Flowing Space 201 -- The CBB: C is for Celeritas!

Okay, ready to tackle the speed of light as it may be affected
by the Theory of the Continuous Big Bang?

I have to tell you... i have read a lot of stuff about light, and
one of the most mysterious things about it is how fast it goes!

I chose one of Asimov's old essay titles, "C is for Celeritas",
to emphasize that he is one of the most prolific writers on the
subject of light, and yet even Asimov was unable to explain
the mystery, the puzzle, the enigma as to WHY the speed of
light is what it is. So now, precisely, the speed of light, often
talked about as just the letter "c", has been measured to be...

299,792,458 meters per second
186,282.4 miles per second

Celeritas is a Latin word for "velocity", which is somewhat
of a misnomer. In science, velocity generally refers to a
vectorial speed, and that just means that any scientific
reference to velocity must contain the *direction* of speed
as well as the speed itself. Even Einstein, however, would
sometimes refer to "c", like in his famous equation E = mc²,
as the "velocity of light" while often meaning only the "speed
of light" (in science, speed is a "scalar" term without specific
direction).

(Or -- maybe Einstein *wasn't* being vague and really was
talking about light in his equation as a vector! This debate
continues.) The above figures for the speed of light are the
maximum known ones which apply to light traveling in a
"vacuum". Light is known to go slower in air, water and so
forth, so the speed of light varies with the medium. The
letter "c" generally stands for the above metric figure, the
speed of light in a vacuum measured in meters per second.
For most applications, the approximation of...

300,000,000 meters per second

is used as the value of "c". So the speed of light can be
slower than c, but science is very adamant about one very
interesting point... the speed of light can NEVER be faster
than c. And this debate, such as it is, also continues. If you
don't mind, i'd rather not continue it here.

This is about why light travels at precisely the speed it does.
And no amount of reading found me an answer to this, to
me, very puzzling question. Until now, that is. Up to now,
science has offered little explanation as to why light travels
at a particular given speed. "It's one of nature's constants!"
as if we really have no business questioning the value of c.

So color me nutso or whatever, i have been asking this
question since i was kneehigh to a green mamba. And our
very own old coot of alt.astronomy, Bill Sheppard, is the
only person i know who has offered more of an answer
than that c is just one of many natural constants. So let's
check out some of the things Bill says about c...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote...

From Painius, re. the SCO, high value of c, etc.:

So let's tackle the high, fixed level of the
velocity of light and other EM radiation
next, okay?

Cool. Fair enough. But before you get into it, remember lightspeed is
dependant on the 'local' pressure/density/'Temperature'(PDT) of the
spatial medium. 'Local' in this context extends out to a radius of
several billion LY wherein the PDT gradient is negligible and relativity
works' acceptably well.
And remember too that c is constant everywhere in the
universe, *locally*. C is 186,282mps 'there' in denser space locally,
just as it is 186,282mps 'here', locally. The prime variable is the PDT
of the medium. The c-drop (or 'c-dilation) is seen from the 'outside'
frame. From the 'inside' frame, we see its artifact as excessive dimming
of the most ancient light.

C-drop, c-dilation -- we know what c drops *to*. Do we know
what value c dropped or dilated *from*? Was it from "instantly"?

Just as SR holds c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model holds it constant in all _density frames_. This is the
natural extension/expansion of SR.
All's needed is to turn back the clock 80 years and
instead of instituting the 'Void', recognize the dynamic,
hyperpressurized, expansible/compressible *fluid* medium instead of the
old rigid-lattice 'ether'.
Izzat gonna happen? No way, José. oc

And if it does... will your life be complete and whole?

Right.

g

Here in our 'local' frame, where relativity 'works' just fine in
the absence of any density gradient, we've never considered the drop in
pressure/density/'Temperature' of the spatial medium that would occur
after the BB. As observed from the 'outside' frame, the speed of light
would be seen to drop concominantly with the expansion.. what Wolter
called 'c-dilation'. While here 'inside', we would see the artifact of
this drop as excessive dimming of the most ancient light.. exactly as
observed in the 1a supernova data... and erroneously interpreted as
"ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe.

I don't understand this enough to even ask an intelligent
question. Sorry.

And admittedly, i still don't get it even on
the intellectual level. My mind is filled
with questions...

Hey don't feel bad. It took me years to even 'get' the concept of
c-dilation. Wolter had continually admonished, "remember the frame of
referance. Referance frame is everytrhing." And he plainly spoke from
the 'outside' frame when explaining the CBB model.
When he explained 'c-dilation', he was speaking from
the outside frame. But i still didn't 'get it', and kept trying to
visualize and describe it from the 'inside' frame (and doing a lousy job
of it). Finally here on the NG a few years back, there came that 'flash'
and a click and i finally 'Got It' with crystal clarity. When one can
finally transpose mentally to the 'outside' vantage point as Wolter did
by nature, the concept of c-dilation is plain as day.

That does seem to be the hard part. Sort of walking a
mile in a god's high-heel pumps, as it were.

It's hard enough to see things clearly from this little dust
ball of a planet. How the heck do you see things from
outside the visible "known" universe?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Space must flow
As the wind must blow,
The wind doth blow
If we see it or no.

Space must blow
If we need it or no,
If space don't flow,
Where the heck'd we go?

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Painius:

It's hard enough to see things clearly
from this little dust ball of a planet. How
the heck do you see things from outside
the visible "known" universe? Sort of
walking a mile in a god's high-heel
pumps, as it were.

LOL. Hey, Hawking has no qualms about declaring his aspiration to "know
the mind of God". And he's a Void-Spacer fercrissakes. :-) oc

Painius wrote:
Okay, ready to tackle the speed of light as it may be affected
by the Theory of the Continuous Big Bang?
[snip]


A while back I ran across the fact that an astronomer back probably in
the 19th century suggested an early theory of variable speed light.
They were pondering why the light from a star moving toward us in a
binary pair doesn't get to us any sooner than the light from the star
moving away from us. He suggested that perhaps light travels at many
different speeds, but that we can only see the light that strikes us
travelling at c relative to us. I have been curious as to who it was,
but have been unable to find that reference again.

Do any of you guys know who it was?

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Painius wrote:
Okay, ready to tackle the speed of light as it may be affected
by the Theory of the Continuous Big Bang?
[snip]


A while back I ran across the fact that an astronomer back probably in
the 19th century suggested an early theory of variable speed light.
They were pondering why the light from a star moving toward us in a
binary pair doesn't get to us any sooner than the light from the star
moving away from us. He suggested that perhaps light travels at many
different speeds, but that we can only see the light that strikes us
travelling at c relative to us. I have been curious as to who it was,
but have been unable to find that reference again.

Do any of you guys know who it was?


Google: "Walter Ritz" "Emission Theory"




Double-A

Painius wrote:

snip

[...] So now, precisely, the speed of light, often
talked about as just the letter "c", has been measured to be...

299,792,458 meters per second

That's not quite true. The metre is *defined* as 1/299,792,458 of the
distance light travels in one second _in vacuo_. If you measure c and
get a different value, that implies your clock, your ruler, or your
experimental design must be defective.

--
Odysseus

Odysseus wrote:
Painius wrote:

snip

[...] So now, precisely, the speed of light, often
talked about as just the letter "c", has been measured to be...

299,792,458 meters per second

That's not quite true. The metre is *defined* as 1/299,792,458 of the
distance light travels in one second _in vacuo_. If you measure c and
get a different value, that implies your clock, your ruler, or your
experimental design must be defective.

--
Odysseus


Then meters are no longer suitable for doing speed of light
measurements. It would be circular logic!

Double-A

John Zinni wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Painius wrote:
Okay, ready to tackle the speed of light as it may be affected
by the Theory of the Continuous Big Bang?
[snip]


A while back I ran across the fact that an astronomer back probably in
the 19th century suggested an early theory of variable speed light.
They were pondering why the light from a star moving toward us in a
binary pair doesn't get to us any sooner than the light from the star
moving away from us. He suggested that perhaps light travels at many
different speeds, but that we can only see the light that strikes us
travelling at c relative to us. I have been curious as to who it was,
but have been unable to find that reference again.

Do any of you guys know who it was?


Google: "Walter Ritz" "Emission Theory"



Thanks John, but whoever it is I'm thinking of was farther back than
that.

Double-A

From Double-A:

A while back I ran across the fact that an astronomer back probably in
the 19th
century suggested an early theory of
variable speed light. They were
pondering why the light from a star
moving toward us in a binary pair doesn't get to us any sooner than
the light from
the star moving away from us. He
suggested that perhaps light travels at
many different speeds, but that we can
only see the light that strikes us
travelling at c relative to us. I have been
curious as to who it was, but have been
unable to find that reference again.

Well, it certainly makes sense. If space is a void and there is no
carrier medium to lock propagation speed to a fixed value, then
propagation speeds should be wildly variant, even infinite.

:-)

oc

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

[...] So now, precisely, the speed of light, often
talked about as just the letter "c", has been measured to be...

299,792,458 meters per second

That's not quite true. The metre is *defined* as 1/299,792,458 of the
distance light travels in one second _in vacuo_. If you measure c and
get a different value, that implies your clock, your ruler, or your
experimental design must be defective.

--
Odysseus

And precisely how did we come up with the figure in the
denominator, Odysseus?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Earth and Selene... Selene and Earth...
Planets and partners for what it's worth.
And when the decision finally comes forth,
Oh! MUSIC and MAGIC it shall unearth!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius wrote:
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

[...] So now, precisely, the speed of light, often
talked about as just the letter "c", has been measured to be...

299,792,458 meters per second

That's not quite true. The metre is *defined* as 1/299,792,458 of the
distance light travels in one second _in vacuo_. If you measure c and
get a different value, that implies your clock, your ruler, or your
experimental design must be defective.

--
Odysseus

And precisely how did we come up with the figure in the
denominator, Odysseus?

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


Couldn't they have at least picked a round number?

Double-A