Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Since it's been so long... evolution!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] 1) Not quite. Speed is the product of wavelength and frequency. As you pointed out, since we can all see, the wavelength must be constant. I'm under the impression that it was frequency that determined what color you saw, so I'll modify your claim slightly. Correct me if I'm wrong. So frequency must reamian constant, while according to my theory, speed decreases. If wavelength decreased, while frequency remains the same, then speed would decrease, while having no detrimental inpact on vision. No proof, but no problem, either. 2) "If C slows down, so would all the other forms of radiation... and nothing we have based on these technologies could function." Why, praytell, not? Why is, say, a radio transmitter dependant on the speed of light remaining at a specific value? 3) "The assumed "variations" in the speed of light generally noted by proponents of the theory are FAR more likely to be generated by the varying sensitivity of the instruments and measurements used to determine light's speed." As I pointed out when this first came up, the variations were well outside the margin of error for the instruments in use. There were cases in which the same scientists used the exact same tools decades later and STILL registered a decrease far greater than could be accounted for by the margin of error. It comes to mind that since SI is now entirely defined by atomic vibrations and the wavelength of light (with the exception of the platinum block in Paris that defines the kilogram), if neither is constant, then a meter is gradually getting longer, as is a second. "The speed they got in 1800 using reflectivity is NOT going to be the speed they get in 1995 using the vibrations of an atom." This brings up another point. The data gathered in the last fifty years or so was gathered with atomic clocks. This is only valid if you assume that the vibrational frequency of any given atom is constant. If the speed of light and vibrational frequency were both decreasing at the same rate, then by measuring C using tools based around the vibrational frequency of an atom, you're obviously going to get the same answer every time. So is there any reason to assume that C and the vibrational frequency of whatever atom they use in atomic clocks are not both decreasing at the same rate? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3