Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: A new way of thinking about G and c. Constants?

  1. #1 A new way of thinking about G and c. Constants? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2
    Hello,

    I´m new to this forum and I registered because I have created a text with some formulas trying to change the way work with G and c.
    My english is not perfect, but I would appreciate some reviews if you have the time to read this.

    Science, Fiction?

    Thanks in advance


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Far too many "should", "could", "would" and "assume". Basically, this is devoid of any real content.
    I'm sorry, but it's hogwash.

    Btw, there are no superluminal neutrinos - that experiment has long since been shown to have been flawed by a technical error.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Far too many "should", "could", "would" and "assume". Basically, this is devoid of any real content.I'm sorry, but it's hogwash.Btw, there are no superluminal neutrinos - that experiment has long since been shown to have been flawed by a technical error.
    First of all thanks for reading. I prefer to say "should" or "could" than "is".The only thing I know is that the formulas are right. Now is up to everyone to think about the possibility that the speed of light and G may be different for an observer placed on earth and another one in another planet. It would be a really hogwash if I had changed the value of Pi.There are no superluminical neutrinos, there are no superluminical speeds of light, but there may be different measures of speeds of light. One relative to the other would be considered superluminical.I'm trying to say that we measure the speed of light and G from the point of view of an specific chemical constitution made in Earth, which is common to millions of observers, but that all these observers should be considered as one observer. We all are made under the same patterns so we only have one physical point of view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386

    If time is not constant (according to relativity) is there any reason to assume G, c or anything else is? How would you know if your bases for comparison where always changing? I would think that if you were orbiting a black hole that your perspective of the so called constants would be relatively different. On the other hand even if two observers were on different sides of the universe, as long as they shared the same g (either from gravity or inertia) wouldn't theyh ave the same frame to compare the different constants to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    If time is not constant (according to relativity) is there any reason to assume G, c or anything else is?
    c falls out of Maxwell's equations as a constant. It is a postulate of relativity that the speed of light is constant for all observers (independent of relative motion, etc.); this is pretty much the same as saying that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (Lorentz invariance). This has been tested to extremely high accuracy in all sorts of different ways and appears to be true.

    I don''t think there is any fundamental reason why G couldn't change. But we don't have any reason to think it should. And we haven't observed any of the effects you would expect if it were changing.

    (Similar arguments apply to other fundamental constants.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Who knows if the different canstants really do stay constant. I'm just saying if one observer lives where time flows twice as fast as where the other observer lives then how can they relate anything without accounting for that? The speed of light is constant for all observers most likely because their perspectives are changed by whatever time dilation they observe from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Who knows if the different canstants really do stay constant.
    Because there would be noticeable effects if they weren't. It's not like no one has ever thought of this. There have been a large number of experiments to test this for all sorts of fundamental constants.

    For example, one set of researchers have reported that the fine structure constant, alpha, might have changed by about 1 part in a million over the last 10 billion years.

    The speed of light is constant for all observers most likely because their perspectives are changed by whatever time dilation they observe from.
    Correct. (Time dilation and length contraction.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    I still don't get it. If one observers time frame is faster than anothers then how can the speed of anything be considered constant if its not being measured with the same units? Besides I would think detecting a time dilation would be a noticeable effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    I still don't get it. If one observers time frame is faster than anothers then how can the speed of anything be considered constant if its not being measured with the same units?
    Because those units change in just the way required to keep c constant. Perhaps you nee to work through some examples from an introductory relativity text. It doesn't need much beyond basic arithmetic and simple algebra.

    Besides I would think detecting a time dilation would be a noticeable effect.
    It is. This is one reason why we are confident that relativity is correct; it matches observations exactly. Time dilation (and length contraction) have to be taken into account by GPS receivers, for example.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Because those units change in just the way required to keep c constant.
    [QUOTE]

    I realize the units are variable because of time dilations and that's why I have a problem considering the speed of anything constant. If I'm orbiting a black hole and you are in deep space between galaxies wouldn't time be moving slower for me than for you. And just for simplicity what if my time moved half as fast as it does for you. If we both measured c to be 186,000 mps then something is wrong because your second is twice as fast as my second. Everything will look the same and the math may show it to be the same but its not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Everything will look the same and the math may show it to be the same but its not.
    I don't really understand the problem. The math works. The measurements work. Everything matches up.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    I still don't get it. If one observers time frame is faster than anothers then how can the speed of anything be considered constant .
    Because there is also length contraction. Time is dilated for fast moving observers, but then lengths are contracted, leaving the relation between the two constant. Measurements are not constant, but their relations to each other are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Negative Thinking is NOT Critical Thinking
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2012, 07:58 PM
  2. many-worlds and changing physical constants
    By VitalOne in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 01:15 AM
  3. Mathematical constants in other universes
    By jmd_dk in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4th, 2009, 02:36 AM
  4. Mathematical constants
    By accountabled in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 21st, 2008, 01:32 PM
  5. Mathematical constants in Nature
    By VMStudent in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 10th, 2008, 03:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •