Speed is Absolute

L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
I had to cuss my highschool physics teacher out when discussing relativity. There has to be a universal frame of referance. Speed cannot really be measured as distance per interval unless a frame of referance is universal.

Say an object is moving. That objects movement in itself never changes. An observer from one frame of referance might measure it to be moving at 10m/s. An observer from another frame of referance might measure it to be moving at 100m/s. But the observer's frame of reference is not relevant to the object's movement in itself. All objects have an intrinsic speed that is constant regardless of frame of reference of measuring distance per interval.

Why would the speed of light be different from the speed of anything else? If light travels at 300million m/s, then it does so regardless of frame of reference?

CONSIDER AN IDEAL SCENARIO IN AN IDEAL PLANE
If an object travels 300 m/s, then why would it abide by different rules from anything else? If there is a train that is 3 billion meters long. The object would travel from one end of the train to the other in 10 seconds. If that train was moving at 2billion m/s on a track. After 10 seconds, the train would have traveled 20 billion meters. Thus, the end of the train would be at 23 billion meters from origin. Thus. the object had just traveled 23 billion meters in 10 seconds.
 
Lixluk, is there a question friend? are you asking why lightspeed should be constant in all frames of reference??
 
lixluke said:
I had to cuss my highschool physics teacher out when discussing relativity. There has to be a universal frame of referance. Speed cannot really be measured as distance per interval unless a frame of referance is universal.

Say an object is moving. That objects movement in itself never changes. An observer from one frame of referance might measure it to be moving at 10m/s. An observer from another frame of referance might measure it to be moving at 100m/s. But the observer's frame of reference is not relevant to the object's movement in itself. All objects have an intrinsic speed that is constant regardless of frame of reference of measuring distance per interval.

Why would the speed of light be different from the speed of anything else? If light travels at 300million m/s, then it does so regardless of frame of reference?

CONSIDER AN IDEAL SCENARIO IN AN IDEAL PLANE
If an object travels 300 m/s, then why would it abide by different rules from anything else? If there is a train that is 3 billion meters long. The object would travel from one end of the train to the other in 10 seconds. If that train was moving at 2billion m/s on a track. After 10 seconds, the train would have traveled 20 billion meters. Thus, the end of the train would be at 23 billion meters from origin. Thus. the object had just traveled 23 billion meters in 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

Then you should really go back to that teacher, apoligize and admit that you have NO idea what you are talking about. You've made it very clear that you don't.

Lightspeed, c, will always be the same regardless of the frame it's measured from. And there is NO such thing as an absolute frame of reference - that's sheer nonsense! You totally blew that one big-time!:bugeye:
 
lixluke said:
Why would the speed of light be different from the speed of anything else? If light travels at 300million m/s, then it does so regardless of frame of reference?
Click to expand...
OMG, you're so right. If only we'd thought to test special relativity at some point in the last 104 years, since it's publication. How foolish the physics community is for believing in something for 104 years and not once bothering to accelerate something, something particulate-like, in a big accelerator-thingy. If only they'd bothered to do experiments in such a particulate-like accelerator-thingy.

Wait..... haven't they built a load of PARTICLE ACCELERATORShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_acceleratorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_acceleratorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_acceleratorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator in the last century. If only they'd bothered to amass a load of EVIDENCE FOR RELATIVITYhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidence, you'd not have had to 'cuss' your teacher.

Like Prom says, get used to saying "Would you like fries with that".
 
OK so if light speed is indeed constant in a vaccuum no matter what, then what does that say about time? I would suggest then from that information that time is a physical force. And that physical force is anti-gravity. Time is anti-gravity. Or better yet, gravity is anti-time. Space is not a medium but a wave in a medium. Light is not a wave. Light is the medium. Thus space is any wave in the medium of light.
 
lixluke said:
OK so if light speed is indeed constant in a vaccuum no matter what, then what does that say about time? I would suggest then from that information that time is a physical force. And that physical force is anti-gravity. Time is anti-gravity. Or better yet, gravity is anti-time. Space is not a medium but a wave in a medium. Light is not a wave. Light is the medium. Thus space is any wave in the medium of light.
Click to expand...

You really should file for a rebate of the taxes people paid to send you to school - it's sure not doing you any good.:rolleyes:
 
OK how about this one? Time is actually energy. Here is the proof:

T = (2.7556 X 10^[-53])(E1E2/E3)

T = Time
E1 = Energy of first entity.
E2 = Energy of second entity.
E3 = Gravitational energy between both entities.
 
lixluke said:
Time is anti-gravity. Or better yet, gravity is anti-time. Space is not a medium but a wave in a medium. Light is not a wave. Light is the medium. Thus space is any wave in the medium of light.
Click to expand...

Up is down, black is white, stupidity is intelligence. Welcome to Bizarro world.
 
lixluke said:
OK how about this one? Time is actually energy. Here is the proof:

T = (2.7556 X 10^[-53])(E1E2/E3)

T = Time
E1 = Energy of first entity.
E2 = Energy of second entity.
E3 = Gravitational energy between both entities.
Click to expand...

Heh! Looks like you'd better back up a few stages - start with the following and work on it until you understand it, at least a little bit:

1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
...
...
...
 
lixluke said:
I had to cuss my highschool physics teacher out when discussing relativity. .
Click to expand...
It seems you know as little about manners as you do about relativity. Why not just accept you are rude and dumb and seek a career in politics?
 
What?

Let's start with E = MC2
If mass is energy.
If time is energy.
Then time is mass.
 
lixluke,
Good to see that you are thinking for yourself. Take a look at the Sagnac effect and you'll see that the speed of light isn't constant in all frames of reference. If I face east and turn on a flashlight and then face west and turn on a flashlight, the light traveling eastwardly will travel more slowly relative to me than the light traveling westwardly.
 
Energy is the conjugate momentum of time. Everyone knows that a system with a Lagrangian that has explicit independence of time will have energy conservation. Sesh, don't you guys know Noether's theorem?!
 
But then Ben didn't realize this either. I think quite a few people here owe an apology, just for basic ignorance of what luke was trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top