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

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I don’t think this is worded correctly. If time appears to be half speed traveling away from the earth at 86% speed of light then traveling back towards earth at 86% speed would make time appear to be double speed, not 172% speed. But again this is not actually altering time because regardless of what speed you travel in any direction you’re not actually affecting clocks on earth or on your space ship. When you’re traveling away from a clock at the speed of light the only reason it appears to stop is because you’re traveling the exact same speed as light. Think of it like a projector that is passing frames of pictures by at the speed of light. If you travel at the speed of light you’re traveling the same speed as each frame so they’re not passing by you anymore so it doesn’t look like a moving video it looks like a single still image. So your only seeing one frame but behind that frame there’s still every single frame lined up following behind you that you can’t see. All of those frames still took place, therefore time never actually stopped, it just looks like it did from your perspective. If time actually stopped if you flew at the speed of light for 10 minutes you’d have to wait another 10 minutes before you actually saw the clock move again because the light would’ve stopped. If light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second and time actually stopped that would mean that for 10 minutes zero seconds went by and therefore the light didn’t actually move anywhere, you would’ve left it behind and technically the clock would be appearing to go backwards because you’d be traveling at an infinite speed, your speed would be absolutely instantaneous. Any distance you travel while time is stopped is instantaneous. So you’d actually be traveling faster than the speed of light which means you’d be passing the frames that were in front of you and the clock would appear to go backwards.

If you stopped, after traveling away from earth at the exact speed of light for ten minutes, and then stopped, the clock on earth would just resume it's normal time flow right then and there from your point of view or perspective right when you stopped, minus the ten minutes, etc.

Time only slows down or stops for you when you are in motion that fast, etc. You stop, and everything else just starts resuming it's normal flow of time again from your perspective right then and there, until you go somewhere at that speed again, etc.

The only thing that would make time appear to be going at double speed is only when you headed directly towards something at the exact speed of light, cause it would be going 200% faster from your perspective or point of view, but it's only because your headed toward direct light moving at the speed of light towards you, while you are also moving at the speed of light towards it, which is 100% plus 100% which makes 200%, so it (time) would appear to be going double or twice as fast, etc, but you are really just catching up to the light, etc. Time elsewhere doesn't ever change, etc. Your just catching up to the light, etc.

God Bless.

BNR32FAN · Jul 27, 2024

Platte said:
Nice try but it’s not verifiable and unfalsafiable. Sounds like you may be a tool for science too. Evidence does not equal it’s true. Just because the evidence is verifiable doesn’t make what you out to prove verifiable. Selective science at its finest.

Honestly it really is irrelevant how light behaves naturally because there’s nothing natural about creation. When we talk about creation the natural laws of science go right out the window because we’re talking about a supernatural event, a miracle, not the result of natural process or occurrence.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
You only said that it adds 1.14 minutes, you didn’t explain why.

10 light minutes away, or ten minutes away, at the exact speed of light, etc, but you are only going at 86% the speed of light, so you have to add 14% more time both on your way there, and on your way back, etc. But time slowed 50% for you, but only you, so you'd be earth's total amount of time elapsed, minus the ten minutes total in age compared to the rest of those on earth, etc. Take 22.8 minutes, minus ten minutes, and you'd get the percentage of just how much younger you are in minutes than those are or would be on earth when you got back, etc.

And I suck at math, so you try it on your calculator, ok.

That would have to be non-stop though the whole way though, etc.

Otherwise it changes things a little bit, etc.

But really just a little bit though, etc.

But it does make it a little it more complicated than what it already is, but just slightly though, etc.

God Bless.

BNR32FAN · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
If you stopped, after traveling away from earth at the exact speed of light for ten minutes, and then stopped, the clock on earth would just resume it's normal time flow right then and there from your point of view or perspective right when you stopped, minus the ten minutes, etc.

I absolutely agree with what you’ve said here but my point is that time never actually stopped in reality, it only appeared to stop. If time actually stopped in reality then you would’ve been traveling past the light that was in front of you when you left because all light would stop moving. The light that was in front of you when you left would stop if time stopped and you would be traveling past it which would make time appear to go backwards until you stopped. What you said here is correct because as you traveled away from the clock there was still light traveling right behind you which means that time never actually stopped. If time actually stopped there would be no light following behind you for that 10 minute flight, instead you would’ve been flying through the light that was already in front of you.

Neogaia777 said:
Time only slows down or stops for you when you are in motion that fast, etc. You stop, and everything else just starts resuming its normal flow of time again from your perspective right then and there, until you go somewhere at that speed again, etc.

So if I were to put a glass under a faucet and turn it on then traveled at the speed of light for 10 minutes would the glass stop being filled with water by the faucet?

BNR32FAN · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
10 light minutes away, or ten minutes away, at the exact speed of light, etc, but you are only going at 86% the speed of light, so you have to add 14% more time both on your way there, and on your way back, etc. But time slowed 50% for you, but only you, so you'd be earth's total amount of time elapsed, minus the ten minutes total in age compared to the rest of those on earth, etc. Take 22.8 minutes, minus ten minutes, and you'd get the percentage of just how much younger you are in minutes than those are or would be on earth when you got back, etc.

And I suck at math, so you try it on your calculator, ok.

That would have to be non-stop though the whole way though, etc.

Otherwise it changes things a little bit, etc.

But really just a little bit though, etc.

But it does make it a little it more complicated than what it already is, but just slightly though, etc.

God Bless.

I don’t understand how 86% speed pf light equates to 50% time but then the other 14% more speed of light equates to the other 50% of time. I don’t understand how that math works.

Hans Blaster · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
...

You are traveling at 86% light speed to a distance ten light minutes away, it adds 1.14 more minutes in both the trip there, and 1.14 minutes on the way back, etc. Which also adds slightly more time, which is why you'll only be 45% to 40% younger then the rest of the people on earth, as opposed to the 50% that time slowed down for you, etc.

I'll get to the 0.86c example in a minute.

Neogaia777 said:
The exact speed of light example is easier, etc.

It is not possible for objects with mass.

Neogaia777 said:
Though physical matter/material, or anything with mass, cannot ever travel at the exact speed of light as far as we know right now though, etc.

Correct.

Traveling an SQRT(3/4) = 0.86... the speed of light.

For our imagine experiment suppose that you are on a spacecraft traveling at 0.86c toward Earth. At 8.6 light-min beyond Earth in a straight line, there is a space station. Scientists on Earth and the station have prepared for your flyby and have a beacon ready to emit a pulse of light (or any EM radiation) that can be seen by you, the Earth station and the distant space station. To keep things properly in SR, your space craft does not change speed or direction.

We can all agree if there was no SR effect like time dilation that your journey from Earth to Station would take 10 minutes, but that's not the world we live in.

Your speed (0.86c) gives a Lorentz factor (gamma) of 2. This is the factor in time dilation and length contraction. During your journey, your stopwatch will only measure 5 minutes between passing the Earth and the station due to time dilation. Length contraction will convince you that you only traveled 4.3 light-minutes make it consistent with your speed of 0.86c.

An alien on a distant planet not in the direction of travel, but perpendicular would detect the start and end pulses 10 minutes apart, since the travel time from Earth and the station would be the same, but for the Earth observer it is a little more complicated.

Remember that light takes time to travel from the earth to the station, and vice versa, so if the station emitted a "return" signal the moment it received the "start" signal it would arrive at Earth 2*8.6 (17.2) minutes after the start was transmitted. This is exactly what we expect from finite speed of light communications lag.

When the Earth observer gets the "end" signal, not only has the 10 minutes of travel time elapsed, but so has an additional 8.6 minute lag for the signal to reach Earth. Thus the "end" signal will arrive at Earth 10+8.6 (18.6) minutes after they transmit the "start" signal.

For the station observer, the "start" signal arrives 8.6 minutes after departure and your spacecraft arrives 10 minutes after departure. At the station the two times are 1.4 minutes apart representing the differing speeds of the "start" signal (c) and your spacecraft (0.86c). It is also the same 1.4 minute difference between the "return" and "end" signals received on Earth.

BNR32FAN · Jul 27, 2024

sjastro said:
I am so relieved you are not out to demean me after referring to me as being ignorant, ludicrous and a tool of science; I’d hate to be on the receiving end if you were truly out to demean me.

It’s time to expose you as a YEC despite your dishonest claims of stating otherwise.
"I’m not an advocate for YEC. God creating the world young wouldn’t make much sense if He wanted the Earth to be hospitable and functional for Adam from the beginning." (Post #53)

Yet in another thread you made this comment.
"The earth was created approximately 4000BC (6000 years ago). Job was written after creation."

Old Earth Creationism

And one more thing too. It's more than just "the most" rational explanation. It is "a" rational explanation. More than just being on a spectrum where perhaps all scientific theories are innacurate, the theory of evolution does an incredibly good job of explaining why those matching...

www.christianforums.com

As I stated to one of your fellow creationists be careful what you write as the search function is a wonderful weapon for detecting lies.

Your motivations in this thread are as clear as day, you are a small minded YECist out to attack science and those you insult as being tools of science and it was never your intention to learn anything about the one way speed of light being an exercise in philosophy and metaphysics, and not science.

It’s wishful thinking an anisotropic one way speed of light being unfalsifiable, supports a 6000 year old Earth.
Now do us a favour since you don’t accept anything that supports your YEC narrative, it is pointless for you to participate further in this thread.

I hope you don’t take my posts as an attack on science. I do believe that scientists make a lot of assumptions regarding the age of the earth and the universe but I believe it’s due to a lack of information. My position is that we would have to have known the state of the universe when it was created to know how old it is now. I know that scientists are only going to go by the natural progression of what they can see and conclude that according to that progression if it remained constant then the age of the universe is 13 billion years old. That makes perfect sense to me from a logical standpoint. The problem is they are assuming that the universe is the result of a natural progression of things, I don’t believe it is according to the scriptures.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I absolutely agree with what you’ve said here but my point is that time never actually stopped in reality, it only appeared to stop. If time actually stopped in reality then you would’ve been traveling past the light that was in front of you when you left because all light would stop moving. The light that was in front of you when you left would stop if time stopped and you would be traveling past it which would make time appear to go backwards until you stopped. What you said here is correct because as you traveled away from the clock there was still light traveling right behind you which means that time never actually stopped. If time actually stopped there would be no light following behind you for that 10 minute flight, instead you would’ve been flying through the light that was already in front of you.

If you could go faster than the speed of light, then the same rules still apply, etc. The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4 light years away, correct? Well, let's say you could get there in ten minutes, etc, as you were traveling towards it, and if you could observe the images from it as you were going in ten minutes (from earth, we're seeing it as four years old, etc) If you could observe the images as you were going there, you would see four years minus ten minutes worth of images in the space/time of ten minutes, etc. And if you were to look back at earth as you were headed away from it, etc, you'd would see the images from earth going backwards 4 years minus ten minutes in the space/time of just only ten minutes during that time, etc. When you stopped at Alpha Centauri, it would be 4 years minus ten minutes newer than what you saw of it when you first left earth at the time, and if you looked back at earth, you'd see it four years minus ten minutes back in time, etc. But once you stopped at Alpha Centauri, while you were stopped, everything would appear to be back in the normal flow of time again, while you were stopped, etc.

But let's say you didn't stop, but immediately left Alpha Centauri the second you got there, and headed back towards earth again, etc. Well, then almost the exact same thing would happen again, etc. Only this time, as you were headed back to earth, and again, another ten minutes added to the total travel time, etc, you would see 4 years minus 20 minutes of the orginal images you first saw when you first left earth, going forward in time in the space of another ten minutes travel time, etc. And Alpha Centauri, looking back at it now, etc, you'd see 4 years minus 20 minutes total travel time of the very first images you saw of it when you first left earth going back backwards in time (again) in the space of another additional ten minutes travel time, etc. So time actually stayed the same everywhere the entire time, etc, and didn't ever change regardless of your being able to go way, way beyond the speed of light, etc. Because when you arrived back at earth, regardless of how or what you saw of it on your way to Alpha Centauri, or what it looked like when you got there, or what the light images were doing on your way back, etc. The time it took you travel, and if you stopped, however long you spent stopped, and the time it took you to get back there, earth will have ever only aged just that exact amount of time no matter what, etc. And regardless of how you saw it elsewhere in the universe, or as you were traveling elsewhere in the universe, etc. Upon your return, earth will have only aged your total amount of round trip travel time plus the time you took to stop, and that's it, etc. Not time travel or anything crazy like that, because the universe is the same age/time equally everywhere, it's just the images that change or are different temporarily, etc. If you headed to Alpha Centauri in the space of ten minutes, and didn't ever stop but immediately headed back to earth, when you got back to earth, earth will have aged 20 minutes regardless of anything else you witnessed or saw, etc.

Now, it's impossible to go at or beyond the speed of light, or even very close to the speed of light right now, etc, and I'm also not accounting for any kind of time going slower or stopping for you here at all either, and absolutely no one knows what would happen with that exactly if you could go beyond the speed of light, etc. And physics right now says it 100% completely impossible, and that we can't ever, and they are probably right, etc, so please just keep in mind that this is just a theoretical thought experiment, if it is anything, etc, ok.

BNR32FAN said:
So if I were to put a glass under a faucet and turn it on then traveled at the speed of light for 10 minutes would the glass stop being filled with water by the faucet?

Everything would appear to stop if you were moving at the exact speed of light directly away from it for a time, and could observe while you were traveling directly away from it at the exact speed of light during that travel time, etc. But would go back to normal when you stopped, but would be ten minutes (if we're still using that as an example) behind you/older than from where you at in space-time, etc. But if you headed directly back to it at the exact speed of light again, and let's say you just took two minutes to stop, etc, everything that you were headed toward, including the glass of water, would be appearing to be going in double time, etc, and when you got there, everything on earth, including the glass, would be exactly 22 minutes older at that time. Then ten minutes it took you to travel at the exact speed of light away from it, plus the 2 minutes you took to stop, and the ten minutes it took you to get back there in time, etc.

God Bless

sjastro · Jul 27, 2024

Platte said:
I agree it does make that assumption.

Thats rich….when science is presented with something that is unfalsifiable they simply make assumptions. To say science doesn’t have a standpoint is ludicrous, perhaps ignorant. Science is very much based on assumptions at every level. It is unfalsifiable for you to say light is isotopic. Without being able to test the speed of 1 way light. But science can make more assumptions. Oh yeah you call it the simplest and most logical explanation. It sounds like you’ve become like many other have become. A tool for science. Your talking points tow the line for sure. I’m not saying that to ridicule you or demean you. It’s what I see most people doing - accepting science, taking their selective evidence, turning the assumptions into facts….and then ridicule anyone that see between the lines and simply makes comments that those assumptions are not facts and the assumptions by themselves should carry little to no weight.

As a human interest story (although it involves AI) I asked GPT4-o for a comment on this post.

The comment exhibits several logical and factual faults. Here’s a detailed evaluation:

Misunderstanding of Assumptions in Science:

The comment claims that science is based on assumptions at every level, which is a simplification. While assumptions play a role, they are grounded in empirical evidence and are continually tested and revised. The comment fails to acknowledge the rigorous testing and validation processes in scientific methodology.

Falsifiability:

The commenter suggests that science deals with unfalsifiable concepts by making assumptions, which contradicts the core principle of falsifiability in science. Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable to be considered valid. The comment incorrectly implies that science routinely accepts unfalsifiable assumptions.

Isotropy of Light:

The comment states that it is unfalsifiable to claim that light is isotropic because we cannot test the one-way speed of light. However, the isotropy of light is supported by extensive evidence, such as the uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. While the one-way speed of light is difficult to measure directly, the two-way speed of light has been consistently measured and confirmed, supporting the assumption of isotropy.

Simplest and Most Logical Explanation:

The comment dismisses the principle of Occam’s Razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is preferable. This principle is a useful heuristic in science, though not an absolute rule. The comment fails to recognize its value in developing scientific theories.

Accusation of Bias:

The comment accuses the person of being a "tool for science" and suggests they are uncritically accepting scientific findings. This ad hominem attack does not address the actual arguments or evidence presented. It shifts the focus from the validity of the scientific claims to the character of the individual.

Turning Assumptions into Facts:

The comment argues that science turns assumptions into facts and ridicules those who question them. This is a mischaracterization. In science, assumptions are hypotheses that must be tested and validated. Only through rigorous testing and evidence can assumptions be accepted as facts. The scientific community values skepticism and encourages questioning and testing assumptions.

Generalization and Straw Man:

The comment generalizes that most people in science accept selective evidence and make assumptions into facts. This is a straw man argument, misrepresenting the scientific community’s approach to evidence and assumptions. Science relies on peer review, replication, and continuous scrutiny to ensure the validity of its findings.

Overall, the comment contains several logical flaws, including misunderstandings of scientific principles, mischaracterizations of the scientific process, and personal attacks. It fails to engage with the actual methods and evidence that underpin scientific inquiry.

What caught my attention was GPT-4o using the CMB as an example for the isotropy of the speed of light.
I would never have thought of it and asked GPT-4o to provide more detail.

Sure, let's dive deeper into why varying light speeds would lead to anisotropies in the CMB with a detailed example.

Example: Light Speed Variance and CMB Anisotropy
Scenario:
Imagine a hypothetical universe where the speed of light varies depending on the direction. For simplicity, let's say light travels faster in one direction (east) and slower in the opposite direction (west).

Recombination and CMB Emission:

Around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms, allowing photons to travel freely. This event is known as recombination.

The surface of last scattering is the spherical shell from which the CMB photons we observe today were emitted.

Observing the CMB:
When we observe the CMB from Earth, we are looking at photons that have been traveling towards us since the time of recombination. If the speed of light were direction-dependent, here's what would happen:

Different Arrival Times:

Photons traveling east (where light is faster) would reach us sooner than photons traveling west (where light is slower). However, since we are observing the CMB now, we would be looking at different "slices" of the universe's history.

Photons from the faster direction would have had less time to cool due to cosmic expansion compared to photons from the slower direction. This would lead to a temperature gradient, with one side of the sky appearing hotter than the other.

Redshift and Temperature Variations:

The universe is expanding, and the light traveling through it gets redshifted. If light speed varies, the amount of redshift would also vary.

In the faster direction, photons experience less redshift because they spend less time traveling through the expanding universe. In the slower direction, photons experience more redshift because they spend more time traveling.

This difference in redshift translates to different observed temperatures of the CMB in different directions. The side with faster light speed (less redshift) would appear hotter, and the side with slower light speed (more redshift) would appear cooler.

Path Length and Energy Differences:

Varying light speeds mean that photons from different directions would have traveled different distances to reach us, even if they started from the same distance.

For instance, photons from the faster direction cover more ground in the same time compared to those from the slower direction. As a result, the energy (and thus temperature) of the photons would differ due to different travel times and distances.

This leads to anisotropy in the CMB because the observed energy and temperature of the photons would vary based on their travel direction.

Violation of Isotropy:

The isotropy of the CMB is a cornerstone of cosmology, indicating that the universe was homogeneous and isotropic at large scales during recombination.

Direction-dependent light speeds would break this isotropy, resulting in a non-uniform CMB. Instead of a nearly uniform temperature across the sky, we would see a significant directional dependence in the temperature.

Visual Representation:

Normal Isotropic CMB: Imagine a smooth, uniform sphere with tiny fluctuations (representing the actual observed CMB).

Anisotropic CMB with Varying Light Speeds: Imagine a sphere where one hemisphere is noticeably warmer (faster light direction) and the other is cooler (slower light direction), with a gradient in between.

Conclusion:
In our universe, the speed of light is constant in all directions, ensuring the CMB appears nearly isotropic with only tiny fluctuations. If the speed of light varied with direction, it would introduce significant anisotropies, with different temperatures observed in different parts of the sky. This hypothetical scenario starkly contrasts with the uniformity we observe, reinforcing the principle that the speed of light is indeed constant and direction-independent.

I can't fault the response, if came from a human I wouldn't question it, from AI I can't believe it has such insight, I am going to forward the response to an astrophysicist to see if an expert can find flaws in it.
I must be exhibiting prejudice aga inst AI.

BNR32FAN · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
If you could go faster than the speed of light, then the same rules still apply, etc. The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4 light years away, correct? Well, let's say you could get there in ten minutes, etc, as you were traveling towards it, and if you could observe the images from it as you were going in ten minutes (from earth, we're seeing it as four years old, etc) If you could observe the images as you were going there, you would see four years minus ten minutes worth of images in the space/time of ten minutes, etc. And if you were to look back at earth as you were headed away from it, etc, you'd would see the images from earth going backwards 4 years minus ten minutes in the space/time of just only ten minutes during that time, etc. When you stopped at Alpha Centauri, it would be 4 years minus ten minutes newer than what you saw of it when you first left earth at the time, and if you looked back at earth, you'd see it four years minus ten minutes back in time, etc. But once you stopped at Alpha Centauri, while you were stopped, everything would appear to be back in the normal flow of time again, while you were stopped, etc.

But let's say you didn't stop, but immediately left Alpha Centauri the second you got there, and headed back towards earth again, etc. Well, then almost the exact same thing would happen again, etc. Only this time, as you were headed back to earth, and again, another ten minutes added to the total travel time, etc, you would see 4 years minus 20 minutes of the orginal images you first saw when you first left earth, going forward in time in the space of another ten minutes travel time, etc. And Alpha Centauri, looking back at it now, etc, you'd see 4 years minus 20 minutes total travel time of the very first images you saw of it when you first left earth going back backwards in time (again) in the space of another additional ten minutes travel time, etc. So time actually stayed the same everywhere the entire time, etc, and didn't ever change regardless of your being able to go way, way beyond the speed of light, etc. Because when you arrived back at earth, regardless of how or what you saw of it on your way to Alpha Centauri, or what it looked like when you got there, or what the light images were doing on your way back, etc. The time it took you travel, and if you stopped, however long you spent stopped, and the time it took you to get back there, earth will have ever only aged just that exact amount of time no matter what, etc. And regardless of how you saw it elsewhere in the universe, or as you were traveling elsewhere in the universe, etc. Upon your return, earth will have only aged your total amount of round trip travel time plus the time you took to stop, and that's it, etc. Not time travel or anything crazy like that, because the universe is the same age/time equally everywhere, it's just the images that change or are different temporarily, etc. If you headed to Alpha Centauri in the space of ten minutes, and didn't ever stop but immediately headed back to earth, when you got back to earth, earth will have aged 20 minutes regardless of anything else you witnessed or saw, etc.

Now, it's impossible to go at or beyond the speed of light, or even very close to the speed of light right now, etc, and I'm also not accounting for any kind of time going slower or stopping for you here at all either, and absolutely no one knows what would happen with that exactly if you could go beyond the speed of light, etc. And physics right now says it 100% completely impossible, and that we can't ever, and they are probably right, etc, so please just keep in mind that this is just a theoretical thought experiment, if it is anything, etc, ok.

Everything would appear to stop if you were moving at the exact speed of light directly away from it for a time, and could observe while you were traveling directly away from it at the exact speed of light during that travel time, etc. But would go back to normal when you stopped, but would be ten minutes (if we're still using that as an example) behind you/older than from where you at in space-time, etc. But if you headed directly back to it at the exact speed of light again, and let's say you just took two minutes to stop, etc, everything that you were headed toward, including the glass of water, would be appearing to be going in double time, etc, and when you got there, everything on earth, including the glass, would be exactly 22 minutes older at that time. Then ten minutes it took you to travel at the exact speed of light away from it, plus the 2 minutes you took to stop, and the ten minutes it took you to get back there in time, etc.

God Bless

Absolutely I agree with everything you said here. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make this whole time that traveling at the speed of light does not actually stop time. Einstein’s theory on this subject only refers to relative perspective not actual time.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I don’t understand how 86% speed pf light equates to 50% time but then the other 14% more speed of light equates to the other 50% of time. I don’t understand how that math works.

It increases more and more exponentially as it gets closer and closer to the speed of light to the point of infinite mass, and time theoretically stopping or freezing time for you at the exact speed of light, etc. So the effect starts out very small but becomes infinitely more great the closer and closer you get to the speed of light, etc.

That's why it takes 86% of light speed to slow time 50% for you, and not 50% of the speed of light, etc. I don't know what the effect on time is for you at 50% the speed of light, but it's much smaller than 50% for time at 50% the speed of light, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
Absolutely I agree with everything you said here. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make this whole time that traveling at the speed of light does not actually stop time. Einstein’s theory on this subject only refers to relative perspective not actual time.

The time everywhere else stays the same no matter what, etc.

And the universe is the same age/time equally everywhere, etc.

Regardless of how far we are seeing it in the past from here, or could travel to it in the space of ten minutes, or whatever, etc.

Time only slows down or stops for you, and for you only, etc.

Time travel might not ever be possible, etc.

God Bless.

sjastro · Jul 27, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I hope you don’t take my posts as an attack on science. I do believe that scientists make a lot of assumptions regarding the age of the earth and the universe but I believe it’s due to a lack of information. My position is that we would have to have known the state of the universe when it was created to know how old it is now. I know that scientists are only going to go by the natural progression of what they can see and conclude that according to that progression if it remained constant then the age of the universe is 13 billion years old. That makes perfect sense to me from a logical standpoint. The problem is they are assuming that the universe is the result of a natural progression of things, I don’t believe it is according to the scriptures.

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.

sjastro · Jul 27, 2024

Here is a video from a PhD physics student on the one way speed of light.
It's more technical than the Veritasium video and as covered some from the issues raised in this thread.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

I tried clocks earlier, two clocks, three clocks, at different locations, one or some in motion, and some not, etc, and I don't think they work, etc, and so I have been trying to look for a much simpler solution either way, etc.

And I'm not going to say that I have by any means found it for sure, etc, but I also figured "what they hay" and have decided that I'm going to try and take a shot at it anyway, etc.

Maybe instead of a clock, or several clocks, maybe you just need one camera that can look at two objects while you are traveling at sufficient enough speed to be able to look/record both what's in front of you, and what's behind you, both ways, etc.

And if the light can be seen as going slower behind you, but faster ahead of you, and this is "off" by an equal amount both ways, then are you not measuring a change in the speed of light in both directions, or both ways, etc? And if these are always off by an equally proportional amount both ways always, then are you not proving that the speed of light is equal, or is equally proportionate, both ways, etc?

There could be some problems with this, but I thought I would suggest it, or give it a try anyway.

The proper speed would probably need to be figured out or determined for one thing, etc.

And I do think this would need to be done in space, etc. In case that wasn't a given already, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
There could be some problems with this.
The proper speed would probably need to be figured out or determined for one thing.

If time slows for you greater than you can detect or record the difference in what's both ahead of you, and behind you, then that could also be one of the problems with this for one thing, etc.

Platte · Jul 28, 2024

sjastro said:
I am so relieved you are not out to demean me after referring to me as being ignorant, ludicrous and a tool of science; I’d hate to be on the receiving end if you were truly out to demean me.

It’s time to expose you as a YEC despite your dishonest claims of stating otherwise.
"I’m not an advocate for YEC. God creating the world young wouldn’t make much sense if He wanted the Earth to be hospitable and functional for Adam from the beginning." (Post #53)

Yet in another thread you made this comment.
"The earth was created approximately 4000BC (6000 years ago). Job was written after creation."

Old Earth Creationism

And one more thing too. It's more than just "the most" rational explanation. It is "a" rational explanation. More than just being on a spectrum where perhaps all scientific theories are innacurate, the theory of evolution does an incredibly good job of explaining why those matching...

www.christianforums.com

As I stated to one of your fellow creationists be careful what you write as the search function is a wonderful weapon for detecting lies.

Your motivations in this thread are as clear as day, you are a small minded YECist out to attack science and those you insult as being tools of science and it was never your intention to learn anything about the one way speed of light being an exercise in philosophy and metaphysics, and not science.

It’s wishful thinking an anisotropic one way speed of light being unfalsifiable, supports a 6000 year old Earth.
Now do us a favour since you don’t accept anything that supports your YEC narrative, it is pointless for you to participate further in this thread.

My motivation was clear as I’ve stated on multiple occasions. The one way speed of light is not verifiable and cannot be tested. It’s an assumption that Einstein made because he could. I have no problem with that assumption within the context of the Theory of Relativity.

The only point I was making was that you cannot use the one way speed of light as a factual statement to debunk Creation 6000 years ago. I never said it support creation. I said we don’t know the one way speed of light.

I stand by everything I say. I don’t attack science. I attack how people like you use it and how you selectively use it.

If you don’t want to take the Bible literally that’s fine. But to ridicule people who do - shame on you.

Your like most liberals these are. Be tolerant for me but I’m won’t be tolerant for you.

To say I don’t support anything that doesn’t support what the Bible says while you clearly don’t support anything that doesn’t support what you think science says is hypocrisy at its finest.

It should be your intention to understand what the Bible says and how the Bible and science agree and work together. Shame on you. Especially as a Christian. Calling people who believe the Bible as small minded. Double shame on you for that.

Think what you will Science does not trump the Bible. As a Christian you have a responsibility to understand how Science works with the Bible - not how the Bible works with Science. You changing the Bible to fit your science views and spreading that to others will not serve you well.

As for me I’ll go with what God said. The world was Created approx 6000 years ago and took six 24 hour days. How is that possible?Science says otherwise? You say. Well stay involved and on this board. I believe you have a heart that believes in God and wants to understand the truth. It will take time but with your heart that way - you will discover it.

Platte · Jul 28, 2024

SelfSim said:
Flattery won't help you here ..

Not trying to insult it’s just the science folks and selective assumptions. And you all go the same narrative that the science powers to be direct you.

SelfSim said:
What do you think does then?

The truth is hard to come by sometimes. The Bible is the Truth. That’s a good place to start. Scientific assumptions don’t equal the truth. Doesn’t mean they are incorrect but keep that understanding in mind when using science. - don’t use it in such a factual way when is laden with assumptions. Carbon dating is a good tool. Use it. But don’t worship it like it can’t be wrong. So many assumptions that are used for it could be wrong. But like I said use it. It’s the best tool we have.

Platte · Jul 28, 2024

sjastro said:
As a human interest story (although it involves AI) I asked GPT4-o for a comment on this post.

What caught my attention was GPT-4o using the CMB as an example for the isotropy of the speed of light.
I would never have thought of it and asked GPT-4o to provide more detail.

I can't fault the response, if came from a human I wouldn't question it, from AI I can't believe it has such insight, I am going to forward the response to an astrophysicist to see if an expert can find flaws in it.
I must be exhibiting prejudice aga inst AI.

Speed based on direction is much different than one way speed vs two way speed. But I do appreciate your post. Very insightful

Platte · Jul 28, 2024

sjastro said:
"I’m not an advocate for YEC. God creating the world young wouldn’t make much sense if He wanted the Earth to be hospitable and functional for Adam from the beginning." (Post #53)

Yet in another thread you made this comment.
"The earth was created approximately 4000BC (6000 years ago). Job was written after creation."

Not sure what the problem is with my statements. The Bible clearly teaches us that the earth was created approx 6000 years ago and that Creation was completed in 6 - 24 hour days.

But I believe God created the world as we see it. Fully functional.

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

Old Soul

He’s a Way of life

Old Soul

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

On August Recess

He’s a Way of life

Old Soul

Newbie

Example: Light Speed Variance and CMB Anisotropy​

Scenario:​

Recombination and CMB Emission:​

Observing the CMB:​

Visual Representation:​

Conclusion:​

He’s a Way of life

Old Soul

Old Soul

Newbie

Newbie

Old Soul

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Example: Light Speed Variance and CMB Anisotropy

Scenario:

Recombination and CMB Emission:

Observing the CMB:

Visual Representation:

Conclusion: