1
   

The speed of light is wrong (Plus a time question)

 
 
danm36
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:56 am
Hello
Please bear with me on this. I have been thinking a lot about this, and I would like your 2 cents.

Assuming the speed of light is a constant (and not relative in the matter of light is slower now than at the beginning of the universe), then wouldn't our measured speed of light only be applicable to earth? Earth is rotating at quite a speed, and it is orbiting around the sun at a huge speed, which in turn is rotating around the galaxy at an even bigger speed, which is traveling within the ever expanding universe at a literally astronomical speed, then wouldn't this mean the speed of light is much bigger than what we have it measured at (Again, assuming it is the upper limit of speed), and that because the speed of our galaxy cannot be measured as we can never be truely stationary in proportion to the universe, we may be in-fact travelling at our measured speed of light ten-fold now.

Thinking of this, and the knowledge of Einsteins theory of relativity in time, wouldn't this huge speed also give us our knowledge of time? If we were at the centre of our expanding universe and perfectly stationary, would time appear to slow down to a halt around us? This gives a theory that 'speed' provides time, and that even on Mars, time would be different than on earth (Abeit at probably only a few nanosecond per second (?) slower).

Also, if somebody suddenly became stationary relative to the universe, would earth simply disappear into the distance?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,237 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:27 am
@danm36,
Eh, with things like this I would suggest reading about it a lot rather than thinking about it a lot.

It being a constant means that it doesn't change.
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:37 am
@danm36,
danm36;143598 wrote:
Hello
Please bear with me on this. I have been thinking a lot about this, and I would like your 2 cents.

Assuming the speed of light is a constant (and not relative in the matter of light is slower now than at the beginning of the universe), then wouldn't our measured speed of light only be applicable to earth? Earth is rotating at quite a speed, and it is orbiting around the sun at a huge speed, which in turn is rotating around the galaxy at an even bigger speed, which is traveling within the ever expanding universe at a literally astronomical speed, then wouldn't this mean the speed of light is much bigger than what we have it measured at (Again, assuming it is the upper limit of speed), and that because the speed of our galaxy cannot be measured as we can never be truely stationary in proportion to the universe, we may be in-fact travelling at our measured speed of light ten-fold now.

Thinking of this, and the knowledge of Einsteins theory of relativity in time, wouldn't this huge speed also give us our knowledge of time? If we were at the centre of our expanding universe and perfectly stationary, would time appear to slow down to a halt around us? This gives a theory that 'speed' provides time, and that even on Mars, time would be different than on earth (Abeit at probably only a few nanosecond per second (?) slower).

Also, if somebody suddenly became stationary relative to the universe, would earth simply disappear into the distance?



You might want to read up on it, as modern ideas about the speed of light are counterintuitive. Here is a start, but it is only a start:

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:43 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;143623 wrote:
You might want to read up on it, as modern ideas about the speed of light are counterintuitive. Here is a start, but it is only a start:

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Of course they are. Not very long ago no one even conceived that light had any velocity at all. The conception of light of having a velocity at all had to be invented. The notion is counter-intuitive.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:55 am
@danm36,
danm36;143598 wrote:
Hello
Please bear with me on this. I have been thinking a lot about this, and I would like your 2 cents.

Assuming the speed of light is a constant (and not relative in the matter of light is slower now than at the beginning of the universe), then wouldn't our measured speed of light only be applicable to earth? Earth is rotating at quite a speed, and it is orbiting around the sun at a huge speed, which in turn is rotating around the galaxy at an even bigger speed, which is traveling within the ever expanding universe at a literally astronomical speed, then wouldn't this mean the speed of light is much bigger than what we have it measured at (Again, assuming it is the upper limit of speed), and that because the speed of our galaxy cannot be measured as we can never be truely stationary in proportion to the universe, we may be in-fact travelling at our measured speed of light ten-fold now.

Thinking of this, and the knowledge of Einsteins theory of relativity in time, wouldn't this huge speed also give us our knowledge of time? If we were at the centre of our expanding universe and perfectly stationary, would time appear to slow down to a halt around us? This gives a theory that 'speed' provides time, and that even on Mars, time would be different than on earth (Abeit at probably only a few nanosecond per second (?) slower).

Also, if somebody suddenly became stationary relative to the universe, would earth simply disappear into the distance?


One way to see it is from the time line perspective, we are in the center of the time line, evrything to our left is being compressed and everything to our right is being stretched. The speed of light is relative to the position along the time line. Confusing, yes but not so difficult, I think :brickwall:
0 Replies
 
danm36
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:12 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;143615 wrote:
Eh, with things like this I would suggest reading about it a lot rather than thinking about it a lot.

It being a constant means that it doesn't change.


What I was getting at was that the speed of light measure on earth is around 299,762,457 m/s, but this is because the earth is moving. If we were stationary in relation to the universe itself (ie, in the middle), wouldn't this number actually be much higher, because earth itself is moving quite fast (A galaxy alone moves around 1,000,000 m/s for example) within the universe, and c doesn't (at least from my knowledge) add these speeds on.

Yes, I don't know too much about the complexities of light, but I just thought I may have discovered a slight mathematical error here.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:19 pm
@danm36,
danm36;143598 wrote:
Hello
Please bear with me on this. I have been thinking a lot about this, and I would like your 2 cents.

Assuming the speed of light is a constant (and not relative in the matter of light is slower now than at the beginning of the universe), then wouldn't our measured speed of light only be applicable to earth? Earth is rotating at quite a speed, and it is orbiting around the sun at a huge speed, which in turn is rotating around the galaxy at an even bigger speed, which is traveling within the ever expanding universe at a literally astronomical speed, then wouldn't this mean the speed of light is much bigger than what we have it measured at (Again, assuming it is the upper limit of speed), and that because the speed of our galaxy cannot be measured as we can never be truely stationary in proportion to the universe, we may be in-fact travelling at our measured speed of light ten-fold now.

Thinking of this, and the knowledge of Einsteins theory of relativity in time, wouldn't this huge speed also give us our knowledge of time? If we were at the centre of our expanding universe and perfectly stationary, would time appear to slow down to a halt around us? This gives a theory that 'speed' provides time, and that even on Mars, time would be different than on earth (Abeit at probably only a few nanosecond per second (?) slower).

Also, if somebody suddenly became stationary relative to the universe, would earth simply disappear into the distance?
Imo Einstein got the theory about lightspeed wrong.

As I understand his thesis, if I travel with almost lightspeed and shoot off a laser beam in my traveling direction, then the light of the laser wouldn't get out of the laserpen ..that's nonsens.

If I shoot a laser beam in any direction from earth, the speed in any direction should be constant, even considering we'r on a rotating planet traveling fast in our orbit.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:23 pm
@danm36,
danm36;143668 wrote:
What I was getting at was that the speed of light measure on earth is around 299,762,457 m/s, but this is because the earth is moving. If we were stationary in relation to the universe itself (ie, in the middle), wouldn't this number actually be much higher, because earth itself is moving quite fast within the universe, and c doesn't (at least from my knowledge) add these speeds on.

Yes, I don't know too much about the complexities of light, but I just thought I may have discovered a slight mathematical error here.


Yes well, it is probably easiest to read about it, like in the wiki link Pyrrho posted it says:

Quote:
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.


I'm not sure how they measure the speed of light but presumably they take into account the issue.
danm36
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:24 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;143673 wrote:
I'm not sure how they measure the speed of light but presumably they take into account the issue.


Ah, thanks for notifying me of this. I am going to delve deeper into the subjects of light and the universe.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:39 pm
@danm36,
Time and speed are relative, if not dual property one. We are always in the center of the time line, but always in motion. If it were possible to stop time, you would see the beam of your laser pointer to be 1 inch or 3000 miles long, dependent entirely on the point at which you stopped time.
0 Replies
 
Bracewell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:43 pm
@danm36,
36 - As I understand it, you can't use light to determine what is moving and what is not. This because in every case the speed of light will be the same when measured. For example, in the case quoted of a laser shining from a moving object, the speed of the laser light when measured would be exactly equal to the normal speed of light, which would imply that the source of the laser light were not moving. Equally, when the speed of light were measured on the moving object then the result would also be normal. It is definitly incorrect to to say that light is a fixed speed, but what is correct is that light is always the same speed when measured. Light varies in speed to suit the conditions of the measurement therefore it is a constant. It is time (the rate at which events happen) that varies with each condition, which gives light its invarience.
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:56 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;143673 wrote:
I'm not sure how they measure the speed of light but presumably they take into account the issue.
It's measured by reflection, which in itself raises problems. There's evidence that Einstein's second postulate was false. For example: Redshift of Spectral lines in the Sun's Chromosphere
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:52 pm
@danm36,
danm36;143668 wrote:
What I was getting at was that the speed of light measure on earth is around 299,762,457 m/s, but this is because the earth is moving. If we were stationary in relation to the universe itself (ie, in the middle), wouldn't this number actually be much higher, because earth itself is moving quite fast (A galaxy alone moves around 1,000,000 m/s for example) within the universe, and c doesn't (at least from my knowledge) add these speeds on.

Yes, I don't know too much about the complexities of light, but I just thought I may have discovered a slight mathematical error here.
No. The speed of light is the same irrespective of your frame of reference. That is the whole point. C is a constant irrespective of frame of reference or method of measurement. That is why time and space are variable but not the speed of light. Yes, it is a little counterintuitive to ordinary experience but that is because of our limited perspective and frame of reference. The speeds and gravitational fields which we "experience" do not allow these effects to become apparent. Nevertheless countless experimental results confirm them under appropriate conditions.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:57 pm
@danm36,
danm36;143668 wrote:
If we were stationary in relation to the universe itself .


I don't know much physics, but I don't think this is possible. The universe itself is expanding so it makes no sense to say 'stationary relative to it'. Stationary relative to what? How can you be stationary, relative to a whole collection of objects moving in different directions?

Also, Einstein's predictions have an uncanny likelihood of being proved right over time. This is one of the astounding things about Einstein - that he made predictions that couldn't even be verified for decades later, because the experimental apparatus did not exist which could do it. But so far - correct me if I am wrong - all Einstein's predictions have been confirmed by experiments.
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 02:44 pm
@jeeprs,
Yes so far all of Einsteins predictions are correct. Above the quantum level.
0 Replies
 
SteveG
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 07:47 am
It's a constant in any frame of reference so the speed of of us through the cosmos is irrelevant. You do however, bring up a valid point about the impracticability of time travel. If we could travel back in time by a day, we would end up in space.
0 Replies
 
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 08:51 pm
@danm36,
Allow me to add another question! Could the 'speed of light' as scientific maxim not be the threshold of human perception?
Could there be other electromagnetic frequencies, not available to our 5 senses, that travel faster than light?
Is our conception of 'time' at all not a manufactured 'event'?
(tick tock tick tock)

Damcha
It seems to me that 'thoughts' travel instantly.
0 Replies
 
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 08:54 pm
@danm36,
"Imo Einstein got the theory about lightspeed wrong."


Imo, Lol.
0 Replies
 
Blackdranzer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 11:41 pm
@danm36,
Watever may be your frame of reference the speed of light is always c....imagine that u r travelling close to speed of light and u obsevr another beam of light passing by u...still its speed equals c....that is to say.. in any frame speed of light is c...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The speed of light is wrong (Plus a time question)
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/17/2018 at 08:49:18