E=mc²? I think not. Theories must be re-written!! Must Read.

Apparently light can be slowed down and sped up. So if it can be altered, then how can scientists be sure that stars are as far as they say they are? To my understanding, evaluating how distant a star is depends on the light coming from it. So if it can be sped up or slowed down, then perhaps stars are merely pinpoints of light, or are MUCH more massive than estimated. Stars could even be in different positions because the light could be bent and curved to fly in another direction, by obstacles or even gravity. Light is definately not a constant, therefore many of our theories involving the constant of the speed of light are wrong and must be scrapped or re-written with something that works. As far as we know, all the light coming from the heavens could be part of one giant light "source" that is being fragmented by "environmental conditions". So tell me, do you agree that we may be wrong about many, if not all, distances between us and other heavenly bodies, and using the distance of stars (according to the speed of light) to prove theories is wrong?

Check out these links:
www.eurekalert.org...
www.ldolphin.org...
www.physlink.com...
www.khouse.org...

or go search for it on google.

Absolutely true!
You are still going to have some science major come here and try to argue all of the rules and physics involved.

I applaud you for bringing this into the light, its been waiting to come out.

Wow, that is very thought provoking. Sounds very plausable!

I agree totally, Also redshift cannot be attributed to just distance as proven by Halton Arp. The methods used to calculate these distances are full of holes.

In fact Einstein had many critics in his day, he also failed to address many criticisms against his theories.

As Einstein’s theories gained foothold with the younger generation of believers in the “new physics”, Einsteinian fame increased steadily and the ether scientists seemed to die out accordingly. But in 1913 French scientist Georges Sagnac took Einstein’s second postulate to the slaughter bench by mounting an interferometer on a spinning disk and proving that there was a definite difference between light going with or against the direction of rotation. This difference could be easily explained by using old-time Newtonian arguments that speed of light changes according to direction rotation....

....Later when he made his famous theories of the universe after publishing his General Theory of Relativity in 1916, Einstein still refused to accept that galaxies were spinning. He claimed it counteracted his second postulate in the STR. Sadly for common sense all astronomers by 1916 knew that galaxies were spinning (14).

Years after Einstein’s death, decision is still in favour of Sagnac and the absolute nature of rotation. When satellite clocks are synchronized, corrections are made using speed of light either greater or less than c. And today spaceships, satellites and airplanes all carry Laser-ring-gyroscopes that use the non-relativistic Sagnac effect to tell the speed between the plane and the rotating Earth, with accuracies down to nanoseconds

source

This is just one example, there's a lot more evidence disproving many Einsteinian concepts listed in the link, I highly recommend taking some time to go through it, and investigate the claims.
STR has been a hinderance more than anything else. Tesla thought many of Einsteins concepts were ridiculous, I'm inclined to agree.

It's going to take some time to change, there's a definate Einstein worship in the scientific community, I think my signature points out the sad truth.

Some more links on the speed of light.
www.science-spirit.org...
www.news.harvard.edu...

[edit on 30-8-2007 by squiz]

I thought about this when the light slowdown/stoppage experiments were conducted. But after carefully considering it, I realised my mistake.

The "C" in "E=MC²" is the speed of light in a vacuum

The experiments they did recently like slowing light down to 27 mph or something were done in a medium called "Einstein-Bose Condensates" so it's not a vacuum. The implication? The formula remains the same, at least for now.

Oh yes. I see that now.
But space is not a perfect vacuum. There is tonnes of dark matter as i'm told that takes up 90% or something close to that. Sure space is definately at a much lower pressure than Earth, or any planet with a stable enough atmosphere, and can be considered a vacuum, but we aren't sure about what occupies the space between us and a star. There could be zones where the it is a lesser vacuum, maybe a giant gas cloud, that could interfere with the constant of light that still results in huge differences in distance.

If I'm not wrong, it's the variations they detected in "C" that allowed them to speculate the existence of "dark matter" which is basically stuff they can't see. I could be wrong here though.

Hahaha.
Well if dark matter was "theorized" using "C", then a lot more theories than I thought could be wrong as well (that is assuming there is still something wrong with the constant of light). What you say makes a lot of sense.
A scale leans both ways.
If light can't escape a black hole, then maybe at a certain distance the gravity bends the light in another direction. But if black holes and other gravity-rich sources are also theorized from "C" than that may be wrong as well. There must be something out there that affects light, and if there is, not everything we know is true, and we must find a solution that includes all variables.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
If light can't escape a black hole, then maybe at a certain distance the gravity bends the light in another direction.

That is true. Check out the Wikipedia entry for gravitational lensing. In a nutshell they use objects with a massive gravitational field such as black hole or even whole galaxies to magnify the light coming from even further objects out in space. Don't ask me about the math, though, it befuddles me.

Um, what is that???

I'm guessing that's an artist's rendition of how blackhole gravitational lensing works. I doubt it's a real photo.

There are certainly berakrtoughts for slowing speed of light for light based storage of quantum computers- for example Japanese make photonic crystal with nano scale holes, where they trapped the light.

Harvard researchers slowed light to the speed of bicycle ( ultra cold atoms known as Bose-Einstein condensates) and with ultra cold sodium they even froze light, for processing information. 10x of elect, computers.

light and matter // light stopper - harvard/bose-einstein condensate VIDEO


Einstein never said light could not go slower than in vacuum. But nobody as today prove the FTL speed - and FTL speed meaning in vacuum, coz sure, you can slower down the speed in some medium and be faster than light.

Examples of FTL : SHADOW and SPOT OF LASER POINTED AT THE SURFACE OF THE MOON:

Think about how fast a shadow can move. If you project a shadow of your finger using a nearby lamp onto a far away wall and then wag your finger, the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves parallel to the wall, the speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d is the distance from the lamp to your finger and D is the distance from the lamp to the wall. It can actually be much faster than this if the wall is at some oblique angle. If the wall is very far away the movement of the shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there but its speed is still amplified by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light.

Others things which can go faster than the speed of light include the spot of a laser which is pointed at the surface of the moon. Given that the distance to the moon is 385,000 km try working out the speed of the spot if you wave the laser at a gentle speed. You might also like to think about a wave arriving obliquely at a long straight beach. How fast can the point at which the wave is breaking travel along the beach?

This sort of thing can turn up in nature. For example the beam of light from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud. A bright explosion emits an expanding spherical shell of light or other radiation. When it intersects a surface it creates a circle of light which expands faster than light. A natural example of this has been observed when an electromagnetic pulse from a lightning flash hits an upper layer of the atmosphere.

These are all examples of things which can go faster than light, but which are not physical objects. It is not possible to send information faster than light on a shadow or light spot so FTL communication is not possible in this way. This is not what we mean by faster than light travel although it shows how difficult it is to define what we really do mean by faster than light travel.

source
But these are NOT physical objects!

Physicists are talking about TACHYONS - hypothetical particles that are travelling FTL but:

Tachyons are hypothetical particles which travel faster than light locally. They must have imaginary valued mass to be able to do so, but they have real valued energy and momentum. Sometimes people imagine that such FTL particles would be impossible to detect but there is no reason to think so. The shadows and spotlights suffice to show that there is no logic in the suggestion because they can go FTL and still be seen.

No tachyons have been definitely found and most physicists would doubt their existence. There was a claim that experiments to measure neutrino mass in Tritium beta decay indicated that they were tachyonic. It is very doubtful but not entirely ruled out. Tachyon theories have problems because, apart from the possibility of causality violations, they destabilise the vacuum. It may be possible to get round such difficulties but then we would not be able to use tachyons for the kind of FTL communication that we would like.

The truth is that most physicists consider tachyons to be a sign of pathological behaviour in field theories, and the interest in them among the wider public stems mostly from the fact that they are used so often in science fiction

Regarding a WORM HOLES for a light to travel FTL requires negative energy of exotic matter ( highly speculative existence of such matter) to keep the hole open, not to mention that it would require pretty much different topology of space/time that we know.

Nice example:

THE MOON REVOLVES ROUND MY HEAD FASTER THAN LIGHT!
Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for.

What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.

So, NO we are not to throw the Einstein equation....for now....specially not on links which have this in their conclusion:

Some of us suspect that the ostensible decay of c, the slowing velocity of light, was one of the results of the upheavals of Genesis Chapter 3.

from OP link

...or one this OP link:

The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like.

The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality.

Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell.

But the Bible changes not. It doesn't need to!

[edit on 30-8-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by Motion-Man
...Stars could even be in different positions because the light could be bent and curved to fly in another direction, by obstacles or even gravity.
....
As far as we know, all the light coming from the heavens could be part of one giant light "source" that is being fragmented by "environmental conditions". So tell me, do you agree that we may be wrong about many, if not all, distances between us and other heavenly bodies, and using the distance of stars (according to the speed of light) to prove theories is wrong?

I have often thought along similar line through my life. Given the possibility of these effects, may be we don't really understand what we are seeing. We may never actually know the structure of the galaxy or universe.

This is another one of those stories where the poster has gotten the science wrong .

As mentioned earlier, light only moves at a constant speed in a vacuum. These experiments are performed in environments where light does not have a clear, direct path of travel. It should be noted, however, that light still travels at a constant speed when moving between the atoms in whatever substance is slowing it down.

Secondly, the repercussions of this are far too well rooted in science to simply be dismissed, as confirmed through many, many, many, redundant experiments.

The beauty of science is that it is all falsifiable, though. So Einstein may have been wrong -- but we have to prove it. I wouldn't hold my breath, however, as experimentation on the macro, as well as micro, proves relativities worth, time and time again.

reply to post by electronQM


Exactly! We know that although (wave) phase velocity can be bigger than c - group velocity is same or slower than c, and this is what counts because group velocity carries the energy!

If a wave solution has a frequency dispersion it will take the form of a wave packet which travels at the group velocity which is less than c. Only its wave trains travel at the phase velocity. It is only possible to send information with such a wave equation at the group velocity so the phase velocity is yet another example of a speed faster than light which cannot carry a message

source

Light doesn't so much slow down as change it quantum state. The effect of "slowing down" is merely an optical illusion of quantum mechanics, unfortunately.

light is energy like energy can be alot or alittle can be slow or fast energy so yes light is a varying factor so yes this thread is correct, i think we would have to do quantum tests on the a sample of the light in question and determine the strength and or photon density of it then determine light speed like thread says, light speed is psyops or disinformation of of science, real science and the science they teach are two opposites.

Light travels slower through water, so no it's really no breaking the rules in slowing it down, although the experiments in the links are impressive and unexpected.

Did Einstein not say that nothing could exceed the speed of light? physical or not? It may just be semantics but that was my impression.
But regardless there are experiments that show light is variable not just because of the medium but because of rotation, The measurement for the constant is under the gravitational and electrical conditions of the earth. So it may be meaningless in space on a galactic scale.

Light being an electromagnetic wave or particle wave means it is subjected to the electric and magnetic fields, it may not be gravity that bends light but the electromagnetic field, It also depends on the way we think about gravity, gravity could very well be an electrostatic dipolar effect in which case yes it's still true. There's a lot to suggest that's true IMO.
space is not a complete vacuum it's full of charged ionized particles. There are currents on a galactic scale, so it's conceivable that light speed may be variable throughout the universe.

Einstein was a brilliant mathematician but he did not consider the role of electricity in space and his knowledge of the universe was limited to his time, in the end even he was not satisfied with his theories, witch he should be commended for.
Electricity in space simplifies many things and dissolves the highly speculative ideas like darkmatter, darkenergy, blackholes, neutron stars, strange matter and the big bang etc... these are not real science it's speculation.

So the bottom line is the exact distances in galactic scale cannot really be known with certainty, with all the evidence against the standard view of redshift as well as a fixed speed of light that is unlikely.

It's best to come from a place of questioning and challenging instead of accepting things we cannot know for certain. We've only been at this for a hundred years or so we can't expect to know it all and get it right the first time, the universe isn't going to give up it's secrets that easily.


[edit on 31-8-2007 by squiz]

Sorry if this might be slightly off topic. Can gravity bend time (or slow time)?

If so, since speed is dependent on time, couldn't the speed of any partical be influenced by gravity? Light is made of particals (quanta), so then couldn't the speed of light be influenced by gravity, hence in a vacuum such as space?

I don't study physics, maybe some of my assumptions are completely wrong, that's why I add the questions marks, I really don't know.

Here's something I found interesting:
www.geocities.com...

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Electro38]

Light is influenced by gravity, for example black holes can trap light.