Albert Einstein might have been wrong that the speed of light is constant

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
I always have been fascinated by all the past scientists etc. Why were they so smart and we are just appear to be average in giving specific formulas and knowledge?
chancy



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/albert-einstein-might-have-been-wrong-about-the-speed-of-light-104446350.html

Albert Einstein might have been wrong about the speed of light
Rob Waugh
November 29, 2016

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity is built on the idea that the speed of light is a constant – and always remains the same.

The speed of light has been used to measure the age of the universe – and to ‘see’ into the moments after the Big Bang.

But what if Einstein was wrong?

A group of researchers believe that the speed of light may not always have been the same – and think they have a way to prove it.

Professor João Magueijo, from Imperial College London first proposed the idea in the Nineties – suggesting that as the universe expanded, light moved faster.

[Did You See Them]

Slow Light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

PS - off subject - saw ufo this morning in Liverpool UK 8.25am - a couple of reports locally but will add more if i hear anything ( been a a couple of years since I last saw one )

[Justplain]

In this article it is postulated that there are faster than light particles, tachyons:

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/do-neutrinos-have-imaginary-mass/

Quantum entanglement is another area where things happen faster than the speed of light. The following article says "According to research by Prof. Juan Yin and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai, the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light."

http://newatlas.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

Although mainstream science has tried to debunk a cern experiment that showed faster than light nuetrinos, several blackops whistleblowers have stated that Einsteins equations werent quite right, and that ftl travel is feasible, as demonstrated by earth's numerous ufo visiters.

[uzn]

@Did you see Them: Slow Light is cool. Make it slower and you might end up with a lightsaber ;)
Anyway Einstein:
Lightspeed is 300000 m/s and never faster (Einstein)
Lets look at our Speed. Rotational Speed of the Earth at the Equator about 300 m/s, at the poles 0 m/s. Lets leave that out.
Earths Speed around the Sun in 29,78 km/s = 29780 m/s. +
Our Solarsystems Speed around our Galaxy is ~232 km/s = 232000 m/s. +
(at this Point we are already close to Lightspeed)
Our Galaxy / Local Cluster is moving in comparrison to the Cosmic Backgroundnoise with a Speed of about ~630 km/s = 630000 m/s.
That adds up to ridiculus Speed of 891780 m/s. Compare that to Lightspeed.
Even if one considers that two of the Speeds are in circular Motion they shoud add up about a quarter of the time.
So be happy we are way beyond the Speed of Light ;)

Even our Sun alone in comparrison to the Cosmic Backgroundnoise (Radiation) has a Speed of 365 km/s = 365000 m/s.
Our Sun is also faster than Light ;)

Source: Jones and Lambourne: "An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology"

Update:
Sorry, I was off by times 1000, as pointed out by Bill. Lightspeed is 300.000.000 m/s not 300.000 m/s.

[Foxie Loxie]

Lay it on, uzn! :clapping: I'm no scientist, but I have enjoyed reading the articles on the Electric Universe. Am I wrong in assuming the instantaneous connection of all bodies in the universe seems the most logical? :confused: Since I have experienced a "quantum entanglement" with another person in life, I'm wondering about that as well? I believe Einstein called it "spooky action". Still learning.......:blushing:

[EWO]

The speed of the moving objects that emanate light does not add up extra on top of the speed of light.
If a car travelling at 10m/s with its lights shining, and you measure the speed of light from that car, it will still be the same, regardless how fast the car is moving.
Its one of those weird properties of light.

But i do think the speed of light does change with the age of the universe, compared to big bang.

[ghostrider]

They say that there is also a ploblem with pi, it will be corrected in the future... the plejaren say the speed of light has a half life ...they travel forward and backward in time using the speed of chronon flow, further back the particles are moving faster, forward in time the particles are moving slower, they adjust the field around their ships to a particular speed and it jumps the ship to that point where the chronon flow matches ... to back in time speed up the flow, to the future slow it down basically ...

[Cardillac]

of course Einstein was wrong about light/nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- just start with neutrinos (only the beginning)-

Larry

[Kano]

I used to chat with a guy who worked on the Phoenix III Project, which was a subsector/spinoff of the Montauk Project. He was a low level technician but a brilliant guy nonetheless. Some of you may be familiar with the Daniel material made popular by David Wilcock. That is who I am referring to. Some have speculated that David was targeted to release this information by a "chance" encounter with a man who worked on the Montauk Project while David happened to be reading a book about that very project. While I don't have an opinion one way or the other on that, what I can say is that Daniel is a brilliant scientist and very much in certain inner circles of knowledge. Anyway, we used to talk about light, the speed of light, and the speed of light barrier. He used to talk about how the speed of light was certainly a barrier in some perspectives but not the top speed in the universe by a long shot. He said essentially what happens when you surpass the speed of light, you flip from traveling in 3D space to traveling in 3D time. It is very interesting to hear his thoughts on it and he has even written short papers on it that are still available if you dig for them. He has a website too. www.conscioushugs.com They may be posted there. Lots of good info.

[Baby Steps]

of course Einstein was wrong about light/nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- just start with neutrinos (only the beginning)-

Larry
gravity propagates across space instantaneously, and without exchange particles

[shaberon]

Einstein: "If there is an ether, I am wrong".

He made a theory that remains unproven. Yes, large amounts of observations tally with his predictions, but that does not make the theory a law--perhaps only a stepping stone. I question whether time is a dimension and what exactly do you mean "space expands" which makes no intuitive sense.

Electric Universe explains 99.999% of observable phenomena. The accepted Relativity challenges it on a few points it would have to explain, such as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and how to explain the formation of new matter, particularly hydrogen. Relativity, of course, does not explain the formation of anything--just says "it happened", prior to which there was no time or space (?!?). You will never be able to observe the "black holes", so perhaps there is a different reason/different mechanism going on in those places.

I'd give it a reasonable doubt that thought can transfer instantaneously or faster than light.

[wnlight]

The speed of light in a vacuum as measured in this part of the universe now-a-days is about 299792.458 km/s. Yes, it is easier to remember 300000 km/s which is 300000000 m/s = 30000000000 cm/s. The last number can be written as 3x10E10 cm/s or a three with ten zeros behind it.

So, uzn can re-write his above post with three more zeros added onto his speed of light. Speaking of adding, If you are on a ship traveling at a high rate of speed and you send a probe ahead of you that can travel at a high rate of speed, the two speeds do not add in a simple way. This is the basis of Einstein's theories of relativity.

BTW, I do not insist that c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is a constant all over the universe. Nor do I insist that c has always been the same. (Perhaps that is because the vacuum of space is not empty.) And, of course, the speed of light through various materials will be measurably slower.

[wnlight]

gravity propagates across space instantaneously, and without exchange particles

Do you have a reference? I am not so sure it is correct - on both counts. If gravity propagates instantly, then we can toss out Einstein's theory of relativity on that alone. Also, there would be no gravity waves to detect.

[Bill Ryan]

Lightspeed is 300000 m/s and never faster (Einstein)

Your calculations are out by a factor of 1000 (I'm sorry to say!) -- the speed of light is [almost] 300,000 kilometers per second: not meters per second.




gravity propagates across space instantaneously, and without exchange particlesDo you have a reference? I am not so sure it is correct - on both counts. If gravity propagates instantly, then we can toss out Einstein's theory of relativity on that alone. Also, there would be no gravity waves to detect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity (and many other similar sources):
The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity) is equal to the speed of light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) in vacuum, c. Within the theory of special relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity), the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature.

[Bubu]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm

If Einstein is so smart and understand how things work then why was he able to create only a type of fridge and he has a co inventor. anyone can make theories anytime. proving it is the real deal. Nikola Tesla show proofs without spewing theories. Einstein is another fraud to divert mans attention from the truth.IMO
When I was in high school I did not even hear the name Nikola Tesla its always "Einstein" which come with "science". diverting attention? http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/10-inventions-of-nikola-tesla-that.html

[Baby Steps]

gravity propagates across space instantaneously, and without exchange particles

Do you have a reference? I am not so sure it is correct - on both counts. If gravity propagates instantly, then we can toss out Einstein's theory of relativity on that alone. Also, there would be no gravity waves to detect.

Hi,
I am not qualified to be sure, or have an opinion really. I knew someone who told me his theories,which I am trying to understand. Until then it looks like the weight of opinion and evidence does not support what I said, but there are dissenters:


https://mic.com/articles/19755/the-speed-of-gravity-why-einstein-was-wrong-and-newton-was-right#.KEgx4IZpA



The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right

By Michael Suede
November 29, 2012

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today.
The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.
I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.
If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”
Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.
Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:
Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.
We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.
If this article has piqued your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I guarantee that this video will change your perspective on our universe.

[Satori]

It is my understanding that the consensus view by physicists regarding Einstein's equations and conclusions regarding the speed of light is that objects, particles, i. e, mass, can travel faster than the speed of light. E. g, tachyons. What Einstein's work demonstrates is not that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but rather, nothing can cross the speed of light barrier. There is a "speed of light wall", so-to-speak. Thus, objects moving at, near, or below the speed of light will remain in that realm and not go faster than the speed of light; whereas objects moving faster than the speed of light will stay in that realm and not move slower than the speed of light.

[shaberon]

The relativistic equations determine that light speed is a barrier because: for any particle to accelerate to that speed requires infinite energy. So even if you have an electron moving at 99.999% c, you would still have to apply infinite energy to bridge the gap. The electron itself spins with a velocity greater than c. Exactly what and where a vacuum is, could be harder to establish, as the quantum flux of particle-antiparticle pairs seems to be perfectly valid and universal.

It would be hard for me to call Einstein himself a fraud, since he only made a theory and admitted it might not ultimately be correct. He at least did the best he could, and attempting to refute it is quite challenging. Well, things like quasars with the wrong redshift, and "great wall" structures in space...do not fit relativistic predictions...but physicists are never satisfied until you can form an equation with repeatable results.

[wnlight]

I worked at Fermilab back in the 1970s when we were accelerating protons to 99.999% c. My programs controlled the magnets in the ring that would keep the particles in proper position within the engineered path around the ring. Too weak a field and the protons would spill out of the beam line and into the tunnel walls on the outside of the circle. Too strong a field and the protons would be pulled out of the path and into the inside walls. The thing was that the magnetic field could not be static, but the required strength was determined by the relativistic mass gained by the accelerated particles. The greater the percentage of c, the greater the mass and the greater the energy required to accelerate it further. Actually, we did not bother refer to the speed, but rather to the energy absorbed by the proton that was converted to relativistic mass. The measurements and calculations would fit Einstein's equations exactly. This exact fit was repeatable every fifteen seconds when the accelerator was reset and continue that way for days. When operational, Fermilab would consume 1/10 of 1% of the entire Commonwealth Edison Chicago area electrical production just to accelerate about 1 Amp of protons to the then max percentage of c.

[wnlight]

Satori,

Your concept is correct and agrees with Lorenz equations. However, no tachyons have ever been observed outside of Star Trek scripts. There is a going discussion whether tachyons have imaginary rest-mass. Also, curiously, the math shows that it takes energy to slow down a tachyon. And a tachyon sheds energy by giving off Cherenkov light as it accelerates. Wow! It will be quite a day if they are ever discovered to exist.

[wnlight]

Several posters have referred to an announcement by CERN that some neutrinos were observed breaking the c speed limit. However, none have been able to duplicate the effect. So the topic is open to discussion, but the assertion of superluminal neutrinos should not be used as physical 'proof' for any other conclusions. Looking at the equations, one can assume that any superluminal particle must have imaginary mass. That would mean the partial exists in more than one dimension. None of this should be considered impossible, but is totally unsupported by physical observations. I suspect that we will have to learn a lot more to settle the question.

BTW, Speaking of observations, millions of people have observed flying craft that appear to have come from other worlds. (Unfortunately, not I) If these, often repeatable, observations are correct, then they would be strong evidence of superluminal travel. Or perhaps they simply beat the c speed limit with one or more gyrations.

[shaberon]

The greater the percentage of c, the greater the mass and the greater the energy required to accelerate it further. Actually, we did not bother refer to the speed, but rather to the energy absorbed by the proton that was converted to relativistic mass. The measurements and calculations would fit Einstein's equations exactly. This exact fit was repeatable every fifteen seconds when the accelerator was reset and continue that way for days.

Yes, undeniably a lot of the predictions hold water. It may be perfectly true within some limitation--much as electromagnetics is the same everywhere, until you go down on a small scale and hit the nuclear forces and the laws are completely backwards. Can't really say why a group of positives suddenly stick together when normally they repel, but that is exactly what happens.

Considering the OP, it's a bit odd to have a non-constant, time-dependent c placed in what otherwise sounds like a relativistic (expanding) universe. Changing one detail in the subject is a bit different than disputing multiple aspects of it.

[norman]

I was listening to an interview recently where the interviewee defined the difference between mass and something else that explained where Einstein got it wrong.

Can anyone here remind me where and who it was?

I'm inclined to step into the conspiracy realm about this. I heard an interview on red ice radio a year or two ago that explored the likelihood that Einstein and his E=MCMC was part of a Zionist plot. I have no idea if that is really true but it certainly fits.

[rgray222]

Speed limits are meant to be broken and this one will fall in reasonably short order.

[wnlight]

shaberon,

At very short distances, the strong nuclear force overwhelms the electrostatic force and will hold together particles of like charge.