wrong.
>   
>>>> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732389002471
>>> Of 1989.  Disproved by COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc.
>> 
>> How?
> 
> tl;dr: Observational results have either disproved older VSL theories or 
> made them obsolete.
> 
> The cited paper, received by MPLA for publication in 1989-07, is titled 
> “Gauge Cosmological Model with Variable Light Velocity: III.: Comparison 
> with QSO Observational Data”.  It is one in a series of papers that proposes 
> an alternative cosmology based on alternative laws of physics, that are 
> shown to be in good agreement with *one* survey of radio quasars by 
> (probably only) *one* *terrestrial* observatory (Marseille Observatory, 
> where Petit and Viton were working at the time).
> 
> It can be read for free at
> 
> <https://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/modern_physics_letters_a3.pdf>
> 
> However, the measurements made by the mentioned *space* missions that 
> surveyed *the whole sky* (COBE launched: 1989-11; results published: COBE 
> 1998; WMAP 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012; Planck: 2013, 2015), and other 
> observations, including those for which the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was 
> awarded (1998), all confirm, with increasing precision, the now-standard 
> ΛCDM model (established as such in 1998 based on the latter observations – 
> which was the reason for awarding the Prize to those making them).


But the same obersations can be explained with VSL.


> 
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9211020
>>> Of 1992/1998.  Also, it does say already in the abstract: “After the
>>> critical time t_c, local Lorentz (and diffeomorphism) invariance is
>>> restored and light travels at its presently measured speed.”
>>> 
>>> You really need to read beyond the title and the first sentence.
>>> […]
>> 
>> So do we agree that VSL might have occured then?
> 
> No.  (Have you even read the paper[s] that you cited to support your 
> opinion?)
> 
> Cosmic inflation has been confirmed by all CMB observations since WMAP, 
> especially by that of the Planck Collaboration’s results in 2013 and 2015.  
> So neither Petit/Viton’s 1989 nor Moffat’s 1992/1998 model etc. is required 
> to solve the horizon and homogeneity problems.
> 
>     [And while I would categorize Petit/Viton’s as a VSL model – they give
>      c ≈ 1∕√R(t), with R(t) the time-dependent scale factor – I would not do
>      so with Moffat’s: to me, there is nothing “variable” in a quantity that
>      from one instant (t = t_c) to the next (t > t_c) conveniently jumps
>      from one larger constant value (to solve the horizon problem) to the
>      constant value that we are measuring now.]
> 


As above since distance is measured by C x time here.

Here is a more recent article.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03312.pdf

What is really interesting here is that VSL can produce a testable
prediction which is something cosmic inflation, has never done.So we may
soon get an answer on this question.

> 
> Learn to quote.  Signatures of any kind are *also* _not_ to be quoted, 
> unless *explicitly* referred to.  Further negligence in that regard will 
> also cause your postings to be ignored by me as by that you would continue 
> to waste *my* resources to *your* advantage.  You have been warned.
> 
> <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
> 
> 
> PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452329

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 19:08:22 +1100, SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au>
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
>>|     of a widely accepted real experiment.
>
>Please which experiment is this?

No actual experiment.  This is one of the criteria for inclusion on the
Crackpot Index.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452393

Lofty Goat wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 19:08:22 +1100, SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au>
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:08:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>>>|  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
>>>|     results of a widely accepted real experiment.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Please which experiment is this?
> 
> No actual experiment.  This is one of the criteria for inclusion on the
> Crackpot Index.

The question is valid, and you have misunderstood it.  As a result, the 
first part of your answer is wrong.

Get a real name.
 

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451513

On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 16:31:06 +0000, Keith Stein wrote:

> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is 
> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a 
> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly 
> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be 
> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to 
> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been 
> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 
> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly 
> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> 
> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because 
> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer 
> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the 
> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss 
> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. 
> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well 
> with what is found in practice.

At the moment, the slowing down of light is yet to be proven but the result
is the same in the mainstream view which holds that space is expanding, so
your rear end will take a bit longer to arrive because it is traveling a
bit further.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451521

SolomonW wrote:

> At the moment, the slowing down of light is yet to be proven

Things are not proven in the natural sciences like (astro)physics/cosmology.  
Theories are confirmed or falsified through experiment/observation.  
Probably someone has told you this before.

> but the result is the same in the mainstream view

No, it is not.  All “tired light” theories have been falsified by 
observation time and time again (1979, 1987, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006,
2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015).  AISB (with references).


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451524

On Monday, 5 March 2018 12:39:14 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:

> Things are not proven in the natural sciences like (astro)physics/cosmology.  
> Theories are confirmed or falsified through experiment/observation.  
> Probably someone has told you this before.

And you better believe, or the idiot that invented
it will get VERY angry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451577

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 5:38:13 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> On Monday, 5 March 2018 12:39:14 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> 
> > Things are not proven in the natural sciences like (astro)physics/cosmology.  
> > Theories are confirmed or falsified through experiment/observation.  
> > Probably someone has told you this before.
> 
> And you better believe, or the idiot that invented
> it will get VERY angry.

Where is he?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451650

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:39:14 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
> 
> > At the moment, the slowing down of light is yet to be proven
> 
> Things are not proven in the natural sciences like (astro)physics/cosmology.  
> Theories are confirmed or falsified through experiment/observation.  

There can be look alike orders. We can get the same result by appearance.
Especially when theories are based on statistics. We have not made any theory
work undisputable all of the way yet... be prepared to go on.

Mitchell Raemsch

> Probably someone has told you this before.
> 
> > but the result is the same in the mainstream view
> 
> No, it is not.  All “tired light” theories have been falsified by 
> observation time and time again (1979, 1987, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2006,
> 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015).  AISB (with references).
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web