0

# The Speed of Light

Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:50 pm
In this OP

http://able2know.org/topic/186538-1

I noted that the squeezing up and slowing of a clock was counter-intuitive. While we know by actual measurement that it really happens, why shouldn't we speculate on a viewpoint that imparts a sort of intuitive revelation

Another way of looking at the Speed of Light: It's actually infinite, easily explaining

1. …...why when it approaches apparent velocity c the clock appears to have stopped. Of course if we launch it at noon then if its speed is infinite an observer stationed anywhere notes as it passes by it still reads 12:00

2. ......also easily explaining its apparent increase in mass. Of course if we're underestimating its velocity we're also overestimating its mass

3. ......a little more difficult, its apparent compression: But a moments' reflection reveals that if we see the leading and trailing edges of the object at the same instant that it appears to be flattened in the direction of motion

Then why do we underestimate it, setting it at c

Eg, allow me a trip at v=max to the Red Planet 5 light minutes distant

(where Marty had presumably synchronized his clock with ours--while for purposes of simplicity we neglect any relative motion between our planet and his) and takeoff is scheduled for noon

So at the instant I depart, by conventional relativity I judge Marty’s clock to instantaneously jump ahead from 12:00 to 12:05, remaining at that reading ’til I arrive, to me a very quick trip. Yet Marty advises I must have been in flight for 5 minutes ’til I explain about relativity “Oh then," he remarks (I am translating from Martianese) “I see you’re wrong because you were in motion while I’m stationary” So far, everything in agreement with Albert

“No," I conclude, "not necessarily." I merely maintain that in my alternate view of things my velocity was much, much greater than c, neatly accounting for its still reading 12:00 “Then,” puzzles he, “why does mine read 12:05"

It’s because there’s another way of looking at the space-time continuum. Inferred in Einsteininan relativity though unstated, to all stationary observers “actually” the time everywhere is the same. But I propose time-at-a-distance to be completely indeterminate

So, at any point in space consider yourself at the center of an infinite number of concentric circles at distance d, the time at each being t (now) plus or minus d/v, thus neatly accounting for the apparent 5-minute difference

No, Einstein wasn’t wrong and it’s perfectly proper to call the speed of light c. I’m merely presenting another way of looking at The Entire Megillah, first to satisfy the Intuition and second to promote further speculation along this line
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,368 • Replies: 8
No top replies

dalehileman

1
Mon 16 Jul, 2012 05:34 pm
@dalehileman,
Yes I know at first it sounds dumb but try to cast off all preconceptions and seriously think about it for a while
dalehileman

1
Mon 29 Oct, 2012 11:33 am
@dalehileman,
….just much, much greater than c
0 Replies

DavJohanis

1
Fri 4 Jan, 2013 04:27 pm
@dalehileman,
1. …...why when it approaches apparent velocity c the clock appears to have stopped. Of course if we launch it at noon then if its speed is infinite an observer stationed anywhere notes as it passes by it still reads 12:00

Whether its speed is (universally- 'merely' ) infinite I cannot say is a distinct clarity, even if launched as such, stasis would be clearly close to static at such velocity. I do not believe temporal clarity of reversing time is possible, but I may be wrong, I do think that critical mass occurs and implosion, or a universal break of material disintegration into the unknown.

2. ......also easily explaining its apparent increase in mass. Of course if we're underestimating its velocity we're also overestimating its mass.

Yes, extrapolation correct here.

3. ......a little more difficult, its apparent compression: But a moments' reflection reveals that if we see the leading and trailing edges of the object at the same instant that it appears to be flattened in the direction of motion.

Yes, this does not imply temporal alteration, the speed of C accounts for that.

So, at any point in space consider yourself at the center of an infinite number of concentric circles at distance d, the time at each being t (now) plus or minus d/v, thus neatly accounting for the apparent 5-minute difference

I see what you mean now, you are coming at this from the alternate side to myself..

Strangely to me, d/v accounts for nothing, the universal relevance is incredibly slight in relation to merely clocks, in fact the future will be based upon, not atomic clocks, but instead... harmonics or frequencies in the space time continuum.. Due to the error rate at which readings must be remapped when meeting anomalies. (or alternate methods of convergence and comprehension are required).

Without the change in attitude, we will be presented with a phenomenal plethora of new questions which cannot be avoided, much as a sailor would be forced to view every single wave and count it.

To not adopt this kind of attitude to my mind is to allow failures of assorted high speed systems.

I hope that is not offensive to your study.

D.
dalehileman

1
Fri 4 Jan, 2013 05:49 pm
@DavJohanis,
Well hi again there Dav, and thanks for the quotes, it helps. However using the BbCode Ed. you can also enclose the quote as I do, making its status even more clear, especially for other participants

DavJohanis

1
Fri 4 Jan, 2013 05:56 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
However using the BbCode Ed.

Oh, thank you kindly, the writing is so small I never even noticed it before.. Just ignored it entirely.

I am not in a rush ever... It just seems that way, honestly.

Cheers man!

D.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 4 Jan, 2013 06:28 pm
@DavJohanis,
Quote:
I never even noticed it before
I miss a lot too. I had participated a couple of years before somebody pointed out the two arrowheads over there to the upper and lower right that let you get to the top or bot of the page with a single click. But to resume,

an observer stationed anywhere notes as it passes by it still reads 12:00

Quote:
Whether its speed is (universally- 'merely' ) infinite I cannot say is a distinct clarity,
About 99.4% of our participants deny it vehemently

Quote:
even if launched as such, stasis would be clearly close to static at such velocity.
I presume you mean the stasis of a moving clock. Of course a material body can never achieve c so the clock will always seem to run very slowly

Quote:
I do not believe temporal clarity of reversing time is possible,
I'm not sure what you mean by "temporal clarity" but my assertions don't depend on its running backward, only forward at apparently different rates

Quote:
but I may be wrong, I do think that critical mass occurs and implosion, or a universal break of material disintegration into the unknown.
If you mean this is something that would happen at c, then it's news to me. However as I said, evidently it can't happen

So…...consider yourself at the center of an infinite number of concentric circles at distance d, the time at each being t (now) plus or minus d/v….

Quote:
I see what you mean now, you are coming at this from the alternate side to myself..
I'm dumbfounded by your immediate concurrence and evident amity

Quote:
in fact the future will be based upon, not atomic clocks, but instead... harmonics or frequencies in the space time continuum..
Sorry Dav but you're far beyond me there, I haven't the slightest inkling

Quote:
Without the change in attitude, we will be presented with a phenomenal plethora of new questions
We're faced with 'em right now, in the form of my postings on the subject

Quote:
I hope that is not offensive to your study.
Can't see anything offensive, t least not yet

Quote:
D.
D

Cheers likewise, fella
DavJohanis

1
Sat 5 Jan, 2013 08:43 am
@dalehileman,
Hi,

Quote:
Quote:
but I may be wrong, I do think that critical mass occurs and implosion, or a universal break of material disintegration into the unknown.
If you mean this is something that would happen at c, then it's news to me. However as I said, evidently it can't happen

So…...consider yourself at the center of an infinite number of concentric circles at distance d, the time at each being t (now) plus or minus d/v….

No.. I meant, at universal breakpoint above C (even in fading separations, between universes, or a singular design ending at expansive and retractive 'zero') .. Light travels along the spacial remainder of energy in a void quite clearly, it will slow down over time..
Which is why I point out the 'mere' speed of the infinite in the universe.
Not related to C in any sense, in fact above it.. If those speeds were reached, stasis should be at maximum potential but I point out that the material in question would break down or be sent to the base of the almost infinitely small subatomic field separations.

A vast speculation when coming from the bottom up, but quite the truth when arriving downward from the potential of the universe as a contained separation.

No I am not leading you on or anything.. The D is just an abbreviation, C/D is in fact my own grade at GCSE despite being 100% proficient in mechanical principle, IT and physics.. since I only went to my exam school for over a year and did not partake in the exams properly, seemed little point, I went to about 5 different schools (some with entirely different curriculum's) and never really had a chance to learn to any provable standard within a set system, skipped English entirely.

It is not intended as derogatory towards you.
I Just realised that could be what you meant, but I am not concerned and there it is.

I do not laugh up your sleeve, but I am not emotionally ranged per the norm so I apologise. Basically I just wanted to put forward my viewpoint, whenever I hear terms such as 'time dilation'.. It peaks my interest, but it is always the same old wondering.

Regards.

Dav.
dalehileman

1
Sat 5 Jan, 2013 12:36 pm
@DavJohanis,
Quote:
Light travels along the spacial remainder of energy in a void quite clearly, it will slow down over time..
I'd never heard that

Quote:
Not related to C in any sense, in fact above it..
It's my understanding that because its mass at c becomes infinite, nothing can exceed that v

Quote:
never really had a chance to learn to any provable standard within a set system, skipped English entirely.
I too flunked out of Engineering but then switched to journalism and maybe that's why I'm excessively fussy about others' sentence construction

Quote:
as 'time dilation'.. It peaks my interest, but it is always the same old wondering.
So there are just the two of us. Perhaps you know of another Internet forum where we might better engage the subject, one dedicated to science, metaphysics and philo

If so I am [email protected]
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » The Speed of Light