Time Dilation Experiment - split from Dark Energy

[EvanF]

yes we already account for the medium properties of space. This is done via redshift style calculations. More complexely the Sache-Wolfe integrated and non integrated.

 

Scientists have always known c isn't constant in a medium and that space contains particles.

You are referring to outer space as a "medium" but is outer space not the closest thing there is to a true "vacuum?"

 

Redshift is essentially just the effect that gravity has on light traveling through space...Which was theorized long before Einstein. But I wasn't talking about gravity affecting light anyways.

 

 

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

[Strange]

You are referring to outer space as a "medium" but is outer space not the closest thing there is to a true "vacuum?"

 

 

 

It was you who brought this up:

In the so called "vacuum" of outer space there are particles (as well as who knows what else) that the so called constant speed of light collides with and changes the light speed.

 

 

 

Redshift is essentially just the effect that gravity has on light traveling through space

 

Gravity is one possible cause.

[Mordred]

You are referring to outer space as a "medium" but is outer space not the closest thing there is to a true "vacuum?"

 

Redshift is essentially just the effect that gravity has on light traveling through space...Which was theorized long before Einstein. But I wasn't talking about gravity affecting light anyways.

 

 

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

A true vacuum is an impossibility, there is always some, however miniscule mass- energy even if it is just quantum fluctuations.

We detect mass distribution of the interstellar and intergalactic medium by those relations I described above.

 

The universe is modelled by the thermodynamic relations of the mediums described above, this includes the mediums influence over large distances on light paths.

[EvanF]

A true vacuum is an impossibility

 

Exactly.

 

Light isn't constant anywhere because there is no such thing as a true "vacuum."

 

Even experiments done in "vacuums" have shown that the simplest of things can change the speed of light.

 

Also there are more properties of the universe than just the two you listed...(as if one could absolutely know something like that anyways.)

 

Here's another interesting article you might want to read... http://www.iflscience.com/physics/scientists-prove-spooky-action-distance-absolutely-real/

[Mordred]

What part of we already account for this didn't you understand? You keep trying to find pop media articles to support your case. Yet keep posting articles you don't fully comprehend.

 

The last article being unrelated to the topic

Edited October 17, 2016 by Mordred

[EvanF]

What part of we already account for this didn't you understand? You keep trying to find pop media articles to support your case. Yet keep posting articles you don't fully comprehend.

 

The last article being unrelated to the topic

You realize the articles I posted are referring to real experiments, the science websites you are calling "pop media" didn't just make them up.

 

I never claimed my last article was 100% related, (even though it is related to the topic of the perceived infallibility of Einstein.) I just said you might want to check it out.

 

 

 

You can't just pretend like you can account for every literal change a photon will go through traveling in space, you can only speculate all the small changes in speed it would go through.

[swansont]

When did you get the idea that I wasn't talking about the speed of light in a vacuum?

 

 

You cited an article that talked about light traveling through optical fiber.

 

I never claimed my last article was 100% related, (even though it is related to the topic of the perceived infallibility of Einstein.)

 

That's perhaps the most pop-science of them all.

[EvanF]

 

 

You cited an article that talked about light traveling through optical fiber.

 

That's perhaps the most pop-science of them all.

 

I linked two articles. One about an experiment where light was not constant even in a vacuum, and that the so called constant speed of light "should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

 

The site the article was posted on is irrelevant.. What's relevant is the experiment and the fact they listed who performed the experiment (the last one I posted ultimately comes from the NIST.)https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real

Edited October 17, 2016 by EvanF

[Strange]

You can't just pretend like you can account for every literal change a photon will go through traveling in space, you can only speculate all the small changes in speed it would go through.

 

 

Is this another example of the old "science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything" trope?

[EvanF]

 

 

Is this another example of the old "science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything" trope?

Really?

 

I'm simply saying in a hypothetical experiment you couldn't really account for literally every single force or particle in the universe that would ultimately affect a specific photon's speed as it's traveling through outer space. There are of course unknown properties of the universe. And properties that we don't fully understand yet.

[Strange]

Really?

 

I'm simply saying in a hypothetical experiment you couldn't really account for literally every single force or particle in the universe that would ultimately affect a specific photon's speed as it's traveling through outer space.

 

 

And there is no reason you would have to.

[Mordred]

We don't try to account for every miniscule influence. Many are neglibible, those are averaged out over large scales. We do strive to improve that averaging which is why research is still ongoing. The averaging method always includes an error bar, to account for localized anistropy, greater detail simply reduces and improves the error bar or sigma level.

 

Might help if you study how LCDM works in cosmology.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Edited October 17, 2016 by Mordred

[EvanF]

 

 

And there is no reason you would have to.

 

You sure?

 

 

 

As opposed to time dilation which is almost non existent in terms of noticeable amounts of "time."

 

 

 

I think it's possible a photon/ radio wave traveling through space hitting particles and being affected by different forces could make an impact in travel speed larger than a few nano seconds.

 

But we don't even fully understand light itself to begin with...there's of course the typical particle-wave duality, but also things like this...http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-form-of-light

[Mordred]

again looking at pop media style articles rather than the actual science sigh...

 

Here is a food for thought. We don't require light to prove the accuracy of relativity.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

I linked two articles. One about an experiment where light was not constant even in a vacuum, and that the so called constant speed of light "should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

I remember this paper coming up before. (I downloaded the paper)

 

"The analytical form of this predicted delay (Eq. 1) suggests a simple geometrical model, where the delay arises from the additional length of the diagonal ray, propagating at an angle with respect to the optical axis."

 

IOW, if you make light travel a slightly longer path, it takes longer. It doesn't actually challenge the notion of c being invariant. It does highlight that you have to measure the path length properly and accurately.

 

 

The site the article was posted on is irrelevant.. What's relevant is the experiment and the fact they listed who performed the experiment (the last one I posted ultimately comes from the NIST.)https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real

Entanglement is a different kettle of fish. I'm not sure why you think this is germane to the discussion.

[Mordred]

Yeah I recall that paper as well... I agree with your last post about it

Edited October 17, 2016 by Mordred

[koti]

Yes, absolutely. c is a big number. A nanosecond of timing error is a foot of positioning error. 3 microseconds is a kilometer of error.

 

Length contraction is ignored, because it's a much smaller error than timing errors, or a few other positioning errors.

 

Relying on logic based on a false premise (that relativity doesn't need to be incorporated in the analysis) isn't going to end well.

 

 

Perhaps your calculations based on relativity are inaccurate.

 

EvanF, perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the profile of this particular person before stating the above?

[EvanF]

 

 

EvanF, perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the profile of this particular person before stating the above?

I might have, I don't remember.

 

The statement is not about him specifically anyways it's about certain calculations based on relativity possibly not being accurate.

[Strange]

As opposed to time dilation which is almost non existent in terms of noticeable amounts of "time."

 

 

 

As it has to be taken into account in a range of technologies and scientific experiments, it is hardly "nonexistent".

The statement is not about him specifically anyways it's about certain calculations based on relativity possibly not being accurate.

 

 

Perhaps you can give some evidence that the calculations based on relativity are not accurate?

[Mordred]

Perhaps you can specify which calculation and at which size scale ? Is this specific to how time dilation works under the metric ? If so I can show you a "standard" means of determining the speed limit.

That's all relativity truly states about the speed of light, it cannot exceed the value c. That and the invariance to all observers.

At no point did relativity state that light cannot move less than c.

[koti]

I might have, I don't remember.

 

No worries, just a friendly hint. I do wonder though, where is your limit of presumption.

 

 

My opinion on Time Dilation is neither here nor there...I don't necessarily think it is literally 'mini time travel,' I think it's possibly just tiny mechanical/physical variation under certain gravitational forces.

 

 

Your thinking on relativity is flawed. No perhaps here.

 

 

 

They tell us that satellites are around 20,000 miles from earth, and radio waves travel at the speed of light, so the information is getting to earth instantly anyways... Nanoseconds would of course be more significant if you had to send radio waves over the course of like a million miles from earth or something.

 

If you can't take it from a PhD in physics who builds atomic clocks you could perhaps use a calculator and 3rd grade math will tell you that you are wrong.