Yes that is of course based on the idea that light always moves at the same speed and that there has been given enough time for the light to reach earth. If both are true then yes you would be right.

Now I'm not sure if you have heard this news yet or not, but australian scientist have gotten strange reading from a distant Q_____ (I forget the exact name) star. Ocording to there reading the light the are getting from the star is moving at a different speed. They determined this by a process I don't understand nor will even try to figure out.

Of course this would have determental effects in the physics community, since E = Mc^2 would no longer exist to be a plausible theory since it relies on the idea that the speed of light is a constant.

This could lead to:

1. The rethinking of the the new dicoveries on physics from the last 50 years.

2. Makes it impossible to judge distances in space except for those within about 100 - 1000 years.

3. The age of the universe can no longer be determined by examining light. That means theoreticly it could be trillions to 6000 years old.

Hope this added to the disscussion.

God Bless,
-Aaron

• Need more info - stormcrow - August 19, 2002 - 02:50 UTC
  • Pearls before wine, meaningless gibberish, stormcrow is correct - carefuluniverse - August 19, 2002 - 03:38 UTC
    • Yes that would be it. - emperor__alikar - August 19, 2002 - 23:55 UTC
      • Actually, if this is the same thing... - slamhound - August 21, 2002 - 02:43 UTC
    • there is a first!! - darwinpoodle - August 21, 2002 - 19:08 UTC
      • That was not true...but consistent - carefuluniverse - August 22, 2002 - 01:37 UTC
        • I agree - fasteddy - August 22, 2002 - 05:17 UTC
          • Thanks and Caveat - carefuluniverse - August 22, 2002 - 17:32 UTC
      • I tell you whut - stormcrow - August 22, 2002 - 05:08 UTC
        • Stormcrow - darwinpoodle - August 22, 2002 - 14:16 UTC
          • Thanks - stormcrow - August 24, 2002 - 02:31 UTC
  • Obviously very good points. - emperor__alikar - August 19, 2002 - 23:54 UTC
    • Okay - stormcrow - August 20, 2002 - 01:34 UTC
      • Let me go find it... - emperor__alikar - August 23, 2002 - 02:08 UTC
      • Here you go... - emperor__alikar - August 23, 2002 - 02:21 UTC
        • Link not working... - stormcrow - August 24, 2002 - 02:30 UTC
          • Well, that link is bogus, I think - richard - August 24, 2002 - 02:48 UTC
        • Link not bogus just dead... - emperor__alikar - August 25, 2002 - 04:17 UTC
          • Using old sites for sources as usual. - richard - August 25, 2002 - 21:16 UTC
      • That is not all. - emperor__alikar - August 23, 2002 - 02:23 UTC
• Hyperfine structure constant - yanniru - August 19, 2002 - 13:15 UTC
  • Ahh... - emperor__alikar - August 20, 2002 - 00:04 UTC
    • Source - yanniru - August 21, 2002 - 01:39 UTC
      • Thanks - emperor__alikar - August 25, 2002 - 04:20 UTC
• but - fasteddy - August 22, 2002 - 05:32 UTC
  • It must be constant... - emperor__alikar - August 23, 2002 - 02:27 UTC
    • Speed of light is not constant - yanniru - August 27, 2002 - 19:30 UTC
      • hello? - fasteddy - August 27, 2002 - 23:01 UTC
        • Equation for the speed of light - yanniru - August 28, 2002 - 13:25 UTC
          • Observed speed may vary; jury out on actual speed - spazcon - August 28, 2002 - 17:49 UTC
            • Light has been stopped - yanniru - August 28, 2002 - 20:34 UTC
              • Here's Johnny... - harvey1 - August 28, 2002 - 21:06 UTC
                • How is this different from "absorbing" light? - carefuluniverse - August 28, 2002 - 23:54 UTC
                  • The light is slowed before trapping it - yanniru - August 29, 2002 - 14:04 UTC
                    • Please quote the passages which explain that in detail - carefuluniverse - August 29, 2002 - 15:59 UTC
                      • Read this - yanniru - August 30, 2002 - 00:27 UTC
                        • You have just requoted what I quoted and commented cryptically - spazcon - August 30, 2002 - 01:07 UTC
                          • I have no idea what you are talking about - yanniru - August 30, 2002 - 14:15 UTC
                            • You have no idea what both of us are talking about then - carefuluniverse - August 31, 2002 - 02:26 UTC
                        • To make a point - fasteddy - August 30, 2002 - 21:19 UTC
              • Sir Namesalot - carefuluniverse - August 28, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
                • How about 1 mph? - harvey1 - August 29, 2002 - 14:26 UTC
                  • Thanks...that's about my speed. - carefuluniverse - August 29, 2002 - 16:06 UTC
                    • Absorption actually makes light travel faster - yanniru - August 30, 2002 - 00:33 UTC
                      • It's as clear as ....um...you know; it's, like, unclear! - spazcon - August 30, 2002 - 01:04 UTC
                        • It's based on a wave description of nature - yanniru - August 30, 2002 - 14:18 UTC
                          • It's nice of you to explain...did they explain their work thusly - carefuluniverse - August 30, 2002 - 19:59 UTC
      • See, it happens to you too! - doctordick - August 28, 2002 - 16:21 UTC
        • You never commented on my final statements - yanniru - August 30, 2002 - 14:21 UTC
  • It must be constant... - emperor__alikar - August 23, 2002 - 02:27 UTC
    • Basis is incorrect - yanniru - August 29, 2002 - 14:06 UTC