The Speed of Light is Not Constant

I'm gonna say this one time, so listen closely. The ONLY entity in this entire infinite volume of what we refer to as "space" is distance. DATS IT!
 
Electromagnetic radiation occurs as an acceleration between velocity lines of different values. It doesn't occur on the line, it occurs between the lines (read, more distance).
 
Motor Daddy said:
I'm gonna say this one time, so listen closely. The ONLY entity in this entire infinite volume of what we refer to as "space" is distance. DATS IT!
Click to expand...
Are you saying space is already physically infinite in distance... or... is it possible that space is bounded (expanding) but is potentially able to expand an infinitely long time?
 
Write4U said:
Are you saying space is already physically infinite in distance... or... is it possible that space is bounded (expanding) but is potentially able to expand an infinitely long time?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that there is infinite distance in every direction from a point. I'm saying that point has a rotational velocity. :)
 
Motor Daddy said:
I'm saying that there is infinite distance in every direction from a point. I'm saying that point has a rotational velocity. :)
Click to expand...

TY, inherently dynamic?

OK, "a point" = "any point".
Questions: the entire infinity of points (the wholeness) rotates in one direction? Is time being created during this rotational change? Does time extend into the future for an event which has not yet occurred?


That is grist for thought.....
reading.gif
 
The length of the path of light, FROM THAT POINT, in a rotational direction moving away from that point as the point is spinning, is c. When you increase the distance from the center point of the earth you are increasing the path length of that object in space. That is an acceleration, just like when you stomp on the gas pedal and accelerate to pass a slower car. An acceleration is an increase or decrease in velocity. When you increase the distance from the point the radius is greater than zero, and a requirement to travel at the speed of light has arisen.
 
James R said:
To summarise the above:

The speed of light in an extended space is not necessarily constant as measured by all observers.

And I say:

On the other hand, the speed of light locally (in a vacuum) is constant.

For example, in explaining the Shapiro delay, mentioned above, we note that if we assume a flat spacetime then the speed of light seems to slow as the light passes near the Sun. However, if we take the general relativistic description seriously, then the explanation for the apparent slowing of the speed of light is that there is actually more space near the Sun than there would be if the spacetime there was flat, because in fact the spacetime is curved. The light therefore has further to travel, which takes longer, even though its speed through the vacuum remains constant.
Click to expand...

The slowing down of photons relative to someone sitting near a massive body, like a black hole say, is a coordinate artifact and so you are correct about why this dilation appears present. There is in fact as you point out, more space to traverse, giving shifts in the gravitational field. Of course, this is in a sense similar to how photons may appear to slow down due to variations in their position. What the picture is you have described, is a more complete understanding of the phenomenon than was probably understood then.
 
Farsight said:
That goes against the grain of what people say about relativity. People say things like "Einstein showed us that the speed of light is constant". He did in 1905, when he was doing special relativity. But check this out:
Click to expand...

Let's take what Einstein arrived at seriously, setting $$c=1$$ assuming it is fundamental and constant, then what varies is the gravitational field described by it's potential $$g_{tt}(r) = 1+ 2\phi$$. Assume we have a such a shift in our gravitational field $$(\phi_1 - \phi_2)$$ we can make estimates of the dilation by expanding it in a series

$$1 + \phi_1 - \phi_2 - \frac{1}{2}\phi_{1}^{2} - \phi_{1}\phi_{2} + \frac{3}{2} \phi_{2}^{2} + ...$$

When we think about curvature in general relativity, we think about the distortions of spacetime, insomuch at least how geometry appears in the vacuum when we are dealing with gravity. Perhaps in a sense, photons do appear to take longer to get to places, but the first principles says the speed of light cannot change in SR, so we must assume the apparent change in it's velocity in a gravitational field according to some observer must have something to do with there being more space to traverse when gravity is present.
 
I know this is a fast moving thread, but....
Write4U said:
What I find curious is the fact that the "existence of time" as an independent dimension is fact. As far as I know there is not a shred of proof of that claim.

We use the term "time" only in relation to an action in a geometric "field" or "space". But like the claim of a god, no one has actually proven that time does exist independent of space and without measurable action time cannot emerge as a property of measurement.
Click to expand...
What makes it accepted as fact is the fact that when theories are constructed utilizing the current understanding of time, they work.
 
Motor Daddy said:
The length of the path of light, FROM THAT POINT, in a rotational direction moving away from that point as the point is spinning, is c. When you increase the distance from the center point of the earth you are increasing the path length of that object in space. That is an acceleration, just like when you stomp on the gas pedal and accelerate to pass a slower car. An acceleration is an increase or decrease in velocity. When you increase the distance from the point the radius is greater than zero, and a requirement to travel at the speed of light has arisen.
Click to expand...

Does that establish an infinite universal time frame? Expanding Quantum Foam?
 
A long time ago I read an amusing story of Einstein's "man in the box" experiment.

man in a box accelerates upwards at near SOL.
box has a hole drilled on one side.
box passes a light which goes through hole (in a straight line)
to the man in the box the lightbeam seems to bend down and travel a longer curved path than a straight line.
(even as it strikes the other side at the same time as if it were in a straight line, which of course it was)
did gravity bend the line (and made it longer) to the observer in the box?

I believe he told this during a meeting on gravity.
 
Write4U said:
A long time ago I read an amusing story of Einstein's "man in the box" experiment.

man in a box accelerates upwards at near SOL.

Did he not know the difference between speed and acceleration?

box has a hole drilled on one side.
box passes a light which goes through hole (in a straight line)
to the man in the box the lightbeam seems to bend down and travel a longer curved path than a straight line.
(even as it strikes the other side at the same time as if it were in a straight line, which of course it was)
did gravity bend the line to the observer in the box?

I believe he told this during a meeting on gravity.
Click to expand...

Einstein was clueless. ;)

If you accelerated a box directly away from the center of the earth, the line could not be horizontal to the box observer, it was curved and at an angle, and as the distance between the box and the center of the earth increased the line became flatter, because the acceleration decreased..
 
Write4U said:
A long time ago I read an amusing story of Einstein's "man in the box" experiment.

man in a box accelerates upwards at near SOL.
box has a hole drilled on one side.
box passes a light which goes through hole (in a straight line)
to the man in the box the lightbeam seems to bend down and travel a longer curved path than a straight line.
(even as it strikes the other side at the same time as if it were in a straight line, which of course it was)
did gravity bend the line (and made it longer) to the observer in the box?

I believe he told this during a meeting on gravity.
Click to expand...
What is amusing about that?
 
Motor Daddy said:
The reason we exist is because math is perfect and nature isn't! LOL
Click to expand...

I know! You should redefine pi as 3.2, as the Indiana legislature once tried to do. That way the math would be perfect. Won't quite match nature, but who cares, right? As long as the math is clean.
 
billvon said:
I know! You should redefine pi as 3.2, as the Indiana legislature once tried to do. That way the math would be perfect. Won't quite match nature, but who cares, right? As long as the math is clean.
Click to expand...
If the math matches reality, then it's perfect. If an earth sized object doesn't fit in a perfect cube, tough crap, the math is correct and nature is forced.
 
Motor Daddy said:
If the math matches reality, then it's perfect.
Click to expand...

Then you've just defined relativity as perfect, as evinced by everything from particle accelerator experiments to the GPS in your phone. Are you feeling OK? Are you having a sudden burst of clarity?
 
billvon said:
Then you've just defined relativity as perfect, as evinced by everything from particle accelerator experiments to the GPS in your phone. Are you feeling OK? Are you having a sudden burst of clarity?
Click to expand...

Don't apply your misunderstandings to what I'm telling you, it doesn't work that way. Understanding comes from listening and learning, not running your mouth!
 
Motor Daddy said:
Einstein was clueless. ;)

If you accelerated a box directly away from the center of the earth, the line could not be horizontal to the box observer, it was curved and at an angle, and as the distance between the box and the center of the earth increased the line became flatter, because the acceleration decreased..
Click to expand...

Sorry, left out the detail of accelerating in a vacuum and a narrow beam of ligt placed perpendicular to the directio of travel so that the light beam would enter the box at right angles and potentially the shortest distance to the opposite wall. Yet the reality to the man in the box was that the light was curving and actually traveled a longer distance and struck the opposite wall at a lower point, in the same amount of time as if it the box were stationary and the light would be a straight line.

And @ Russ_Watters, I was young and my father had a book on Einstein which gave me my first glimpse into into the wonders of physics.

I appreciate all responses as I am trying to find a balanced worldview, based on Natural Laws and mathematical constants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top