The speed of light may have been broken.

OnlyMe said:
That is only since 1983. How long do you think a meter was before that? And if they were really setting the length based on a light second why did they not just make it 1/300,000,000 of a second? Even numbers are easier.

The reason is that when they decided to standardize it to c, they already had a meter stick to start with and when they laid it out to measure a light second it took 299,792,458 meter sticks.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, they used to think the world was flat, but what does that have to do with what we know now?

Who cares what the definition of a meter was before 1983? Today...the definition is as posted, and the speed of light is defined, and remains impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s unless the definition of the meter changes.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
I'll say it again,

It is not possible for the speed of light to be anything other than 299,792,458 m/s, according to the current definition of the meter. Do you not understand that?
Click to expand...

Actually you have that all wrong.

Since 1983 a meter could not be more than 1/299,792,458 of a light second long. Nothing done in 1983 fixed the speed of light at any value. That is a measured value. Go back and read kira's post a few times.

If light speeds up the meter will get longer. If it slows it will get shorter. If they decide to use a neutrino who knows what we'll wind up with?
 
OnlyMe said:
Actually you have that all wrong.

Since 1983 a meter could not be more than 1/299,792,458 of a light second long. Nothing done in 1983 fixed the speed of light at any value. That is a measured value. Go back and read kira's post a few times.

If light speeds up the meter will get longer. If it slows it will get shorter. If they decide to use a neutrino who knows what we'll wind up with?
Click to expand...

The speed of light is fixed at 299,792,458 m/s according to the definition of the meter. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the speed of light to be different using the same definition of a meter.

If light were to speed up, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, according to the current definition of a meter. The meter would get longer.

If light would slow down, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, according to the current definition of a meter. The meter would get shorter.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
 
OnlyMe said:
If light speeds up the meter will get longer. If it slows it will get shorter...
Click to expand...

Motor Daddy said:
If light were to speed up, ... The meter would get longer.

If light would slow down, ... The meter would get shorter.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

What was your point?

And do you really believe they would have a world wide recall of all meter sticks and tape measures? Or maybe they would just change the number of meters in a light second.

Considering the trouble they have had adopting the metric system in the U.S. I'd bet on changing the light second.
 
OnlyMe said:
What was your point?

And do you really believe they would have a world wide recall of all meter sticks and tape measures? Or maybe they would just change the number of meters in a light second.

Considering the trouble they have had adopting the metric system in the U.S. I'd bet on changing the light second.
Click to expand...

My point is that even if light were to slow down or speed up the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s. The speed of light is fixed because of the definition of a meter, which you deny.
 
Motor Daddy said:
The speed of light is fixed at 299,792,458 m/s according to the definition of the meter. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the speed of light to be different using the same definition of a meter.
Click to expand...
You can see the confusion that results when those scientists use a definition to define something else, can't you? What if they had used yards instead, or cubits?

Of course, if you realise that the meter doesn't "fix" the speed of light because c is already a physical constant, you should also see that: a metre and a second are just arbitrarily chosen (definitions of) units of distance and time.

That is, Motor Daddy has the wrong end of the stick. The metre and second are nowadays defined by the speed of light at a constant frequency. The speed is assumed to be a physical invariant (constant in a vacuum), and the frequency is what gets "fixed".
Because units of distance and time are arbitrarily chosen, any distance and any time can be defined the same way. Aren't physical constants just peachy?
/shudder
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
That is, Motor Daddy has the wrong end of the stick. The metre and second are nowadays defined by the speed of light at a constant frequency. The speed is assumed to be a physical invariant (constant in a vacuum), and the frequency is what gets "fixed".
Because units of distance and time are arbitrarily chosen, any distance and any time can be defined the same way. Aren't physical constants just peachy?
/shudder
Click to expand...


Metre and second are defined by the speed of light only in the name of physics but there are other ways to define them. Anyway I don't see the need to change the units whether light slows down or speeds up.
 
MD lives in a universe of his own, in which the map IS the territory. You don't have to measure anything, you simply define it by fiat.
 
I speculated a superluminal nuetrino's four years ago at this place. I don't think it was met with high regard.

I think Ben knew of the work I showed, but he said it was.... unlikely. Well, if experimentation is correct, then maybe it is superluminal, with an imaginary mass term.
 
I completely agree with Reiku!

Reiku predicted the direction physics did take 4 years ago. In fact I was going to point this out before I saw this last post of his.

Reikus work an thread entitled, "Is the Neutrino a Tachyon?"

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71654
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71654
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71654

Was scoffed at by members and moderators.

In fact; one moderator claimed (no name mentioning),
Only read post of this page, not all. hope not already noted, but tachyons not very likely to exist, but if they do they always travel faster than light. As they slow down to near light speed their mass tends to infinity. The neutrinos nevers goes faster than light. Neutrinos do exist. (Actually three different types, but they can convert type - final part of how the sun shines mystery was solved by realizing this conversion does occur.) Solar fusion is now a totally understood process, I am almost sure, with all testable predictions of the model now confirmed.
Click to expand...

Now here we are 4 years later and there are papers like this floating around. This was written on subject 2 days ago.

September 24, 2011
neutrinos as tachyons, the Scharnhorst effect

I wonder if neutrinos should travel slightly faster than photons according to standard physics, i.e. quantum field theory as we know it (*).
The reason would be the Scharnhorst effect.
If c denotes the 'bare' speed of light then real photons should actually travel a tiny bit slower than c, due to the interaction with virtual particles in a 'real vacuum': c(physical) < c. The bulk of the effect comes from interactions with virtual electrons and positrons (see e.g. this paper for more details). But neutrinos interact only weakly with those and therefore the velocity of neutrinos should be closer to c; In other words neutrinos would be slightly faster than photons.
I am not sure if the OPERA experiment detected anything real, but if the results are indeed confirmed one should take a second look at the Scharnhorst effect imho; This time considering the difference between neutrinos and photons instead of looking at photons between Casimir plates.
Click to expand...


So now we are 4 years later, and it turns out Reiku was correct.

I'd like to point out that Reiku was once banned from Sciforums. This was ridiculous, and anybody caring to scan through some of his threads will find a lot of well thought out suppositions. Suppositions challenge our thinking and seem to frighten members and moderators at this website.

I am so happy he was proven right in this instance.

Let me rephrase;
"He is closer to being possibly right than anybody else was on that thread, and it has now been proven that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light."
 
@ Dywy,

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
@ Dywy,
Reikus a genius compared to you Dywy.
”
Also untrue.
But never mind, you're usually wrong.
Click to expand...

I am usually wrong?
LMAO. This coming from Dywy. Oh noes!
Gonna fling some poop at me now.
Go on; Fling some poo. I know you want to.

Reiku was proven correct as I said in my last post based on the link in post # 1 of this thread. This entire thread is about the recent discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Admit you are wrong Dywy, and give it up. (like that will ever happen).

Reiku is a genius compared to Dywy. I challenge anyone here to read through threads Reiku has started and not become fascinated. Yet Dywys major contribution to this website is trolling.

Dywys famous lines,
"Wrong!" (when he is)
"Support your position" (when it is common knowledge)
"You doodoohead" (sorry think he says crank)
"Not so" (even if it is,)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top