Speed of light is constant?

[9Westy9]

SN1987A, for example, was studied extensively. The maximum speed of light was found to be the same 167 000 thousand years ago as it is now. This was done by various methods, by lots of authors. All published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. That was accepted as scientific concensus, by hundreds of thousands of experts on the subject. Same consensus since 1920.

A few weirdo's, who don't even try to publish their different "findings"in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, but on church web sites, are not considered to do science. They don't do science. Nobody comments on pseudo-science.

Not sure you understand what Dr João Magueijo is claiming. He claims that "light may have travelled much faster at the Big Bang than it does now." Not that it's gradually been slowing down. You also seem to be dismissing him as a "weirdo" who publishes his findings on "church web sites".

and just in case you doubt his educational background "João Magueijo studied physics at the University of Lisbon. He undertook graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge University. He was awarded a research fellowship at St John's College, Cambridge, the same fellowship previously held by Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam. He has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College London where he teaches undergraduates "General Relativity" and postgraduates "Advanced General Relativity"." - Wikipedia

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this guy is definitely correct. But just because the scientific consensus says something doesn't make it right. It might be more reasonable to believe the consensus but it's close minded to dismiss the work of this scientist just yet.

 

[9Westy9]

Hey there. This may help; The Decay of c-decay

Thanks for the post. I read a similar article earlier and thoroughly agree. However, there is a newer theory by Dr João Magueijo that I'd like to learn a bit more about.

 

[9Westy9]

We are not aware of any "slowing down" of a universe constant, no. C is the speed of light in a vacuum. Until we find some evidence showing otherwise, it will continue to be the speed of light in a vacuum.

Hey Photonic.

I agree that the evidence points to a consistent val;ue for c in the last hundred thousand or so years, at least. However, I'm more interested in work by Dr. João Magueijo, who claims that c may have been much larger around the time of the big bang. Wondering of you've heard anything about that?

Thanks, Westy

 

[Photonic]

Hey Photonic.

I agree that the evidence points to a consistent val;ue for c in the last hundred thousand or so years, at least. However, I'm more interested in work by Dr. João Magueijo, who claims that c may have been much larger around the time of the big bang. Wondering of you've heard anything about that?

Thanks, Westy

C would have been consistent with the expansion of 3-space in the big bang, so it technically would have been, but at the same time, thanks to relativity, it would have been the same.

Attempts are being made to model such things, time for you to join the line with the rest of us scientists in awaiting the results of the LHC.

 

[9Westy9]

C would have been consistent with the expansion of 3-space in the big bang, so it technically would have been, but at the same time, thanks to relativity, it would have been the same.

Attempts are being made to model such things, time for you to join the line with the rest of us scientists in awaiting the results of the LHC.

Hopefully the line will start moving quickly

 

[Krok]

I've seen no evidence that the scientists I've quoted are religious. In fact Dr João Magueijo is by no means a young earth creationist

You don't get it, do you? He wrote a book about the possible speed of light that could be faster than c. It was not peer-reviewed. Anybody could say anything in a book. Scientists don't comment on books. Scientists don't comment on web sites. Scientists don't comment on religious pamphlets. Scientific concensus is obtained in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

He was then quoted in an "article" on a religious website as somebody equal to Jesus, because he speculated it in a book. It is stated as if his book is fact. It is not, and he even states it in his book.

There is no evidence for what he wrote in the book. It was pure speculation. The scientific community reached consensus that the maximum speed of light in a vacuum is c. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Reptillian]

You don't get it, do you? He wrote a book about the possible speed of light that could be faster than c. It was not peer-reviewed. Anybody could say anything in a book. Scientists don't comment on books. Scientists don't comment on web sites. Scientists don't comment on religious pamphlets. Scientific concensus is obtained in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

He was then quoted in an "article" on a religious website as somebody equal to Jesus, because he speculated it in a book. It is stated as if his book is fact. It is not, and he even states it in his book.

There is no evidence for what he wrote in the book. It was pure speculation. The scientific community reached consensus that the maximum speed of light in a vacuum is c. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

I don't know, I'm a scientist and I comment on websites and stuff all the time. Scientists are people too you know, we enjoy a good commenting spree as much as anyone.

 

[9Westy9]

You don't get it, do you? He wrote a book about the possible speed of light that could be faster than c. It was not peer-reviewed. Anybody could say anything in a book. Scientists don't comment on books. Scientists don't comment on web sites. Scientists don't comment on religious pamphlets. Scientific concensus is obtained in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

He was then quoted in an "article" on a religious website as somebody equal to Jesus, because he speculated it in a book. It is stated as if his book is fact. It is not, and he even states it in his book.

There is no evidence for what he wrote in the book. It was pure speculation. The scientific community reached consensus that the maximum speed of light in a vacuum is c. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

He's very aware that his idea is theoretical. I'm not saying he's right only admitting the possibility that he might be right and Einstein's theory may not be completely correct. Unless of course you view Einstein's theory of relativity as a sort of 'holy book' that can't be questioned? I agree that the consensus may be that c has been a constant and will always remain so, but there are scientists who are trying to find a better explanation. Besides, isn't that what science is about? Trying to find the best explanation?

 

[Twilight Hue]

One needs to ask where are the existing scientific citations to verify such a claim? As it stands, none are found whatsoever.

Doing research on the credentials of Barry Setterfield, one finds that he

had at one time, initally commenced legit university studies centering on physics and geology, but never completed his degree and dropped out of the university citing health issues. Later he became a devout Christian YEC and refused re-entry to the university claiming anti-Christian bias and thus never acquired his degree.​

Dunno too much about Trever Norman other than his affiliation with Flinders University in Adelaide as a member of the math dept there. There is no mention as to his type of degree (If he even has one) or was functioning in some other capacity.​

It would be real nice if YECs simply stop lying about this subject, claiming "scientific legitimacy" in their findings and publish the proper papers to support all this. Instead, it's all cleverly worded puseudo science to support a young earth. Not suprised.​

 

[9Westy9]

One needs to ask where are the existing scientific citations to verify such a claim? As it stands, none are found whatsoever.

Doing research on the credentials of Barry Setterfield, one finds that he

had at one time, initally commenced legit university studies centering on physics and geology, but never completed his degree and dropped out of the university citing health issues. Later he became a devout Christian YEC and refused re-entry to the university claiming anti-Christian bias and thus never acquired his degree.​

Dunno too much about Trever Norman other than his affiliation with Flinders University in Adelaide as a member of the math dept there. There is no mention as to his type of degree (If he even has one) or was functioning in some other capacity.​

It would be real nice if YECs simply stop lying about this subject, claiming "scientific legitimacy" in their findings and publish the proper papers to support all this. Instead, it's all cleverly worded puseudo science to support a young earth. Not suprised.​

Indeed :yes:. I'm more interested in where Dr Joao Magueijo's theory may take us, if it get's off the ground.

 

[Photonic]

I don't know, I'm a scientist and I comment on websites and stuff all the time. Scientists are people too you know, we enjoy a good commenting spree as much as anyone.

This thread is directly related to my field of expertise and I commented on it. :X

 

[Daviso452]

Perhaps this has something to do with the discussion..?
Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph

 

[9Westy9]

Perhaps this has something to do with the discussion..?
Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph

Indeed it does :yes:. Although I'm interested in whether light itself went faster at one point

 

[Photonic]

Indeed it does :yes:. Although I'm interested in whether light itself went faster at one point

No one here or anywhere in the world can say definitively until we receive data from the LHC on the subject, for now it is postulation at best.

 

[9Westy9]

No one here or anywhere in the world can say definitively until we receive data from the LHC on the subject, for now it is postulation at best.

agreed

 

[jmvizanko]

In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

These numbers are a complete and deliberate lie:

In 1676 Christaan Hugens estimated 220,000 km/s.

In 1862 Leon Foucault estimated 298,000 km/s.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Photons just meander their way through matter like a car travelling at constant speed taking the scenic route. They are still travelling just a fast as if they were in a vacuum; it is just that they are not travelling in a straight line.

 

[jmvizanko]

In addition, there is no way to determine that the speed of light had decreased in speed over any measurable amount of time. The only accurate ways to measure the speed didn't exist until the 20th century. The old estimates are exactly that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I rather think this is what you have seen.
They have since spent a few million doing the experiment again, with the same result.

If it proves true it could be helpful to solve a few other puzzles.

1. CERN scientists 'break the speed of light' - Telegraph
   
   
   

 

[shawn001]

Two Technical Problems Leave Neutrinos’ Speed in Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/s...al-problems-cern-says.html?src=me&ref=science