Light speed dilation debate

[Themohawkninja]

Just moving it to here guys so that thread doesn\'t get too far off topic.

[dr_anonymous]

No, because it\'s 1-v² and then you divide that by c², so you would get less than one, but not 0... right?

No, the Lorentz transformation is sqrt(1-(v^{2/c2). He explained what was going on so I understand what was going on now.}

[Themohawkninja]

No, the Lorentz transformation is sqrt(1-(v^{2/c2). He explained what was going on so I understand what was going on now.}

^{So there is another set of paranthesis. Which makes 1c time dilation 0.}

^{To set things straight, the answer is how much time passes for the object(s) moving at the given velocity, right?}

[Wyrm]

Except the sqrt(1-v²/c²) is in the denominator, so time dialation is infinite at v = c.

[McLuv]

I laughed when I saw the title. You don\'t really 'debate' physical laws unless you\'re presenting contradictory experimental evidence.

Reminds me of when governments try to legislate scientific phenomena, like when NC decided that climate should follow not what climatologists have computed and predicted, but what would be better for them economically http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21934-north-carolina-tries-to-outlaw-climate-models.html

[RelentlessStudent]

Hi, I just read the phrase: "You don\'t really 'debate' physical laws unless you\'re presenting contradictory experimental evidence."

My inquiry is pertinent to that comment, so I apologise for reviving this post, but I am hoping for some leads to current scholarship.

I recently read an article dated 2002 and am wondering where I can get more current information on the speed of light and whether the debate in the article has persisted.  (essentially, the article was about experimental evidence of a lack of constancy over the history of measurement of the speed of light.  More specifically, that the speed of light was slowing down.)  It was a coherent article with some interesting footnote references.

• R. T. Birge, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 1, January 1929, pp.1-73. See also: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:
• A. Montgomery and L. Dolphin, Galilean Electrodynamics , Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 93ff., 1993.
• V. S. Troitskii, "Physical Constants and the evolution of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science Vol. 139, 1987, pp 389-411.
• W. G. Tifft, Astrophysical Journal , 206:38-56, 1976; 211:31-46, 1977; 211:377-391, 1977; 221:449-455, 1978; 221:756-775, 1978; 233:799-808, 1979; 236:70-74, 1980; 257:442-449, 1982; etc.
• T. Beardsley, Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994), 17; R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), 759.
• T. C. Van Flandern, "Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II," Taylor and Phillips (Eds.), National Bureau of Standards (U.S.) Special Publication 617, 1984, pp. 625-627.

It's not really my area of expertise, so any help will be appreciated.  thanks.
~David

[boriz]

The faster you go, the slower you go. Simples.