Printable View
Anywho, I was visiting stomped.com (which I do almost daily)
and I saw a link to a news story. It said that the speed
of light may not have been constant through the 15 billion
year history of the Universe. Eh, well at least I thought
it was interesting...
If you want to read the article...
http://www.austin360.com/shared-cgi/...u=Science.html
well i read the article and i fail to see how this can be good news for physicists as if the speed of light is not a constant then Einsteins theory of relativity cannot work as it totally relies on the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
Of course the speed og light is not constant, the speed og light (C) varies (only be tiny amounts) depending on pressure, temperatue and density. As the atmosphere throughout the universe is not uniform there will be minor changes in the velocity of light. This deos not affect the theory of relativity becasue of the minute differences involved.
Why must the speed be constant in order to validate his theory? In my view, it's constancy does not necessarily "affect" the relevance of his findings.
But that's just my opinion anyway...
BTW, I don't think the slower speed the article was referring to had to do totally with the effect of the light's speed due to its moving through "clouds of matter", but rather to the fact that the higher density of matter of this cloud induced a stronger gravitational field, hence even when the light was not moving through this "cloud", it must slow down because of the increased gravitation...
This sight is like a little mini slashdot.
2 reasons.
1. The same links are getting posted.
2. Then people are commenting on what impact the study of quasars may have on physics and the theory of relativity.
This is kind of funny to me. I already know that reading a couple of articles here and there on relativity does not mean I know much about it.
And a last note, before I am flamed for voicing that opinion- there is only one absolute constant in the universe. And you are not Him.
You're right - did Murphy ever actually exist?Quote:
And you are not Him.
Him? and who is He exactly?
the only constant is that all living things will die, there are no other coinstants. I do not believe unless i am presented with scientificall proven or provable evidence.
Oh please no lets not go down that road again.
>>I do not believe unless i am presented with scientificall proven or provable evidence.
Fair enough - your right to your opinion is sacred
>>there is only one absolute constant in the universe. And you are not Him.
Yes but come on Theologian......Bill Gates cant go on forever.....can he?
>>Bill Gates cant go on forever.....can he? lol :D
>>Oh please no lets not go down that road again -
i totally agree! we have already done
the 'im religious im good, your not, my religion is right your is not' debate!
>>your right to your opinion is sacred
so is evryones!
"I may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
Sorry- I wasn't trying to get that bit going, but I should have known better.Quote:
Originally posted by iain
>>Bill Gates cant go on forever.....can he? lol :D
>>Oh please no lets not go down that road again -
i totally agree! we have already done
the 'im religious im good, your not, my religion is right your is not' debate!
>>your right to your opinion is sacred
so is evryones!
"I may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
What is interesting though-- science has a lot of junctures where it collides with theology and the 2 become inseperable.
When people talk about constants or mathematical truths they are revealing parts of their world view that impact more than just the mere 'facts' at hand.
So some guys looking through telescopes at quasars spark of theological conversations. (Don't think this is necessarily so? Read the slashdot threads on this stuff)
I wish that good dialog that covers the things that exist on these boundarys was easier on message boards. Unfortunately there is too much dross to sift through.