Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 294

Thread: the speed of light, is it infinite

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358

    the speed of light, is it infinite

    as far as the speed of light goes I always thought it would interesting to do an experiment where, say a star a million light yrs away ( or shorter distance of course, but enough to make my point) has its light blocked. then take this blockage away. I predict that the light would not take a million yrs to get to us again. light and its speed are based on Earth experiments, assuming I'm right, the light from this particluar star would be instantaneous, when reaching us.

    any reason I should be wrong?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    this an argument for(from the particle physics forum)

    An eclipsing binary is a pair of stars orbiting eachother in such a way that one passes in front of another during its orbit from our point of view. That is to say, from the direction we are looking, one stars light is temporarily blocked by the other star, and then unblocked. This happens during each orbit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    an argument against.



    you need to read more about gravitational lensing
    see link: http://web.mit.edu/eakeyes/www/18.337/intro.html



    Quote Originally Posted by north
    Originally Posted by north

    Robert the thing is that first you assume a bending of light. what if there is no bending of light from this eclipse?

    and the light is simply coming at us directly with no bending at all.
    __________________
    My School Website

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    then a reply


    Yes, the light is totally blocked. This is not gravitational lensing

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    as well another reply;

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinM
    Originally Posted by MartinM
    Yes, the light is totally blocked. This is not gravitational lensing.

    Quote Originally Posted by north
    so we say that in actual fact , the speed of light if not infinite, is certainly much higher then 186,000 mps?

    if this is true, this changes well almost everything, in astronomy!!!

    for it seems that we see things in real time rather than time pasted!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb Roemer

    What about Ole Roemer? He measured the speed of light in the 1670's, by using the orbits of Jupiter's moons. He used the fact that light takes longer to get here from the far side of the orbit, than from the near side. So if the speed of light is infinite, as you suggest, then orbital mechanics is wrong. But since we know from experience that orbital mechanics is not wrong, we know that the speed of light cannot be infinite.

    In other words, the measurement you propose to make has already been done, and the results are in. The speed of light is not infinite.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    your example has been brought up by MartinM and then answered by him;


    Well.. Jupiter is several light minutes away. Therefore, when a moon passes behind Jupiter, the blockage is several light minutes away. If you prefer, there are eclipsing binary stars several hundred light years away. Perhaps you could use these to give an example of what you mean.

    answer;

    Hah! nevermind. Apparently, just last year astronomers discovered an eclipsing binary in the Andromeda galaxy. 2.5 million light years away. So there you go.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Roemer's isn't the only measurement of the speed of light, nor the only type of measurement - Google on Fizeau, Foucault, and Michelson (yep, the same one), to take just a few examples.

    Now, since this is the ATM section, and not the Q&A one, what ATM idea are you proposing, north?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Roemer's isn't the only measurement of the speed of light, nor the only type of measurement - Google on Fizeau, Foucault, and Michelson (yep, the same one), to take just a few examples.

    Now, since this is the ATM section, and not the Q&A one, what ATM idea are you proposing, north?
    that instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite.( actually I'll go out on a limb and say that it is infinite).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/default.asp

    north, you might get more love over here.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    That instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite. [Snip!]
    As far as most of our daily activities are concerned it might as well be infinite. (Of course the time-delays in transmissions via satellite are quite real and are part of our daily experience.) The fact that it is so mind-bogglingly fast (299,792.458 km/sec) is part of the reason people have trouble accepting such things as the difference between coordinate and proper time, etc.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Here is another mind altering (crazy) possibility!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ken G
    Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity, and the speed of light appears as a key parameter even where light itself does not. Think of it this way. The speed of light is embedded into reality in a very deep way, and that's why light goes that speed-- not the other way around. end quote


    This is a very insightful concept!

    Understanding our universe has so far been almost entirely based on understanding the light that we can detect at all the different wave lengths and frequencies and we have certainly come a VERY long way. However, it is my contention that it is understanding the Darkness (DM/DE), the true properties of 'space', that will take us another GIANT step forward in that understanding.

    So based on your above statement Ken G, I would like to propose a concept that I have recently developed based on numerous other determinations.

    This will sound crazy at first (and may be).

    [Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity,]

    Let's start with your first insight here...if this is indeed the case (and I believe it is), this is made up of Planck size (infitesimal DM), and I am going to suggest that 'all' of it, the entire universe worth of pure dark matter is moving @ the speed of light, and that as we know, it does not interact with
    'ordinary' matter. It also has no real interaction with itself, so that there is no attraction of any of the infitesimal bits to each other, so there is no clumping of any kind, so in effect, all the bits are moving at the speed of light, in 'all' directions, so there is no prefered direction of the bits in any given volume of space. So they cannot 'bump' into each other!

    Now Einstein showed that the speed of light in a vacuum is C.

    So, if that vacuum, is what I described above, and since light has 0 mass and the pure dark matter 'space' bits have an infitesimal mass, that would mean that the light is 'lighter' (mass wise), and would mean that the light itself is not actually 'traveling' of its own velocity, BUT is being 'carried' along with the DM field of space which is traveling at C. Obviously until it bumps into something that it must react with.

    So, if this DM field of space bits is traveling at C, that easily explains why space just travels right through the earth, our bodies, and all baryonic matter.

    Here is the way I actually came up with part of this and the easiest way for me to think of it. When you turn on a light in a big room, the light is not eminating at the speed of light throughout the room. The light bulb is eminating light right at the bulb, and 'space', moving everywhere/every direction at C is carring that light everywhere/every direction @ C.

    Crazy Huh!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
    As far as most of our daily activities are concerned it might as well be infinite. (Of course the time-delays in transmissions via satellite are quite real and are part of our daily experience.) The fact that it is so mind-bogglingly fast (299,792.458 km/sec) is part of the reason people have trouble accepting such things as the difference between coordinate and proper time, etc.

    true

    and the implications, that the speed of light is in fact infinite, even to the vast distances in the Universe is to say the least enormous.

    for we are seeing the Universe in real time.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/default.asp

    north, you might get more love over here.
    Russ just deal with whats being presented here. ( I'm not looking for love just the truth!!!)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,349
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    true

    and the implications, that the speed of light is in fact infinite, even to the vast distances in the Universe is to say the least enormous.

    for we are seeing the Universe in real time.
    As has been pointed out, it clearly is not infinite, and we see plenty of examples of that. Are you suggesting it is faster in some circumstances, and if so, what are those circumstances?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    As has been pointed out, it clearly is not infinite, and we see plenty of examples of that. Are you suggesting it is faster in some circumstances, and if so, what are those circumstances?

    go to #7 in this thread.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Sorry, I thought I was dealing with what was being presented.

    Tom Van Flandern has the same concept (nearly) for gravity that you are presenting for light speed, so I thought...

    The universe can only work as a whole in one self consistent way so all of the history of cosmology and especially that last 100 years have resulted only in clues to what that self consistent way is.

    The bottom line is, like I stated in your other thread, is that GR is partially correct *nucleosynthesis* via Gamma from a singularity and Fred Hoyle was also partially correct in that it gets here a little at a time!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    that instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite.( actually I'll go out on a limb and say that it is infinite).
    By "close" to infinite, do you mean finite?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,349
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    go to #7 in this thread.
    I already had. On one hand, it looked like you had admitted that the speed of light is the accepted value. On the other hand, you keep talking about an infinite light velocity. Please clarify.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    421
    I'd say there are big 2 reasons (among MANY others!) against speed-of-light being infinite:
    1) The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.
    2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by RobA View Post
    I'd say there are big 2 reasons (among MANY others!) against speed-of-light being infinite:
    1) The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.
    2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.
    While definitely not real time, the deep-field photos also show fully developed and very mature galaxies, while at the same time more and more 'new' galaxies are being found in our nearby local or semi-local space. This is more of a problem than is currently being realized.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Quote Originally Posted by RobA
    The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.
    Actually the speed of light had been measured before, since -- I think -- Galileo's time.

    What was derived in Maxwell's theory was the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, which turned out to equal the measured speed of light. This was one more bit in support of the idea that light is indeed an EM wave.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by RobA View Post
    2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.
    how so?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Actually the speed of light had been measured before, since -- I think -- Galileo's time.

    What was derived in Maxwell's theory was the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, which turned out to equal the measured speed of light. This was one more bit in support of the idea that light is indeed an EM wave.
    Oops, of course - thanks for the correction. I got too used to thinking around Michelson-Morley

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RobA
    2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.
    how so?
    If the Hubble deep-field shows galaxies 10billion lightyears away looking younger than galaxies nearby, then the simplest explanation is that we're seeing galaxies like our own was 10billion years ago.

    The simplest explanation is that the speed of light is finite, and those galaxies are indeed younger (soon after the BigBang), and would "now" be the same age, and look as mature, as ours.

    However, if the speed of light is infinite, then we must be in a special place (a "mature-looking galaxy" island) surrounded by a sea of younger galaxies, but that's not really on.

    RussT: Thanks for the comment. I must admit to this just being my understanding - I'll have to leave it to others to confirm or debate

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by RobA View Post
    If the Hubble deep-field shows galaxies 10billion lightyears away looking younger than galaxies nearby, then the simplest explanation is that we're seeing galaxies like our own was 10billion years ago.
    the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobA View Post
    The simplest explanation is that the speed of light is finite, and those galaxies are indeed younger (soon after the BigBang), and would "now" be the same age, and look as mature, as ours.
    assuming that the big-bang concept is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobA View Post
    However, if the speed of light is infinite, then we must be in a special place (a "mature-looking galaxy" island) surrounded by a sea of younger galaxies, but that's not really on.
    on the whole as I've mentioned before there is NO difference between local galaxies and very distant( billions of light yrs away) by Hubbles' deep field is there?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    [snip]

    on the whole as I've mentioned before there is NO difference between local galaxies and very distant( billions of light yrs away) by Hubbles' deep field is there?
    Are you claiming there is no such difference? Or asking whether there is any such?

    If the former, then can you back up your claim; if the latter, then why not start a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section on that very topic?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies.
    A quick google, I found this (emphasis mine)

    The final ACS image, assembled by Anton Koekemoer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, is studded with a wide range of galaxies of various sizes, shapes, and colors. In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    287
    IIRC, there are mirrors on the Earth's Moon that have had lazers bounced off of them (or something to that effect) and measurements have been taken of the speed of light... I think?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    IIRC, there are mirrors on the Earth's Moon that have had lazers bounced off of them (or something to that effect) and measurements have been taken of the speed of light... I think?
    I don't know if they have been used to measure the speed of light, but they do measure the time it takes light to get to the Moon and back. And since there is a measurable time of flight, the speed of light cannot be infinite.

Similar Threads

  1. Infinite Universe = Infinite Speed?
    By kenianbei in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-02, 03:03 AM
  2. What is the wavelength of light as it receeds near the speed of light?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-23, 08:31 PM
  3. Speed of Light, Speed of Source Question
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-17, 06:29 PM
  4. Can there be a speed faster than the speed of light???
    By someguy44 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-14, 12:43 AM
  5. Infinite Light?
    By ChromeStar in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-May-01, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: