A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 14th 13, 10:19 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-...-light-1.12430
NATU "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction."

The hint made by the journal NATURE leads to an extremely dangerous (for both relativity and cosmology) conclusion: since the vacuum is filled with some material, the speed of light coming to us from distant astronomical objects may not be constant, and this explains the cosmological redshift:

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html
"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/evolution.htm
"At present it is ascertained that vacuum is not an "empty space" - rather, it is a certain material continuum with quite definite although still unknown properties. This has been confirmed by observation of vacuum effects such as "zero-oscillations", vacuum polarization, particle generation by electromagnetic interactions. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that physical vacuum could have internal friction due to its own small but real viscosity, which in the end produces redshift. (...) ...the differential equation for the speed of light dc/dt=-Ho*c(t)"

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old February 14th 13, 06:31 PM posted to sci.astro
In Fo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

In a certain contained environment we were taught many orbits ago that
the velocity of light is a fixed illusion, of the vacuum, that gravity
is a property of.

A perfectly rigid tube one "light" year in length, with a laser mounted
center at one end is turned on as the tube is rotated one revolution in
one minute.

Information is conveyed to the opposite end of the tube instantly, while
the laser "light" has traveled but 60 seconds x 186,000 miles per
second.

Since this rigid tube can be condensed in our reality, quite easily, and
time values changed, Light velocity is slow, but the limit of your
reality, in the present instant of now, as observed.

Earthians will never transverse the Universe by "throwing rocks out of
the back of the boat", as they try to do, although local destinations
within your solar system is but a beginning.

However, Earthian civilization is destined to doom, by complications of
religions, that includes Earth physics, without outside intervention,
that has been denied as of this communication.

In Fo

  #3  
Old February 14th 13, 10:05 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...after-all.html
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all"

http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st22
"...even frigid intergalactic space is awash in microwave photons that would gradually slow a drifting space traveler. The friction occurs because the moving object absorbs more photons at its front surface than at its rear. The object slows from the flow of photons, just as a cyclist is slowed by the wind she feels in her face. (...) In intergalactic space, the slowing of a macroscopic object would only be noticeable over billions of years. In a 1000-degree-Kelvin oven, on the other hand, a water molecule would need less than five months to slow to a standstill, assuming it started out at the oven's temperature."

How about a photon emitted by a distant astronomical object and travelling towards Earth? Will it be gradually slowed down by vacuum friction? Yes it will, and this explains the cosmological redshift. Any redshift or blueshift is due to a shift in the speed of light:

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...equency_Im.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old February 15th 13, 09:49 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st22
"...even frigid intergalactic space is awash in microwave photons that would gradually slow a drifting space traveler. The friction occurs because the moving object absorbs more photons at its front surface than at its rear. The object slows from the flow of photons, just as a cyclist is slowed by the wind she feels in her face. (...) In intergalactic space, the slowing of a macroscopic object would only be noticeable over billions of years. In a 1000-degree-Kelvin oven, on the other hand, a water molecule would need less than five months to slow to a standstill, assuming it started out at the oven's temperature."

Note that the concept of vacuum friction implicitly introduces an absolute reference frame - one in which the space traveler experiences no vacuum friction. This has nothing to do with the old absolute reference frame based on the concept of ether.

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old February 16th 13, 10:10 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/t...s_2001_cha.pdf
Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html
"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

Desperate Einsteinians refuse to answer the question:

http://www.theglaringfacts.com/wp-co...fearappeal.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old March 26th 13, 08:32 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

The idea that light interacts with the "vacuum" and so its speed changes is getting more and more popular:

http://blogs.voanews.com/science-wor...t-be-constant/
"Speed of Light May Not be Constant (...) Two separate studies by scientists from the University of Paris-Sud in France and from the Max Planck Institutes for the Physics of Light in Germany are disputing the long established belief concerning the nature of a vacuum. (...) A vacuum, when viewed at the quantum level – at the smallest and most basic level – is not empty, but instead filled with particle pairs such as electron-positron or quark-antiquark pairs that are constantly appearing and disappearing. While these particle pairs are real particles, their lifetimes are extremely short. If these findings are proved to be true, they could have an impact on current scientific theories that take the speed of light into consideration. Both studies will be published in an upcoming edition of the European Physical Journal - D (EPJ-D)."

Time to remember Jean-Claude Pecker:

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Pentcho Valev
  #7  
Old March 26th 13, 10:58 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...ts-speed-light
"Where did the speed of light in a vacuum come from? Why is it 299,792,458 meters per second and not some other figure? The simple answer is that, since 1983, science has defined a meter by the speed of light: one meter equals the distance light travels in one 299,792,458th of a second. But that doesn't really answer our question. It's just the physics equivalent of saying, "Because I said so." Unfortunately, the deeper answer has been equally unsatisfying: The speed of light in a vacuum, according to physics textbooks, just is. It's a constant, one of those numbers that defines the universe. That's the physics equivalent of saying, "Because the cosmos said so." Or did it? A pair of studies suggest that this universal constant might not be so constant after all. In the first study, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud and his team found that the speed of light in a vacuum varies ever so slightly. This happens because what we think of as nothing isn't really nothing. Even if you were to create a perfect vacuum, at the quantum level it would still be populated with pairs of tiny "virtual" particles that flash in and out of existence and whose energy values fluctuate. As a consequence of these fluctuations, the speed of a photon passing through a vacuum varies..."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into "virtual particles" and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning.

Pentcho Valev
  #8  
Old March 28th 13, 03:01 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165v1.pdf
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light, M. Urban, F. Couchot, X. Sarazin and A. Djannati-Atai: "When a real photon propagates in vacuum, it interacts with and is temporarily captured by an ephemeral pair. As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value."

This is not very reasonable but still it may generate an extremely heretical thought:

If photons coming to Earth from distant astronomical objects constantly bump into vacuum constituents and slow down as a result, this could explain the Hubble redshift without recourse to universe expansion, Big Bang etc.

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/galaxies.pdf
"Paradoxalement, Hubble n'admit jamais cette théorie du Big-Bang et de l'expansion de l'univers. Il défendit la théorie de "la lumière fatiguée" reprise par Pecker, Vigier et Alton Arp. Dans cette théorie, la lumière en parcourant de longues distances perd une partie de son énergie et de sa vitesse, et se décalent vers le rouge."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211, Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law, Wilfred H. Sorrell: "Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23682
"In 1929, when spectral analysis revealed a 'red shift' in distant galaxies, astronomer Edwin Hubble speculated that this might be due to acceleration away from Earth and a possible expanding universe. Before he could reflect on other possible explanations, a radio interview stumbled onto the phrase "Big Bang" and a run-away train left the station. Dr Hubble was uncomfortable with both the concept and the catchy nick-name, but he had a 'conflict of interest' on this issue. In a Times magazine interview, on Dec 14, 1936, titled "Science: Shift on Shift", Dr. Hubble made his opposition clear. One reason that he was not more forceful was because he was begging the government for funding of the Mount Palomar telescope."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one."

http://www.alterinfo.net/L-astronomi...9-_a28704.html
Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937: "Avant tout, si le redshift nest pas dû à une vitesse de déplacement, le tableau est simple et plausible. Il n'y a aucune preuve d'expansion, ni de limitation de l'échelle de temps, aucune trace de courbure spatiale, et rien ne limite les dimensions de l'espace."

Pentcho Valev
  #9  
Old April 7th 13, 02:00 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/evolution-e.htm
E. I. Shtyrkov: "At present, vacuum has been experimentally established to be not a void but it is some material medium with definite but not so far investigated features. It was really confirmed by observation of several vacuum effects, for instance, zero oscillations and polarization of vacuum, generating the particles in vacuum due to electromagnetic interaction. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that this real matter-physical vacuum can possess internal friction due to its small but a real viscosity to result in variation of light-matter interaction. That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down... (...) The frequency perceived by observers at any point on the light path depends on the light velocity being at the observation time."

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/p...tum_vacuum.pdf
Paul Davies: "The quantum vacuum may in certain circumstances be regarded as a type of fluid medium, or aether, exhibiting energy density, pressure, stress and friction. (...) This sort of phenomenon is at its most striking in the case of a single atom moving parallel to, but some distance from, an imperfectly conducting plate. The atom also experiences a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction."

Question: Einsteinians, do photons coming from distant galaxies experience a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction?

Einsteinians: Shtyrkov is wrong by definition but Brother Paul Davies is right by definition so... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Brother Paul Davies speaks of an atom, not of a photon! The atom does experience a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction because Brother Paul Davies says so but the photon never experiences a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction because... well... because we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev
  #10  
Old April 11th 13, 10:56 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DECREASING SPEED OF LIGHT IN A NON-EMPTY VACUUM

The gravitational redshift has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe but mainstream cosmologists are not very impressed:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...in-relativity/
"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

In contrast, the anomalous quasar redshift acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, mainstream cosmologists get petrified and remain in that state for long periods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRXlQwst0E
Cosmology Quest - Debunking Quackademic Cosmology - Part 1 of 4

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 March 3rd 12 10:55 AM
Escape velocity applies only to matter that can slow down but not tolight that cannot lose speed in empty space... [email protected][_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 February 15th 12 04:34 AM
Speed of individual photons cannot exceed speed of light in a vacuum Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 78 August 11th 11 06:30 PM
Is speed of sound higher then the speed of light??? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 September 9th 08 12:48 AM
Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity field? Asimov Astronomy Misc 6 February 27th 05 12:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.