Re: nearest star much closer
- From: "Jim Black" <tramspap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Jan 2007 07:07:00 -0800
mr_bumpkin wrote:
On Jan 6, 1:37 am, "Mo" <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What if the speed of light was much greater beyond the solar system ?
And so distance becomes less. So the base of the triangle used to
measure
the distance to the nearest star, measures much less in this outside
space.
The etheric pressure is much less outside the solar system and that is
why
the speed of light is greater.
A distance in the solar system would be much further
outside the solar system. Atoms would be much larger.
Think Einstein.
Light gets refracted around the Sun. What if the etheric pressure
was greater near the Sun and the light was actually refracted ? And
light could be similarly refracted when passing galaxies.
The etheric pressure is much less outside the solar system and
that is why the speed of light is greater.
The light does not slow down. It the measuring sticks that
change. So no radiation.
Mo
You mean the distance is shorter, because we can get there faster, or
the distance is genuinely shorter?
The distance to Alpha Centari is measured by seeing where it is in the
sky when the earth is on opposite sides of the sun. It's not based
on the speed of light at all.
It's triangulation. The distance between the earth and the sun
multiplied by 2 forms the base line of the triangle, then the observed
location in the sky at the two times of year gives us two of the
angles. If you know two angles and one side of a triangle, you
can determine what the other sides and angles are from that.
Basically, we know how many distances from the earth to the sun it
would take to get to alpha centari. That's our measuring stick.
If I had a piece of paper, I could draw it.......... but alas........
You are correct, but if the speed of light was greater outside the
solar system, then refraction as the light entered the solar system
would make stars appear further than they really were.
[View diagram in fixed-width font.]
* Apparent position
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. * . Real position
. / \ .
./ \.
_-----_
- - Fast/slow lightspeed boundary
| |
V V
E S E
The next question is whether this would cause other observable effects
that would allow us to eliminate this scenario. One issue is that this
scenario would cause stars sufficiently far away from us to exhibit
reverse parallax. One might posit that there were no stars
sufficiently far away, or at least none whose parallax had been
measured, but that doesn't seem plausible. Probably other distance
measurement techniques set a lower bound on the distance to the
furthest detected galaxies, which would set a strong limit on the
amount of refraction possible.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: nearest star much closer
- From: Mo
- Re: nearest star much closer
- References:
- nearest star much closer
- From: Mo
- Re: nearest star much closer
- From: mr_bumpkin
- nearest star much closer
- Prev by Date: Re: Moon hopping around?
- Next by Date: Re: Do the redshift obvservations necessarily imply a big bang?
- Previous by thread: Re: nearest star much closer
- Next by thread: Re: nearest star much closer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
