ΔC

[AV1611VET]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

 

[jacks]

I am completely unable to answer your question. (At least I admit it!). I’ve never bought the idea that the speed of light is an absolute. I get hung up on this idea: I have a flashlight and the beam is shooting out at 186K MPS and I then push my hand forward at 5MPH why isn’t the light now moving at 186K MPS + 5MPH? And of course if 186KMPS is a universal speed limit, then Acts 8:39 took longer than I thought!

 

[AV1611VET]

I am completely unable to answer your question. (At least I admit it!). I’ve never bought the idea that the speed of light is an absolute. I get hung up on this idea: I have a flashlight and the beam is shooting out at 186K MPS and I then push my hand forward at 5MPH why isn’t the light now moving at 186K MPS + 5MPH? And of course if 186KMPS is a universal speed limit, then Acts 8:39 took longer than I thought!

Good point!

We see God (and angels) moving from Heaven to earth in a moment of time, and God can even hear the collective sighs of His people in Egypt from Heaven.

So we not only see FTL travel, we have FTL sound as well!

 

[BensonInABox]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

Your friend is right about light seeming to travel more slowly in a medium, though it's not because of "zig-zagging." It's because the photon is absorbed by the atoms in the medium and then emitted after a tiny fraction of time.

 

[BensonInABox]

I am completely unable to answer your question. (At least I admit it!). I’ve never bought the idea that the speed of light is an absolute. I get hung up on this idea: I have a flashlight and the beam is shooting out at 186K MPS and I then push my hand forward at 5MPH why isn’t the light now moving at 186K MPS + 5MPH? And of course if 186KMPS is a universal speed limit, then Acts 8:39 took longer than I thought!

I know it's hard to visualize, but the light coming out of the flashlight is constantly traveling at C. As defined by special relativity, the consequence is that time slows down a little bit from your hand's frame of reference. Weird, huh?

 

[juvenissun]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

True. It is slower and the delay is measurable.
I am not sure about the second part. But I think the reason for the slowing is that it travels through a slightly longer distance as you described.
So, I tend to agree with both ideas.

 

[SkyWriting]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

If time was changed, that would have an impact.
Again, changed compared to what though.
Time could be changing right now.
Hard to say while your in it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Very interesting:

 

[essentialsaltes]

The individual photons always travel at the speed of light, but yes it is the interactions with matter in a particular medium that slows down the overall wave. The reasons are subtle, and my coffee hasn't been fully absorbed yet. I would not say it is because of zig-zagging. Absorbing and readmitting is closer, but it's more that the electromagnetic wave exerts forces on the charged particles in the medium, and they get to jiggling themselves, which causes more electromagnetic waves, and the sum total of these waves, the initial wave, and the wave created in the medium, has a group velocity that is slower than c. That's more of a classical description, and I don't know how it looks at the quantum level.

See also group velocity. If you follow the red dot riding a crest, it goes faster than the green dot measuring out the pulses. The pulses moving is how you would send information, like in Morse Code, and this group velocity is slower than the speed of light in vacuum.

 

[AV1611VET]

The individual photons always travel at the speed of light, but yes it is the interactions with matter in a particular medium that slows down the overall wave. The reasons are subtle, and my coffee hasn't been fully absorbed yet. I would not say it is because of zig-zagging. Absorbing and readmitting is closer, but it's more that the electromagnetic wave exerts forces on the charged particles in the medium, and they get to jiggling themselves, which causes more electromagnetic waves, and the sum total of these waves, the initial wave, and the wave created in the medium, has a group velocity that is slower than c. That's more of a classical description, and I don't know how it looks at the quantum level.

See also group velocity. If you follow the red dot riding a crest, it goes faster than the green dot measuring out the pulses. The pulses moving is how you would send information, like in Morse Code, and this group velocity is slower than the speed of light in vacuum.

Roger-dodger! Thanks for the info!

 

[florida2]

I am completely unable to answer your question. (At least I admit it!). I’ve never bought the idea that the speed of light is an absolute.

You ability to understand something doesn't make it less real. The speed of light is the same for everyone.

I get hung up on this idea: I have a flashlight and the beam is shooting out at 186K MPS and I then push my hand forward at 5MPH why isn’t the light now moving at 186K MPS + 5MPH? And of course if 186KMPS is a universal speed limit, then Acts 8:39 took longer than I thought! [/QUOTE]

It's like the question of a car travelling at the speed of light turning on its headlights. They would still see light going away from them at the speed of light. It's a complicated question which bring in time dilation and distance dilation, all of which is weird but pretty awesome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

The speed of c is only c, because no matter your frame of reference, your measuring devices change and give different measurements, yet we still call them the same meter and second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

Increasing acceleration adds energy - clocks slow, rulers shrink. That energy remains even if acceleration stops. Clocks and rulers still remain affected. What is one meter in a stationary frame is now less than one meter in a moving frame, but we call two different lengths a meter. One simply now measures a different distance and time for light, but calls it the same time and distance, even if we understand they are not. It can never change as long as we continue to call two different times and distances the same thing.

For a simple example lets look at the second hand of a clock. The tip moves faster, but has a further distance to travel than a point near the hub (rulers shrink, clocks slow). Yet both distances and speeds are called the same thing, even when composed of units of different lengths and durations.

How does one expect to ever get different results calling two different things the same thing? It's the biggest perpetuated farce in all of science.

And it doesn't zig-zag around electrons. It is absorbed and then re-emitted, which explains the delayed time in a medium.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

 

[Loudmouth]

Our resident Mensan, whom I wish would come back here, once made the point that light seems to travel more slowly in a medium; but that, in reality, it is traveling farther due to having to "zig-zag" around molecules and such.

In other words, the speed of light has never been anything but what it is today.

Thoughts?

E= mc^2

If the speed of light changes, so would the amount of energy per unit mass. If that occurred, then the Sun would randomly shut down or explode. Nuclear plants would randomly stop working or explode. The same for nuclear weapons. We don't see this happening. We don't see it happening anywhere else in the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

E= mc^2

If the speed of light changes, so would the amount of energy per unit mass. If that occurred, then the Sun would randomly shut down or explode. Nuclear plants would randomly stop working or explode. The same for nuclear weapons. We don't see this happening. We don't see it happening anywhere else in the universe.

Good point!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good point!

Bad point.

The speed of light IS constant, but not because of modern theories incorrect assumptions. Clocks, slow, rulers shrink. In every frame a different distance and time is measured for light due to the velocity of that frame. But since we still call a shorter ruler a meter and a slower clock tick a second, we notice no change due to that added energy or velocity. The faster one goes - the smaller is the distance one measure for light in what is now a shorter meter.

Now the relativists are going to object - and insist the rulers measure the same distance - even if they just declared previously the ruler shrunk. So the ruler is shorter and yet magically still measures the same distance - not! It is simply to perpetuate the myth that c is c regardless of your velocity.

It is not. When you move faster your ruler shrinks - so you now measure a shorter distance. Light has slowed in relation to you as your velocity increases. Since you measure a shorter distance now in proportion to the amount of energy gained, and still call that shorter ruler a meter - you notice no difference. The speed of c is "proportional" to energy input due to motion in each frame, not the "same".

Don't let them fool you AV into believing a ruler that is now shorter reads the same distance as a longer ruler, each divided equally into the same number of divisions, but divisions of different length.

But go ahead, take a ruler 12 inches long. Now shrink that ruler 5% on a copy machine. Lay them side by side and tell me you get the same measurement with both rulers. I think we both can understand the reality thereof versus theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad point.

The speed of light IS constant, but not because of modern theories incorrect assumptions. Clocks, slow, rulers shrink. In every frame a different distance and time is measured for light due to the velocity of that frame. But since we still call a shorter ruler a meter and a slower clock tick a second, we notice no change due to that added energy or velocity. The faster one goes - the smaller is the distance one measure for light in what is now a shorter meter.

Now the relativists are going to object - and insist the rulers measure the same distance - even if they just declared previously the ruler shrunk. So the ruler is shorter and yet magically still measures the same distance - not! It is simply to perpetuate the myth that c is c regardless of your velocity.

It is not. When you move faster your ruler shrinks - so you now measure a shorter distance. Light has slowed in relation to you as your velocity increases. Since you measure a shorter distance now in proportion to the amount of energy gained, and still call that shorter ruler a meter - you notice no difference. The speed of c is "proportional" to energy input due to motion in each frame, not the "same".

Don't let them fool you AV into believing a ruler that is now shorter reads the same distance as a longer ruler, each divided equally into the same number of divisions, but divisions of different length.

But go ahead, take a ruler 12 inches long. Now shrink that ruler 5% on a copy machine. Lay them side by side and tell me you get the same measurement with both rulers. I think we both can understand the reality thereof versus theory.

Good point!

 

[Loudmouth]

Bad point.

The speed of light IS constant, but not because of modern theories incorrect assumptions. Clocks, slow, rulers shrink. In every frame a different distance and time is measured for light due to the velocity of that frame. But since we still call a shorter ruler a meter and a slower clock tick a second, we notice no change due to that added energy or velocity. The faster one goes - the smaller is the distance one measure for light in what is now a shorter meter.

The problem is that there is no golden frame of reference that everything else is compared to. All frames of reference are equal. The only time you can talk about clocks being slower or rulers being shorter is when comparing two different frames of reference.

It is not. When you move faster your ruler shrinks - so you now measure a shorter distance.

False. You measure the same distance because all frames of reference are equal.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is that there is no golden frame of reference that everything else is compared to. All frames of reference are equal. The only time you can talk about clocks being slower or rulers being shorter is when comparing two different frames of reference.

False. You measure the same distance because all frames of reference are equal.

If they are equal, then no transformations would be required between frames. They only appear equal because you continue to call two different measurements the same thing. They are only the same in inertial frames. You claim to follow relativity, you should be aware of it's basic tenets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

"Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames. By contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by fictitious forces."

Those physical laws very so much you have to invent fictitious forces so your delusion about two different lengths being equal isn't apparent.

 

[Loudmouth]

If they are equal, then no transformations would be required between frames.

No transformations are needed between frames with equal velocity.

They only appear equal because you continue to call two different measurements the same thing.

They are the same thing. 1 meter is 1 meter in all frames of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No transformations are needed between frames with equal velocity.

And why pray tell would we be discussing frames with equal velocity when we are talking about shrinking rulers and slowing clocks?

They are the same thing. 1 meter is 1 meter in all frames of reference.

I meter is one meter only in inertial frames. As E put it "Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."

Only those objects moving in uniform translation (the same approximate speed) relatively (in relation) to each other, can the same laws of physics be applied. You can not shrink your ruler and still call it a meter and get the correct results for the speed of c. The ruler shrinks in proportion to energy gained. As your speed increases, the distance you measure for light becomes less as your ruler shrinks. Because it IS traveling at a constant speed, slower or faster in relationship to your velocity - which is proportional to energy content.

It only "appears" c in all frames because in every frame the ruler is longer or shorter depending on energy gained from speed of motion. And you still call that longer or shorter ruler a meter, regardless if it is shorter or longer than what you define as a meter in this frame.

You are shrinking or enlarging rulers through transformations, yet insist they are the same length. If they were the same length, no transformation would be required because the same laws of physics would hold good in both frames. In every frame of reference that is not inertial - every single measuring device that exists in that frame changes and measures a new measurement - proportional - to the energy gained or lost. But because you still call what is now different, the same name - you have blinded yourself willingly to the truth and don't even see it.

No wonder relativists think nothing is bending!!!