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?

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.

an argument against.



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



__________________
My School Website

then a reply


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

as well another reply;



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

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.

• Measuring the Speed of Light
• Roemer and the speed of light
• More on Roemer & the speed of light
• Measuring the Speed of light from Dummies.Com
• How was the speed of light determined?
• Wikipedia on Ole Roemer

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

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.

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).

http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/default.asp

north, you might get more love over here.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

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.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

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!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

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.

Russ just deal with whats being presented here. ( I'm not looking for love just the truth!!!)

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?

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

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

go to #7 in this thread.

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!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

By "close" to infinite, do you mean finite?

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.

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

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

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.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

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.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

how so?

Oops, of course - thanks for the correction. I got too used to thinking around Michelson-Morley

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

the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies.

assuming that the big-bang concept is correct.

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?

A quick google, I found this (emphasis mine)

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?

__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you could be upside down! O_o
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a man who entered a local paper's pun contest. He sent in
ten different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win.
Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.

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.