If the Speed of Light changed, would we even notice it.

[WebFeet]

I think one problem is our defining of time. Time is a erelatively linear construct. Mathematically it appears to have an origin at zero. I think that zero is more an asymptote on the timeline. Most of the equations breakdown when you look at t=0. This does not mean that there could not be negative time; just that 0 time does ot compute.

Time.

You can't perceive what you measure and you can't measure what you perceive.

 

In other words.

The only time that you can perceive is NOW, but you can't measure NOW because that very instance has no duration. All you can measure is the time that has elapsed, which you cannot perceive because it has already past.

[C1ay]

The only way you could make such a logical deduction would be through experimental evidence, such as the energy from the initial event...

 

What initial event? If you are referring to the big bang I do not consider it to be the beginning of anything other than possibly that of our local universe. I believe the mass expelled from the big bang did not just instanteously come into existance. We cannot prove that but we know now that matter does not just appear out of nowhere. Matter is neither created or destroyed. If there was a big bang I think it resulted from matter that existed before the event occured, likely from matter that contracted into a singularity. I realize there is no way to prove this because we cannot see back any further than the event that lead to our own creation. Just because we cannot see beyond the horizon does not mean there is nothing there, it only means that we can't see it if there is. In and of itself I cannot see that as a reason to declare there is nothing there, I accept the possibility that there is.

[WebFeet]

What initial event? If you are referring to the big bang I do not consider it to be the beginning of anything other than possibly that of our local universe. I believe the mass expelled from the big bang did not just instanteously come into existance. We cannot prove that but we know now that matter does not just appear out of nowhere. Matter is neither created or destroyed. If there was a big bang I think it resulted from matter that existed before the event occured, likely from matter that contracted into a singularity. I realize there is no way to prove this because we cannot see back any further than the event that lead to our own creation. Just because we cannot see beyond the horizon does not mean there is nothing there, it only means that we can't see it if there is. In and of itself I cannot see that as a reason to declare there is nothing there, I accept the possibility that there is.

 

If you replace the word Matter with the word Energy, then I agree with everything you said. Even the bit about there being something beyond the horizon, although, as you say, there's no proof it exists.

 

The only things we know about are those things that exist in our Universe. Beyond that is pure speculation.

 

If all the energy contracted to a singularity, then you have a coordinate without dimensions. Not even time.

What the energy was prior to its contraction, again is speculation, but there no reason why it wasn't a collection of galaxies similar to the ones we have now. Where did they all come from ? The same initial event.

 

If you view it externally, then you have a sequence of Big Bang events happening over and over again. This would only be possible if there was an external time frame.

Viewed internally, it is the same event happening at the same time, time being measured from Tzero+ of the Big Bang. But since we all make up the energy that was contracted, we're not really in a position to measure it.

 

If there is an external time frame, then the events happen in sequence. If not, then there's nothing to measure the sequence against. It just becomes sequence without duration so they all happen at the same time.

[pgrmdave]

Time, after all, is only a measurement. It is sequence and duration.

In this respect it is no different from length or height.

 

This got me thinking - where is the beginning of up? If there is an beginning of time, and it is the same as length or height, then there should be a beginning of any dimension. I believe, though I do not know whether or not it is testable, that the dimension which we call time is exactly the same as the spatial dimensions with which we are more familiar. The reason we perceive time to flow forward, is because there is a direction of cause and effect, or of increasing entropy. It wouldn't make sense for time to have a beginning, but for the other dimensions not to have one.

[maddog]

The only time that you can perceive is NOW, but you can't measure NOW because that very instance has no duration. All you can measure is the time that has elapsed, which you cannot perceive because it has already past.

WebFeet -- I for once Agree with you completely. Even the perception of NOW is Then (as the moment

when that "NOW" had occured). It is either recorded in an instrument or your memory. :friday:

 

Maddog

[C1ay]

If all the energy contracted to a singularity, then you have a coordinate without dimensions. Not even time.

 

I think time is not dependant on the state of matter or energy, it is a chronology of events. A collection of matter and energy into a singularity is just another event on the timeline.

[WebFeet]

This got me thinking - where is the beginning of up? If there is an beginning of time, and it is the same as length or height, then there should be a beginning of any dimension. I believe, though I do not know whether or not it is testable, that the dimension which we call time is exactly the same as the spatial dimensions with which we are more familiar. The reason we perceive time to flow forward, is because there is a direction of cause and effect, or of increasing entropy. It wouldn't make sense for time to have a beginning, but for the other dimensions not to have one.

Realistically, you can only ever measure time elapsed, not time itself. Time is NOW. Not 5 minutes in the future or 5 minutes in the past, just NOW.

 

Time is inversely proportional to the other spatial dimensions. As the other dimensions become compressed, so duration increases and so time appears to run more slowly.

 

At the most basic level, us and the clocks around us are made up out of energy, wizzing around at a common velocity. The length of time it takes for the images from this page to hit the back of your eye and get transmitted through your optic nerve to your brain, is determine by that common velocity.

If the energy was moving at a slower rate, then it would take longer for the image to reach your brain, but you wouldn't notice the difference because your neurons rate of firing would also be determined by the rate at which energy can be transmitted. Your clocks will also be effected.

Time has slowed due to a change in the velocity of the energy, but you notice no difference.

 

If it is the speed of energy that determines how time is perceived, then it doesn't matter which direction the energy is travelling in, time would be measured based on its speed.

Time would be just a counter for each movement of energy. It can only count in increments, hence why it only flows in one direction.

 

You can no more reverse Time than you can reverse a neuron firing.

 

Edit: I've almost got this thread back on topic :friday:

[Odin]

I hate to burst your bubble but the speed of light is in all a mere variable for indications of energy travelling through space in terms of the Special Theory of Relativity. To figure the Energy of a fusion burst from the sun one would incorporate E=mc^ but if one wanted to know the speed of the electromagnetic waves it would be impossible as these waves are energy from beta decay and travelling through space are deemed to also be travelling at this rate.

In all the real flaw of the Theory is that visible light just doesnt give off the same level of energy as the gamma rays although near the same end of the spectrum visible light is harmless and the real energy is from UV an Infrared as beta energy whereas visible light is mere alpha energy and gamma energy is the result of beta decay.

In conclusion is Einsteins theory correct? Not in any aspects of physics that I can see

[WebFeet]

I hate to burst your bubble but the speed of light is in all a mere variable for indications of energy travelling through space in terms of the Special Theory of Relativity.

IMHO the speed of light is a little fundemental than just a mere variable for the use in a theory.

 

The speed of light is the corner stone to how our universe functions

 

In all the real flaw of the Theory is that visible light just doesnt give off the same level of energy as the gamma rays although near the same end of the spectrum visible light is harmless and the real energy is from UV an Infrared as beta energy whereas visible light is mere alpha energy and gamma energy is the result of beta decay.

I know it's being a bit picky, but visible light and gamma rays do not give off any energy.

 

They are the energy.

 

 

In conclusion is Einsteins theory correct? Not in any aspects of physics that I can see

 

It is easy to mock someone elses work when the results cannot be verified, but far more difficult when the results are repeatable.

The next time you're in a car with SatNav, you can thank Einstein because the internal clocks on the satellites you're using run at a slightly different rate than those here on earth.

[Tormod]

In conclusion is Einsteins theory correct? Not in any aspects of physics that I can see

 

Then you must be ignorant of modern physics, Odin.

 

Like WebFeet pointed out, the GPS system is based on relativity theory and miniscule time dilation due to different frames of motion between the satellites and the receivers.

 

Testing the speed of light is very easy. We know the altitude of geostationary satellites (wiki: Geosynchronous orbits) - they orbit around 35,800 kilometers above the ground. Thus a signal sent from a ground station would use

 

x = 300,000km/35,800km = 0,12 light seconds

 

which means a return signal should be received after 0,24 seconds without processing. No fine tuning of your equipment can change this - in fact, the only thing fine tuning can help is to lower any *additional* overhead time delay due to the need for on-satellite processing.

 

The only way to change the round trip time is to lower the orbit of the satellites, which would mean the would no longer be geostationary, so that is not an option.

 

If the speed of light changed by very much, we should (hypothetically) be able to measure it simply by measuring the time it takes for a signal to take one return trip to a geostationary satellite. If the change was extremely small, say in the millionths, we might need a much more precise measuring tool and could for example use interplanetary probes or satellites in L1 or L2 orbits (1,5 million kilometers away from the Earth).

 

This shows that Einstein's measure of the speed of light is correct, and that the speed of light is a constant.

[VS Prasad]

Who were the first to calculate the velocity of light?

 

The Rig Veda Bhashyam by Sayana Madhava gives the

following Sloka praising the Sun:

 

Yojanam sahasre dve, satadve, dvecha yojane

Ekena nimeshardhena kramamaana namosthuthe

 

One Yojana equals 15788.8 meters, and half of Nimesha

equals 8/75 fraction of a second. This gives the

velocity of light as 325940 km/s. We have to remember

here that the above value is an approximate one

intended for easy remembrance, like remembering the

value of pi as 22/7. It is better than the value 215000

km/s given by Danish astronomer Ole Roemer in 1676.

The word 'kramamaana' means gradual change over

long periods of time.

 

Ancient Indian seers did not use light as a standard for

length measurement. Albert Einstain found that light

bends if it passes by the side of a large mass. How can

that "which bends" be called unchangeable? Every

created thing is subject to change by time; there is

nothing like an universal constant. And the velocity of

light is no exception to this law. The velocity of

light of our Sun was greater in Krita Yuga than what it

is now, even if it is by a small fraction. The velocity

of light is proportional to the stored energy in the

Sun or any other star. Modern science also accepts that

the Sun has lost a lot of energy over billions of

years. Then, there must be some other stars in the

universe which have greater stored energies than the

Sun, and are emitting light which is faster than that

of the Sun? Yes. Modern science will confirm this after

it develops more sophisticated equipment than what they

have at present.