Aha. Unfortunately I totally fail to see how this would cause the Planck length to shrink with respect to the static size of the universe, which may just be a total non issue. I think I misread "Is the universe expanding or are we shrinking?", and should have assumed you meant "Is time dilating on a universal level?", and completely ignored your diagram where time was essentially contracting as the age of the universe increased. I'm just very confused, and I apologize for wasting your time.

Aha. Unfortunately I totally fail to see how this would cause the Planck length to shrink with respect to the static size of the universe, which may just be a total non issue. I think I misread "Is the universe expanding or are we shrinking?", and should have assumed you meant "Is time dilating on a universal level?", and completely ignored your diagram where time was essentially contracting as the age of the universe increased. I'm just very confused, and I apologize for wasting your time.

Technically, I am saying that we are shrinking and that time is slowing for us as well. I'm also saying that the universe is not a static size but infinite and that the planck length is a fallacy. Time is not constant nor is the speed of light nor is the effect of gravity. All of these are relative.

[quote name='taby' timestamp='1336777191' post='4939446']
Aha. Unfortunately I totally fail to see how this would cause the Planck length to shrink with respect to the static size of the universe, which may just be a total non issue. I think I misread "Is the universe expanding or are we shrinking?", and should have assumed you meant "Is time dilating on a universal level?", and completely ignored your diagram where time was essentially contracting as the age of the universe increased. I'm just very confused, and I apologize for wasting your time.

Technically, I am saying that we are shrinking and that time is slowing for us as well. I'm also saying that the universe is not a static size but infinite and that the planck length is a fallacy. Time is not constant nor is the speed of light nor is the effect of gravity. All of these are relative.
[/quote]

I love how this works out, because there's proof.

[quote name='EnigmaticProgrammer' timestamp='1336780493' post='4939455']
[quote name='taby' timestamp='1336777191' post='4939446']
Aha. Unfortunately I totally fail to see how this would cause the Planck length to shrink with respect to the static size of the universe, which may just be a total non issue. I think I misread "Is the universe expanding or are we shrinking?", and should have assumed you meant "Is time dilating on a universal level?", and completely ignored your diagram where time was essentially contracting as the age of the universe increased. I'm just very confused, and I apologize for wasting your time.

Technically, I am saying that we are shrinking and that time is slowing for us as well. I'm also saying that the universe is not a static size but infinite and that the planck length is a fallacy. Time is not constant nor is the speed of light nor is the effect of gravity. All of these are relative.
[/quote]

I love how this works out, because there's proof.
[/quote]

Let me clarify. It is well known that the speed of light is not constant. As I had said before a photon is merely the smallest unit of self contained energy. If we are shrinking and black holes are new universes then beyond the event horizon of our universe is another larger one and so on in to infinity.

Let me clarify. It is well known that the speed of light is not constant. As I had said before a photon is merely the smallest unit of self contained energy. If we are shrinking and black holes are new universes then beyond the event horizon of our universe is another larger one and so on in to infinity.

The speed of light through a vacuum, which is the model used by modern physics, is taken as a constant. As space is, for the most part, a vacuum (unless you assume it's full of aether too?), it is safe to assume that light traveling through it should be moving at, for the most part, the same speed as that of light through a true vacuum (which doesn't exist anyways due to virtual particles, etc).

Lastly, the VSL cosmic model has no real advantages over the inflationary one and actually poses several problems that have not been proven to exist, in any manner, in special and general relativity or quantum mechanics. Specifically that the speed of light through a vacuum will vary over something.

[quote name='EnigmaticProgrammer' timestamp='1336828660' post='4939557']
Let me clarify. It is well known that the speed of light is not constant. As I had said before a photon is merely the smallest unit of self contained energy. If we are shrinking and black holes are new universes then beyond the event horizon of our universe is another larger one and so on in to infinity.

The speed of light through a vacuum, which is the model used by modern physics, is taken as a constant. As space is, for the most part, a vacuum (unless you assume it's full of aether too?), it is safe to assume that light traveling through it should be moving at, for the most part, the same speed as that of light through a true vacuum (which doesn't exist anyways due to virtual particles, etc).

Lastly, the VSL cosmic model has no real advantages over the inflationary one and actually poses several problems that have not been proven to exist, in any manner, in special and general relativity or quantum mechanics. Specifically that the speed of light through a vacuum will vary over something.
[/quote]

What if the vacuum of space was not always so perfect? If galaxies were closer together, solar wind escaping the gravitational field of these galaxies would create a less perfect vacuum throughout empty space. As a result light would move slower through space at the beginning of universe and would increasingly move faster as these galaxies grow further apart.

...

What if the vacuum of space was not always so perfect? If galaxies were closer together, solar wind escaping the gravitational field of these galaxies would create a less perfect vacuum throughout empty space. As a result light would move slower through space at the beginning of universe and would increasingly move faster as these galaxies grow further apart.

Gas and other stuff won't affect red-shift. The moving of objects, thus the expansion of the Universe is observed/expressed/theorized by red-shift. I don't see how non-vacuum in the past affects this. Today's vacuum is vacuum enough to have negligible affect on light speed between starts/galaxies.

I have a feeling that dilettantes (including me) arguing about a totally scientific (and fairly advanced) topic is a bit stupid. It's science, not belief, there's not really place for opinions.
It takes a few years of intense studies to be any competent in a topic like this. It's pretty stupid IMHO to think that anyone can understand the thing without these studies. It's very stupid to make theories and attack current theories without these studies (and sadly many people make books and films about these ""theories"", and even lectures)

The few, who are not dilettantes in this topic won't be able to explain the thing in the scope of a mainly non-mathematician/physicist forum.
I guess Taby is not dilettante, but is there anyone who really understands what he wrote? A lot of things are obvious to him, but we ha no idea about these obvious things.


Or if people really know what they are talking about, we want formulas, equations, quotations, all the scientific stuff. Just talking about a non-trivial problem like this and doing some thinking in your head without any paper-work is just stupid. Okay, fun too, but after a while, these turn into flamewars which is stupid.


rant over.

... stuff about speed of light being variable in participating media...
[/quote]

Dear god - whereby does it transpire that solar wind (a flux of charged particles emitted from a star) changes the speed of light? The only thing that can actually "change" the speed of light is gravity and even this "change" is relative, meaning that the speed only changes for an outside observer.

Photons are not "slowed down" by participating media or materials like ice, water, glass or solar wind. What changes is the speed of propagation due to photons bouncing around and taking longer to travel the same perceived distance. The distance a photon travels is still always the same and corresponds to it travelling at the speed of light, because the speed of light is a constant.

While not a scientific source (it's the first one Google threw up), the following is true: comparatively, light takes an exorbitant amount of time to leave a star (thousands or possibly millions of years compared to seconds), but not because light travels slower at any point. The problem pertains to the medium, which causes a photon to take innumerable small steps and bounces, creating a very roundabout path, which will eventually lead it out of the star.

edit: to elaborate briefly on the effects of gravity on the apparent speed of a photon - a photon's speed is constant even for an outside observer if measured in terms of spacetime, not just space.

[quote name='EnigmaticProgrammer' timestamp='1336876875' post='4939692']
...

What if the vacuum of space was not always so perfect? If galaxies were closer together, solar wind escaping the gravitational field of these galaxies would create a less perfect vacuum throughout empty space. As a result light would move slower through space at the beginning of universe and would increasingly move faster as these galaxies grow further apart.

Gas and other stuff won't affect red-shift. The moving of objects, thus the expansion of the Universe is observed/expressed/theorized by red-shift. I don't see how non-vacuum in the past affects this. Today's vacuum is vacuum enough to have negligible affect on light speed between starts/galaxies.

I have a feeling that dilettantes (including me) arguing about a totally scientific (and fairly advanced) topic is a bit stupid. It's science, not belief, there's not really place for opinions.
It takes a few years of intense studies to be any competent in a topic like this. It's pretty stupid IMHO to think that anyone can understand the thing without these studies. It's very stupid to make theories and attack current theories without these studies (and sadly many people make books and films about these ""theories"", and even lectures)

The few, who are not dilettantes in this topic won't be able to explain the thing in the scope of a mainly non-mathematician/physicist forum.
I guess Taby is not dilettante, but is there anyone who really understands what he wrote? A lot of things are obvious to him, but we ha no idea about these obvious things.


Or if people really know what they are talking about, we want formulas, equations, quotations, all the scientific stuff. Just talking about a non-trivial problem like this and doing some thinking in your head without any paper-work is just stupid. Okay, fun too, but after a while, these turn into flamewars which is stupid.


rant over.
[/quote]

... stuff about speed of light being variable in participating media...

Dear god - whereby does it transpire that solar wind (a flux of charged particles emitted from a star) changes the speed of light? The only thing that can actually "change" the speed of light is gravity and even this "change" is relative, meaning that the speed only changes for an outside observer.

Photons are not "slowed down" by participating media or materials like ice, water, glass or solar wind. What changes is the speed of propagation due to photons bouncing around and taking longer to travel the same perceived distance. The distance a photon travels is still always the same and corresponds to it travelling at the speed of light, because the speed of light is a constant.

While not a scientific source (it's the first one Google threw up), the following is true: comparatively, light takes an exorbitant amount of time to leave a star (thousands or possibly millions of years compared to seconds), but not because light travels slower at any point. The problem pertains to the medium, which causes a photon to take innumerable small steps and bounces, creating a very roundabout path, which will eventually lead it out of the star.

edit: to elaborate briefly on the effects of gravity on the apparent speed of a photon - a photon's speed is constant even for an outside observer if measured in terms of spacetime, not just space.
[/quote]

The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c. Though the photons moving through the medium may be moving at the speed of light they will still be red shifted more so than photons moving through a vacuum. You are ignoring my question and instead trying to explain something which I fully understand...