Playing with E=m.c^2

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie

On Aug 28, 7:45*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie

Light(photons) do not change their speed. Photons don't bounce. All
this comes out of imperial bad thinking. I have better thinking than
they. TreBert

On Aug 28, 7:45*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie

It comes from a star moving away from us.(red) Redder if the star is
dense and large. Photons don't slow down. Their wave gets longer.
Gamma and red go at the same speed.White a mix of colors all go at
same speed

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead to mass being
created. What has one got to do with the other?

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected by us.
The speed of light is what determines both time and distance for us. If
light speed was changing, then time and distance would change equally
for us, and it would look like the exact same speed to us all over
again. We cannot detect light speed changing while we're inside the
universe itself, we could only detect it if we were outside of the
universe looking in somehow.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:23:31 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 28/08/2011 7:45 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

I don't see how a decrease in light speed would lead to mass being
created. What has one got to do with the other?

In the above formula, for E is constant, and m increasing, then c must decrease.

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

A decrease (or an increase for that matter) cannot be detected by us.
The speed of light is what determines both time and distance for us. If
light speed was changing, then time and distance would change equally
for us, and it would look like the exact same speed to us all over
again. We cannot detect light speed changing while we're inside the
universe itself, we could only detect it if we were outside of the
universe looking in somehow.

Could you elaborate a bit on why that is so?

Yousuf Khan

In article , says...

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?


Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.


Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie


Yeah, I like slow light but it speeds up and is all observed at c when it gets here. The redshift meant it was once
slower relative to us and gained wavelength as it sped up in the aether.

Paul Cardinale wrote:

On Aug 28, 4:45*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie

Your question amounts to: 'If the universe changed into a different
kind of universe, what would be different?'

Thank you so much for giving me this deep insight.
Now I wonder if I am really in the different universe, and you in the other one,
because I have read there are many universes.
We can communicate from one universe to to other universe via Usenet it seems.
This brings up the question of information loss and FTL communication.
Does each universe has a number (so you can dial it) or perhaps an IP address,
so you can email to it?

Ollie

Byron Forbes wrote:

In article , says...

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?


Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.


Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie


Yeah, I like slow light but it speeds up and is all observed at c when it gets here. The redshift meant it was once
slower relative to us and gained wavelength as it sped up in the aether.

Then if we remove the aether then light can move faster?

Ollie

Then if we remove the aether then light can move faster?

I think this matter has long been taken care of ;-)

On Aug 29, 4:35*am, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says....

If E=m.c^2
then can we say that if lightspeed was to decrease,
and energy in the universe was neither added nor removed, so constant,
that then mass HAS to be created?

* * * *Quite simply, if it's not traveling at c then it's not light, it's mass.

No no, they have slowed down light, and also light travels slower if not in a vacuum.

Or expanding on that, could it be that the redshift we see,
comes from a decreasing speed of light,
creating mass for the objects in the universe?

Ollie

* * * *Yeah, I like slow light but it speeds up and is all observed at c when it gets here. The redshift meant it was once
slower relative to us and gained wavelength as it sped up in the aether.

Then if we remove the aether then light can move faster?

Ollie

Once aether is removed please store it in a gravity well. O ya
TreBert