2007-08-11 22:18:01 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
All interesting answers so far.
A few indicate that the speed of light may have derived from the big bang.
I hold that light is a small and numerous particle.
That light particles were induced to the speed of light 3x10^8 during a period of great density and great pressure. Once brought up to the speed of light (c) they remain at c until affected. Some light particles are affected but the light particle is very small and needs to meet other material at very close range to be affected much.
Last point. I hold that our local big bang was one of many such occurrences. Not all the same size or power. I think that, given enough time and enough people looking, We will eventually find particles moving at several different velocities, though perhaps close to what we refer to as c.
2007-08-11 23:13:53 · answer #1 · answered by ELF Earth Life Form - Aubrey 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. While the speed is mathematically considered a constant. Light doesn't actually travel at that speed.
In a near vacuum there is an near absolute speed of light.
Black holes and warped space has no effect on the speed of light but might increase the path distance and effect the timing of lights arrival.
The speed of light is a relative speed. Two people coming at each other at the speed of light would both have light traveling by them at the speed of light.
Light does not slow down or stop for either of them
2007-08-12 05:22:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is some evidence that the speed of light has decreased over time. Australian physicist Barry Setterfield has been researching and publishing on it for some years.
The field is known as c-decay of CDK. It is a controversial iidea, but then ideas that rock the boat usually are, regardless of merit.
The first measurements of the speed of light were done a couple of hundred years ago or so, and there have been many measurements since. Unfortunately the older measurements are also the least accurate, but there does seem to be a discernable decrease.
A good overview here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/
from which this is taken:
Those who support the idea of CDK suggest that it may have been very much faster in the past and has now leveled off to an almost constant speed.
Barry Setterfield collated data of measurements of c spanning a period of about 300 years. He claimed that rather than fluctuating around both sides of the present value as measurements became more accurate, they had progressively declined from a point significantly higher than today’s value. He proposed that this decline had been exponential in nature, i.e. very rapid early on, gradually easing to stabilize at today's value for c, just a few decades ago.3
He and Trevor Norman, a mathematician from Flinders University in South Australia, published a monograph4 (still stocked by this ministry for the assistance of potential researchers) outlining this, and answering several arguments raised against the theory. The monograph also showed how, over the past years, the measurements of the value of various constants (e.g. electron mass, Planck’s constant (h)) were varying progressively, if ever so slightly, in a ‘directional’ fashion consistent with the direction predicted by their mathematical linkage with ‘c’.
Lots of further articles here - some quite technical
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=c+decay&hl=en&lr=
2007-08-12 07:08:56 · answer #3 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Final velocity of a moving mass structure cannot be measured exactly.(See Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
Basically when it comes to light we can only measure its average velcity.
The velocity square of a moving object is directly proportional to The pressure exerted by the medium on the mass structure and inversely proportional to its density.
The smaller the mass the greater the presure :therefore light being the smallest micromass would be the the fastest moving mass in the Universe.
However since the Universe is not exactly homogeneous,the pressure density varies relative to the Center of mass of the Universe.Therefore time would vary acordingly and so would velocity of moving masses.
Velocity (average) = the displacement distance an object (a constant)travels divided by the time value(a variable) at that particular local space.
Experiments have shown that light speed did vary depending on the density of the medium its traveling in.(see Fizeau' s
Experiment ) .
Note On the Earth light uses 0.08472528018 nanoseconds of Time to travel one inch of space medium.
PS; The Earth and the Sun do not hang on a vacuum,neither does the speed of light.
2007-08-12 06:07:31 · answer #4 · answered by goring 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a view held that although we accept that the speed of light is a constant, some of the cosmologists argue that the Big Bang was because the speed of light dropped and that the universe as we know it is one of many. It all comes back to Einsteins cosmological constant Lambda. He thought the universe was static, but Hubble proved it was expanding and Einstein said it was his biggest blunder but may not have been after all, when he included it in his famous equation.
2007-08-12 05:41:09 · answer #5 · answered by A G 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The speed of light is 300 thousands km/s in the vacuum; but if the light passes through a matter, its speed is a bit reduced, as a function of the density and refraction index of the compund.
2007-08-12 09:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by dottorinoUCSC82 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The speed of light in a vaccum is a constant. It is denoted by the constant "c" and is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.
Since October 21, 1983, a metre has been defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
2007-08-12 05:31:52 · answer #7 · answered by Northstar 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, it's slowing down, but there's no way for us to measure that now because
1) the rate of slowing is very very slow, almost undetectable
2) the unit of measurement of length that we now use is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, so if we use that measuring stick to measure the speed of light, of course we'll get a constant measurement
But at the beginning of the universe (and the beginning of space-time) the speed of light was infinite.
It has slowed down exponentially to the value we have today.
I know no one will believe me, but I am serious.
But if you mean is the speed of light constant no matter how you measure it, and that it does not change no matter who or where in the world it is being measured, and that it does not accelerate or decelerate like everyday objects, then yes, it is constant.
2007-08-12 05:30:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, as per the theory of relativity, the velocity of light in vacuum is constant.
2007-08-12 06:26:45 · answer #9 · answered by Swamy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The speed of light changes as it passes from one material to another.The speed of light is 2.3 as slow in water as in air. This also means that something can travel faster than light in water. This is not possible in a vacuum.
2007-08-12 05:28:02 · answer #10 · answered by chips 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋