The Speed of Light

Comments
Science

(Robert Byers) #41

The light sources might just be exploding light out. not creating it but revealing it.
Genesis does say light was created, (1), then divided from the darkness, (2).
so light was there then hidden but underneath as such. So its a option that exploding sources just poke out from the hidden/undernather light essence of the universe. Thats my speculation. I start from genesis BUT don’t see why any evidence rejects it. Then i conclude light is not moving but something moves within light. We wrongly call that LIGHT yet its just a provocation.
So i then questioned this sPEED of light concept.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #42

(Robert Byers) #43

Over the summer I was interested and watched lots of youtube science shows on light. I know about the measuring of light speed. yet still question their presumptions. As usual, like in evolutionism, they too quickly draw conclusions. Of coarse they reject genesis straight off.
they are measuring the LIGHT. But this light is just a equation of energy. So its a option this energy is not light but something moving through light.It would be that sticky.


(Jacob) #44

Quick to draw conclusions? Successful, increasingly accurate measurements of the speed of light have been done now for almost 350 years.


(Robert Byers) #45

Even in this, before the experiment, they all assumed light was moving.
I’m not saying there is a ether that light moves through but instead light is the ether. I’m suggesting as a hypothesis.
So light is the pond. The waves on the pond, light waves are just energy overflow waves that poke out the light.
So they are measuring this provoking energy but not the light. Its so close its as if the light is moving in a wave.particle. Yet more likely its just a provoking of this and would explain why the confusion of whether its a wave or particle. The energy poker is able to manifest itself either way.
The “mystery” of the whether light is a wave or particle possibly is based on a error.
The energy provocation is what can morph itself. Not light.
Just speculation but genesis starts it all.


(Robert Byers) #46

The quick conclusion WAS that they WERE measuring light speed. Possib;y/probably they were measuring only a ripple within a light fabric in the universe. Genesis implies this. It makes more sense too.
It helps explain stars being seen by Adam.


(Jacob) #47

I wish you would step away from the YEC attempt to explain away the distant starlight problem long enough to entertain the possibility that conventional science is trying to tell you something true and useful about the speed of light. The YEC explanations are confusing speculations and the more you look at it the more things don’t really fit - it is like trying to make a square circle. Why not consider an alternative?


(Robert Byers) #48

You first? I’m offering the innovative hypothesis. its not YEC just me.
its not conventional science. its conclusions done in small circles in a progression of knowledge. The progression continues with innovation.
If the speed of light really was just from a source of light it should not be THAT hard to prove. I bet they can’t though.
I’m still not sure from reading here whether this SPEED only if for light or for both the two elements of light or for gravity waves or what??
In fact I understand Rutherford came to his light concept based on the unique sameness of the speeds pf both elements.
I think I heard this on the British BBC show “IN OUR TIME” on Rutherford.


(Jacob) #49

Here is an example. If the sun by some magic instantaneously disappeared, we on earth would not notice anything for about 9 minutes. The speed of light and gravity are the same, so the instant the earth ran out of sunlight, the earth would suddenly shoot in a straight line since there was no longer a gravitational field from the sun keeping the earth in orbit.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #50

And it will get awful cold really fast.


(Daniel Ang) #51

Robert, if you don’t like the word “speed of light”, then you can call it “speed of something that moves within light” instead. You are free to interpret what scientists think is the movement of light as the act of God revealing or “poking” light from darkness. These are all theological interpretations that do not affect the basic scientific facts that have been established through experiment.


#52

This won’t help him as this won’t solve the YEC “distant starlight problem”.


(Daniel Ang) #53

Well, yes, but the point here is to establish the distinction between empirical observables and the language used to describe them and theological interpretation on top of it. Otherwise Robert won’t even affirm that there is any sort of problem in the first place. Once we agree on what we’re talking about, then we can proceed with the distant starlight problem. (Or “distant something that moves within light problem”.)


#54

I agree, this might be a good stepping stone to get him to address the problem.


(Dan Eastwood) #55

@Robert_Byers, when we talk about the spectrum of light, or electromagnetic waves, it might help to think of colors. The colors humans can see, make the rainbow colors of the “visible spectrum”, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. I listed those colors in order of increasing frequency. If light were sound, then red light would be low-pitched and violet would be high-pitched.

There are more colors that we cannot see, like “infra-red” which we feel as heat, or ultra-violet which might give us sunburn. Radio wave, microwaves, X-rays, and gamma rays are other frequencies of light.


(Jacob) #56

Ooh, don’t get me started on radio : ) If you remember the old style analog TV and sometimes you would see a “ghost” signal - that was because of multipath. Part of the signal was reflected and arrived later than the main signal and the slight delay caused the reflected signal to be out of phase with the main signal.

Something more fun than that, I have heard the Doppler Shift from radio signals from low earth orbiting satellites (including spacecraft such as the International Space Station). There is a formula that calculates how fast a spacecraft is moving relative to you (based on the frequency and how much it shifts). The constant in that is the speed of light.

To take that to another level of complexity and to turn things around a bit, if you have a GPS receiver in your car and the receiver has a fix on at least three GPS satellites (in practice you will probably need four), it will tell you how fast you are going and your direction. Here is where precise measurements make it work. The position of the satellites, the time and the frequency (including any Doppler Shift) are known. One interesting thing is the clock on a GPS satellite in orbit runs slightly slower than an equivalent clock on earth, and this has to be taken into account, and that is a proof of Relativity.


#57

Speed of light debate in 2018? With all the information available at our fingertips?

Beware the fisherman who’s casting out his line
Into a dried up river bed,
But don’t try to tell him 'cos he won’t believe you.
Throw some bread to the ducks instead, it’s easier that way.

Lyrics from Heathaze, a song from the Genesis album: Duke (1980)


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #58

I have described GPS similarly when explaining to flat-earth advocates that their “model” conflicts with how GPS satellites’ positions relative to the earth facilitate calculations based upon simple trigonometry (operating in three dimensions.) Believe it or not, they claimed that GPS manufacturers participate in the great “spherical earth hoax” by using a LORAN-type position-determination system instead. Thus, they claim that GPS satellites do not exist!

I’ve come to the conclusion that evidence in such debates is meaningless if one is convinced that conspiracies trump all else.


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #59

I sure do remember that ghosting problem! It was so common that many TV viewers used to routinely adjust the “rabbit ears” antennas on their TV sets. If one got tired of doing that, there were some rather expensive “antenna rotation systems” which even had “memory settings” so that the system knew how to orient the very-directional, roof-located, high-masted antenna to maximize the primary “direct path” signal and minimize the reflected “ghost signal” for a given TV channel.

Your post even brought back memories of “TV skippers” who would take advantage of rare and special ionispheric conditions (usually around dawn, I think it was) to pick up European TV broadcasts from the USA and even to send their own single-scan CSTV images [closed-circuit] images to their ham-radio friends in Europe.

All of this can make sense only if one understands light and electromagnetic signals as they are described in the physics textbook equations. Those were fun times for radio and electronics amateurs. (Perhaps some here recall the days of short-wave QSL cards. I assume the internet has rendered such hobbies almost non-existent. That was an era when Radio Shack was a very descriptive trade name. That’s where we got our arcane electronics parts.)

POSTSCRIPT: Does anybody else (@Michael_Callen, perhaps?) remember the old Edmund Scientific advertisements which appeared in the back pages of every issue of Popular Science and Science Digest magazine in the 1950’s and 1960’s? I never had the money in those days to order from that catalog but it was filled with the kinds of “scientific toys” which science-oriented Americans of all ages would have loved getting for Christmas. Short-wave and electronics kits featured prominently, as well as standard “props” for doing experiments with light, such as prisms and diffraction gratings.


(Herculean Skeptic) #60

I do remember them. Not from the 50’s though! :slight_smile: We have a Heathkit radio here… I’m sure it doesn’t work, but every piece was hand soldered by my wife’s grandfather. In the spirit of Edmund Scientific, I bought a science exploration kit from a now-defunct toy store about 15 years ago for my kids. It was $100 or so and had a microscope and all sorts of glass slides with different things to see. I think it broke within five minutes of being opened. Complete junk. I remember getting a microscope when I was five or six and using that thing for a decade and a half. It’s a shame that everything manufactured has become disposable.