Talk:Speed of light/Archive1

Couple of things
It looks like there's going to be some overlap between this article and Starlight_problem. Also should this really be in the Conservapedia: namespace? -- Stevo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm working on the overlap right now. But yeah, I guess it shouldn't be in the Conservapedia namespace, I'll move it.  It's a Conservapedia refutation, but has no bearing on the actual Conservapedia article.-α m ε σ G 18:16, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Still seems to be a major overlap.--Bob_M (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Does the overlap matter? As long as both agree and are Xlinked you're just hammering the message home. Keepgerbils(in a cage)! 11:05, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I think it gets tiresome to see it on 3-4 pages. Mention the issue, and a very brief overview of the "solutions" and rebuttals - if at all - that's what links are for. human be in 21:00, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

refraction
I think introducing refraction in the first paragraph is a bit strange. I'll try to make a better lower section to deal with it (and diffraction adn reflection). human be in 21:00, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

title
I got redirected here from the "speed of light", uncapped. Proposing to move (back) shortly, pending discussion. The word "light" isnot a proper noun. (I'll do the grunt work) human be in 02:40, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Cherenkov radiation
Can someone more knowledgeable than me check up for sure what Cherenkov radiation is? I've always been lead to believe that it was emitted when charged particles decelerate. In this article it currently says that it's caused by photons decelerating. Photons aren't charged particles. Are we sure that what it says here is correct? If not then perhaps it should be removed as an example of why the speed of light cannot have changed over time. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.45.165.45 / talk / contribs
 * Bunchanumbers seems to be right (Wikipedia) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, so what's the protocol around here for doing something about it? Find someone who knows something about it?


 * [I really must get around to creating an account but other than making the occasional grammatical or punctuation edit this is the first time I've ever contributed anything at all]
 * You can do it yourself - citations are very helpful, of course. If you chop out a chunk, it would be kind of you to copy and paste it here to talk and explain why.  Thanks!  ħ uman  16:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * [I was Bunchanumbers]. I don't really know enough about the topic to change it. The only thing I could do is remove the reference to Cherenkov radiation as the way it is currently is incorrect. However, I'd imagine that whoever put it there may well have had a reason, even if a slightly confused one. The lack of Cherenkov radiation really may be a refutation of the idea that c is changing, just not for the reasons given. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Weirdbeard / talk / contribs
 * Hence the reason to cut and paste it here - it's out of the article while in doubt, but here while we figure out what to do with it longterm.  ħ uman  17:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * OK. I've commented it out for the moment. Here's what it says (it's in the section headed 'The Starlight Problem' as the first entry in the list of reasons explaining why the speed of light can't have significantly changed):
 * First, it is empirically disproven. If the speed of light had changed in any remarkable way, there would be evidence of photon deceleration.  When a photon decelerates, as in, when it passes into a new, slower medium and must shed its higher energy, it emits Cherenkov radiation.  If the entire universe had decelerated, we would expect to see, for several light-years, massive Cherenkov radiation.  We see no such thing. Weirdbeard 17:57, 22 July 2008 (EDT)