Invariance of c

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I already have defined those special circumstances.  When time is a long time ago, or a long time in future.  Or when distance is a long way away.  I'm not here to do science, i'm here to ask questions about science.

And you have been given many answers which it appears you are unable to accept. 

Quote

Its not a random idea.  It taken from the 2nd postulate of special relativity where there is no limitation stated on (s-t), nor is there any limitation on inertial frames of reference.  I am simply questioning those limitations.  You have already hinted that during inflation, there are some theories to a varying speed of light.  So when t=very early on, physics were different and special relativity fails, but the postulates do not reference these limitations either.

There are some hypothesis [ not theories] re the possible varying speed of light...nothing anywhere near positive. Scientific theories stand until they are falsified. 

1 minute ago, AbstractDreamer said:

No, flying unicorns is crazy.  Variable c is within the domain of questionable physics.

No evidence for either actually. Sorry for the science lesson. 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

So when t=very early on, physics were different

Yes, physics may have been different. The speed of light may have been different. But we have no way of testing that (at present).

20 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

The photon is a billion years old, but the MEASUREMENT is 400 years old of a photon that has aged a billion years.  It is NOT the measurement of the photon a billion years AGO.

400 years ago we were not able to make observations of stars that are billions of light years away. Now we can.

That doesn't change the fact that the speed of light and other fundamental constants AT THAT TIME would have affected the behaviour of atoms and photons at the time. When we observe the photons (now) we would see that the atoms behaved differently then. (We don't.)

24 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

By frequency do you mean intensity?  What is the equation that is dictated by c?  What are the other constants are involved?

Here is an article on how the fine structure constant affects the spectrum of hydrogen, and how it is related to c and other constants: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Info/Constants/alpha.html

I suppose once could come up with a complicated story where all of the constants in nature changed together so that everything behaved identically even though the speed of light was different. As this would, necessarily, be indistinguishable from all the constants being, well ... constant, then Occam's Razor comes into play.

 

18 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I already have defined those special circumstances.  When time is a long time ago, or a long time in future.  Or when distance is a long way away.  I'm not here to do science, i'm here to ask questions about science.

And, at the time scales and distance accessible to us, we see that the speed of light doesn't change. That is all science can say.

Yes, there may be unobservable situations where the speed of light changes. But because they are unobservable, that is not science.

13 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Variable c is within the domain of questionable physics.

And you have been given the answers we get when this is tested. 

Your refusal to accept them is your problem, not science's.

[AbstractDreamer]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

We can't do that. But demanding impossible tests isn't going to get you anywhere.

We're limited to the test we can actually perform, and they tell is that alpha is the same as it was billions of years ago, in all directions, and is not currently changing here.

Yes, it is. That's when the interactions that produced the photons occurred.

 

Ok I don't know what alpha is.  The interactions you are observing are billions of years old, but that's because the OBSERVABLES are billions of years old. You are NOT measuring the interactions as they were then from billions of light years away.  You are measuring them after their observable has traveled through billions of light years for billions of years.   If you do not acknowledge the difference, theoretical physics is the poorer.

I'm not demanding impossible tests.  I'm curious as to why the community is so against the idea of a variable c, when the possibility of one doesn't necessarily have to have such an drastic affect on currently accepted models,  and yet the only arguments I'm hearing is impossible to test, flying unicorns, circulus in probando, and argumentum ad hominem

[YaDinghus]

40 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

No, flying unicorns is crazy.  Variable c is within the domain of questionable physics.

Flying Unicorns are real. We just haven't observed them yet. Neither have we observed anything that changes in c would explain better than other, more sensible theories

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Yes, physics may have been different. The speed of light may have been different. But we have no way of testing that (at present).

If the photons velocity was different eons ago, those same photons would still have the same  velocity if they were measured now, would they not?

[AbstractDreamer]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I don't believe I am. Science is not about proof. It is about the scientific method, observational and experimental evidence, and supporting theories based on that.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Scientific theories stand until they are falsified. 

No evidence for either actually. Sorry for the science lesson. 

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Yes, there may be unobservable situations where the speed of light changes. But because they are unobservable, that is not science.

 

Supersymmetric string theories consists of ideas that cannot be observed.  So accordingly is it not science then?  All those physicists and mathematicians... are you calling them non scientists because they are researching stuff that cannot be observed?  That is a poor definition of science, if that is your lesson.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That doesn't change the fact that the speed of light and other fundamental constants AT THAT TIME would have affected the behaviour of atoms and photons at the time. When we observe the photons (now) we would see that the atoms behaved differently then. (We don't.)

Here is an article on how the fine structure constant affects the spectrum of hydrogen, and how it is related to c and other constants: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Info/Constants/alpha.html

I suppose once could come up with a complicated story where all of the constants in nature changed together so that everything behaved identically even though the speed of light was different. As this would, necessarily, be indistinguishable from all the constants being, well ... constant, then Occam's Razor comes into play.

 

And, at the time scales and distance accessible to us, we see that the speed of light doesn't change. That is all science can say.

And you have been given the answers we get when this is tested. 

Your refusal to accept them is your problem, not science's.

Occam's Razor, I'm in favor of the simplified solution, if it is indistinguishable.

I have been given the an answer in "alpha" whatever that is and the fine structure constant.  I will have to do research into their connection with a constant c.  It's not that i refuse to accept your answers, its that none of your answers have justifiably shown me why i should accept them, other than your word.  It's not that I don't believe you, its that you haven't explained why.  Neither do I believe you have given much thought into my position about its plausibility, and I have little confidence that you have brought about any significant weight of your expertise in the field into this thread other than fobbing it off as my problem, because even as you are convinced c is invariant, you have not actually shown me why.

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If the photons velocity was different eons ago, those same photons would still have the same  velocity if they were measured now, would they not?

That is close to the point i am making!  The velocity may have been different eons ago in time, or eons away in distance, BUT we cannot measure it to be anything other than the velocity that c is today around here.  We are experimentally limited to measurements of observables that are locked in local space and local time, such that any measurement must inevitably result in an invariant c.

Edited June 1, 2018 by AbstractDreamer

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 

 

Supersymmetric string theories consists of ideas that cannot be observed.  So accordingly is it not science then?  All those physicists and mathematicians... are you calling them non scientists because they are researching stuff that cannot be observed?  That is a poor definition of science, if that is your lesson.

 

Occam's Razor, I'm in favor of the simplified solution, if it is indistinguishable.

I have been given the an answer in "alpha" whatever that is and the fine structure constant.  I will have to do research into their connection with a constant c.  It's not that i refuse to accept your answers, its that none of your answers have justifiably shown me why i should accept them, other than your word.  It's not that I don't believe you, its that you haven't explained why.  Neither do I believe you have given much thought into my position about its plausibility, and I have little confidence that you have brought about any significant weight of your expertise in the field into this thread other than fobbing it off as my problem, because even as you are convinced c is invariant, you have not actually shown me why.

That is close to the point i am making!  The velocity may have been different eons ago in time, or eons away in distance, BUT we cannot measure it to be anything other than the velocity that c is today around here.  We are experimentally limited to measurements of observables that are locked in local space and local time.

I'm saying, or pondering, that if the velocity was 1% less then, those photons would be  1% less now.

[AbstractDreamer]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm saying, or pondering, that if the velocity was 1% less then, those photons would be  1% less now.

Well that is another of many alternatives.  But my main position is that No, any photon measured locally in space and time must be c.  But measured across significant time or space, FROM any position, there is no experimental evidence that it must be invariant.  Other than this alpha or fine structure constant explanation that i need to explore, or the Occam's razor argument where various constants are all changing in some extravagant dance of deception such that c is invariant is more complicated than the simpler answer that c is always invariant across time and space.

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Ok I don't know what alpha is.  The interactions you are observing are billions of years old, but that's because the OBSERVABLES are billions of years old. You are NOT measuring the interactions as they were then from billions of light years away.  You are measuring them after their observable has traveled through billions of light years for billions of years. 

And you are quite obviously wrong. What is being observed is the spectrum from distant (and therefore a long time in the past) stars. The values of c, alpha, etc would affect the spectrum at the time it was generated. The spectrum could not magically change as it passed through space.

 

Quote

I'm curious as to why the community is so against the idea of a variable c, when the possibility of one doesn't necessarily have to have such an drastic affect on currently accepted models,  and yet the only arguments I'm hearing is impossible to test, flying unicorns, circulus in probando, and argumentum ad hominem

No one is against it in principle. But tests have shown it has't changed. The fact that you reject these observations is irrelevant.

29 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Supersymmetric string theories consists of ideas that cannot be observed.  So accordingly is it not science then? 

Experiments have been done which could have detected some types of supersymmetric particles. The fact that none have been detected yet rules out certain classes of theories. Eventually we will either detect such particles or rule out all theories that allow for them.

That is how science works.

 

[YaDinghus]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm saying, or pondering, that if the velocity was 1% less then, those photons would be  1% less now.

Well, no, probably not. The speed of photons is always the speed of causality, and if that speed changed, they would change with it. Unless the fundamental properties of photons changed at that point, but then they wouldn't be photons anymore, but something that decays into photons and something else at lower energy. 

[AbstractDreamer]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you are quite obviously wrong. What is being observed is the spectrum from distant (and therefore a long time in the past) stars. The values of c, alpha, etc would affect the spectrum at the time it was generated. The spectrum could not magically change as it passed through space.

 

No one is against it in principle. But tests have shown it has't changed. The fact that you reject these observations is irrelevant.

Experiments have been done which could have detected some types of supersymmetric particles. The fact that none have been detected yet rules out certain classes of theories. Eventually we will either detect such particles or rule out all theories that allow for them.

That is how science works.

 

There is a difference between measuring an observable that is really old, and measuring an observable (instantaneously) from a long way away.

There's no reason to believe that the spectrum must have changed, perhaps the observable has a different relationship?  Why could the spectrum have not changed as it passed through space?   Why does any change have to be magical? Again I have not done enough reading into alpha or fine structure, so you are forcing me into simply taking your word for granted, which ironically is how religion works, not science.

You need a theory before you can experimentally test it.

You need an idea before you can build a theory.

That is how science works.

[Strange]

Just now, AbstractDreamer said:

Why could the spectrum have not changed as it passed through space? 

So you are going to invoke some unknown, new physics that has no evidence but is able to "magically" change the spectrum of light midway so that we can't detect changes in the fundamental constants.

If these constants changed enough, then either stars would not form (because fusion wouldn't happen) or their behaviour (e.g. temperature, lifetime, etc) would be very different. We don't see any evidence for that either. But maybe something is messing up our observations so that it just looks like there are normal stars at these distances....

3 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Again I have not done enough reading into alpha or fine structure, so you are forcing me into simply taking your word for granted, which ironically is how religion works, not science.

I am not forcing you to do anything. I have provided a link that explains how the spectrum of hydrogen depends on alpha, c and other constants.

 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I already have defined those special circumstances.  When time is a long time ago, or a long time in future.  Or when distance is a long way away.  I'm not here to do science, i'm here to ask questions about science.

Its not a random idea.  It taken from the 2nd postulate of special relativity where there is no limitation stated on (s-t), nor is there any limitation on inertial frames of reference.  I am simply questioning those limitations.  You have already hinted that during inflation, there are some theories to a varying speed of light.  So when t=very early on, physics were different and special relativity fails, but the postulates do not reference these limitations either.

 

 

Asking questions is really good.

+1

But what about the first postulate of special relativity?

The mathematical expression you quoted is neither the first nor the second postulate.

 

So where do you want to start to understand where it comes from?

Edited June 1, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

5 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

The photon is a billion years old, but the MEASUREMENT is 400 years old of a photon that has aged a billion years.  It is NOT the measurement of the photon a billion years AGO.

That only matters if you think something happened to the photon on its way, and something else happened to exactly cancel the alleged effect, since the result is consistent with c being constant. 

5 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

By frequency do you mean intensity?  What is the equation that is dictated by c?  What are the other constants are involved?

No, I mean frequency, which tells you the energy of the photon. 

4 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 I'm not demanding impossible tests.  I'm curious as to why the community is so against the idea of a variable c, when the possibility of one doesn't necessarily have to have such an drastic affect on currently accepted models,  and yet the only arguments I'm hearing is impossible to test, flying unicorns, circulus in probando, and argumentum ad hominem

Variable c has consequences beyond what you are discussing, and we don't observe results consistent with those other consequences.

You can learn about them.  A few have already been discussed, contrary to your complaint here.

4 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 I have been given the an answer in "alpha" whatever that is and the fine structure constant.  I will have to do research into their connection with a constant c. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

"[it] characterizes the strength of the coupling of an elementary charged particle with the electromagnetic field, by the formula 4πε₀ħcα = e² "

 

4 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

It's not that i refuse to accept your answers, its that none of your answers have justifiably shown me why i should accept them, other than your word.  It's not that I don't believe you, its that you haven't explained why.  Neither do I believe you have given much thought into my position about its plausibility, and I have little confidence that you have brought about any significant weight of your expertise in the field into this thread other than fobbing it off as my problem, because even as you are convinced c is invariant, you have not actually shown me why.

I think you may find that this complaint carries little weight, since it's the result of not being familiar with the subject that you are critiquing. The people answering you, OTOH, have spent more time becoming familiar with the subject.

So you can either defer to their expertise or educate yourself.   

 

4 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 

That is close to the point i am making!  The velocity may have been different eons ago in time, or eons away in distance, BUT we cannot measure it to be anything other than the velocity that c is today around here.  We are experimentally limited to measurements of observables that are locked in local space and local time, such that any measurement must inevitably result in an invariant c.

But a varying c will have implications, because we can make observations from different distances (and therefore times) and different directions.  

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

"[it] characterizes the strength of the coupling of an elementary charged particle with the electromagnetic field, by the formula 4πε₀ħcα = e² "

Maybe c has changed and the value of pi has changed by just the right amount to keep the result the same ... 

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Well, no, probably not. The speed of photons is always the speed of causality, and if that speed changed, they would change with it. Unless the fundamental properties of photons changed at that point, but then they wouldn't be photons anymore, but something that decays into photons and something else at lower energy. 

How would the 'old' photons know how to change, which are zipping merrily along through the aeons; where would the instructions come from to change velocity?

Edited June 1, 2018 by StringJunky

[beecee]

8 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Supersymmetric string theories consists of ideas that cannot be observed.  So accordingly is it not science then?  All those physicists and mathematicians... are you calling them non scientists because they are researching stuff that cannot be observed?  That is a poor definition of science, if that is your lesson.

What scant knowledge I have on string theory and its many derivatives, is that it is mathematically beautiful and seems to answer questions at the scale of which at this time we are unable to observe or probe at, and which according to present scientific knowledge, we have no reason to outright reject. In essence they are still hypothetical. What you are suggesting and/or claiming is a variable "c" which scientists  have many reasons to reject. Researching stuff, that is unable to be observed certainly is part of science, as is any other speculative scenario, until reasons are forthcoming that invalidate them.

 

[YaDinghus]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How would the 'old' photons know how to change, which are zipping merrily along through the aeons; where would the instructions come from to change velocity?

I think it's about the propagation speed of the waves. I'm not entirely sure since I've never done the kind of math required to describe a change in c in physics. Photons as massless particles aren't inertial, which is why they 'can' go the speed of light in the first place, but they can't go any slower, either. Rather than c being slower at the instance of the big bang, I would guess that if it changed at all, it would be higher, maybe even infinite, but that is not anything I could hope to provide evidence or even a sound theory for

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

I think it's about the propagation speed of the waves. I'm not entirely sure since I've never done the kind of math required to describe a change in c in physics. Photons as massless particles aren't inertial, which is why they 'can' go the speed of light in the first place, but they can't go any slower, either. Rather than c being slower at the instance of the big bang, I would guess that if it changed at all, it would be higher, maybe even infinite, but that is not anything I could hope to provide evidence or even a sound theory for

Yes, I know this is a purely speculative idea anyway and beyond me anyway... I'll stick with the postulates of relativity. Maybe mordred might know.

[YaDinghus]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, I know this is a purely speculative idea anyway and beyond me anyway... I'll stick with the postulates of relativity. Maybe mordred might know.

I say we are free to speculate and guess - it's fun for me to do so - as long as we are honest about our limitations. @Mordred what is yoir take on all of this?

[AbstractDreamer]

Do the postulates of SR hold for when \( t<=10^{-43}seconds )\?

If the answer is No, then not all frames of reference over time are valid, and that special relativity at best is incomplete.

Do the postulates of SR hold for when \( (x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} \) are spatial coordinates that fall precisely on the event horizon of a black hole, where there is still empty vacuum between that position and \( (y_{1},y_{2},y_{3} \)

If the answer is No, then not all frames of reference over space are valid, and that special relativity at best is incomplete.

The idea of inflation in the extended \( \lambaCDM \) standard model of Big Bang cosmology employs fine tuned parameters to preserve the apparent homogeneity and isotropism the flatness of the CMB, and scarcity of magnetic monopoles that we observe in the universe today.

Amongst the criticisms are untestable predictions, lack of experimental data, and arbitrary parametising of initial conditions that only increase as you go back in time if entropy from thermalisation increases as time progresses (Occam's Razor should seek simplification, not more initial conditions).

A variable c theory can also preserve homogeneity, isotropism, and flatness of the CMB, if, instead of inflation, that c was faster from say 32 to 60 orders of magnitude 

But while these criticisms have been accepted by the community to support the standard model, the same arguments are used to refute ideas of a variable c.  The hypocrisy is surprising.

Eternal inflation is one of the many models of inflation theory, and some variants include the prediction of different volumes, or multiverses, that are interactably exclusive each other, and each running with different values for the physical constants.  

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

"[it] characterizes the strength of the coupling of an elementary charged particle with the electromagnetic field, by the formula 4πε₀ħcα = e² "

I think you may find that this complaint carries little weight, since it's the result of not being familiar with the subject that you are critiquing. The people answering you, OTOH, have spent more time becoming familiar with the subject.

So you can either defer to their expertise or educate yourself.   

 

Is this the kind of forum where everyone has to get familiar with a subject before asking a question or face being scorned?  Does my complaint carry less weight because I'm a novice?

While the people answering me have spent more time on the subject, they seem more intent to focus their attention on telling me how wrong I am on some irrelevant point, or how its not science, or how i need to come up with a theory, or that I cant accept some answers, or missing my point, not reading my posts, asking me define something I already defined, jumping to an absurd conclusion about me wanting to test every electron in the universe, accusing me of random ideas, resorting to ridicule using analogies of flying unicorns; instead of actually answering any of my questions.

Having read a little on fine-structured constant and spectral emission lines of hydrogen, I now understand it something to do with the how the energy levels of an elementary particle such as an electron may be excited and jump to a level above ground state due to spin orbit interactions between the electrons magnetic dipole and the magnetic field created by its orbit around a positively charged nucleus; and in doing so release mission spectra lines that are very close but separate.

\( \alpha = \frac{e^(2)/\hbar c}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}}= \frac{\mu_{0} c e^{2}}{2 h} \)

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe c has changed and the value of pi has changed by just the right amount to keep the result the same ... 

It would be far more sensible to change the value of the reduced Planck's constant seeing as it is related to the porportionality between  a quantum particle's energy and frequency, or momentum and wavelength.   On a new-magical note, if \( \hbar \) is also a function of time or space, or time is a function space, wouldn't c necessarily be variable?
 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That only matters if you think something happened to the photon on its way, and something else happened to exactly cancel the alleged effect, since the result is consistent with c being constant. 

Doesn't everything matter if you're trying to accurately model quantum physics?  Or is it safe to assume nothing happens whatsoever while in transit over billions of years light years for billions of years, through numerous quantum fields that mutually interact , other than redshift from expansion and lensing from gravity?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

• Variable c has consequences beyond what you are discussing, and we don't observe results consistent with those other consequences.
• But a varying c will have implications, because we can make observations from different distances (and therefore times) and different directions.  

What kind of consequences? What kind of implications?  How would the universe look if c was constant, but a different value?  How would the universe behave if c was not constant?

Is it not possible for there to be a reasonably simple solution to balancing all the equations to consider a variable c that varies only in special situations, yet only alter the consequence in those special circumstances?

 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

What scant knowledge I have on string theory and its many derivatives, is that it is mathematically beautiful and seems to answer questions at the scale of which at this time we are unable to observe or probe at, and which according to present scientific knowledge, we have no reason to outright reject. In essence they are still hypothetical. What you are suggesting and/or claiming is a variable "c" which scientists  have many reasons to reject. Researching stuff, that is unable to be observed certainly is part of science, as is any other speculative scenario, until reasons are forthcoming that invalidate them.

  I'm asking questions on the invariance of c.  That's not the same as suggesting or claiming that c is variable.  In order to question the invariance of c, and seeing as there is no persons in support of that position, someone has to be devils advocate.  You can jump to any conclusion that you want to believe, but you're mistaken.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

But what about the first postulate of special relativity?

The mathematical expression you quoted is neither the first nor the second postulate.

So where do you want to start to understand where it comes from?

I took the mathematical expression for the 2nd postulate from wiki.   Sure, by all means help me understand.

Edited June 2, 2018 by AbstractDreamer
latex i give up

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Do the postulates of SR hold for when

t<=10−43seconds

There is nothing in the postulates that says they don't. But as we don't know anything about the universe at that time, we don't know if current theories apply or not. You may need a theory of quantum gravity (among other things) to describe the universe at that tine.

5 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Do the postulates of SR hold for when (x1,x2,x3 are spatial coordinates that fall precisely on the event horizon of a black hole, where there is still empty vacuum between that position and (y1,y2,y3
If the answer is No, then not all frames of reference over space are valid, and that special relativity at best is incomplete.

No, SR does not apply in that situation. SR only applies in flat space-time.

So, yes, we know SR is incomplete. That is why it is called "special" relativity. For a more complete theory (and to describe black holes) to need to use GR ("general" relativity).

And, before you ask, yes general relativity is probably incomplete as well. That is in the nature of scientific theories.

7 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Is this the kind of forum where everyone has to get familiar with a subject before asking a question or face being scorned?  Does my complaint carry less weight because I'm a novice?

Asking questions is not the problem. Refusing to accept answers because you have knowledge of the subject and therefore no basis to reject them is the problem.

9 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

While the people answering me have spent more time on the subject, they seem more intent to focus their attention on telling me how wrong I am on some irrelevant point, or how its not science, or how i need to come up with a theory,

You either need to accept current science (which means either learning it yourself, or taking on faith the answers of those who have) or you need to propose an alternative. I don't see what other choice there is.

10 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

It would be far more sensible to change the value of the reduced Planck's constant seeing as it is related to the porportionality between  a quantum particle's energy and frequency, or momentum and wavelength.   On a new-magical note, if ℏ is also a function of time or space, or time is a function space, wouldn't c necessarily be variable?

The trouble is, all these constants appear in multiple places and in different combinations. It is impossible to tweak them to get one result to stay the same but not have other results change.

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is simpler to assume they haven't changed.

Note that people have looked for evidence of fundamental constants changing over time. So it is not like there is some "dogma" meaning it can't be considered. It is just there is not evidence for this at the moment.

14 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I took the mathematical expression for the 2nd postulate from wiki. 

Then you should have provided a link, or at least a reference. (I assume "wiki" means Wikipedia?)

How is anyone supposed to guess that (a) you copied it from somewhere and (b) where from.

[AbstractDreamer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Asking questions is not the problem. Refusing to accept answers because you have knowledge of the subject and therefore no basis to reject them is the problem.

You either need to accept current science (which means either learning it yourself, or taking on faith the answers of those who have) or you need to propose an alternative. I don't see what other choice there is.

You mean "no knowledge", and that is wrong, i do have some knowledge just not very much.  What answers have i refused to accept ?-  or are you assuming Im refusing to except them simply because i continue to ask questions?  One answer cannot answer all the questions i have.  I will refuse to accept answers such as "its not science", or "my ideas are random".

I can go on wiki and and read the facts if i wanted to just accept current science with no understanding.  The reason people come on a forum to ask questions is to get more than a 1 sentence answer and a link to something that the linker hopes will go way over their head and will shut the person up.

Its complete cop out statement saying we need to learn it ourselves.  Its basically saying you don't know how or cant be bothered to explain it in laymans terms.  If you don't want to give an explanation fine, but don't make the comment of saying i just need to accept it or learn it myself.   If nobody here wants to teach, Ill go somewhere else.

Tell me, how do you think someone who is asking questions and trying to learn going to possibly PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE?  You want the student to come up with an alternative, while you expect them to accept your answers on faith?

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

The trouble is, all these constants appear in multiple places and in different combinations. It is impossible to tweak them to get one result to stay the same but not have other results change.

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is simpler to assume they haven't changed.

Note that people have looked for evidence of fundamental constants changing over time. So it is not like there is some "dogma" meaning it can't be considered. It is just there is not evidence for this at the moment.

I can accept this answer, because I have already suspected as such from even before my original post.  But my curiosity wants to know some examples of these places and combinations, or some numerical examples to show why a tweak would be impossible, to get my thought processes going.  How can i possibly learn it myself if i don't know where to look?  I want to get some kind of idea how impossible it is.  The evidence is that we know that GR and SR are incomplete.  Isn't that enough?

 

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then you should have provided a link, or at least a reference. (I assume "wiki" means Wikipedia?)

How is anyone supposed to guess that (a) you copied it from somewhere and (b) where from.

I really would have thought anyone who could answer my questions, would not need to be shown the postulates to know them and what the typical questions such as those that im asking might be, and not actually need them to provide the same answer they have no doubt given many times before, or even asked themselves when they were students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

[beecee]

50 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

  I'm asking questions on the invariance of c.  That's not the same as suggesting or claiming that c is variable.  In order to question the invariance of c, and seeing as there is no persons in support of that position, someone has to be devils advocate.  You can jump to any conclusion that you want to believe, but you're mistaken.

Yes you are. And so far you seem to have rejected all reasons and answers offered. I have seen this similar methodology in the past elsewhere, where someone presumes to ask a question and as it turns out, that someone also refuses all reasonable answers, and as it further turns out there is always inevitabley some agenda or baggage behind theeeeir question and behind why they will not accept an answer.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

I took the mathematical expression for the 2nd postulate from wiki.   Sure, by all means help me understand.

But it wasn't the second postulate itself and is not a good way to present it.

 

I have been responding to other speculations ( negative mass and earth science) this morning as they are easier than preparing a sensible guide to the chain of reasoning that leads to special relativity.

I will take the time today, so look again later on - it is a fascinating story that leads eventually to the maths stated. But, as Einstein said, the Physics must come first.

Edited June 2, 2018 by studiot