# Thread: Slowed-down Light

1. If ALL light was slowed down uniformly, to something as slow as say, 1 m/s, would we not notice it? If there were two distant objects an equal distance away from an observer, stars let's say, and the light from one was hypothetically slowed down, the light from the normal-speed star would reach the observer first, and the second slowed-down star would be seen after that. But if everything was slowed down uniformly, so that all light, and thus visual information, travelled at the same slow velocity, I don't think we could detect the change if we ignored all other methods of receiving information (ignored, for example, the fact that we could hear things before we saw them). Of course it's entirely possible that I'm dead wrong.

2.

3. If you want to change one of the fundamental constants of the universe or any fundamental laws, I vote for repealing the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then we could make perpetual motion machines. I imagine more folks would choose time machines.

But to slow down light? That seems pretty useless. And the results of such an impossible change may be anything you want them to be.

4. I was afraid someone would say something like that... This whole thing is purely hypothetical, I hoped people would be able to figure that out.

5. Weellllll....
then you could experience the weird effects of close-to-lightspeed-travel while riding your car. Lorentz Contraction, time dilation, mass gain while approaching c etc.

There was a nifty site from rhe University in Heidelberg showing all those efects for the assumption that c=30km/h. I'll chekc if I can find the link.

6. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Weellllll....
then you could experience the weird effects of close-to-lightspeed-travel while riding your car. Lorentz Contraction, time dilation, mass gain while approaching c etc.

There was a nifty site from rhe University in Heidelberg showing all those efects for the assumption that c=30km/h. I'll chekc if I can find the link.
I didn't think of that, but consider this... Because nothing can accelerate to the speed of light, would everything else be proportionally slower so that we wouldn't experience Lorentz contraction and time dilation?

7. Because nothing can accelerate to the speed of light...
Not true. This statement only applies to the velocity c. Go look up Cerenkov radiation.

Once again, if you can change one of the fundamental properties of the universe, everything else falls apart. You'll get whatever you want to get.

8. Well, if for instance, mc^2 = E in all fields, all quantumfluctuation equations then the gravityfusion in the sun would be unchanged since they would nag eachother the same way, and everything else would be exactly the same. time though, would pass 1/c as fast in all reference systems, so everything would still seem just as fast to us, per time (minkowsky clearly states x4 = ict)

9. Some of what I've read (I can't remember where) suggested that if light-speed were reduced, as long as the dimensionless constants didn't change, we'd never notice. Light might move slower, but our meters would also be shorter (or our seconds longer, or both) and we'd still measure light at 299,792,458 m/s. I can't say this is correct or anything, but the idea that the dimensionless constants are the most important makes sense.

10. i'm not too sure if it matters wheather light can slow down. if it does everything else would happen more slowly (i think), but from our perspective nothing would change. so C would stay at C relative to everything else. so for all we know it changes drastically over time and we just never know about it?

11. If light slowed down, well, "you're all on drugs, you've changed your awareness of time".

........and just to think science was actualy intend to keep your wayward minds in a type of education matrix, and someone comes along and posts such a subject.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

People, YOU create the standard of time, the deliniation of what a second is.

Don't forget that.

If light slowed down, you awareness of that which you use to MARGINALISE time had become "more intense".

Kids: go easy on the drugs.

12. thats a no, i guess then

13. What was the question?

14. What was the question?

Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here.

15. my last post ended with a questionmark. i did'nt make any claims, just proposed answers for someone too respond to. laughter or dismisal counts as that i guess

16. I respect your opinion, as I do my own.

Please, you have the mike.

17. Originally Posted by I
i'm not too sure if it matters wheather light can slow down. if it does everything else would happen more slowly (i think), but from our perspective nothing would change. so C would stay at C relative to everything else. so for all we know it changes drastically over time and we just never know about it?
would we notice it if C changed? if yes, my proposal is useless and worthy of laughter

18. The only thing funny about that statment is that you think that God is on drugs from time to time.

If the system percetion gets time-bent from time to time, variations of time perception awareness whatever, at least we should hope there is, on average, a normality of the passage of time we can use as a standard.

19. well then it can't change, because if no change is noticed, in who's frame of reference did it change in the first place? only god could have that perspective. so (funny twist), if god exists, light can slow down. if not, it can't.

20. Wel, if it slows down in the way you suggest, maybe that's what "wind" is?

[/i]

21. you lost me, again

22. OK.

Wind is change, right?

Otherwise we would have cats running around everywhere suggesting there is a constant change in this matrix we live in.

If time constantly CHANGES it's tempo, then "wind" represents a type of fast-slow buffer device for Gods "eeeeeza a good" mentalities, ya know?

23. but isn't time just a product of our experience of motion/change?

24. Do you think God feels his way through the system per se or more appropriately calcuates exactly how well he can escape the next binge of time distorting medication "you're so busted" thing by gauging how well others can relate with the newest transcendental offering while not being seen as the one to make those ripples of time apparent?

25. no god = no change in the speed of time

26. satan = chaos

tell me.......what would you rather believe?

Me, before you jumped to your conclusion, or YOU?

27. i asked a question. say no and why, without making stretched analogies to show how rediculus they are. if i'm wrong, so be it and it would not surprise me in the least. i'm just trying to gain headway.

28. No.

Come on.

Read and edit your own material at will.

29. i give up

30. Specify your offering (aka "you said "I give up"").

31. Yes, but what was your question? Is this it?
Originally Posted by Kalster
i'm not too sure if it matters wheather light can slow down. if it does everything else would happen more slowly (i think), but from our perspective nothing would change. so C would stay at C relative to everything else. so for all we know it changes drastically over time and we just never know about it?
If so, first, and most importantly, we know that light doesn't "slow down" - it's been shown experimentally to the highest accuracy.

If you mean does light-speed have to be yada yada km/s, no it doesn't. It just is, that's that. If it were not that speed, as long as it were constant, note constant, no, nothing would change.

But I don't understand why you think "everything would happen more slowly". More slowly that what exactly?

32. Right now (koooom buy Ahhhhaaaaa (my Lord))..........right now, can we at least buy products we know will "stand up to" the "test of time"?

33. thankyou guitarist. yes, that is my point. the thing is if light slowed down, would we Measure it to have changed or would we be none the wiser?

34. ........................................think we should air our feeeeeeeelinnnnnnnnnsss.......right?

35. left

36. Originally Posted by KALSTER
thankyou guitarist. yes, that is my point. the thing is if light slowed down, would we Measure it to have changed or would we be none the wiser?
What a strange question, if I may say so! Why would we not measure it? Light travels *ahem* km in one second. If it traveled some other distance in a second, the technology is there to detect it.

But if you are asking something more to StreamSystems liking, then forget it. (S)he is a total, and I mean total nut-job, and I'm outta there

37. I understand what you are getting at here Kalster.

You are saying that from our (human) reference frame, if the speed of light were (somehow <not the focus of the question>) lower, then would we observe any change in time?

I'm no expert here to be honest, but from what I have read of Einstein's theories of relativity, then time is indeed relative - that is to the frame of reference of the observer.

And so to somebody (god?) outside of our frame of reference, the speed (of time) of our observable world would have changed, but from our frame of reference, there would be no change.

That seems sensible to me, but then again this isn't my strongest area.

hope that helps,
bit4bit

Her posts make this forum more lively.
Can you do better?

39. Originally Posted by bit4bit
but from what I have read of Einstein's theories of relativity, then time is indeed relative - that is to the frame of reference of the observer.
*SIGH* Only, and only, by the relativistic postulate that light-speed is constant! Get a grip.

, but then again this isn't my strongest area.
Evidently

40. you got it, bit4bit!

What a strange question, if I may say so! Why would we not measure it? Light travels *ahem* km in one second. If it traveled some other distance in a second, the technology is there to detect it.
i meant that we would not be ABLE to detect a chance, since our instruments are also in our frame of reference. so, as stated, if god does not exist, the whole question of light slowing down becomes mute. if our frame of reference is the only one, it could never change.

41. Oh fuck, another one.

42. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by bit4bit
but from what I have read of Einstein's theories of relativity, then time is indeed relative - that is to the frame of reference of the observer.
*SIGH* Only, and only, by the relativistic postulate that light-speed is constant! Get a grip.

, but then again this isn't my strongest area.
Evidently
wtf is your problem? No need to get upset asshole.

I have admitted (in fact warned) that this was not my strongest area, and had a pop nonetheless, in order to try help kalstor, and redeem this thread back into one of science, not stupidity.

You clearly have such a superior knowledge to the rest of us, so you explain it. Enlighten us.

Stop hiding behind the internet provoking arguments from people. How hilariously pathetic!

43. streamsystems, you are uniquely strange.

unique = good

:wink:

44. Originally Posted by bit4bit

wtf is your problem? No need to get upset asshole.
I'm not upset - notice it's you that is swearing and throwing insults, not me.

So what got your goat? The *Sigh*? Then I apologize, but I spent at least half-an-hour two days ago explaining the time dilation. Maybe it was the "Get a grip"? Is that so very bad? Maybe where you live it is, if so, again I apologize.

Perhaps it was the toss away "Evidently". But this was just agreeing with your self-admitted lack of expertise in the subject. I don't apologize for that.

Ahh.... I know; it's my "attitude", right? As only I, and I alone, know what my attitude is, that's a non-starter

Stop hiding behind the internet provoking arguments from people. How hilariously pathetic!
And you, if you would be so kind, stop hurling out insults under your own cloak of anonymity.

45. If light was as slow as that and we still had Einsteins idea of nothing can go faster (we could not hear sound before light) and there would be no way that we could see events in space occuring the way they do, at 1m/sec we would not see nothing of anything hardly. The idea of light being constant means that time changes for different observors given their reference frame, that is to say that at that slow, time would go much slower and relativistic effects including the Lorentz factor would occur commonplace, we'd have time dilation occuring at regular intervals all the time-provided that things travel at just lower than that. Time gives due to light speed being constant at 2.99792458m/sec/sec, if light was that slow time would be very strange indeed which would effect space also as space and time are interlinked then space would change also, this would effect gravity and at certain circumstances all the other forces (if they are all linked), this would leave the universe in a very different state to what we may percieve now. But then the universe would adapt to these changes and perhaps new plains of existence would emerge. So the answer to your question is yes, we would notice it, but perhaps would be torn limb from limb and suffer the worse death ever, so lets hope light speed doesn't slow down any time soon. :wink:

PS Have you noticed people tend to be nicer to streamsystems because the picture is a female picture-how do we know if streamsystems is male or female, are you male or female streamsystems? :wink:

46. Don't try and turn this round on me. I don't have to be you to be able to understand your attitude (yes attitude, such a thing does exist - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attitude... and is used in the correct context) towards me in that post. It is plain to see that you responded with arrogance and superiority.

You were the instigator, looking for a reaction, you got one, and clearly don't like it.

If you weren't looking for a response, then I eat my hat, but clearly, one way or another, you never learnt the value of being civil.

47. OK.

mY SCIENCE gOD has released me for another session with you guys.

If light slows down, can we compared it to light that was faster?

If light that was faster, wouldn't it travel at such a rate to conflict with our time now, if light had slowed down now?

48. Guitarist, your contributions on the forum and in this thread are valuable and valued. But please rope in the implied ad hominems. [And don't try telling me there aren't any. As a mega perpetrator of implied ad hominems I know one when I see one.]
Kastler is struggling to understand something he is unfamiliar with. Remarks like 'not another one' are not helpful.
I have no doubt it is frustrating to see the same errors of understanding come up again and again in a topic you are familiar with and have explained more than once. Please learn to deal with that frustration in a more passive or constructive fashion.
Thank you.
Ophiolite.

49. Point taken, and I apologize to all, especially as:

I thought my ad homs were explicit, rather than implied. (Next time I'll try harder).

50. BTT shall we??

Well we shurely could MEASURE the "new and improved" c and see all the effects (assuming that Einstin is still correct) during riding a bycicle. Big problem for people traveling to visit relative far far away. While you are on your way Granny might have kicked the bucket as you did not get any older at speeds close to c while your grnadmother withered away.

The google terms are "Hanns Ruder" and Einstein..................

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement