The laws of physics dictate the speed of light. — Banno

No they don't. The Laws of physics merely build-in an assumption.
They don't prove that the speed of light is fixed.... and the evidence would seem to contradict that notion. You always have to calibrate equations against reality.

In this case however, scientists want to preserve doctrine over substance.

Nuh.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3

In this case however, scientists want to preserve doctrine over substance — Gary Enfield

Science erected a god idol around a Time magazine cover story, and continues to worship it.

There is a reason Einstein received the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect (which should have been shared with his wife), and not Relativity, and let's not forget he fought quantum theory to his death. There is no such thing as entanglement and instaneous action at a distance? Science constructed an idol and is too embarrassed to take it down. What will happen over time is it will fade into oblivion.

Hi Banno

That's a great video - thanks for pointing it out.
The maths is largely beyond me, but I listened to the entire thing, to try and get the most from it.

I trust the calculations and the final formula - which left two factors to plug into the equation (at pre-determined values), which provided a number for the current speed of light in a vacuum.
(From what I can tell, this didn't set a limit on what the speed of light might be in different circumstances).

I think it's great that various parts of scientific theory came together to validate values in our current circumstances, but the reality remains - the size of the universe compared to its age suggests that travel faster than the speed of light is possible.

Is the expansion of the universe subject to different principles than the speed of light travelling within it?
Quite possibly, when the reality of the size and age of the universe show that expansion must have happened faster than light.

Clearly the basics of Maxwell's laws / equations reflect circumstances now, rather than then - and at a time when the emerging universe may have had different restraints or opportunities etc.

Part of the reason for my saying this is that the presenter admitted that there were a number of assumptions within the equations, as well as an admission that waves could exist in a vacuum.

As we know, there doesn't seem to be any part of space with an absence of anything in it, and so there is a potential for some restraining effect everywhere. This may explain why the the equations now would differ to effects then.

However, one way or another, the reality of the size of the universe compared to its age should leave open all possibilities that cannot be dismissed.

As stated several times on earlier posts, the more basic/fundamental definition/equation/Law is distance/time = speed. If you wish to show that this doesn't apply you need evidence to say why. Maths isn't evidence, it is an encoding of a theory - nothing more.

What I can't get past is that physicist have used General Relativity to derive a size for the universe, and pretty much agree on the result; in doing so they relied on the relativistic versions of the equations you refer to.

And yet, without showing us the calculations, you insist that they are wrong.

I don't think there is more to say here. That the velocity of light is a constant, fixed for all observers, is fundamental to physics.

What I can't get past is that physicist have used General Relativity to derive a size for the universe, and pretty much agree on the result; — Banno

I don't think so. You might mean the observable universe.

See https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/02/01/197279/cosmos-at-least-250x-bigger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists/

So that's a minimum size, not the size.

Maybe if you watched more YouTube videos you would avoid dumping big fat loads of bad physics on us.

I'm happy to be corrected by physics - show me a paper that disagrees with the paper cited above - they will be there. Demonstrate your case.

If all you got is that it is a minimum, then I agree, but you haven't been following the discussion, and you got nuthin'.

We don't have a size for the universe as you suggested. That's bad physics.

Go ahead and triple down. :rofl:

The paper cited above shows that we have a size for the universe.

Therefore you are wrong. Fuck it. Here's the actual analysis. https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/413/1/L91/1747653

Explain why this is bad physics.

We know the minimum size.

Is that what you meant?

Fool.

Goodness. The universe might be infinite, but you've got a size for it.

So after crying like a big baby over bad physics, what did you do?

Firstly, the guy talks about space expanding, when space is probably not expanding — Gary Enfield

Well, then, there's an opportunity for you to re-write a large part of wikipedia: "Based on large quantities of experimental observation and theoretical work, the scientific consensus is that space itself is expanding..."

See how that works out for you.

The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe, is commonly referred-to as inflation theory - and the invite is still there for you to present physical evidence for inflation, rather than a your simple desire to preserve doctrine over real evidence.

the invite is still there for you to present physical evidence for inflation — Gary Enfield

There is plenty of evidence linked from the Wiki article; but you write: "The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe..." Not at all sure what to make of that. The stuff about metric tensors is pretty plainly written in the WIki article; the point being that expansion of the physical universe is expansion of space.

What I can't get past is that physicist have used General Relativity to derive a size for the universe, and pretty much agree on the result; in doing so they relied on the relativistic versions of the equations you refer to.

And yet, without showing us the calculations, you insist that they are wrong.

I don't think there is more to say here. That the velocity of light is a constant, fixed for all observers, is fundamental to physics. — Banno

I explained this to you already. What results from the application of general relativity, is the conclusion that space is expanding. This separation of things which is accounted for by the concept of spatial expansion is a type of motion of things relative to each other, which does not qualify as "motion" within the precepts of the general theory of relativity. Therefore we can conclude that there are motions of material things in the universe, to which general relativity is not applicable. This is regardless of whether the principles of relativity theory, special or general, are fundamental to physics.

Now, Gary would prefer not to apply the general theory of relativity, and therefore avoid the conclusion that space is expanding. That's a valid starting point. From this perspective we can take all the observed motions, and class them together, and see that there is good reason not to apply the principles of relativity, as they are inadequate. So we ought to seek a better theory which can account for all the motions in the universe as "motion".

Banno

Despite your appeals to the moderators, and being told what you had to do to both disprove the alternate theory, and demonstrate the proof to support your own preference, you again fail to do so.
What's more, you now seem to be verging on the dishonest.

"The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe..." Not at all sure what to make of that. — Banno

We have spent a good part of this thread discussing the essence of that difference.
Others have had the good grace to acknowledge that there are two valid theories, but not you.

So have you disproved the basic maths that I outlined? No
Have you disproved the widely accepted scientific values I presented about the size and age of the Universe? No.
Have you demonstrated that the speed of light can't be exceeded? No - you have merely quoted an assumption, sometimes shrouded in maths that used the assumption as a basis for the formula.

So given that my basic evidence, (which is also based on observation and considered scientific opinion), reflects the normal way in which science handles the concept of speed, and it is clear that you wish to break that long-lasting model, you should at least provide evidence for the additional factor of inflation that you claim must exist.

We're waiting....

.... and waiting....

and waiting for you to do so, after many requests. But none comes.

So having failed on all of the basic requirements, where does that leave the theory of inflation?
Well, from my point of view, it is a potentially valid theory without evidence to support it.
It is valid because it does match the evidence and can't be disproved - but it is the more complex potential solution, and requires additional factors to make it work.

The theory which I currently prefer is the accepted way in which the basic factors would normally be interpreted, which is directly supported by the observations that would count as normal evidence.

As a simple factor, cosmologists physically observe galaxies that are now judged to be images which are 13.2 billion years old - half a billion years after the big bang, (which is assumed to be when enough material had first gathered to form stars and began illuminating the universe). But.... they appear in the position they were in at that time, not now - and as I understand it, they show a spread that is seemingly more than the speed of light could achieve in half a billion years.
That is direct physical evidence for my 'normal' explanation.
Where's yours?

Silence.

MU - thanks for your general support, but that isn't quite my view.

Now, Gary would prefer not to apply the general theory of relativity, and therefore avoid the conclusion that space is expanding. That's a valid starting point. — Metaphysician Undercover

To clarify my position, I do not abandon General Relativity, but like every other theory it is only valid when it explains real evidence - which it does for the most part, but doesn't seem to in this instance - at least, not a face value.
I feel that General Relativity has an important place and has been very accurate and useful up to certain parameters. One of the key parameters is the speed of light, both in terms of its current value and as a 'maximum' concept.

There are very few instances where the assumption that... 'the current maximum speed of light cannot be exceeded'... can be applied and tested against reality. One is in calculating atomic energy values. The other is in observations of the cosmos.

The real quantification of energies released by atomic explosions is still not possible in absolute terms and could easily vary from our current estimates.

However the evidence from the cosmos is pretty clear.
What do we do when there is evidence that contradicts our assumptions and formulae? We should revisit our assumptions and formulae based on the new evidence, and either modify them appropriately, or find additional factors that will then allow them to explain the new evidence.

In this case we have a choice about which sets of values we wish to preserve. One set of values has been with us and totally successful for thousands of years. The other is an assumption that has been with us for a century, and has been useful, but largely untested at its extremes.

If you wish to preserve the untested extreme at the expense of proven theories that are thousands of years old, it is not unreasonable for ordinary people to ask for evidence to prove the additional factors that would justify belief in the extreme assumption.

If we have to modify General Relativity to accept that higher speeds are possible in certain circumstances, that modification won't impact on the vast majority of circumstances where it will continue to be applied here on Earth in current conditions.

I simply go with the only evidence available, but am happy to change if something other than dogma emerges.

Cheers, Gary. Remember me in the acceptance speech for your Nobel Prize.