[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

Perhaps the present value of c is just  an asymptotic value. And in this
context, the PRESENT could be as large as 10,000 years or more.

300yrs would be too small a duration, to detect a noticeable change,
considering the age of universe to be as large as 14B LY?

I agree with you on time dilation, but here(link below) Richard Muller is
saying that he has himself seen the length contraction in labs:

https://www.quora.com/Is-length-contraction-only-a-result-related-to-observation-or-a-real-contraction/answer/Richard-Muller-3

I am sure many other will have similar experience/observation. And we
cannot deny what we observe, irrespective of what we think and what theory
we support.

Tufail


On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, 23:43 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> Tufail, Our devices are certainly made of  "earthly matter", but as all
> matter originated with the BB, all matter is universal (was that a pun?).
> We do have "some evidence" that the speed of light is constant, but it is
> by no means proven. There is speculation, following the more recent (and
> therefore more accurate) tests of the speed of light, which shows that
> instead of all results being around the present speed, which one would
> expect, the speed was faster and is slowing down.
> See : - https://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all .
>
> This is an excerpt from that web page. I did have a much better one saved
> on my PC showing the researchers name, the year, and findings, but
> unfortunately cannot find it now after a serious PC crash and rebuild.
>
> 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’ value for c,
> just a few decades ago.3
>
> He and Trevor Norman, a mathematician from Flinders University in South
> Australia, published a monograph4 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’.
>
> As other galaxies are also made of the same matter (if we discount
> anti-matter, which may well have anti-gravity [from our point of view, not
> theirs]) and therefore not belong in the same quasi universe. I say quasi
> universe because it is an oxymoron to use the plural of universe. Their
> quasi universe would, by necessity, be so far removed from ours that there
> could be no reaction with it in any way.
> I do not believe that time dilates and length contracts either, these are
> not real events, they are mathematical artifacts. The real world can always
> be expressed by mathematics, but mathematics doe not always represent the
> real world. Maths is the servant of physics, not its master, but Einstein
> (and others) turned this on its head, and made physics subservient to
> maths. That is when it all started to go horribly wrong.
>
> Tom Hollings
>
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 28/11/2018 20:06
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy
> discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
> I was really careful in wording this part, still it has created confusion.
> :)
>
> Our point of observation is earth (or say  the solar system) and the 21st
> Century is the time (which is a also a function of the expanding volume of
> the universe). And the our devices of observation are made of earthly
> matter of electron, proton and neutron.
>
> So from this point of observatiom at this time if we observe using the
> instruments of earthly matter, I believe that we have reasonable evidence
> that speed of light is constant, and it has to be that value and no other
> value. And speed of light should be related to how the universe is evolving
> under these constraints.
>
> For observers beyond the aforesaid space, it can neither be proved or
> disproved , whether the speed is same. If large scale configuration of
> space ( i.e. distribution of mater and additional volume created) changes,
> which correspond to time change considerably,  there are reasons to doubt
> whether speed of light will still remain constant even on earth.
> Furthermore, it is simply an overconfidence if we declare that instrument
> made from aforesaid earthly matter, can survive in other galaxies. But our
> scientific knowledge has not progressed enough to address these extended
> questions, so these are not so immediate concern.
>
> The question of immediate concern is that why should the earthly matter,
> located at earth in 21st century observe the speed of light as constant.
> Einstein told us the reason that time dilates and length contracts as we
> speed up. I may personally not believe in his explanation and I am sure
> that there are many other who also do not believe. Nevertheless, not
> believing is not enough, unless  better explanations is produced and
> demonstrated through experiments.  .
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, 22:33 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk
> wrote:
>
>> Tufail, would you explain this please :- "Speed of light (as we observe
>> at present moment/era) is so fundamental to the nature of reality , that
>> without it space-time will cease to evolve and expand, which becomes a
>> motion-less Universe."
>> Do you mean the speed of light being the value that it is. and it has to
>> be that value, or would any other constant speed do? Also do you mean c WRT
>> all observers (which has not been proved, despite claims that it has), or c
>> WRT its source .
>>
>> Tom Hollings.
>>
>>
>> ----Original Message----
>> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
>> Date: 28/11/2018 16:12
>> To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<
>> physics at tuks.nl>
>> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>>
>> Hello Doug,
>>
>> Thanks for those videos!!
>>
>> You did an interesting experiment, though I feel, that perhaps all cases
>> are not discussed.
>>
>> I wonder if it would be beneficial to discuss those cases.
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if both magnet and disc are co-rotating but in
>> opposite/ counter clockwise direction. Will it give a negative or positive
>> voltage?.
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if position of magnet and disc is interchanged
>> and all cases are repeated.
>>
>> However I would like to clarify when I said that "it cannot be measured",
>> I mean the absolute impossibility of measuring/ detecting. Not that it
>> is not measurable by using one method but possible to measure by using
>> another method.
>>
>> Speed of light (as we observe at present moment/era) is so fundamental
>> to the nature of reality , that without it space-time will cease to evolve
>> and expand, which becomes a motion-less Universe.
>>
>> Hence time (which is detected from motion) and space (which is measured
>> only when time is available) are no more detectable, though they may exist
>> as information/knowledge on landscape of all possibilities untill such
>> time Universe chooses to evolve in one way or the other with a particular
>> reality. And landscape of all possibilities is not a physical object.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tufail Abbas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181130/38198a82/attachment.html>