Posted on 01/10/2024 6:24:18 AM PST by gop4lyf
Yes, but he's saying that it is claimed that we are seeing things that were there before the "Big Bang", not traveling to them.
There is (supposedly) empirical evidence that the speed of light has been getting slower over time. The data was accumulated over a period of more than 100 years, and the technology available at the time is/was good enough to be reliable in this regard.
BTW - sometime in the 20th Century the speed of light was redefined in such a way that it was (is) a constant (i.e., constant number).
So “science” has a habit of moving the goalposts, or changing the yardstick if/when the facts don’t cooperate with the existing theories/models.
Hope someone finds this useful.
You are making my head hurt with all of those numbers.
Space is where there are no objects. I don’t understand how THAT can expand.
“So “science” has a habit of moving the goalposts”
When they move the goalpost off the field they call it a “new paradigm”.
Lol.
P.S. Usually before they do that they demonize anyone who dared question the prevailing orthodoxy.
I’ve wondered similar. Light can be bent by gravity and can’t ‘escape’ a black hole. So the speed of light is proportional to gravity and is not a pure constant (right?). We also know speed impacts time. If there was a ‘big bang’ does ‘space time’ change as matter accelerates? Does ‘space time’ change as the acceleration slows? Or stops? Or decelerates? Therefore, time is not a constant either (right?).
If time is ‘relative’ then using constants to estimate the age of anything is only accurate in the ‘short term’ - whatever that actually means.
I love science, work in a technical field - but am no physicist. This has bothered me for a while though and I’ve not seen a discussion surrounding these concepts. Maybe it’s because I’m completely ignorant to why the discussion has no merit.
I’ve wondered similar. Light can be bent by gravity and can’t ‘escape’ a black hole. So the speed of light is proportional to gravity and is not a pure constant (right?). We also know speed impacts time. If there was a ‘big bang’ does ‘space time’ change as matter accelerates? Does ‘space time’ change as the acceleration slows? Or stops? Or decelerates? Therefore, time is not a constant either (right?).
If time is ‘relative’ then using constants to estimate the age of anything is only accurate in the ‘short term’ - whatever that actually means.
I love science, work in a technical field - but am no physicist. This has bothered me for a while though and I’ve not seen a discussion surrounding these concepts. Maybe it’s because I’m completely ignorant to why the discussion has no merit.
Futile.
So many bets are off in extreme conditions. Reference classical physics, then Einstein.
Extreme conditions beyond those in play in the transition from classical to relativistic physics. Time itself is in play. “Speed” of light “constant?” Meaning of a distance measurement? haha
The 93 billion number is based on the ASSUMPTION that every point in the universe expands at the same rate as every other. That results in an exponential expansion instead of a constant expansion. If we see 13.8 billion miles away then that provides a measurement of the rate of expansion. Use that to calculate how every other point has expanded exponentially. If you do the math, it comes to 93 billion. But we can’t see 93 billion miles away so we’re just assuming it’s that large based on the theory it’s an exponential expansion.
Thanks, I’ve seen him before- interesting stuff to be sure.
Here is another thought on the speed of light being lerhaps not constant in ALL directions, and why that might very well be the case. (The construct of speed is based on “convention”, ie, something we think might be universal, but may not infsct be- and he gives the reason why that might be the case. Also ie: if it takes light 2 seconds to travel 18,262 (or whatever the speed of lbiht is) because it would also include the return path to us, all we know for sure is that it too, 2 seconds, and we don’t know for example if the knight traveled say 1 1/2 seconds TO the object, then 1/2 second back to us- all we know for sure is that it takes 2 seconds total, which can be measured)
Interesting stuff.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkoTubA52SQ&pp=ygUec3BlZWQgb2YgbGlnaHQgcHJvdmVzIGNyZWF0aW9u
This is an excellent thread.
Real science is about asking the tough questions—and not rushing to find quick “answers” that may later turn out to be incorrect.
Other “nonconforming” theories of this stuff (that could be right or wrong...)
—Hologram theory
—Fractal theory
—Conscious universe
Any of these would break all the “rules” and mean the “constants” may vary all over the place.
What does it mean to extrapolate back in time and to reason about mass and space, when all of those were “coming to be” during the “time” we are trying to reason about?
Do we assume that “time” existed “before” the “big bang?” Why?
If time is not truly linear (but linear time is just a function of human perception) then there may be different questions that are more appropriate.
One theory of time is that it is like a reel of film.
If your run the reel forward at normal viewing speed you have human perception.
Needless to say that is not the only possible way a reel of film could be viewed.
That isn't exactly true. From the earth's frame of reference, both ships will appear to be going (close to) the speed of light, and (relative to each other) will be going (close to) twice the speed of light.
But from the frame of reference of either ship, I believe the earth will be receding fast, and the other ship just a little bit faster. Because of time dilation, both earth and the other ship will be moving at less than the speed of light.
gotcha
When I was young, I said to God, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the universe.’ But God answered, ‘That knowledge is for me alone.’ So I said, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.’ Then God said, ‘Well George, that’s more nearly your size.’ And he told me.
George Washington Carver
If one is honest, one discovery/question leads to more questions. Eventually there is an answer which is GOD.
General relativity says that spacetime itself is bent by gravity* and light just "follows the bend".
*Actually, I think it would say that spacetime is bent by massive objects and gravity is one of the results of that bending.
and can’t ‘escape’ a black hole. So the speed of light is proportional to gravity and is not a pure constant (right?).
Nope. The speed of light through a vacuum is a constant. (The speed of light through a non-vacuum medium can be much lower; that's how lenses work for example.)
The speed of light through space is constant at about 300,000 meters per second. However, space itself is expanding at a faster rate, thus carrying the light waves along with it. The physics fits the Standard Model and is well established.
The question is whether the expansion is constant, decelerating, or accelerating. This will determine the ultimate fate of the universe. Constant = heat death (all stars cool off and die, the universe goes dark). Decelerating = the Big Crunch (everything eventually re-compresses and you get another Big Bang). Accelerating = the Big Rip (everything flies apart faster and faster, with the acceleration itself speeding up so fast you can actually look up and see the stars fly apart a few days before the Earth does and then your atoms in your body a few seconds later).
Evidence is currently leaning towards the Big Rip, which makes me happy because the it fits the Bible nicely. The Big Rip is a spectacular and beautiful way for God to end His story.
If you are familiar with Douglas Adams’ book ‘The Restaurant at the End of the Universe’, it shows the Big Rip happening.
And this supports Patrick F. McManus’ (RIP) theory that the mountain trials he used to walk as a young lad were indeed much longer and thus more tiring to travel as an old man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.