Admiral Valdemar wrote:tuppence wrote:It is very easy to show a speed of light change right where you are.
Put a straw in a glass of water. It appears that the straw has disconnected somewhat at the surface of the water when you look at it from the side. That is due to a change in light speed due to the medium it is passing through.
Which'd mean something if it wasn't for the fact that c is defined in a vacuum.*Snip rest of stuff*
Wrong again, I'm afraid.
Ever heard of supernova S1987A? This quite nicely puts the age of the universe down to at least 170,000 years thanks to the spectral signature of Cobalt exhibited by that event. Had light been slowing down en route then the decay rate would have been linearly proportional to c. But it isn't, because the decay rate is not linear.
I'm going to enjoy seeing how you weasel out of this given the decay rates are constant with those witnessed in the lab. I know, maybe God intervened to change this too!
Admiral, you are again showing your ignorance.
The vacuum of space is not a 'nothingness'. It has not been called a 'seething vacuum' for nothing.
The following is from one of Barry's papers that you have not bothered reading:
THE VACUUM
During the 20th century, our knowledge regarding space and the properties of the vacuum has taken a considerable leap forward. The vacuum is more unusual than many people realise. It is popularly considered to be a void, an emptiness, or just 'nothingness.' This is the definition of a bare vacuum [1]. However, as science has learned more about the properties of space, a new and contrasting description has arisen, which physicists call the physical vacuum [1].
To understand the difference between these two definitions, imagine you have a perfectly sealed container. First remove all solids and liquids from it, and then pump out all gases so no atoms or molecules remain. There is now a vacuum in the container. It was this concept in the 17th century that gave rise to the definition of a vacuum as a totally empty volume of space. It was later discovered that, although this vacuum would not transmit sound, it would transmit light and all other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Starting from the high energy side, these wavelengths range from very short wavelength gamma rays, X-rays, and ultra-violet light, through the rainbow spectrum of visible light, to low energy longer wavelengths including infra-red light, microwaves and radio waves.
THE ENERGY IN THE VACUUM
Then, late in the 19th century, it was realised that the vacuum could still contain heat or thermal radiation. If our container with the vacuum is now perfectly insulated so no heat can get in or out, and if it is then cooled to absolute zero, all thermal radiation will have been removed. Does a complete vacuum now exist within the container? Surprisingly, this is not the case. Both theory and experiment show that this vacuum still contains measurable energy. This energy is called the zero-point energy (ZPE) because it exists even at absolute zero.
The ZPE was discovered to be a universal phenomenon, uniform and all-pervasive on a large scale. Therefore, its existence was not suspected until the early 20th century. In 1911, while working with a series of equations describing the behaviour of radiant energy from a hot body, Max Planck found that the observations required a term in his equations that did not depend on temperature. Other physicists, including Einstein, found similar terms appearing in their own equations. The implication was that, even at absolute zero, each body would have some residual energy. Experimental evidence soon built up hinting at the existence of the ZPE, although its fluctuations do not become significant enough to be observed until the atomic level is attained. For example [2], the ZPE can explain why cooling alone will never freeze liquid helium. Unless pressure is applied, these ZPE fluctuations prevent helium's atoms from getting close enough to permit solidification. In electronic circuits another problem surfaces because ZPE fluctuations cause a random "noise" that places limits on the level to which signals can be amplified.
The magnitude of the ZPE is truly large. It is usually quoted in terms of energy per unit of volume, which is referred to as energy density. Well-known physicist Richard Feynman and others [3] have pointed out that the amount of ZPE in one cubic centimetre of the vacuum "is greater than the energy density in an atomic nucleus" [4]. Indeed, it has been stated that [5]: "Formally, physicists attribute an infinite amount of energy to this background. But, even when they impose appropriate cutoffs at high frequency, they estimate conservatively that the zero-point density is comparable to the energy density inside an atomic nucleus." In an atomic nucleus alone, the energy density is of the order of 10^44 ergs per cubic centimetre. (An erg is defined as "the energy expended or work done when a mass of 1 gram undergoes an acceleration of 1 centimetre per second per second over a distance of 1 centimetre.")
Estimates of the energy density of the ZPE therefore range from at least 10^44 ergs per cubic centimetre up to infinity. For example, Jon Noring made the statement that "Quantum Mechanics predicts the energy density [of the ZPE] is on the order of an incomprehensible 10^98 ergs per cubic centimetre." Prigogine and Stengers also analysed the situation and provided estimates of the size of the ZPE ranging from 10^100 ergs per cubic centimetre up to infinity. In case this is dismissed as fanciful, Stephen M. Barnett from the University of Oxford, writing in Nature (March 22, 1990, p.289), stated: "The mysterious nature of the vacuum [is] revealed by quantum electrodynamics. It is not an empty nothing, but contains randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields with an infinite zero-point energy." In actual practice, recent work suggests there may be an upper limit for the estimation of the ZPE at about 10^114 ergs per cubic centimetre (this upper limit is imposed by the Planck length, as discussed below).
In order to appreciate the magnitude of the ZPE in each cubic centimetre of space, consider a conservative estimate of 10^52 ergs/cc. Most people are familiar with the light bulbs with which we illuminate our houses. The one in my office is labelled as 150 watts. (A watt is defined as 10^7 ergs per second.) By comparison, our sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.8 x 10^20 watts. In our galaxy there are in excess of 100 billion stars. If we assume they all radiate at about the same intensity as our sun, then the amount of energy expended by our entire galaxy of stars shining for one million years is roughly equivalent to the energy locked up in one cubic centimetre of space.
THE "GRANULAR STRUCTURE" OF SPACE
In addition to the ZPE, there is another aspect of the physical vacuum that needs to be presented. When dealing with the vacuum, size considerations are all-important. On a large scale the physical vacuum has properties that are uniform throughout the cosmos, and seemingly smooth and featureless. However, on an atomic scale, the vacuum has been described as a "seething sea of activity" [2], or "the seething vacuum" [5]. It is in this realm of the very small that our understanding of the vacuum has increased. The size of the atom is about 10^-8 centimetres. The size of an atomic particle, such as an electron, is about 10-13 centimetres. As the scale becomes smaller, there is a major change at the Planck length (1.616 x 10^-33 centimetres), which we will designate as L* [6]. In 1983, F. M. Pipkin and R. C. Ritter pointed out in Science (vol. 219, p.4587), that "the Planck length is a length at which the smoothness of space breaks down, and space assumes a granular structure."
References for this part of the paper:
[1]. Timothy H. Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum", Scientific American, pp.70-78, August 1985.
[2]. Robert Matthews, "Nothing like a Vacuum", New Scientist, p. 30-33, 25 February 1995.
[3]. Harold E. Puthoff, "Can The Vacuum Be Engineered For Spaceflight Applications? Overview Of Theory And Experiments", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, August 12-14, 1997, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
[4]. Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39, 28 July 1990.
[5]. Anonymous, "Where does the zero-point energy come from?", New Scientist, p.14, 2 December 1989.
[6]. Martin Harwit, "Astrophysical Concepts", p. 513, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
The Setterfield response to questions about SN1987A are here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Astronomical ... supernovas
Again, Admiral, you ought to stick to areas you know something about instead of parroting others.
.jpg)
