Username:

Password:

Altair AstroDIO DehumidifiersAtik CamerasModern AstronomyDavid HindsNe3 Filters

Author Topic: The Speed of light was slower in the past ???  (Read 2933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

Offline dciobota

  • Daniel
  • Galactic Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 9722
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #1 on: 13:09:26, 06 July, 2004 »
Verry interesting.  I read up on the Oklo reactor a few years ago, but had no idea they were using it to verify the speed of light... those sneaky physicists!  ;)

 Good food for thought, seems like no one's contradicting the results so far.  As it said in the article, the variability would explain other observations as well.

 Just imagine if the speed of light became slow enough to observe relativistic effect just driving down the highway... talk about psychedelic trips.  

 "Sorry officer, I didn't see the light turn because it was too slow!" ;)

Daniel
PLEASE REMOVE ME

Offline Ian Taylor

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
    • https://chesterastroblog.wordpress.com/
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #2 on: 14:26:09, 06 July, 2004 »
A bit of philosophy here. If the speed of light had changed would we notice ?

Consider the following situation:

We have a 1 metre long ruler. One way of measuring the length of this standard ruler is to attach a mirror to one end, and have a light on the other. Shine the light at the mirror and time how long it gets to come back. Say the time is T, then the length of the ruler is cT/2.

If the speed of light changes then by implication the length of the 1 metre ruler also changes - but since this is a standard measure, everything else measured relative to this would not appear to change ! Effectively the changing speed of light causes space to contract (or expand) but since our rulers are embedded in this space, they would also contract (or expand) so how would we know !

End of thought for the day !
Ian Taylor
Chester, UK
Orion Optics DX 300 f/4 + Skywatcher 80ED refractor + William Optics Megrez 102 mm f/7 refractor on Losmandy G11 mount + Atik 16ic-s + unmodified Canon EOS 7D
https://chesterastroblog.wordpress.com

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #3 on: 14:45:58, 06 July, 2004 »
I hadn't thought of that, you are right of course because a metre is...


The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

So to us laymens, i suspect that we wouldn't notice...

But I also like "I didn't jump the red light Office, Honest" :)

Any Physicists here that could shed any LIGHT on the subject - sorry that was a bad pun, I'll get my coat :)

Ant
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

Offline AndrewG

  • Poster God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #4 on: 14:51:40, 06 July, 2004 »
Would the length of the ruler change though? If c increases, then T will decrease, if the length is constant, and the same for a slower c...

How is it implied that if light is slower or faster, then the molecular structure of the ruler changes?

This could turn out to be a really interesting thread ;-)

Andrew
AndrewG
10" Newt, 12" Darkbridge (DSC+BlueTooth+PalmTX) :evil: , Vixen ED103SWT, William Optics ZS66, ST102, QHY8, QHY5, EQ6 MK1 + SkyScan

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #5 on: 15:04:19, 06 July, 2004 »
I don't think that the physical length of the ruler would change, only the definition of how long a metre is...

So the ruler would remain the same length but it wouldn't, by the earlier definition, be a metre rule any longer  :evil:

Ant
I have a feeling that I'm going to get told off over this thread :)
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

Offline AndrewG

  • Poster God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #6 on: 15:23:45, 06 July, 2004 »
I was just about to say that, after I read your definition of a metre... The ruler is the same, it's just not a metre any more!

Andrew
AndrewG
10" Newt, 12" Darkbridge (DSC+BlueTooth+PalmTX) :evil: , Vixen ED103SWT, William Optics ZS66, ST102, QHY8, QHY5, EQ6 MK1 + SkyScan

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #7 on: 15:29:29, 06 July, 2004 »
This could be fantastic news for thsoe like me and are crap at DIY :)

Wife. "Why is that shelf not level?"
Me. "Well there's a technical reason for that you see dear, the speed of light must have changed half way through the job" :)

Ant
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

Offline synner

  • Galactic Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 14230
  • Hemel Hempstead, UK
    • synner.co.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #8 on: 16:19:42, 06 July, 2004 »
LMAO  :D
Nick
synner.co.uk

My ethical unpredictability is by default proof of its hard won vitalty

Offline dciobota

  • Daniel
  • Galactic Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 9722
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #9 on: 18:27:25, 06 July, 2004 »
:mrgreen:

 Perhaps this is why I never finish a project, eh? ;)

Daniel
PLEASE REMOVE ME

Offline morden8uk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
    • http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rhughes.xp/
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #10 on: 12:23:08, 07 July, 2004 »
:) This thread is turning into an ace comedy sketch! :)

I also have thought this one throught, and I come to the same conclusion. To make matters worse though... a metre may not be a metre if you take into account this measurement is relitive to human creation.

Too deep....Sorry! :?

Good brain workout though.  :D

Rob
150 f5 Newt / Skymax 127 Mak - RA motor driven Eq3 with HEQ5 leg upgrade. QuickCam 3k

Offline AndrewG

  • Poster God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #11 on: 14:49:16, 07 July, 2004 »
OK - get your heads around this one then - since time is simply how WE perceive different events in the space-time continuum, has light sped up, or do we simply perceive light slower than we used to?

I love threads like this - beats the newt/refractor argument any day...

Andrew
AndrewG
10" Newt, 12" Darkbridge (DSC+BlueTooth+PalmTX) :evil: , Vixen ED103SWT, William Optics ZS66, ST102, QHY8, QHY5, EQ6 MK1 + SkyScan

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #12 on: 15:14:30, 07 July, 2004 »
If light speed was based upon the way that we perceive it - we would then have several billion different values for c.

I'm assuming that the difference is minute and in general terms has no impact to us whatsever.

But this could have an impact on the distance estimates of some very distant astronomical objects - quasars etc...

Seeing as the speed of light is dependant on constant "Alpha" (I think they called it), have we anyway to confirm the the "alpha" constant is actually constant across the entire universe?

And now I've forgoten the whole point of this reply!

Ant
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

Offline Blockroyd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #13 on: 16:40:30, 07 July, 2004 »
just to throw in my 2p worth

if the univers is expanding ? does this mean evertything within the universe is expanding too ? if there is a finite amoutn of mass within the univers is this also expanding  ?
 so

everything is getting bigger , so light is travelling at the same speed, but as everything is bigger , light is actually travelling further ?
so slower ?


and therefore
were dinosaurs actually only 3 feet tall  in todays measurements ?

ive got to keep of the funny fags !!!!!!!

Offline ant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
    • http://anthony.bowskill.org.uk
The Speed of light was slower in the past ???
« Reply #14 on: 17:05:20, 07 July, 2004 »
and therefore
were dinosaurs actually only 3 feet tall in todays measurements ?


LMAO  :lol:

If the Universe is expanding then the 1 metre rule a few billion years ago would be smaller than it is now,  so I guess that the speed of light would have increased to compensate - meaning that the speed of light was lower in the past.

Blimey, thats what the reoprt said - maybe we should be Theoretical physicists :)

And I thought that it was only my waist that was expanding :)

Ant
Ant
Rayleigh, Essex, UK
Skywatcher 200, HEQ5 Canon 300D, Toucam SC1, Pentax EI2000 Digicam.

 

ukbuysellRemote Imaging from AustraliaSharpSkyblank APTUKAI on Facebook
Powered by SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
DarkBreak by DzinerStudio. Theme modified by The UKAI Team

Page created in 0.164 seconds with 34 queries.
TinyPortal © 2005-2012