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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478850 > unrolled thread

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light,"

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

Contents

  "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 09:59 +0000
    Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:26 +0000
      Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:14 +0000
        Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 10:17 -0800
    Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 13:32 -0800
    Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-04 10:12 +1100
      Re: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 15:05 +0000

#478850 — "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light,"

 > On 29/11/2018 10:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:
 >> "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his 
theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is 
constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at 
the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 
300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per 
second. The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the 
seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is 
built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. 
[...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed 
of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been 
woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations 
are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed 
of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the 
vocabulary of physics." 
https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.


 >> "The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at 
Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light. 
The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how 
Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory 
in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is 
constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of 
light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying 
speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a 
language without vowels."  http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
 >>
 >> "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of 
light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and 
pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we 
had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole 
thing too much." 
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed
 >
 >
 > Excellent post Pentcho.
 >
 >   The "Constancy of the Speed of Light".
 > Only 'crackpots' doubt that eh!
 >
 > keith stein



Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

keith stein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#478861

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
>Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
>occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
>will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,

Increasing blue shift. As the waves slow down, there is less distance
traveled so the distance between peaks (wavelength) decreases. Decreasing
wavelength is a blueshift.

<killfile this thread, as it is a repost of a Valev regurgitation>

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

#478866

On 03/12/2018 14:26, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> 
> Increasing blue shift. As the waves slow down, there is less distance
> traveled so the distance between peaks (wavelength) decreases. Decreasing
> wavelength is a blueshift.

At first sight that looks like a good argument, Michael, so let me 
explain eh!

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

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

#478900

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:14:45 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 03/12/2018 14:26, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> >> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> >> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> > 
> > Increasing blue shift. As the waves slow down, there is less distance
> > traveled so the distance between peaks (wavelength) decreases. Decreasing
> > wavelength is a blueshift.
> 
> At first sight that looks like a good argument, Michael, so let me 
> explain eh!
> 
> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> 
> good question!
> 
> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> it travels through intergalactic space.
> 
> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> was higher than it is now.
> 
> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> 
> keith stein

You've got it backward. Light accelerates...
Universal expansion expands propagating light wavelength.
Lower frequency; lower light energy...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#478937

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:59:24 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 29/11/2018 10:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>  >> "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his 
> theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is 
> constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at 
> the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 
> 300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per 
> second.

This is a false statement, BTW. You can't even correctly state what
relativity actually uses.

> The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the 
> seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is 
> built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured.

Yes, and it will remain so forever, even if shown incorrect in the future,
just like Newton's mechanics will stay forever after having been shown
incorrect, just like Maxwell's electrodynamics will stay forever after having 
been shown incorrect, just like Schroedinger's equation will stay forever
after having been shown incorrect.

Learn to live with it. Nobody will wait for you to catch up.

--
Jan

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

#478961

On 3/12/2018 8:59 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> 
>  > On 29/11/2018 10:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>  >> "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his 
> theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is 
> constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at 
> the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 
> 300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per 
> second. The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the 
> seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is 
> built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. 
> [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed 
> of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been 
> woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations 
> are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed 
> of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the 
> vocabulary of physics." 
> https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
> 
> On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> 
>  >> "The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at 
> Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light. 
> The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how 
> Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory 
> in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is 
> constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of 
> light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying 
> speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a 
> language without vowels."  http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
>  >>
>  >> "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of 
> light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and 
> pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we 
> had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole 
> thing too much." 
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed
>  >
>  >
>  > Excellent post Pentcho.
>  >
>  >   The "Constancy of the Speed of Light".
>  > Only 'crackpots' doubt that eh!
>  >
>  > keith stein
> 
> 
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> 
>      K ~= 10^-10 /year
>      t = time in years
> 
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> 
>                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> 
> which substituted in (3) gives:
> 
>              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> 
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> 
> So for t << 1/H we have:
> 
>              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> 
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> 
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
> 
> Conclusions:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> ********************************************************************
> 
> keith stein

You need a model of space-time to interpret the possible consequences of 
a changing speed of light. However, the model we have involves a 
constant speed of light.

You seem to be working with some other model, but you haven't stated 
what it is.

Sylvia.

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

#479113

On 03/12/2018 23:12, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 3/12/2018 8:59 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>  > On 29/11/2018 10:28, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>  >> "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his 
>> theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is 
>> constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at 
>> the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 
>> 300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per 
>> second. The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the 
>> seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory 
>> is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is 
>> measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was 
>> the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of 
>> light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way 
>> physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, 
>> to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply 
>> not present in the vocabulary of physics." 
>> https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>>
>> On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>
>>
>>  >> "The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at 
>> Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light. 
>> The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how 
>> Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other 
>> theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of 
>> light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant 
>> speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a 
>> varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like 
>> proposing a language without vowels."  
>> http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
>>  >>
>>  >> "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed 
>> of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and 
>> pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So 
>> we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the 
>> whole thing too much." 
>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Excellent post Pentcho.
>>  >
>>  >   The "Constancy of the Speed of Light".
>>  > Only 'crackpots' doubt that eh!
>>  >
>>  > keith stein
>>
>>
>>
>> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>
>>      K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>      t = time in years
>>
>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>
>>                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
>> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>>
>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>
>>              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>
>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>
>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>
>>              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>
>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>
>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> You need a model of space-time to interpret the possible consequences of 
> a changing speed of light. However, the model we have involves a 
> constant speed of light.
> 
> You seem to be working with some other model, but you haven't stated 
> what it is.


I think you understand very well the difference between an expanding
universe and a static universe in which the speed of light slows down,
Sylvia.  Conceptually they are very different i think.

However i do understand that if one *defines* the speed of light as
constant, then one will indeed  be forced to interpret a reduction
in the speed of light as an expansion of space, and indeed it is
my belief that is the mistake made by our current Big Bang Cosmology.

keith stein









> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web