AZ's Increasing the Speed of Light

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Ummm, you can't increase the speed of light, and an ultraviolet photon can't enter the 'nucleus' of an infrared photon, as there is no such thing as a nucleus of a photon. The idea of exploding it is naive or uninformed at best.

Hello Antoniseb,

What is your decisive evidence that the speed of light is impossible to be increased?

What is your evidence that the photon has no "nucleus"?

[antoniseb]

If you would like to defend these two ideas, I will move this thread to the ATM section for you.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

If you would like to defend these two ideas, I will move this thread to the ATM section for you.
I thank you very much for giving me this chance. Man is to try. Sometimes, the scientific proposals become proved by other helpful persons.

[Robert Andersson]

Perhaps someone has been watching a certain Futurama episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clone_of_My_Own)?

Cubert: That’s impossible. You can’t go faster than the speed of light.
Professor: Of course not. That’s why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

;)

[Tensor]

Hello Antoniseb,

What is your decisive evidence that the speed of light is impossible to be increased?

Well, I don't think there is anything definitive showing it is impossible to increase, but here (http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-ph%2F9606486)is a paper showing that the Fine Structure Constant (which includes c) hasn't changed in 2 billion years (if c changed, the fine structure constant would also have changed). This (http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu410-1.htm) article (I can't link to the actual paper as the link I found requires a subscription) suggests that it's possible that the fine structure constant may have changed (The amount of change in the article is only 2 parts in 10,000 over about 8 billion years)the measurements are extremely subtle and there are rebuttals that the measurements are not accurate enough. Another team is currently working on some more measurements on a larger sample to verify the linked study. Now, if the fine structure constant has changed, that does necessarily mean the speed of light has changed. Elementary charge, Planck's constant or the permittivity of free space could have changed. Now do you have anything that shows it is the speed of light that has changed, and if so, by how much?

What is your evidence that the photon has no "nucleus"?

Well, here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ex/pdf/9912/9912049.pdf) is a paper that explains it. Along with references, at the bottom of the paper, of experiments showing the calculations in the paper match experiments, not of which would match if the photon has a more elementary structure. Do you have evidence that there is a structure to a photon?

[gzhpcu]

I thank you very much for giving me this chance. Man is to try. Sometimes, the scientific proposals become proved by other helpful persons.
Excuse me, but what "scientific proposals" are you talking about? A proposal is deemed scientific when based on science. What science are your proposals based on?

[Nereid]

As Attiyah Zahdeh's account has been suspended for a month (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=831496&postcount=88), this thread will be closed until his return.

He will answer all pertinent, direct questions, about the ATM ideas he has presented in this thread.

Or, he may ask that the thread be closed, to allow more time for preparation of answers, or because he chooses to abandon defence of the ATM ideas.

[Nereid]

Thread re-opened.

[Abelian Grape]

What is your decisive evidence that the speed of light is impossible to be increased?

What is your evidence that the photon has no "nucleus"?
Bzzzzt! Seriously wrong approach here. Let's nip this in the bud.

It's not our job to disprove whatever ideas you present, it is yours to show why we should accept them.

So, what evidence do you have that (1) the speed of light can be changed (Futurama is not an acceptable reference); and (2) that a photon has internal structure, a nucleus in particular?

[Tensor]

Bzzzzt! Seriously wrong approach here. Let's nip this in the bud.

It's not our job to disprove whatever ideas you present, it is yours to show why we should accept them.

So, what evidence do you have that (1) the speed of light can be changed (Futurama is not an acceptable reference); and (2) that a photon has internal structure, a nucleus in particular?

Hmmmmmm, I've heard those questions somewhere (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=829084&postcount=5) before.

[Nereid]

Per Attiyah Zahdeh's request, this thread will be closed for 30 days, while he prepares responses to the open questions.