[morgsboi]

Okay, so it is quite simple. Light goes at the speed of 299,792,458 m / s.
Now it is possible to slow down light....... a lot! Researchers at the Rowland Institute for Science slowed light to 16.98752 m / s (38 miles per hour) in 1999, and researchers at UC Berkeley slowed the speed of light traveling through a semiconductor to 9.7 km/s (34900 kilometers per hour or 21700 miles per hour) in 2004. So we will call 16.98752 m / s, which is a variable depending on the amount the light is slowed down. REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light

Now if this light () was in a very large room, with 2 people on either side of it with telescopes a few miles away, then if one of them put their hand up then it would take a long time for the other guy to even notice it, changing the whole light cone.

So light has been slowed down by an amazing 17647806.03643145 times, which theoretically, should mean that everything we see is either 17647806.03643145 times slower or we have 17647806.03643145 times the amount of delay that we would normally have on our light cone.

is the time it takes for you to see what is happening in the present at a distance.
So the equation should be

This post has been edited by morgsboi: 10 November 2011 - 12:43 AM

[DrRocket]

morgsboi, on 10 November 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

Okay, so it is quite simple. Light goes at the speed of 299,792,458 m / s.
Now it is possible to slow down light....... a lot! Researchers at the Rowland Institute for Science slowed light to 16.98752 m / s (38 miles per hour) in 1999, and researchers at UC Berkeley slowed the speed of light traveling through a semiconductor to 9.7 km/s (34900 kilometers per hour or 21700 miles per hour) in 2004. So we will call 16.98752 m / s, which is a variable depending on the amount the light is slowed down. REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light

Now if this light () was in a very large room, with 2 people on either side of it with telescopes a few miles away, then if one of them put their hand up then it would take a long time for the other guy to even notice it, changing the whole light cone.

So light has been slowed down by an amazing 17647806.03643145 times, which theoretically, should mean that everything we see is either 17647806.03643145 times slower or we have 17647806.03643145 times the amount of delay that we would normally have on our light cone.

is the time it takes for you to see what is happening in the present at a distance.
So the equation should be

What you are describing is not a change in he speed of photons, or of an electromagnetic wasve in a vacuum. You are describing a change in speed of propagation of an electromagnetic signal in a medium. Even a piece of glass does that -- Google "index of refraction".

This has nothing to do with any violation of special relativity or of the definition of a light cone. SR works quite well without your proposed modification.

If you want to "see into the past" just look up at the stars at night. Or watch re-runs of Leno.

[morgsboi]

DrRocket, on 10 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

What you are describing is not a change in he speed of photons, or of an electromagnetic wasve in a vacuum. You are describing a change in speed of propagation of an electromagnetic signal in a medium. Even a piece of glass does that -- Google "index of refraction".

This has nothing to do with any violation of special relativity or of the definition of a light cone. SR works quite well without your proposed modification.

If you want to "see into the past" just look up at the stars at night. Or watch re-runs of Leno.

I know what refraction is, but even so it slows down light. If there is no light you cant see. The time that it takes for the light to reach you (and your brain to process it), is the amount of time that you will be looking back at. The present is impossible to observe.

[DrRocket]

morgsboi, on 10 November 2011 - 01:20 AM, said:

The present is impossible to observe.

Which is obvious from any physical theory in which light propagates at a finite speed. So what ?

[morgsboi]

DrRocket, on 10 November 2011 - 01:49 AM, said:

Which is obvious from any physical theory in which light propagates at a finite speed. So what ?

So, its still slowing down time by 17647806.03643145. It's noticeable as communications travel faster than via electricity and radio waves ect.
You clearly don't have any way of "thinking outside the box", so I don't understand why your on the theoretical physicist forum.

[swansont]

morgsboi, on 10 November 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

You clearly don't have any way of "thinking outside the box", so I don't understand why your on the theoretical physicist forum.

"Thinking outside the box" is all too often shorthand for "I want to ignore the demonstrated laws of physics without fear of contradiction." New proposed physics has implications — some very far-reaching — and it is incumbent on the proposer to deal with those implications. That's how science works. You don't get to ignore what has already been observed to be true, you have to be consistent with it.

“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” Thomas Henry Huxley

Also, questioning why someone is here contributing is no more appropriate than if someone were to put the question to you and imply that your contributions have no value.

morgsboi, on 10 November 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

So, its still slowing down time by 17647806.03643145. It's noticeable as communications travel faster than via electricity and radio waves ect.

No, you haven't slowed down time at all, any more than using snail mail slows down time because email exists. It simply introduces a delay.

[morgsboi]

swansont, on 20 November 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

"Thinking outside the box" is all too often shorthand for "I want to ignore the demonstrated laws of physics without fear of contradiction." New proposed physics has implications — some very far-reaching — and it is incumbent on the proposer to deal with those implications. That's how science works. You don't get to ignore what has already been observed to be true, you have to be consistent with it.

"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley

Also, questioning why someone is here contributing is no more appropriate than if someone were to put the question to you and imply that your contributions have no value.



No, you haven't slowed down time at all, any more than using snail mail slows down time because email exists. It simply introduces a delay.

What I meant was, observable time in the area where the light is slower.

[swansont]

swansont, on 20 November 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

Also, questioning why someone is here contributing is no more appropriate than if someone were to put the question to you and imply that your contributions have no value.

!

Moderator Note

Another inappropriate thing is registering a sockpuppet account to agree with your posts and give you rep points. In fact, it's a very serious infraction. thescienceguy is banned and this action logged.