Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

[Platte]

Skepticism is healthy but the poster in question has made it perfectly clear he is not interested in the responses given and has used this thread as a veiled support for YEC because science apparently cannot address the issue of one way speed of light which is more of a philosophical question.
AIG frequently uses this tactic of whatever science doesn't know automatically defaults to a support for a 6000 year old Earth which is a logical fallacy.
I have no issues in you believing in the scriptures over the science, believe or not I happen to be a Christian myself, but unfortunately there are some here that are so anti-science they see it as an attack on their faith and the root of all evil.

Btw I was not using it as evidence of YEC. I’ve never made claims to that. What I said was a common argument against creation 6000 years ago is science guy say the distance stars are from earth and how long it would take for the light to reach us. My ONLY point was that’s not a valid argument against Creation since that has not been tested and is an assumption. That’s all I was saying. I’m not saying light is any different speed. I’m just saying it has not been proven to be used as a fact.

 

[Aldebaran]

PLEASE TRY TO AVOID MAKING PERSONALLY FLAMING POSTS
THANK YOU!​

 

[sjastro]

View attachment 352388

PLEASE TRY TO AVOID MAKING PERSONALLY FLAMING POSTS
THANK YOU!​

So why is the offending post which I reported still there?
Do I need to report the post again to get it removed?

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, since there have been no more posts in this thread for a while, I'm going to talk about something that I've been thinking about for a while that kind of goes along with the main topic of the OP, and what has been being discussed so far in this thread, and see if it will go on further, etc.

So, I think we have established that time only slows down for the thing, or things, that are in motion so far in this thread, I think anyway, etc. And that time for everything else does not change so far for everything else so far, in this thread etc.

But about whatever is in motion, how does time slow down for it, and only it, etc?

Say it was people on a ship, etc. And let's say it is at 86% the speed of light, which slows down time for it by 50% I think we have established so far in this thread.

So, how does that happen? Does it just slow down for the people? The whole ship? Anything outside of the ship, etc? Or does it slow down time for only for the particles that have mass that are in that motion, etc?

I think in reality, it is the latter, or that time slows down for all the particles that have mass that are in motion, etc. Or that it happens always on that level always, etc. And that everything else, or all particles that are not it, or is not invloved in that motion, is pretty much unaffected, etc.

Now, if say, it was a ship, etc, would that mean you'd have to increase the thrust of the engines to go faster, or maintain current speed? If it literally slows down all the particles, then would more energy need to be applied to keep them going, and/or in motion? And if so, wouldn't it eventually need to be infinite, according to Einstein’s theories?

What do you think about all of this?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And if so, wouldn't it eventually need to be infinite, according to Einstein’s theories?

I've wondered about all of that "infinite mass/infinite energy/time completely stopping at the speed of light" theory, etc, and wonder if Einstein didn't already solve it with his famous/infamous "total energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" equation, etc?

What if the mass, or energy required to continue to accelerate mass at or very near the speed of light, or time slowing down or completely stopping in or at or very near the speed of light, etc, is all only at "times the speed of light squared" at the speed of light, and is not truly infinite, etc? Astronomical increase maybe, but not truly infinite, etc.

I've thought about this for a while now, but don't know if it's correct, and it might not be correct at all, but I also wanted to know what the rest of you might think, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I was also wondering if anyone had any comments about my post #135 also?

God Bless.

 

[KevinT]

But about whatever is in motion, how does time slow down for it, and only it, etc? ... So, how does that happen? Does it just slow down for the people? The whole ship? Anything outside of the ship, etc? Or does it slow down time for only for the particles that have mass that are in that motion, etc?

I think in reality, it is the latter, or that time slows down for all the particles that have mass that are in motion, etc. Or that it happens always on that level always, etc. And that everything else, or all particles that are not it, or is not invloved in that motion, is pretty much unaffected, etc.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is the one being worked on by Stephen Wolfram, with extensions by me.

Think about Conway's game of life, which is a 2D grid of pixels in which figures can be propagated across the screen. Each pixel follows some very simple rules, but when the entire system runs, it produces amazing results. Now extend and expand this model such that it fills the entire universe, and each "pixel" is the smallest possible element comprising the quantum fields. All matter in motion is really a wave of excitation (energy) moving through one of the quantum fields.

Wolfram disagrees with the bundling of time with space into "spacetime". He thinks this was a mathematically convenient technique introduced before Einstein, but that it doesn't accurately describe reality. "Space" is the ability of something to move between the "pixels" of the quantum fields. He calls the "pixels" and the connections between them to be a "graph". Time, on the other hand, is something completely different. It is result of the computational power of the graph itself, applying the rules at each node (pixel) of the graph.

And to get to your question about motion and time, Wolfram says that mathematically, each node can either pass on a signal to the next node, or it can apply the computational changes that allows, for example, a radioactive atom 'decide' or not if it is going to decay into daughter products. So time progression OR motion OR a combination of the two in a way that satisfies Einstein's equations of relativity.

Now, if say, it was a ship, etc, would that mean you'd have to increase the thrust of the engines to go faster, or maintain current speed? If it literally slows down all the particles, then would more energy need to be applied to keep them going, and/or in motion? And if so, wouldn't it eventually need to be infinite, according to Einstein’s theories?

I'm not completely following you here. A spaceship out in space does not have to have thrust to maintain current speed. It will continue to coast for every until it encounters something to slow itself down. From the view of the captain in the spaceship, he can continue to apply thrust as long as he has fuel. He will think he is going every faster and faster, with no apparent speed limits. But from the view of the planets that he is zipping by, it will seem that he is simply approaching the speed of light, and all the figures on the ship seem to be moving in slow motion.

What do you think about all of this?

Take Care/God Bless.

This stuff is a lifelong interest of mine. The universe that God has made is mind blowing!

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm not completely following you here. A spaceship out in space does not have to have thrust to maintain current speed. It will continue to coast for every until it encounters something to slow itself down. From the view of the captain in the spaceship, he can continue to apply thrust as long as he has fuel. He will think he is going every faster and faster, with no apparent speed limits. But from the view of the planets that he is zipping by, it will seem that he is simply approaching the speed of light, and all the figures on the ship seem to be moving in slow motion.

I am wondering that if time slows down for the ship, if it will also slow down his motion, or speed, requiring him to maybe apply more thrust in order to keep or maintain that speed or continue to accelerate through space?

This stuff is a lifelong interest of mine. The universe that God has made is mind blowing!

Best wishes,

Kevin

Myself as well.

God Bless.

 

[KevinT]

I am wondering that if time slows down for the ship, if it will also slow down his motion, or speed, requiring him to maybe apply more thrust in order to keep or maintain that speed or continue to accelerate through space?

As the ship gets faster, and that motion "interferes" with the usual ability of the ship's atoms to act like 'stationary' atoms, and instead become sluggish atoms, the ship will need energy to continue to accelerate. From the perspective of the planets watching the ship zip by, outsiders might see the ship appearing to burn through 1 unit of fuel every planet-based second. But as the captain of the ship sees it, the time is different. ....

Actually, as I write this, I'm carried back to my college physics class on relativity, and I remember the frustration of trying to get everything straight and to account for the different frames of reference. So I'm going to bail out of trying to come up with an exact illustration -- for fear that I will get the details wrong and cause confusion. I remember that I actually didn't believe relativity was real for awhile, and thought that it was all just an optical illusion. This was especially true for the paradox where a car is both too long and too short to fit into a barn with front and back doors at are opened and closed at key times. But I then learned that atomic clocks, which are famously accurate, have been taken up in planes (see details here) and flown around the world, only to be found to be "off" when brought back to home base. I realized that this is a real effect of the universe we live in.

KT

 

[Hans Blaster]

The theory that makes the most sense to me is the one being worked on by Stephen Wolfram, with extensions by me.

Think about Conway's game of life, which is a 2D grid of pixels in which figures can be propagated across the screen. Each pixel follows some very simple rules, but when the entire system runs, it produces amazing results. Now extend and expand this model such that it fills the entire universe, and each "pixel" is the smallest possible element comprising the quantum fields. All matter in motion is really a wave of excitation (energy) moving through one of the quantum fields.

What's that got to do with reality?

Wolfram disagrees with the bundling of time with space into "spacetime". He thinks this was a mathematically convenient technique introduced before Einstein, but that it doesn't accurately describe reality. "Space" is the ability of something to move between the "pixels" of the quantum fields. He calls the "pixels" and the connections between them to be a "graph". Time, on the other hand, is something completely different. It is result of the computational power of the graph itself, applying the rules at each node (pixel) of the graph.

So he's some sort of physics crank, then?

And to get to your question about motion and time, Wolfram says that mathematically, each node can either pass on a signal to the next node, or it can apply the computational changes that allows, for example, a radioactive atom 'decide' or not if it is going to decay into daughter products. So time progression OR motion OR a combination of the two in a way that satisfies Einstein's equations of relativity.

Oh, good grief.

I'm not completely following you here. A spaceship out in space does not have to have thrust to maintain current speed. It will continue to coast for every until it encounters something to slow itself down. From the view of the captain in the spaceship, he can continue to apply thrust as long as he has fuel. He will think he is going every faster and faster, with no apparent speed limits. But from the view of the planets that he is zipping by, it will seem that he is simply approaching the speed of light, and all the figures on the ship seem to be moving in slow motion.

We have actual physics that explains these things. No need for Mr. Wolfram to make stuff up.

This stuff is a lifelong interest of mine. The universe that God has made is mind blowing!

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[sjastro]

I've wondered about all of that "infinite mass/infinite energy/time completely stopping at the speed of light" theory, etc, and wonder if Einstein didn't already solve it with his famous/infamous "total energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" equation, etc?

What if the mass, or energy required to continue to accelerate mass at or very near the speed of light, or time slowing down or completely stopping in or at or very near the speed of light, etc, is all only at "times the speed of light squared" at the speed of light, and is not truly infinite, etc? Astronomical increase maybe, but not truly infinite, etc.

I've thought about this for a while now, but don't know if it's correct, and it might not be correct at all, but I also wanted to know what the rest of you might think, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.

This has been discussed in the past.
While most people have heard of Einstein's "famous/infamous "total energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" equation" only a small percentage of the population are aware of the complete equation.

mₒ is the rest mass and as v → c, E → ∞ (as velocity v approaches the the speed of light , the energy E approaches infinity).
We don't need spaceships, particle accelerators confirm particles with mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light let alone exceed it.

​

There is the law of diminishing returns as particle accelerators become increasing more powerful, the gains in particle speed progressively decrease.
The LHC can accelerate protons up to 99.9999991% of the speed of light c.

 

[Neogaia777]

The LHC can accelerate protons up to 99.9999991% of the speed of light c.

What happens/happened to it's mass? Did it ever become infinite yet? Or did it exceed "times the speed of light squared" yet?

I also have the same questions about time slowing down for it, and the energy required to propel it, or keeping it sustained at the speed/rate at which it is being propelled, etc?

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

We don't need spaceships, particle accelerators confirm particles with mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light let alone exceed it.

I'm not really talking about exceeding it right now, but was just wondering if anyone for sure can confirm it's (the effects we are talking about here @ c) are truly infinite yet?

Have we been able to for sure confirm that with anything yet, etc?

Or I would at least like to know if those effects have exceeded times the speed of light squared yet in anything we have been able to confirm yet, etc?

Or if they have maybe come very close to it in anything we have been able to confirm yet maybe, etc?

Take Care.

 

[sjastro]

What happens/happened to it's mass? Did it ever become infinite yet? Or did it exceed "times the speed of light squared" yet?

I also have the same questions about time slowing down for it, and the energy required to propel it, or keeping it sustained at the speed/rate at which it is being propelled, etc?

Take Care.

The issue is about the momentum p =MV.

Does the relativistic mass M increase with velocity?

Or is it the relativistic velocity V which increases?

Using particle accelerators as the evidence the modern consensus is the relativistic effects apply to velocity and not mass.
Hence the increase in relativistic energy is due to the relativistic velocity, nothing happens to the mass.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not really talking about exceeding it right now, but was just wondering if anyone for sure can confirm it's (the effects we are talking about here @ c) are truly infinite yet?

Have we been able to for sure confirm that with anything yet, etc?

Or I would at least like to know if those effects have exceeded times the speed of light squared yet in anything we have been able to confirm yet, etc?

Or if they have maybe come very close to it in anything we have been able to confirm yet maybe, etc?

Take Care.

Look at the bar graph in post#151, you can't get more definitive evidence that to accelerate particles with mass to the speed of light an infinite amount of energy is required.
Mathematically the speed of light defined by the horizontal line in the graph is an asymptote, it can never be reached since an infinite amount of energy is required which by definition is impossible to obtain.

 

[Neogaia777]

The issue is about the momentum p =MV.

View attachment 352710

Does the relativistic mass M increase with velocity?

View attachment 352711

Or is it the relativistic velocity V which increases?

View attachment 352712

Using particle accelerators as the evidence the modern consensus is the relativistic effects apply to velocity and not mass.
Hence the increase in relativistic energy is due to the relativistic velocity, nothing happens to the mass.

Would that also include the energy required to propel it, or keep it at a sustained rate at which it is being propelled? (Or maintain current momentum maybe, etc?)

Also, and just to confirm, so it is not the mass that increases to be infinite at c, but some of the other factors we are talking about here instead?

And I'd also like to know if any of these have been able to be for sure confirmed as being truly infinite yet? Or if they can confirm them as having exceeded or been close or very close to times the speed of light squared yet maybe?

Much thanks @sjastro for being so kind as to put up with my questions about these kinds of things.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Look at the bar graph in post#151, you can't get more definitive evidence that to accelerate particles with mass to the speed of light an infinite amount of energy is required.
Mathematically the speed of light defined by the horizontal line in the graph is an asymptote, it can never be reached since an infinite amount of energy is required which by definition is impossible to obtain.

How much of that, or how close to that have they actually been able to confirm yet?

Much thanks.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Would that also include the energy required to propel it, or keep it at a sustained rate at which it is being propelled? (Or maintain current momentum maybe, etc?)

Also, and just to confirm, so it is not the mass that increases to be infinite at c, but some of the other factors we are talking about here instead?

And I'd also like to know if any of these have been able to be for sure confirmed as being truly infinite yet? Or if they can confirm them as having exceeded or been close or very close to times the speed of light squared yet maybe?

Much thanks @sjastro for being so kind as to put up with my questions about these kinds of things.

Take Care.

@sjastro

In space, there is little to no drag or resistance, correct?

So couldn't we theoretically accelerate a particle or object infinitely over time if we were always constantly accelerating it maybe?

And once we got it up to a certain speed, couldn't we just stop accelerating it and it would maintain that speed, and wouldn't all other factors, that were previously infinite, wouldn't they return to normal after that, or once we stopped accelerating it?

Except for the passage of time for whatever it was that we were accelerating I mean, etc.

Unless the slowing of the passage of time for it was also going to affect our ability to always be constantly accelerating it also I mean also I mean, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

@sjastro

In space, there is little to no drag or resistance, correct?

So couldn't we theoretically accelerate a particle or object infinitely over time if we were always constantly accelerating it maybe?

And once we got it up to a certain speed, couldn't we just stop accelerating it and it would maintain that speed, and wouldn't all other factors, that were previously infinite, wouldn't they return to normal after that, or once we stopped accelerating it?

Except for the passage of time for whatever it was that we were accelerating I mean, etc.

Unless the slowing of the passage of time for it was also going to affect our ability to always be constantly accelerating it also I mean also I mean, etc.

Take Care.

And the speed of light itself is not infinite, so if we could keep gradually accelerating an object or particle over an infinite amount of time, and we eliminated the difference in the flow rate of time for that object or particle right now maybe, couldn't we also maybe accelerate it to the speed of light maybe? Or maybe even possibly beyond that maybe? If we could keep accelerating it over an infinite amount of time maybe?

Oh, and I do mean this "in space" also, since there is little to no drag or resistance there in space, and momentum is maintained there in space, etc.

And once it was accelerated, and we stopped doing that, wouldn't it maintain that speed, and wouldn't all the other factors that we are talking about here, wouldn't they all return to normal after that maybe?

This is also assuming that the atoms or particles don't fly apart, or become unstable, or explode, or implode, or cause a massive release of nuclear energy at the speed of c also, etc, since no one knows what would happen, but it's all just highly theoretical at this point right now, etc.

And we're also doing away with the slowing of the passage of time for the particle or object right now for the sake of this illustration/thought experiment/exercise/argument right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And the speed of light itself is not infinite, so if we could keep gradually accelerating an object or particle over an infinite amount of time, and we eliminated the difference in the flow rate of time for that object or particle right now maybe, couldn't we also maybe accelerate it to the speed of light maybe? Or maybe even possibly beyond that maybe? If we could keep accelerating it over an infinite amount of time maybe?

Now "brakes" might also be an issue if we were actually trying to get or go somewhere with what we were actually accelerating or getting up to speed that fast, etc.

But that's a whole other issue entirely, lol.

Take Care/God Bless.