Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The light doesn’t get old

  1. #1 The light doesn’t get old 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5
    Hallo People. I am new here. I am only a Photographer from Brazil, that live today in Germany. I love the light and all discussions about its physics.

    I wake up at 25.03.2009 with a thought:

    - In Einstein Physics, as fast as you travel, as slow the time will be.

    - If that is true, at the speed of the light, the time has stopped.

    - If that is true, as the light travel at C (300.000Km/s), the time had stopped, at the point of view of the light. The light doesn’t get old.

    - If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now.

    - If that is true, the universe does not accelerate the expansion, instead what Hubble said. He said, that the galaxies far way are faster as the another’s one not so far. He thought, that the galaxies far away are in the past, and his conclusion said that the galaxies game speed with the time. If I am right, the galaxies far away aren’t in the past. That means. If I am right, Hubble was wrong.

    - If that is true, there is no Dark Energy.

    - If that is true, the time gap between Mars and the Earth is not because that distance between the two planets, but because the gravity field from this planets slows the speed of the light.

    I send this question to a few physicists, but I become no answer.

    What you think about that?

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The light doesn’t get old 
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    - In Einstein Physics, as fast as you travel, as slow the time will be.
    - If that is true, at the speed of the light, the time has stopped.
    - If that is true, as the light travel at C (300.000Km/s), the time had stopped, at the point of view of the light. The light doesn’t get old.
    This is a very common misunderstanding of relativity. No matter how fast you go, you and your clock will always age at the same rate. Now the world outside your window will start to look strange the faster you go. (Neglecting time of flight and Doppler shifting effects) Objects will look shorter in the direction of motion and their clocks will be running slow as see by you. But from their point of view your ship is short and your clock is running slow. But everyone when asked if they are still aging will say "yes just like always."

    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    - If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now.
    From our point of view it took light to get from the star a distance away to us. But from the light's point of view the trip took zero time because the distance was zero. (I know my explanation is pushing math a little hard. If you prefer we can talk about a neutrino at almost the speed of light.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The light doesn’t get old 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    Hallo People. I am new here. I am only a Photographer from Brazil, that live today in Germany. I love the light and all discussions about its physics.

    I wake up at 25.03.2009 with a thought:

    - In Einstein Physics, as fast as you travel, as slow the time will be.

    - If that is true, at the speed of the light, the time has stopped.

    - If that is true, as the light travel at C (300.000Km/s), the time had stopped, at the point of view of the light. The light doesn’t get old.

    - If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now.

    - If that is true, the universe does not accelerate the expansion, instead what Hubble said. He said, that the galaxies far way are faster as the another’s one not so far. He thought, that the galaxies far away are in the past, and his conclusion said that the galaxies game speed with the time. If I am right, the galaxies far away aren’t in the past. That means. If I am right, Hubble was wrong.

    - If that is true, there is no Dark Energy.

    - If that is true, the time gap between Mars and the Earth is not because that distance between the two planets, but because the gravity field from this planets slows the speed of the light.

    I send this question to a few physicists, but I become no answer.

    What you think about that?

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    Hubble was not wrong about his determination of measuring distance with the red shifts. So he established the redshift/distance relation.
    He was wrong about the estimated values of this relation.

    Regarding light, I do not accept Einsteins science or his time dilation.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: The light doesn’t get old 
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    Hallo People. I am new here. I am only a Photographer from Brazil, that live today in Germany. I love the light and all discussions about its physics.
    Hi, nice to meet you. Enjoy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    - In Einstein Physics, as fast as you travel, as slow the time will be.

    - If that is true, at the speed of the light, the time has stopped.

    - If that is true, as the light travel at C (300.000Km/s), the time had stopped, at the point of view of the light. The light doesn’t get old.

    - If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now.
    The light doesn't get older. The star does. And from both your and the star's point of view, some (nonzero) time has passed while the light travelled from the star to your eye. So at any given moment you can see the light from the "youth" (or past) of the star while the star itself is that much older.

    For the closest star, Alpha Centauri, this time is just 4 years, which is nothing to a star. In the case of remote stars (gallaxies, rather), you might be seeing something that is long gone.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5
    I understand the concepts of Relativity. What I said is beyond that. All speed of light measurements are made here on Earth or in the Solar System. There is some questions about the behavior of the light outside this gravity field. As we know, the speed of light will be slowed if the light has a big mass near it. That effect is known as “Shapiro delay” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light). Maybe my theory can explain the anomaly observed at the Pionner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly).

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    As we know, the speed of light will be slowed if the light has a big mass near it. That effect is known as “Shapiro delay” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light). Maybe my theory can explain the anomaly observed at the Pionner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly).
    This is a misconception. The speed of light is independent of the reference frame. That what is changed is the speed of the transmission of the signal. This due to the time dilation the object experiences which reflects the radar signal used in the "Shapiro delay". As is written in the Wiki article, it is a nice proof of the validity of the time dilation predicted by Special Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: The light doesn’t get old 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Regarding light, I do not accept Einsteins science or his time dilation.
    You are being funny. It is not Einstein's time dilation, it is natures time dilation. It exists beyond doubt. The GPS wouldn't be working, if the signals were not corrected for it. It is also a well known fact that the decay time of elementary particles increases, when they are accelerated to higher velocities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The light doesn’t get old 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    Hallo People. I am new here. I am only a Photographer from Brazil, that live today in Germany. I love the light and all discussions about its physics.

    I wake up at 25.03.2009 with a thought:

    - In Einstein Physics, as fast as you travel, as slow the time will be.

    - If that is true, at the speed of the light, the time has stopped.

    - If that is true, as the light travel at C (300.000Km/s), the time had stopped, at the point of view of the light. The light doesn’t get old.

    - If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now.

    - If that is true, the universe does not accelerate the expansion, instead what Hubble said. He said, that the galaxies far way are faster as the another’s one not so far. He thought, that the galaxies far away are in the past, and his conclusion said that the galaxies game speed with the time. If I am right, the galaxies far away aren’t in the past. That means. If I am right, Hubble was wrong.

    - If that is true, there is no Dark Energy.

    - If that is true, the time gap between Mars and the Earth is not because that distance between the two planets, but because the gravity field from this planets slows the speed of the light.

    I send this question to a few physicists, but I become no answer.

    What you think about that?

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    I havent read this whole thread so I might be repeating something thats already been said I looked at a few posts but it seemed more like the technical stuff and wanted to give a really simple explanation for ur question as I see it that might be easier to follow.

    ok lets do a little comparison (I used this to explain how light works to some really enthusiastic school children who I volunteered to teach a bit of basic science to in order to explain light and how it travels)

    lets forget light for a second and think about the weather(yes I know seems off topic but keep reading), lets pretend ur in Paris ur job is to report the weather in a newspaper, but the readers dont want to know the weather in Paris they strangely enough want to know the weather in New York and Moscow(Its the only reason they buy ur newspaper)

    So now u are well organised and u have people in moscow and NY (new york) ready to report the weather directly to u

    But the telephones stop working

    They have to travel to u in order to report what the weather is(Light travels fast but its still slow when compared to some of the distances that occur in space)

    lets assume here u have unlimited numbers of reporters in NY and Moscow. all waiting to come to paris and report the weather

    so the first reporter(looks up at the sky says yeah its sunny, lets say on monday) gets onto a boat and heads to paris, its a long journey by boat and takes 4 days to reach u, he arrives on Thursday and tells u its sunny in New york, U put that into ur thursday paper.

    and the person in Moscow (also leaves on Monday) drives and takes 2 days to reach Paris, he says its sunny, u put that into ur tuesday newspaper.

    Now tuesday the same thing happens, we only get the weather information 4 days late for new york and 2 days late for moscow.(irrespective of when the light leaves it always arrives late)

    So from one perspective I can see the logic in the whole light its timeless argument, but looked at on a more simple level u can see that because the light(reporters) takes a long time to reach us we are seeing the situation as it happened not when we see it now(thursday) but when the light/ weather information left that town/ astrological body or other source of light/radiation.

    Light is a transfer of information we can interpret and knowing that this information includes a time element, the overall usefulness of the information improves...

    This helps us to understand that light is a window into the past.

    Hope it helps to clarify and simplify the whole light and time issue.

    if anyone has issues with this post please let me know and I will change it. Just trying to make it simple
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5
    You all are trying to explain what relativity is. I don't need that. I am trying to think beyond that. All we now, that the go is to find a equation that unifyes all physics. The relativity can not be applied to all things. My theory is, that the relativity works well if you are inside a group of massive elements. But what about outside in deep space? Outside the solar system? Outside the galaxy? Nobody can say that relativity works there. My theory is, that the light doesn't feel time outside in deep space, but as this light comes inside the galaxy, and inside the solar system, it will be slower and slower. Here is the point were the Shapiro delay comes. This delay shows that the light will be slower near a big object.

    Maybe we cannot know the true, but there is a true. Maybe I am right, probably I am wrong. But we need to see all theories. We need to measure the speed of the light in many places, outside the earth, outside the solar system, to know if my theory is right. The Pioneer is outside the solar system (or almost). We see already problems by measurements in his position. The Pioneer seems to be near as what the relativity say. If I am right, the answer is that the light is faster there. The people here think, that the Pioneer is near, but I think there is a error in the measurement from its position. If the light there is faster, the Pioneer seems to be near as its real position.

    The relativity need a fix point as reference to measure all things. This fix point is the speed of the light. But maybe there is no fix point in the universe. We maybe need to learn how can we measure things without a fix point. How can we measure the speed of a plane relative to many another planes that are flying too.

    I don't say that relativity is complete wrong. I say only that the relativity maybe needs a few adjustments.

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    You all are trying to explain what relativity is. I don't need that. I am trying to think beyond that. All we now, that the go is to find a equation that unifyes all physics. The relativity can not be applied to all things. My theory is, that the relativity works well if you are inside a group of massive elements. But what about outside in deep space? Outside the solar system? Outside the galaxy? Nobody can say that relativity works there. My theory is, that the light doesn't feel time outside in deep space, but as this light comes inside the galaxy, and inside the solar system, it will be slower and slower. Here is the point were the Shapiro delay comes. This delay shows that the light will be slower near a big object.

    Maybe we cannot know the true, but there is a true. Maybe I am right, probably I am wrong. But we need to see all theories. We need to measure the speed of the light in many places, outside the earth, outside the solar system, to know if my theory is right. The Pioneer is outside the solar system (or almost). We see already problems by measurements in his position. The Pioneer seems to be near as what the relativity say. If I am right, the answer is that the light is faster there. The people here think, that the Pioneer is near, but I think there is a error in the measurement from its position. If the light there is faster, the Pioneer seems to be near as its real position.

    The relativity need a fix point as reference to measure all things. This fix point is the speed of the light. But maybe there is no fix point in the universe. We maybe need to learn how can we measure things without a fix point. How can we measure the speed of a plane relative to many another planes that are flying too.

    I don't say that relativity is complete wrong. I say only that the relativity maybe needs a few adjustments.

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    This is a very different perspective from ur first post, I have to admit that there is likely to be errors(and yes I know that this is a highly controversial topic u don't need to tell me I am wrong) in relativity and the speed of light as we see it from our highly limited perspective here on earth

    I believe that the universe has many more secrets yet to be revealed

    I also think that with our current knowledge we can say that the relativity theory is dead on, but I will tell u a secret most science is always based on some information that we collected and most theories are proven wrong it just takes science a long time to align theory with the reality

    All science is theory, in principle because its always based on a sample of data

    People a while back thought the world was flat because they took a look at the ocean and said water is flat, hence the world must be flat

    with the data they had available at the time it was flat and that was a theory that aligned with the data.

    Then we did some work and got more data to prove that the world was not flat

    I know this hasn't got much to do with relativity(my comparison example)

    But my question to u is why do u think the Pioneer is further than it actually is and how would u go about proving it if u could?

    What is the thing that makes u think it?
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Always.Asking
    People a while back thought the world was flat because they took a look at the ocean and said water is flat, hence the world must be flat
    Not true--and it could be just the opposite. I used to work in the New England fishing industry and I can tell you from personal experience that it's obvious for anyone at sea that there's curvature because you loose sight of lower edges of land and ships alike from a distance. Cultures that lived on the sea (such as the Greeks) more often considered it curved. It's probably true in most sea faring cultures as well, but hard to tell because of the way maps and other depictions of the known world were mostly done on flat surfaces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Always.Asking
    People a while back thought the world was flat because they took a look at the ocean and said water is flat, hence the world must be flat
    Not true--and it could be just the opposite. I used to work in the New England fishing industry and I can tell you from personal experience that it's obvious for anyone at sea that there's curvature because you loose sight of lower edges of land and ships alike from a distance. Cultures that lived on the sea (such as the Greeks) more often considered it curved. It's probably true in most sea faring cultures as well, but hard to tell because of the way maps and other depictions of the known world were mostly done on flat surfaces.
    Yeah I know was only trying to show that its the information we have available to us that determines what conclusions we draw from them....

    I guess it was a bad example
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5
    Maybe I need to explain all my theory with another words:

    1 - The first point is: the observations and the mathematics need to work together. The mathematics from the Relativity works best as the Newton, to describe the universe. But the Relativity has problems by some observations in objects very far away. The scientists need to create this Dark Energy to make a sense in his observations. The problem with the Pioneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly) shows that the problem is near as we think and here in the Solar System we find already problems. We need to find another model to explain the universe (we all Know that);

    2 – The light will be slower, if it is near a massive object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light). That happens if the light makes a curve in space;

    3 – With the information from (1) and (2), I thought: We need to separate the speed of light, and the light itself. Maybe the speed of the light, that we know here, is not the same in another parts of the universe. But in the point of view of the light, the Relativity still works, because the light will be slower, and in this situation it need a few time to travel in space. Maybe the speed of the light that we know here is the slower version. Maybe the light makes a curve as its travel trough our Galaxy, or our Solar System. But if the light leaves this place (Galaxy or Solar System) it speed increase, maybe to infinity. Infinity speed means that the light doesn’t feel time as its travel (the time will stop at this point – that is the same thing).

    4 – If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now, or only a few years old (the light would be slower and game time in its way into the galaxy to the Earth);

    5 - If that is true, the universe does not accelerate the expansion, instead what Hubble said. There is no Dark Energy;

    There is it. I think now you all understand what I said. Maybe I was not clear in my first post.

    Now comes the conclusion:

    6 – Nobody comes with this idea before (as far as I can see);

    7 – I think a Forum is a place to discuss new ideas, and not only to explain the current physics.

    8 - I have no evidence of my theory. I cannot give proof of that (of course). That is only a speculation. But that make more sense as Dark Energy.

    9 – I don’t have a mathematical equation to test what I said. I am only a Photographer. I am only in the philosophical part of the theory. Maybe I can do that in the future, but I need a lot of time to do that. I don’t have this time now. If anyone here thinks that my theory make sense, and is gut with mathematics, can make a proposal of an equation. I don’t want (and I cannot) do this journey alone.

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Fonseca
    Maybe I need to explain all my theory with another words:

    1 - The first point is: the observations and the mathematics need to work together. The mathematics from the Relativity works best as the Newton, to describe the universe. But the Relativity has problems by some observations in objects very far away. The scientists need to create this Dark Energy to make a sense in his observations. The problem with the Pioneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly) shows that the problem is near as we think and here in the Solar System we find already problems. We need to find another model to explain the universe (we all Know that);

    2 – The light will be slower, if it is near a massive object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light). That happens if the light makes a curve in space;

    3 – With the information from (1) and (2), I thought: We need to separate the speed of light, and the light itself. Maybe the speed of the light, that we know here, is not the same in another parts of the universe. But in the point of view of the light, the Relativity still works, because the light will be slower, and in this situation it need a few time to travel in space. Maybe the speed of the light that we know here is the slower version. Maybe the light makes a curve as its travel trough our Galaxy, or our Solar System. But if the light leaves this place (Galaxy or Solar System) it speed increase, maybe to infinity. Infinity speed means that the light doesn’t feel time as its travel (the time will stop at this point – that is the same thing).

    4 – If that is true, the light, which I see in the sky, is not the past of a star, but the star right now, or only a few years old (the light would be slower and game time in its way into the galaxy to the Earth);

    5 - If that is true, the universe does not accelerate the expansion, instead what Hubble said. There is no Dark Energy;

    There is it. I think now you all understand what I said. Maybe I was not clear in my first post.

    Now comes the conclusion:

    6 – Nobody comes with this idea before (as far as I can see);

    7 – I think a Forum is a place to discuss new ideas, and not only to explain the current physics.

    8 - I have no evidence of my theory. I cannot give proof of that (of course). That is only a speculation. But that make more sense as Dark Energy.

    9 – I don’t have a mathematical equation to test what I said. I am only a Photographer. I am only in the philosophical part of the theory. Maybe I can do that in the future, but I need a lot of time to do that. I don’t have this time now. If anyone here thinks that my theory make sense, and is gut with mathematics, can make a proposal of an equation. I don’t want (and I cannot) do this journey alone.

    Saulo Fonseca
    sauloqf@yahoo.com.br
    www.saulofonseca.de
    I would like to thank you for the explanation on ur original post

    and just make a comment on dark energy, (my reason to believe that it does not exist) just because we dont find it, dont know about it or cant see it doesn't mean that we have to make up something to ensure it works, we did it with the gods we did it with nature and now we do it with the universe

    Its people like u that think out of the norms that push us forward in science with views and opinions like this that make me proud to be human

    thanks

    as for proving it I am so busy with other things I wouldnt have the time but good luck
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Fonseca. Since light (photons) can change wavelengths, then obviously light experiences time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •