Photons are not slowed down by gravity, they are red/blue shifted by gravity.
The only known way matter slows down light is by getting in the way, which is why the speed of light in air is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Although the speed of light in air is theoretically random since it depends on how many molecules get in the way in practice there are so many of them that the statistics result in the same speed every time (for the same pressure+temperature).
Now, you could posit that something similar occurs with Dark Matter. A random No of collisions slows light by a random amount adding to a consistent speed in the same density of Dark Matter.
1. Dark Matter has to be Dark. Take “WIMPS” for example, Weekly Interacting Massive Particles, obviously one of the most important things they must not be able to interact with is photons. Otherwise we’d be able to “see” them. For instance it’s thought to exist in halos around galaxies, but to be distorted from those halos by galaxies in collision. If it interacted with light I’d expect that to be obvious in the brightness of similar stars in different galaxies.
2. There are so many galaxies in the universe that the light from many distant galaxies travels close to nearby galaxies before it reaches us. Thus the light from distant galaxies must (if the WIMP model is correct) travel through different amounts of dark matter to reach us. If Dark Matter did significantly slow down photons the light from different galaxies would travel to us at different speeds. This would have all sorts of consequences for our current model of the universe.
3. It’s highly unlikely that the speed of all zero (or near zero) rest mass particles would be affected in the same way, Neutrinos from SN1987a arrived at pretty much the same time that the photons did, that sounds highly unlikely to me if the speed of light is affected significantly by Dark Matter.
4. Similarly, it’s unlikely that non zero rest mass particles would all be affected in the same way. The speed of Particles in accelerators like the LHC is calculated based on c (i.e. the particles travel at almost, but not quite as fast as light). If our measurement of c was wrong all massive particles would have to have their speeds affected in exactly the same way. Any significant deviation would be noticeable.
5. Events in distant galaxies suggest that the speed of light is the same everywhere (and thus has been the same probably since the Big Bang). If Dark Matter affected the speed of light it should be different in different galaxies since different amounts of Dark Matter are present in different galaxies.
I should say that I can't quote references for most of this, much of it is my own personal speculation and could well be incorrect. I welcome researched corrections :)
@kandtell nanah, don't misunderstand me, I don't propose gravity as the photon slower, I propose dark matter (or something alike) as that which "gets in the way" to slow down photons. I mention gravity because it is supossed that DM interact with massive objects and it will be located near clusters, galaxies, and obviously, the solar system in which we measure our local C value.
@IloveYOUviruses Yes, I figured that is what you ment. My long rambling above can be summarized by saying "if that was the case we'd be able to see it". Also since c is a fundamental constant if its value was significantly higher the universe would be different.
I am not satisfied with your logic because if the speed of light were decaying (not saying that it is) then RS would not equal XE in length. It would be over 28 times XE since his video said light had to average 28c (so going even faster at first) for the 6000 yr argument to work and we know c has not measurably changed over that 8 month period. Your video does not account for changing velocity.
@TheNikonSevast 5 min into my video is a step by step mathmatical proof that RS=XE. If you are going to argue that my logic is wrong, you MUST show which step is in error in that proof. As fun as it would be for RS to be bigger, it would change what we saw in 1987.
.
Bottom line...the second bundle of light trails the first bundle by the ADDITION distance of its journey and we know how far that was. You can pretend it was larger, but you cant ignore its impact on the actual observation.
@zebraone100 Since you ask, here is the exact step which is in error in your proof:
.
At 8:40 you state that "Two objects traveling the same speed and time will travel the same distance." and you use this to establish that SR = XE. However, since Shane's proof assumes C-Decay, the two objects are NOT traveling at the same speed; the one in SR is going 784 times faster, which means that SR=784XE, meaning you have proved that Shane's proof works using geometry.
@BigCheese77 BOTH objects are light. If the speed of light was fast at any given time, both objects will travel at whatever the speed of light is at that time, and they will travel at the same speed as each other. It makes no difference which direction the bundles of light are traveling. They will both travel at the speed of light, whatever we want to imagine it was.
@zebraone100 And here's something I really wish there was more of on YouTube comments and the internetin general:
You are right, and I was wrong.
I started typing out a simplified model to prove my point and ended up realizing you were right. My misunderstanding came from the fact that I focused on the speed at which light travels through XE, which is actually irrelevant to establishing that XE=SR, since even if there's C-Decay, light travels SE and SR+RX in the same time thus proving XE=SR.
@hasseklas56 That depends on which video you think this is a reply to. Shane recently made a video where his illustrations were probably inspired by this video. It was a good video demonstrating a large universe. Maybe that is the source of your confusion?
This vid is a response to a vid made about 3 years ago on the subject of C-Decay. Shane and I BOTH AGREE that C-Decay is absurd, but he made a simple error in reasoning when he put together his disproof. That is what this video addresses.
The problem that I see here is that, when you display your equation leading up to the conclusion that 1 = 784, you're using line segment XE as an already known value, a constant carried over from the previous equation. It's not. The length of XE is determined by the length of RS, not the other way around, and we need to measure to find that as well. Using 784c makes RS bigger, which in turn makes XE, RE, and SE larger, which makes the universe bigger, and older. Shane's video confirmed.
@DarthVictive the bottom line is that XE and RS are equal to each other and that I demonstrated that. In math, a=b is the same as b=a. When you say "The length of XE is determined by the length of RS, not the other way around..." it seems clear that you are missing that mathmatical reallity. My proof is very simple, and it is a valid proof. If you are going to argue that it is wrong, you must show which step is invalid, and why it is wrong in mathmatical terms.
@zebraone100 No, the bottom line is that this is not pure math, where your argument might have some validity. It's physics, in which causation is a determining factor of reality. And in actual physics, the length of XE is arbitrarily assigned by us, whereas the length of RS is determined by the stellar event you are attempting to measure. You must measure first, then assign value to XE, rather than reuse a value for XE from a completely different problem.
Shanedk made another video, still not getting the point that he is wrong. Oh well. I made another attempt to explain why his argument is wrong, in my own video response here: watch?v=pF_G2uBVp-0
I uphold the same standard as your introduction that [paraphrasing immensely] faulty stuff should be fixed. So while I haven't YET seen Shanedk's video, good job.
you completely missed the point of c decay which states that light would have been travelling faster over SR then XE so SR would be larger then XE given that this idea held any water (which it doesnt)
Point X is defined as the location of the second bundle of light when the first bundle arrives at earth. Remember, the second bundle of light is traveling a longer path. The distance of X to earth is equal to the additional length of the second path caused by its detour to the rings. It is entirely irrational to think that distance will be different than the distance of the detour.
@zebraone100 i'm sorry i have rouble understanding this point as it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the speed of light is constant and has been for most of time.
@ajgrovery the speed of light is constant and has always been so. The evidence clearly supports this conclusion. You are right to accept that fact.
Shane's conclusion that C-Decay is false is perfectly fine and correct. However, his attempt to prove it using invalid reasoning in not ok, and that is the point of my video. The invalid step in his proof is the changing distance of the rings, proven to be invalid by my geometric proof that SR=XE and that XE is known.
@Kirkwhisper firstly I said for most of time, get it right
second i'm referring to several indications that in the very beginning light may have been faster however the universe at that time is nothing like the universe of today and would have only lasted seconds (and thats being generous
But in case the change is constant (erm, I mean changing all the time) things would get funky.
One phenomenon would be that the ring is actually collapsing towards the star at high velocity in order to keep the distance RS at c*8 months: c decreases -> c*8 months decreases -> distance stays at ~c*8 months -> ring must be collapsing, even though it seems to be growing!
This is why I choose to describe distance in KM. it avoids the confusion caused by describing distance by a unit of measurement that is no longer constant. RS=XE is proven by a geometric proof which is solid. If you wish to say that RS does not equal XE, you must show the error in the proof, which you can't.
In order to make that argument, you must show which step in my proof is invalid. I proved that rs=xe using a geometric proof that is solid. Remember, both bundles of light are traveling at the same speed as each other. That means that if the light traveling to the rings is fast, so is the light traveling straight to earth.
After watching the video again i realized that i was looking at things backwards. If the speed of light is slowing then SR will take less time to occur than XE but the distance will be the same. For some reason i was under the delusion that RS and XE had to happen in the same amount of time and therefore if rate was changed in the distance=rate*time equation the distance would have to be changed.
Why are we 'waiting' for the ring to flash? The ring is caused by the star going supernova. Light doesnt have to travel from S to R, the supernova is pushing R away from S at light speed, right? Can we measure R at 1 minute past supernova? If we observe R flash 8 months after supernova, then the gases of R were going faster than C at supernova? Please explain... to a non scientist...Thanx
The ring of gas was produced by the solar winds of the star long before the explosion took place. Every star gives off gas as the consequence of being very hot. That gas speeds away from the star very quickly at first, but is then slowed down due to gravity. The point where the gas leaving the star meets with the gas falling back is the location of the ring.
The explosion produced huge amounts of light in the ultra-violet and x-ray spectrums that ionized the gas causing it to fluoresce.
"my analogies were meant to demonstrate why λ cannot change, and that the freq must change."
I think travelling cars/clips give different result as they bear no relation to how light behave.
Dont know why you insist on contradicting what is actually observed ie λ decreases as c decreases. Infact the equation h=λE/c proves that for h to remain constant, λ must change correspondingly to c everytime, otherwise h will vary.
As f remains same, this preserves E = hf Infact this is as observed.
"my analogies were meant to demonstrate λ can not change, and that the freq must change."
the equation h=λE/c disprove the above because as c = λf, if f increases and λ stays the same, then c increases. If c increases and λ stays the same, the value of h will be smaller and it wont be constant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't understand one thing about your debunking: you say that RS = XE, but before you did that, you already assumed a constant speed of light to measure XE. However, if c did decay, than the measured distance of XE has no meaning for RS, as XE was calculated using the current c, while the light crossed RS when it was moving much faster. As it took the same time as to cross XE while moving faster, RS must have been bigger, which was Shanedk's point. Am I correct?
"you already assumed a constant speed of light to measure XE."
The light traveling on XE from the ring flash, traveled that leg of its journey to earth between Mar of 1987 and Nov of 1987. I don't have to ASSUME anything about the speed of light in 1987. The speed of light in 1987 was KNOWN because it was MEASURED.
In simple terms, XE represents the extra distance photon#2 traveled. Photon#2's route is longer because it made a "Detour" to the rings. XE must equal that "Detour."
Shanedk *IS* smart. I like most of his videos. Unfortunately, this one has a flaw. In any logical proof, EVERY step in the proof must be valid for the conclusion to be considered proven. In his 4 step proof, 1 of the steps is demonstrate-ably false.
Shane's is not wrong about C-Decay being absurd. He just didn't prove it properly.
If you then factor in the element that the universe is expanding and all the spaces between the galatic bodies are increasing, how would that affect the age of the universe as afterall the universe age is determined by the speed of light?
Is the light not also stretched thus affecting the true distances the light has travelled from?
The light isn't stretched, but the space between the star and earth would be. If a star was 10 billion ly from earth when the light left, and the space in front of the light expanded by 1 bil ly while in route, the light will travel 11 bil ly for 11 bil years.
Most important, the star will appear to have been 11 bil ly away, 11 bil years ago when in fact it was only 10 bil ly away.
We will always know how long the light has traveled, but to know what we are seeing will require analysis.
"The speed of light is the same measured relative to any reference frame"
Are you not aware that the context of this discussion lies in the "pretend universe of C-Decay," where it is assumed that C has physically changed? Other than that, I agree with your understanding of physics.
Regarding the wavelength changing, this implies that the trailing edge of the wave would, for a short period of time, travel at a different speed than the leading edge. This is obviously absurd.
I just rated your vid 5 stars for top logic. However, Shane's math is not wrong but his assumption is. When I 1st watched his vid, something nagged at me but yet I couldnt see what was flawed with his maths. After watching yours, I got it. You have shown that by the time light reached the earth observer, c has slowed down to present value. Whereas Shane has assumed that it hasnt and that only the light emitted much much later had.
If c at the time of leaving 1987a was greater then the distance SR is greater. And you have an angle of 0.808 arcseconds you have to account for and didn't. The angle has nothing to do with the speed of light, constant, variable or otherwise. The only way I can account for a greater SR and an angle of 0.808 arcseconds is by having a greater distance to earth. Have things changed that much since I took trigonometry?
There is nothing that requires SR to be bigger. SR must equal XE, and XE is precisely known. The whole point of my video is to show why SR cannot increase and why doing so was 1=2 math. I know its a boring video, but re-watch and pause if you have to.
"And you have an angle of 0.808 arc-seconds you have to account for and didn't."
I don't have to account for it, because I never changed ANY of the distances. As such, the angle never changed and is still 0.808 arc-sec.
Right. To make SR greater by 784X and leave XE the same is wrong. It is also now 784*SR_old = SR_new.
"I never changed ANY of the distances."
Yes you did. If you change c you change the distance SR by c_new/c_old. You changed SR by 784X.
Again, SR and the angle constrain the equation. You can't change one and not the other and still have the same distance to earth. This will lead to absurdities.
Shane did nothing wrong. His math is properly constrained. Your's isn't.
If you increase XE by 784, the observed difference between received signals of light will not be 8 months, it will be 8 months * 784 = 516 years. We KNOW that this is not true.
regarding the angle: this info is useful if you want to compute the distance SE. Since SE was never the subject of discussion (other than to say it is equal to RE) the angle is an irrelevant point.
XE is KNOWN. it was MEASURED. it can NOT be changed. (review 2:30 to 4:20 to understand why we KNOW the value of XE)
OK. I agree. A variable c with lets say an exponential decay will do that. Looking at an exponential graph of c/t the area under the graph is distance and delta-t is stretched out as c decreases to give the same distance.
Of course it means all of the suns visible light would have been ultraviolet light 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve would have been blinded and sunburned to death, but that is an argument for the consequences of a faster c which this channel is not about.
"To make SR greater by 784X and leave XE the same is wrong."
XE is computed by multiplying the observed delay in 1987 (delay=8 months) by the observed speed of light in 1987 (C=300,000 km/sec) giving us 6.2 trillion km.
If you insist on increasing XE, you must show which one of the two OBSERVED values must be changed.
So which one is it going to be? By the way, which ever one you choose, you better have a damn good reason for replacing an OBSERVED value with a made up value.
no, Shane's error was increasing the distance from the star to the rings (SR), when SR must equal XE, and XE is known.
The reason that we see the rings flash 8 months later is because light from the rings trails light from the supernova by the additional distance that the light from the rings had to travel, and that distance takes 8 months to travel at today's light speed. If he increases the size of the rings, he increases the trailing distance, and what took 8 months must now take longer.
Short answer: if this were the case, we'd be seeing the supernova in slow-motion, and we aren't, as the measured decay rate of cobalt isotopes in the rings show.
This is not apart of your original proof. I am all for you using good science to disprove C-decay, but your strictly geometry disproof is fataly flawed.
It is not lost on me that this is your second most veiwed video. To that end, I would hate to see you delete it. I would rather you replaced it with good science.
I dealt with this MONTHS ago. Maybe more than a YEAR ago.
Short answer: if this were the case, we'd be seeing the supernova in slow-motion, and we aren't, as the measured decay rate of cobalt isotopes in the rings show.
This has been flagged as spam show
What if dark matter slows down the photons?
Since dark matter is theoretically arround massive objects, it inevitably follows that photons would treavel faster in the huge voids of space ;)
(off course, that's as hypothetical as the dark matter)
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
Photons are not slowed down by gravity, they are red/blue shifted by gravity.
The only known way matter slows down light is by getting in the way, which is why the speed of light in air is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Although the speed of light in air is theoretically random since it depends on how many molecules get in the way in practice there are so many of them that the statistics result in the same speed every time (for the same pressure+temperature).
kandtell 6 months ago
cont...
Now, you could posit that something similar occurs with Dark Matter. A random No of collisions slows light by a random amount adding to a consistent speed in the same density of Dark Matter.
But it does not work for me for several reasons:
kandtell 6 months ago
1. Dark Matter has to be Dark. Take “WIMPS” for example, Weekly Interacting Massive Particles, obviously one of the most important things they must not be able to interact with is photons. Otherwise we’d be able to “see” them. For instance it’s thought to exist in halos around galaxies, but to be distorted from those halos by galaxies in collision. If it interacted with light I’d expect that to be obvious in the brightness of similar stars in different galaxies.
kandtell 6 months ago
2. There are so many galaxies in the universe that the light from many distant galaxies travels close to nearby galaxies before it reaches us. Thus the light from distant galaxies must (if the WIMP model is correct) travel through different amounts of dark matter to reach us. If Dark Matter did significantly slow down photons the light from different galaxies would travel to us at different speeds. This would have all sorts of consequences for our current model of the universe.
kandtell 6 months ago
3. It’s highly unlikely that the speed of all zero (or near zero) rest mass particles would be affected in the same way, Neutrinos from SN1987a arrived at pretty much the same time that the photons did, that sounds highly unlikely to me if the speed of light is affected significantly by Dark Matter.
kandtell 6 months ago
4. Similarly, it’s unlikely that non zero rest mass particles would all be affected in the same way. The speed of Particles in accelerators like the LHC is calculated based on c (i.e. the particles travel at almost, but not quite as fast as light). If our measurement of c was wrong all massive particles would have to have their speeds affected in exactly the same way. Any significant deviation would be noticeable.
kandtell 6 months ago
5. Events in distant galaxies suggest that the speed of light is the same everywhere (and thus has been the same probably since the Big Bang). If Dark Matter affected the speed of light it should be different in different galaxies since different amounts of Dark Matter are present in different galaxies.
I should say that I can't quote references for most of this, much of it is my own personal speculation and could well be incorrect. I welcome researched corrections :)
kandtell 6 months ago
@kandtell nanah, don't misunderstand me, I don't propose gravity as the photon slower, I propose dark matter (or something alike) as that which "gets in the way" to slow down photons. I mention gravity because it is supossed that DM interact with massive objects and it will be located near clusters, galaxies, and obviously, the solar system in which we measure our local C value.
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Yes, I figured that is what you ment. My long rambling above can be summarized by saying "if that was the case we'd be able to see it". Also since c is a fundamental constant if its value was significantly higher the universe would be different.
kandtell 6 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
I am not satisfied with your logic because if the speed of light were decaying (not saying that it is) then RS would not equal XE in length. It would be over 28 times XE since his video said light had to average 28c (so going even faster at first) for the 6000 yr argument to work and we know c has not measurably changed over that 8 month period. Your video does not account for changing velocity.
TheNikonSevast 1 year ago
@TheNikonSevast 5 min into my video is a step by step mathmatical proof that RS=XE. If you are going to argue that my logic is wrong, you MUST show which step is in error in that proof. As fun as it would be for RS to be bigger, it would change what we saw in 1987.
.
Bottom line...the second bundle of light trails the first bundle by the ADDITION distance of its journey and we know how far that was. You can pretend it was larger, but you cant ignore its impact on the actual observation.
zebraone100 1 year ago
@zebraone100 Since you ask, here is the exact step which is in error in your proof:
.
At 8:40 you state that "Two objects traveling the same speed and time will travel the same distance." and you use this to establish that SR = XE. However, since Shane's proof assumes C-Decay, the two objects are NOT traveling at the same speed; the one in SR is going 784 times faster, which means that SR=784XE, meaning you have proved that Shane's proof works using geometry.
BigCheese77 1 year ago
@BigCheese77 BOTH objects are light. If the speed of light was fast at any given time, both objects will travel at whatever the speed of light is at that time, and they will travel at the same speed as each other. It makes no difference which direction the bundles of light are traveling. They will both travel at the speed of light, whatever we want to imagine it was.
zebraone100 1 year ago
Comment removed
BigCheese77 8 months ago
@zebraone100 And here's something I really wish there was more of on YouTube comments and the internetin general:
You are right, and I was wrong.
I started typing out a simplified model to prove my point and ended up realizing you were right. My misunderstanding came from the fact that I focused on the speed at which light travels through XE, which is actually irrelevant to establishing that XE=SR, since even if there's C-Decay, light travels SE and SR+RX in the same time thus proving XE=SR.
BigCheese77 8 months ago
Comment removed
BigCheese77 1 year ago
This must be the stupidest video on the tube...
You actually ONLY put up the same proof Shane put up and you don´t even realize it!
hasseklas56 1 year ago
@hasseklas56 That depends on which video you think this is a reply to. Shane recently made a video where his illustrations were probably inspired by this video. It was a good video demonstrating a large universe. Maybe that is the source of your confusion?
This vid is a response to a vid made about 3 years ago on the subject of C-Decay. Shane and I BOTH AGREE that C-Decay is absurd, but he made a simple error in reasoning when he put together his disproof. That is what this video addresses.
zebraone100 1 year ago
The problem that I see here is that, when you display your equation leading up to the conclusion that 1 = 784, you're using line segment XE as an already known value, a constant carried over from the previous equation. It's not. The length of XE is determined by the length of RS, not the other way around, and we need to measure to find that as well. Using 784c makes RS bigger, which in turn makes XE, RE, and SE larger, which makes the universe bigger, and older. Shane's video confirmed.
DarthVictive 1 year ago
@DarthVictive the bottom line is that XE and RS are equal to each other and that I demonstrated that. In math, a=b is the same as b=a. When you say "The length of XE is determined by the length of RS, not the other way around..." it seems clear that you are missing that mathmatical reallity. My proof is very simple, and it is a valid proof. If you are going to argue that it is wrong, you must show which step is invalid, and why it is wrong in mathmatical terms.
zebraone100 1 year ago
@zebraone100 No, the bottom line is that this is not pure math, where your argument might have some validity. It's physics, in which causation is a determining factor of reality. And in actual physics, the length of XE is arbitrarily assigned by us, whereas the length of RS is determined by the stellar event you are attempting to measure. You must measure first, then assign value to XE, rather than reuse a value for XE from a completely different problem.
DarthVictive 1 year ago
Shanedk made another video, still not getting the point that he is wrong. Oh well. I made another attempt to explain why his argument is wrong, in my own video response here: watch?v=pF_G2uBVp-0
dada31415 1 year ago
I uphold the same standard as your introduction that [paraphrasing immensely] faulty stuff should be fixed. So while I haven't YET seen Shanedk's video, good job.
onijester56 1 year ago
Comment removed
solorak 1 year ago
you completely missed the point of c decay which states that light would have been travelling faster over SR then XE so SR would be larger then XE given that this idea held any water (which it doesnt)
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery
Point X is defined as the location of the second bundle of light when the first bundle arrives at earth. Remember, the second bundle of light is traveling a longer path. The distance of X to earth is equal to the additional length of the second path caused by its detour to the rings. It is entirely irrational to think that distance will be different than the distance of the detour.
zebraone100 1 year ago
@zebraone100 i'm sorry i have rouble understanding this point as it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the speed of light is constant and has been for most of time.
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery the speed of light is constant and has always been so. The evidence clearly supports this conclusion. You are right to accept that fact.
Shane's conclusion that C-Decay is false is perfectly fine and correct. However, his attempt to prove it using invalid reasoning in not ok, and that is the point of my video. The invalid step in his proof is the changing distance of the rings, proven to be invalid by my geometric proof that SR=XE and that XE is known.
zebraone100 1 year ago
@zebraone100 What I would like to see then is a proper "debunking" of C-decay. I don't support C-decay either but I'm bad at math :p
70m0kun 1 year ago
@ajgrovery : You said, "it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the speed of light is constant and HAS BEEN MOST OF THE TIME.
The mind of an evolutionist. If it is/was a constant it has never changed. If it has changed then it is NOT a constant. Good grief.
Kirkwhisper 1 year ago
@Kirkwhisper firstly I said for most of time, get it right
second i'm referring to several indications that in the very beginning light may have been faster however the universe at that time is nothing like the universe of today and would have only lasted seconds (and thats being generous
ajgrovery 1 year ago
RS = c_now * 8 months
XE = c_old * 8 months
If c changes then RS can be different from XE.
But in case the change is constant (erm, I mean changing all the time) things would get funky.
One phenomenon would be that the ring is actually collapsing towards the star at high velocity in order to keep the distance RS at c*8 months: c decreases -> c*8 months decreases -> distance stays at ~c*8 months -> ring must be collapsing, even though it seems to be growing!
Geenimetsuri 1 year ago
@Geenimetsuri
This is why I choose to describe distance in KM. it avoids the confusion caused by describing distance by a unit of measurement that is no longer constant. RS=XE is proven by a geometric proof which is solid. If you wish to say that RS does not equal XE, you must show the error in the proof, which you can't.
zebraone100 1 year ago
your equation so get the distance relied on the speed of light being constant but RS != XE if the speed of light is changing
solorak 2 years ago
@solorak
In order to make that argument, you must show which step in my proof is invalid. I proved that rs=xe using a geometric proof that is solid. Remember, both bundles of light are traveling at the same speed as each other. That means that if the light traveling to the rings is fast, so is the light traveling straight to earth.
zebraone100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zebraone100
After watching the video again i realized that i was looking at things backwards. If the speed of light is slowing then SR will take less time to occur than XE but the distance will be the same. For some reason i was under the delusion that RS and XE had to happen in the same amount of time and therefore if rate was changed in the distance=rate*time equation the distance would have to be changed.
yeah i feel like an idiot right now...
solorak 1 year ago
Why are we 'waiting' for the ring to flash? The ring is caused by the star going supernova. Light doesnt have to travel from S to R, the supernova is pushing R away from S at light speed, right? Can we measure R at 1 minute past supernova? If we observe R flash 8 months after supernova, then the gases of R were going faster than C at supernova? Please explain... to a non scientist...Thanx
TooferMan 2 years ago
The ring of gas was produced by the solar winds of the star long before the explosion took place. Every star gives off gas as the consequence of being very hot. That gas speeds away from the star very quickly at first, but is then slowed down due to gravity. The point where the gas leaving the star meets with the gas falling back is the location of the ring.
The explosion produced huge amounts of light in the ultra-violet and x-ray spectrums that ionized the gas causing it to fluoresce.
zebraone100 2 years ago
"he could have realized that h=λE/c and that for h to remain constant, c must remain constant."
I cant see how your pins/cars analogy is valid as light property is different and different results observed.
Wasnt ajpmathwiz saying λ decreases by same factor as c, as observed when light passes through a medium?
Hence in the equation h=λE/c, wont h remain the same as the increase/decrease in λ cancels the corresponding inc/dec in c?
peartreeven 2 years ago
"wont h remain the same as the increase/decrease in λ cancels the corresponding inc/dec in c?"
Yes, that would be correct. However, my analogies were meant to demonstrate why λ can not change, and that the freq must change.
That leave us with only one solution that conserves E. h must be inversely proportional to c.
zebraone100 2 years ago
"my analogies were meant to demonstrate why λ cannot change, and that the freq must change."
I think travelling cars/clips give different result as they bear no relation to how light behave.
Dont know why you insist on contradicting what is actually observed ie λ decreases as c decreases. Infact the equation h=λE/c proves that for h to remain constant, λ must change correspondingly to c everytime, otherwise h will vary.
As f remains same, this preserves E = hf Infact this is as observed.
peartreeven 2 years ago
"my analogies were meant to demonstrate λ can not change, and that the freq must change."
the equation h=λE/c disprove the above because as c = λf, if f increases and λ stays the same, then c increases. If c increases and λ stays the same, the value of h will be smaller and it wont be constant.
peartreeven 2 years ago
The whole point of this line of reasoning is to answer this question:
If light is traveling through space, and the speed of light increases, will that light be red shifted, blue shifted, or neither?
So what do you think and why? Must E be conserved? how will that light behave through a diffraction grating?
zebraone100 2 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't understand one thing about your debunking: you say that RS = XE, but before you did that, you already assumed a constant speed of light to measure XE. However, if c did decay, than the measured distance of XE has no meaning for RS, as XE was calculated using the current c, while the light crossed RS when it was moving much faster. As it took the same time as to cross XE while moving faster, RS must have been bigger, which was Shanedk's point. Am I correct?
agnat86 2 years ago
"you already assumed a constant speed of light to measure XE."
The light traveling on XE from the ring flash, traveled that leg of its journey to earth between Mar of 1987 and Nov of 1987. I don't have to ASSUME anything about the speed of light in 1987. The speed of light in 1987 was KNOWN because it was MEASURED.
In simple terms, XE represents the extra distance photon#2 traveled. Photon#2's route is longer because it made a "Detour" to the rings. XE must equal that "Detour."
zebraone100 2 years ago
"Shanedk is smarter than you. STFU. You suck."
Shanedk *IS* smart. I like most of his videos. Unfortunately, this one has a flaw. In any logical proof, EVERY step in the proof must be valid for the conclusion to be considered proven. In his 4 step proof, 1 of the steps is demonstrate-ably false.
Shane's is not wrong about C-Decay being absurd. He just didn't prove it properly.
"I will 1 star all your vids."
I don't care what you do. Knock yourself out.
zebraone100 2 years ago
Sorry, but zebraone's maths is correct and flawless. This guy can also do tough maths puzzles set by maths professors. FACT.
peartreeven 2 years ago
Hmm. You're good. I spent about three weeks of messaging on that cdk video 2 years ago, to say over and over what you just did in under 9 minutes.
(An example of 1=3500 math I suppose.)
We don't agree on much as I am a creationist, but still, hats off to your ability to summarize the situation very concisely.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
If you then factor in the element that the universe is expanding and all the spaces between the galatic bodies are increasing, how would that affect the age of the universe as afterall the universe age is determined by the speed of light?
Is the light not also stretched thus affecting the true distances the light has travelled from?
peartreeven 3 years ago
The light isn't stretched, but the space between the star and earth would be. If a star was 10 billion ly from earth when the light left, and the space in front of the light expanded by 1 bil ly while in route, the light will travel 11 bil ly for 11 bil years.
Most important, the star will appear to have been 11 bil ly away, 11 bil years ago when in fact it was only 10 bil ly away.
We will always know how long the light has traveled, but to know what we are seeing will require analysis.
zebraone100 3 years ago
zebraone = genius
peartreeven 3 years ago
Actually, no it won't. The speed of light is the same measured relative to any reference frame, thus the time of flight would be measured as 10 Gy.
ajpmathwiz 2 years ago
"The speed of light is the same measured relative to any reference frame"
Are you not aware that the context of this discussion lies in the "pretend universe of C-Decay," where it is assumed that C has physically changed? Other than that, I agree with your understanding of physics.
Regarding the wavelength changing, this implies that the trailing edge of the wave would, for a short period of time, travel at a different speed than the leading edge. This is obviously absurd.
zebraone100 2 years ago
I just rated your vid 5 stars for top logic. However, Shane's math is not wrong but his assumption is. When I 1st watched his vid, something nagged at me but yet I couldnt see what was flawed with his maths. After watching yours, I got it. You have shown that by the time light reached the earth observer, c has slowed down to present value. Whereas Shane has assumed that it hasnt and that only the light emitted much much later had.
You are right of course.
peartreeven 3 years ago
If c at the time of leaving 1987a was greater then the distance SR is greater. And you have an angle of 0.808 arcseconds you have to account for and didn't. The angle has nothing to do with the speed of light, constant, variable or otherwise. The only way I can account for a greater SR and an angle of 0.808 arcseconds is by having a greater distance to earth. Have things changed that much since I took trigonometry?
jhbbunch 3 years ago
There is nothing that requires SR to be bigger. SR must equal XE, and XE is precisely known. The whole point of my video is to show why SR cannot increase and why doing so was 1=2 math. I know its a boring video, but re-watch and pause if you have to.
"And you have an angle of 0.808 arc-seconds you have to account for and didn't."
I don't have to account for it, because I never changed ANY of the distances. As such, the angle never changed and is still 0.808 arc-sec.
zebraone100 3 years ago
"SR must equal XE"
Right. To make SR greater by 784X and leave XE the same is wrong. It is also now 784*SR_old = SR_new.
"I never changed ANY of the distances."
Yes you did. If you change c you change the distance SR by c_new/c_old. You changed SR by 784X.
Again, SR and the angle constrain the equation. You can't change one and not the other and still have the same distance to earth. This will lead to absurdities.
Shane did nothing wrong. His math is properly constrained. Your's isn't.
jhbbunch 3 years ago
If you increase XE by 784, the observed difference between received signals of light will not be 8 months, it will be 8 months * 784 = 516 years. We KNOW that this is not true.
regarding the angle: this info is useful if you want to compute the distance SE. Since SE was never the subject of discussion (other than to say it is equal to RE) the angle is an irrelevant point.
XE is KNOWN. it was MEASURED. it can NOT be changed. (review 2:30 to 4:20 to understand why we KNOW the value of XE)
zebraone100 3 years ago
OK. I agree. A variable c with lets say an exponential decay will do that. Looking at an exponential graph of c/t the area under the graph is distance and delta-t is stretched out as c decreases to give the same distance.
jhbbunch 3 years ago
Of course it means all of the suns visible light would have been ultraviolet light 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve would have been blinded and sunburned to death, but that is an argument for the consequences of a faster c which this channel is not about.
jhbbunch 3 years ago
"To make SR greater by 784X and leave XE the same is wrong."
XE is computed by multiplying the observed delay in 1987 (delay=8 months) by the observed speed of light in 1987 (C=300,000 km/sec) giving us 6.2 trillion km.
If you insist on increasing XE, you must show which one of the two OBSERVED values must be changed.
So which one is it going to be? By the way, which ever one you choose, you better have a damn good reason for replacing an OBSERVED value with a made up value.
zebraone100 3 years ago
So shane's error was assuming that the the light hitting earth from the supernova was travelling the same speed it was when it left the supernova?
calvinhobbesliker2 2 years ago
no, Shane's error was increasing the distance from the star to the rings (SR), when SR must equal XE, and XE is known.
The reason that we see the rings flash 8 months later is because light from the rings trails light from the supernova by the additional distance that the light from the rings had to travel, and that distance takes 8 months to travel at today's light speed. If he increases the size of the rings, he increases the trailing distance, and what took 8 months must now take longer.
zebraone100 2 years ago
I'm surprised he didn't post "FIRST" while he's taking his toys and going home.
Holyteror 3 years ago
Short answer: if this were the case, we'd be seeing the supernova in slow-motion, and we aren't, as the measured decay rate of cobalt isotopes in the rings show.
This is not apart of your original proof. I am all for you using good science to disprove C-decay, but your strictly geometry disproof is fataly flawed.
It is not lost on me that this is your second most veiwed video. To that end, I would hate to see you delete it. I would rather you replaced it with good science.
zebraone100 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All your base are belong to me.
Holyteror 3 years ago
I dealt with this MONTHS ago. Maybe more than a YEAR ago.
Short answer: if this were the case, we'd be seeing the supernova in slow-motion, and we aren't, as the measured decay rate of cobalt isotopes in the rings show.
shanedk 3 years ago
"if this were the case, we'd be seeing the supernova in slow-motion..."
Shane, just because the conclusion of your 'proof' is correct, doesn't mean your 1=2 'proof' is valid.
Example: chocolate pudding tastes great, therefore C-Decay is false.
My conclusion is obviously true, but does that mean my proof is valid? Hardly.
Why do you keep trying to justify your proof by its conclusion? Do you even know what it means to prove something?
zebraone100 3 years ago