Speed of Light gets Slower?
in [Relativity]
|
From: dlzc on 8 Jul 2010 10:16 Dear harald: On Jul 8, 4:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:21 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 6:51 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > >< The meter is now defined such that if c > > > changed, so would the meter to compensate. > > > Since we are not getting anomalous readings > > > in the Universe around us, this seems to > > > have been a sound choice. > > > > > The speed of light is c = # meters/second. > > > Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light > > > decreases by 50%. > > > The length of the rod would similarly decrease > > by 50%, since its size is maintained by forces > > using c for propagation. > > May be right, may be wrong. That we cannot know, is telling. > Clock rate would then be unaffected, Are we sure? "Microfine transistions of caesium atoms" sounds like it might involve c at some point. With a change in c, we might need to revisit the specifics of the "mechanisms" of some clocks. > while you could instead argue that clock rate > is affected and not dimensions. "glird" insisted the value of c changed. I agree that in *this* Universe, a change in clock rates is more likely, with no change in c. > > > By the rule of Physics cited by David, > > > "international caveat". > > > > instead of this being measured as c = > > > .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become > > > half > > > ... I think you meant "twice" ... > > > > as long as it was so c = # meters/second > > > remains a constant regardless of the > > > actual speed of light! > > Please one of you fill me in, why only length > would change and not frequency? Frequency was not posited by "glird". "He" wanted the speed of light to change. David A. Smith
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 11:45 On Jul 8, 4:16 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear harald: > > On Jul 8, 4:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 7:21 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 6:51 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > >< The meter is now defined such that if c > > > > changed, so would the meter to compensate. > > > > Since we are not getting anomalous readings > > > > in the Universe around us, this seems to > > > > have been a sound choice. > > > > > > The speed of light is c = # meters/second. > > > > Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light > > > > decreases by 50%. > > > > The length of the rod would similarly decrease > > > by 50%, since its size is maintained by forces > > > using c for propagation. > > > May be right, may be wrong. > > That we cannot know, is telling. > > > Clock rate would then be unaffected, > > Are we sure? That's what I mean. If the effect is fully due to change of length, time is not affected. I find that (intuitively) unlikely. > "Microfine transistions of caesium atoms" sounds like it > might involve c at some point. With a change in c, we might need to > revisit the specifics of the "mechanisms" of some clocks. Yup. > > while you could instead argue that clock rate > > is affected and not dimensions. > > "glird" insisted the value of c changed. I agree that in *this* > Universe, a change in clock rates is more likely, with no change in c. Now I'm really puzzled! Why do you assume that only clock frequency *or* the speed of light can change over time? > > > > > By the rule of Physics cited by David, > > > > "international caveat". > > > > > instead of this being measured as c = > > > > .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become > > > > half > > > > ... I think you meant "twice" ... > > > > > as long as it was so c = # meters/second > > > > remains a constant regardless of the > > > > actual speed of light! > > > Please one of you fill me in, why only length > > would change and not frequency? > > Frequency was not posited by "glird". "He" wanted the speed > of light to change. That's a wrong and unfair presentation. We are all commenting to the topic of this thread, and to comments of others. Harald
From: glird on 8 Jul 2010 14:22 On Jul 8, 11:45 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:16 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > Dear harald: > > On Jul 8, 4:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jul 8, 7:21 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > gl: The speed of light is c = # meters/second. Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light decreases by 50%. By the rule of Physics cited by David, instead of this being measured as c = .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would become half as long as it was so c = # meters/second remains a constant regardless of the actual speed of light! David:I think you meant "twice" as long ... If the speed of light slows to 50%, then instead of being 1 unit/sec it would be .5 units/sec. In order to measure that is c = 1, a unit rod would have to shrink to half its length, not expand to twice its length. Harald: Please one of you fill me in, why only length would change and not frequency? The frequency is the number of waves that pass a given point per second. if the given point is moving tooward oncoming waves, more of them will pass it per second and the frequency will increase. If the given point, say the eye of an observer, is moving in the same direction as the oncoming waves, les of them will pass per second so the frequency will decrease. It is therfore evident that the frequency depends on (at least) three things: a] How many waves emit per second. b] The speed and direction of the observer wrt the emitting object. c] The density of the space-filling compressible material that conducts light. (If its density increases, the speed of light decreases; so the frequency will too.) glird
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 15:00 On Jul 8, 8:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 11:45 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:> On Jul 8, 4:16 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > Dear harald: > > > On Jul 8, 4:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 7:21 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 9:55 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > gl: The speed of light is c = # meters/second. Suppose that # = 1, and > the speed of light decreases by 50%. By the rule of Physics cited by > David, instead of this being measured as c = .5 meters/sec, the meter > rod would become half as long as it was so c = # meters/second remains > a constant regardless of the actual speed of light! > > David:I think you meant "twice" as long ... > > If the speed of light slows to 50%, then instead of being 1 unit/sec > it would be .5 units/sec. In order to measure that is c = 1, a unit > rod would have to shrink to half its length, not expand to twice its > length. > > Harald: Please one of you fill me in, why only length > would change and not frequency? > > The frequency is the number of waves that pass a given point per > second. if the given point is moving tooward oncoming waves, more of > them will pass it per second and the frequency will increase. If the > given point, say the eye of an observer, is moving in the same > direction as the oncoming waves, les of them will pass per second so > the frequency will decrease. It is therfore evident that the > frequency depends on (at least) three things: > a] How many waves emit per second. > b] The speed and direction of the observer wrt the emitting object. > c] The density of the space-filling compressible material that > conducts light. (If its density increases, the speed of light > decreases; so the frequency will too.) No, the frequency of a dispersion-free wave is not a function of the propagation speed. As Einstein put it, the number of wave crests is conserved. And I simply meant clock frequency but let's continue this path of observed frequency spectrum from distant stars, which is directly related, as it also came up in the article that I found, here once more: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733 It is claimed (by Setterfield) that the redshift is affected by the change of light speed. I guess that such an effect should reduce the observed redshift - correct? Harald
From: dlzc on 8 Jul 2010 15:55 Dear harald: On Jul 8, 12:00 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > gl: The speed of light is c = # meters/second. > > Suppose that # = 1, and the speed of light > > decreases by 50%. By the rule of Physics > > cited by David, instead of this being measured > > as c = .5 meters/sec, the meter rod would > > become half as long as it was so c = # > > meters/second remains a constant regardless of > > the actual speed of light! > > > David:I think you meant "twice" as long ... > > > If the speed of light slows to 50%, then > > instead of being 1 unit/sec it would be .5 > > units/sec. In order to measure that is c = 1, > > a unit rod would have to shrink to half its > > length, not expand to twice its length. You did not have the rod shrink. You had it stay the same, yet indicate it would indicate half the size. > > Harald: Please one of you fill me in, why > > only length would change and not frequency? > > > The frequency is the number of waves that > > pass a given point per second. if the given > > point is moving tooward oncoming waves, more > > of them will pass it per second and the > > frequency will increase. If the given point, > > say the eye of an observer, is moving in the > > same direction as the oncoming waves, les of > > them will pass per second so the frequency > > will decrease. It is therfore evident that the > > frequency depends on (at least) three things: > > a] How many waves emit per second. > > b] The speed and direction of the observer wrt > > the emitting object. > > c] The density of the space-filling compressible > > material that conducts light. (If its density > > increases, the speed of light decreases; so > > the frequency will too.) > > No, the frequency of a dispersion-free wave is > not a function of the propagation speed. As > Einstein put it, the number of wave crests is > conserved. > > And I simply meant clock frequency but let's > continue this path of observed frequency spectrum > from distant stars, which is directly related, as > it also came up in the article that I found, here > once more: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733 > > It is claimed (by Setterfield) that the redshift > is affected by the change of light speed. Actually Setterfield proposed that the redshift was *entirely* due to a change in c, and whatever corresponding secular changes he also described (h for example). > I guess that such an effect should reduce the > observed redshift - correct? Yes, it should arrive at a blue shift in a biblical static Universe. But since the OP and his various subsequent nyms is trolling, then the three of us need only stay satisfied that we are "on topic". David A. Smith
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: "Sunny" Side of Wikipedia Next: More Proof, LHC's BLACK HOLE |