the speed of light...

[gamespotter10]

we all know that the speed of light is constant. this is a basic law of physics. the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference

now, I have a question for all you young earth creationists on this website.
You say that the whole universe is only 6000 years old. let me explain what would really happen if the universe were 6000 years old. If the universe were only 6000 years old, we would only be able to see objects that are at most 6000 light years away. why is it that we can see galaxies and quasars which are over 13 billion light years away.

so young earth creationists, how do you explain this one?

 

[TheOutsider]

Predicted response:
1)the speed of light is not a constant.
2) Omphalos hypothesis.
3) something off-topic.

 

[gamespotter10]

Predicted response:
1)the speed of light is not a constant.
2) Omphalos hypothesis.
3) something off-topic.

omphalos hypothesis?

 

[Maxwell511]

Quantum tunnelling.

 

[Allegory]

ha ha, this guy doesn't know how expansion works!

 

[TheOutsider]

omphalos hypothesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(theology)

"The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Creation (Omphalos) by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable."

i.e. The universe isn't really 13 billion years old, God just made it look that way because he enjoys practical jokes.

 

[gamespotter10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(theology)

"The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Creation (Omphalos) by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable."

i.e. The universe isn't really 13 billion years old, God just made it look that way because he enjoys practical jokes.

oh, you mean "apparent age"?

sorry, Im not going to worship a god who knowingly lies to his followers

 

[Allegory]

I just have to point out that the fact that we can see quasars over 13 billion light years away is neither here nor there. I think the furthest observed objects are actually somewhere around 40 billion light years away.

Not to say that the YECers are right, but I'm just sayin'

 

[gamespotter10]

I just have to point out that the fact that we can see quasars over 13 billion light years away is neither here nor there. I think the furthest observed objects are actually somewhere around 40 billion light years away.

Not to say that the YECers are right, but I'm just sayin'

that's impossible. the universe is only 15 billion years old.

 

[Allegory]

that's impossible. the universe is only 15 billion years old.

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

 

[guzman]

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

sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.

sorry-- this post was meant for the OP.

 

[Krak]

sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.

sorry-- this post was meant for the OP.

Uhhh, no. We never came to that "conclusion" you may have but the websites you referenced were psuedo-physics at best.

I'll tell you why matter can not travel faster than the speed of light; the faster something travels, the smaller it gets. So if something is going half the speed of light, it's mass will decrease by around 50%. Once it reaches the speed of light, its mass will reach 0%. This is why its impossible to go that fast, matter would be destroyed or it would go backwards in time, because the faster an object goes, the more time slows down. Something traveling at the speed of light would be frozen in time.

And didn't your teachers ever tell you not to site wikipedia as a reference? that article clearly says, "this entry is lacking references"

 

[MoonLancer]

so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?

I always thought gravity changed the speed of light.

 

[just another skeptic]

so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?

I always thought gravity changed the speed of light.

No, Light in a vacuum has always the same velocity. In a gravity well the space (and time) gets bend so light from an outside observer doesnt go slower but the time goes slower. That effect is miniscule except for very heavy objects like black holes.
And to guzman: the effect of gravity spreads at the speed of light, it never goes faster and is also not instantaneous, even Newton knew that because of the Mercury-problem. Didnt you read the link i gave you in the other thread?

 

[just another skeptic]

Uhhh, no. We never came to that "conclusion" you may have but the websites you referenced were psuedo-physics at best.

I'll tell you why matter can not travel faster than the speed of light; the faster something travels, the smaller it gets. So if something is going half the speed of light, it's mass will decrease by around 50%. Once it reaches the speed of light, its mass will reach 0%. This is why its impossible to go that fast, matter would be destroyed or it would go backwards in time, because the faster an object goes, the more time slows down. Something traveling at the speed of light would be frozen in time.

And didn't your teachers ever tell you not to site wikipedia as a reference? that article clearly says, "this entry is lacking references"

sorry but this is not quite right. approaching the speed of light makes the object gaining more mass. The energy you would use to accelerate is making the object "heavier" and you need more energy to accelerate. This is reaching an infinite at the speed of light. So you never could reach speed of light with an object with mass. The energy you need to get it at the speed of light would be infinite.

 

[Loudmouth]

sorry but this is not quite right. approaching the speed of light makes the object gaining more mass. The energy you would use to accelerate is making the object "heavier" and you need more energy to accelerate. This is reaching an infinite at the speed of light. So you never could reach speed of light with an object with mass. The energy you need to get it at the speed of light would be infinite.

In addition, it would also take an infinite amount of time. Relative to an observer at rest, time dramatically slows for an object nearing the speed of light. This means that chemical and nuclear reactions slow to a near stand still. The time needed for that last chemical reaction or nuclear reaction to push the object to the speed of light is infinite.

And completing the Lorentz transform, your spaceship would also be flat as a pancake.

 

[Maxwell511]

Using quantum tunnelling light can "travel" instantly through space at the macroscopic level. It is a scientific fact, it has been experimentally tested and fits perfectly in with present theories.

I'm not sure speed of light arguments are as valid as they were once thought.

Of course there are issues relating to this because there is no evidence to suggest that light is "travelling" in evanescent modes and if they are the question becomes how far exactly are the stars away?

Edit: For all those evidence huggers.

Personally I don't like the title, I don't think that it actually is a violation of special relativity, since the photon is not travelling through the gap.

 

[[serious]]

sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.

sorry-- this post was meant for the OP.

Not really, there are a couple of ways of "faking" something going faster than the speed of light, but nothing that can carry matter or information faster than light in local time. The wki you cite is too rough of a draft to figure out exactly what they are talking about. No citations are given and they don't give enough detail to look it up.

so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?

I always thought gravity changed the speed of light.

Gravity wells can do some strange things to outside observation of motion, but there is no way of using a large mass to actually transmit data or matter faster than the speed of light.

 

[FishFace]

Using quantum tunnelling light can "travel" instantly through space at the macroscopic level. It is a scientific fact, it has been experimentally tested and fits perfectly in with present theories.

I'm not sure speed of light arguments are as valid as they were once thought.

The whole of general relativity breaks down somewhat at quantum scales. You can't break the speed of light on normal scales, still.

 

[Loudmouth]

sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.

Information was not transmitted faster than the speed of light, not to mention that the phenomena observed was quantum tunneling which is governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This effect, for photons, only occurs within one or two wavelengths. For visible light this occurs over hundreds of nanometers. For microwaves, which is what the recent study used, this occurs over 30-50 cm. Outside of that there is no "violation" of the speed of light, if you can even call it that.

As to the speed of gravity, no such experiment has been run. Tom van Flandern's stuff is pseudoscience at best. His argument with the sun and earth supporting instant propogation of gravity is seriously flawed. I can go through it with you if you want. It's been a while since I dug that stuff up. If you want, there are plenty of threads debunking TvF over at www.bautforums.com (including his pet theories involving the Face on Mars).