# Thread: Speed of light zero?

1. I think can prove that the relativity theorie of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own conciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in this short mail how I can prove this.

The first thing to know is that there is no time at lightspeed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveller tru space leave's the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for examle 2 years older.

If the traveler tru space only beacame one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth arround the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.

Offcourse I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relativ, you also should put it upsite down. If light move's with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measre seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.

I would like to tell you more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other posistions are possibillity's in the future. The person travels tru time ( to tommorow and so on..) while light leave's a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from.

Do I have a point?

2.

3. uy have no point, all those problems ahve been solved most likly, and ure theory goes against all data collected about light, wich shows it equals allways with C. light is even created with the seed C

4. I agree that some thinghs rudeman said are disputable at best, but he raised one question that nags at me constantly, since my elementary school:
If person A stands stil relative to planet Earth, and person B moves away from person A at speed 0.9 c, then according to relativity theory, time is passing slower for person B. But in the same time person A together with Earth and Sun and our galaxy moves away from person B at the speed 0.9 c. So why can't we watch movement from the perspective of person B and say that all universe is moving away from him, and that time is slowed in the rest of the universe?

I guess that this question has been answered (by scientists and on forums, both), because it is so obvious, but I am new in high physics.

5. y we cant that is because person B is expericing acceleration in he begining to get to 0,9C and then again once it reaches its destination, and thena gain wheen it shall comes back to earth. Thats y we cant see from its perspective and say A should get olderr than B. But it is so that both acctualy are correct when B have reached 0,9C that the others clock is going slower.

6. Ah the old twin paradox.? Zelos is right, I think? He could have said it more clearly. If A travelled away from B at 0.9C, Person A would age seven years to person B's one year, both A and B will know that person A has aged only 1 year and similarly both A and B will know A aged 7 years. As Einstein himself pointed out (and zelos): A and B are not equal because B experienced the acceleration, from A's frame of reference( call that 0) accelerated up to a 0.9C frame of reference.

7. Sorry please ignore my previous post, I cocked it right up. This is what I should have said(i've checked it properly this time)

If A travelled away from B at 0.9C, Person B would age seven years to person A's one year, both A and B will know that person A has aged only 1 year and similarly both A and B will know B aged 7 years. As Einstein himself pointed out (and zelos): A and B are not equal because A experienced the acceleration, from B's frame of reference( call that 0) accelerated up to a 0.9C frame of reference.

Isn't there an edit function at this forum?

8. From what little I understand, I think the idea is that time is "relative". While travelling at the speed of light or thereabout, the speedy traveler 'experiences' one second, this is not a real absolute second, the person on earth experiences a year or whatever amount of time and thats the distance the person traveling at the speed of light traveled.

On the contrary, curiously, the speedy person might even perceive hes traveled faster than the speed of light. If he goes to another planet that is 1 light-hour away, and gets there in what seemed like a second, might he think hes travelled faster than light if he doesnt consider the temporal effect. hum

Im not sure but I supose that if you are in an imaginary rocket reaching the speed of light while looking at your wristwatch in front of you,
the light cant reach the wristwatch, it stops as it coasts at the same speed as the rocket, the molecules in your body also stop moving unable to move in the rockets direction, the electrical brain and nerve impulse also remain stationary within the rocket, everything within the rocket stops moving, time ceases to be experienced until you slow down.

If the universe were to suddenly travel at the speed of light (including the light between stars) for a million years(ok the universe except one drifting stopwatch ) no one would know it ever happened, no one would be counsious until it slowed down again, I think.

9. In response to the first post:
Ultimately, I'm sorry to say, you're going nowhere with your theory. As you claim, it rests on the speed of light being zero, but the speed of light has been measured fairly accurately to be ~3.0x10^8 m/s and is frame-independent.

But keep thinking, you may find your spot someday.

w

10. Originally Posted by icewendigo
If the universe were to suddenly travel at the speed of light
In classical physics, nothing but light can travel at the speed of light. In modern physics, everything travels at the speed of light. I don't know which definition you are using.

11. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by icewendigo
If the universe were to suddenly travel at the speed of light
In classical physics, nothing but light can travel at the speed of light. In modern physics, everything travels at the speed of light. I don't know which definition you are using.
I think you'll find that nothing with rest mass can travel the speed of light according to modern physics.

12. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
I think you'll find that nothing with rest mass can travel the speed of light according to modern physics.
You think that this is what I will find? Rest mass is irrelevant. There is only one speed in the universe, and that is the speed of light. Everything travels at the speed of light. There is no other speed. Your statement pertains not to modern physics, but to classical physics, as I mentioned. In classical physics, nothing but light can travel at the speed of light.

13. Originally Posted by Hermes
There is only one speed in the universe, and that is the speed of light. Everything travels at the speed of light. There is no other speed. Your statement pertains not to modern physics, but to classical physics, as I mentioned. In classical physics, nothing but light can travel at the speed of light.
So in other words Einstein is classic? or relativity is bull yeah? and you have single handedly ushered in a new era of physics?

14. dupe

15. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
So in other words Einstein is classic? or relativity is bull yeah? and you have single handedly ushered in a new era of physics?
Wow, what a reaction you have. The speed of light is constant in space-time, and everything moves at the speed of light. Duh. When you speak of the speed of light, you seem to be ignoring the concept of space-time and focusing exclusively on space. Why?

16. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
So in other words Einstein is classic? or relativity is bull yeah? and you have single handedly ushered in a new era of physics?
Wow, what a reaction you have. The speed of light is constant in space-time, and everything moves at the speed of light. Duh. When you speak of the speed of light, you seem to be ignoring the concept of space-time and focusing exclusively on space. Why?
Duh, because you are confused! OK you want to be corrected in terms of space-time?

You require a rest mass of 0 to travel at the speed of light and from your frame of reference reach your destination in no time at all. If you have a restmass >0 you can't reach the speed of light because the energy needed would be infinate, you will have to take a time >0 to reach a destination. therefor space-time is not equivalent.

17. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Duh, because you are confused! OK you want to be corrected in terms of space-time?
To me, it seems obvious that it is you who are confused.

You require a rest mass of 0 to travel at the speed of light and from your frame of reference reach your destination in no time at all. If you have a restmass >0 you can't reach the speed of light because the energy needed would be infinate, you will have to take a time >0 to reach a destination. therefor space-time is not equivalent.

18. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Duh, because you are confused! OK you want to be corrected in terms of space-time?
To me, it seems obvious that it is you who are confused.

You require a rest mass of 0 to travel at the speed of light and from your frame of reference reach your destination in no time at all. If you have a restmass >0 you can't reach the speed of light because the energy needed would be infinate, you will have to take a time >0 to reach a destination. therefor space-time is not equivalent.
Please dont tell me that I dont understand the concept of space-time!
Have you ever studied physics academically? Because you seem grossly confused between hypothesis, philosophy and actual mordern day physics?(if I wasn't being so generous I would say you were just making everything you say up out of fresh air)

19. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Please dont tell me that I dont understand the concept of space-time!
I did not say it. Your explanation did enough talking. You spoke of space, space, space, and then at the end threw in the word space-time, as though it could have anything to do with your explanation of space. You claim to know about space-time, yet you talk only about space and seem to assume that what you say applies equally to space-time.

Have you ever studied physics academically? Because you seem grossly confused between hypothesis, philosophy and actual mordern day physics?(if I wasn't being so generous I would say you were just making everything you say up out of fresh air)
I suppose that you consider this logical, or perhaps you consider it funny. In this case, I see no point to continuing this discussion. You seem to confuse your terms, and to introduce irrelevancies from differing models. You obviously think equally poorly of my opinion. We better quit before you decide that rudeness is the best way to attempt to prove your point.

20. there is sooo much confusion here, i will attempt to clarify this with simple statements coming from a non academic.

reletive to a stationary observer light travels at 3.00x108ms-1. as the observer conducting the measurements on the velocity of light moves closer to C the reletive velocity between the ray of light and the observer will become less hence as the observer accelerates light moves slower when measured by the moving observer.

since one of the postulates of special reletivity are that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of referance. this will lead us to the second postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is invarient.

time can therefor be defined in terms of the light second. the amount of time taken for light to travel 3.00x10<sup>8</sup>m.

if light slows down reletive to the observer then based on its measure of velocity at one point in time (i know, no need to point it out) the time taken for light to travel this same distance will have increased. however since we know that light always travels at C in vacuum we can infer that it is not the light that is slowing down but rather time that is slowing down, reletive to the two bodies in motion.

now since light has a rest mass of 0 it propagates at C and when travelling through vacuum undergoes no acceleration, its going as fast as it can, and no decelleration, what is there in vacuum that will cause a massless object to slow down. but only massless particles can travel at C because of this 0 rest mass as described in the equation . as any body with a rest mass > 0 will require an infinite energy to accelerate it to C.

the point behind all this is that if an observer were capable of travelling at C it would observe the ray of light as being stationary in spacetime, hence they arrive at there destination without experiencing time, reletive to each other. however since only bodies of rest mass 0 can move at this velocity all other bodies of rest mass > 0 will move slower than C and will take a measureable finite amount of time to reach there destination.

this has taken me the best part of an hour to post so don't say i didn't think about this. (hermes looking in your direction)
am i close?

21. Originally Posted by wallaby

reletive to a stationary observer light travels at 3.00x108ms-1.
Correct (approximation)

Originally Posted by wallaby
as the observer conducting the measurements on the velocity of light moves closer to C the reletive velocity between the ray of light and the observer will become less hence as the observer accelerates light moves slower when measured by the moving observer.
Sorry that isn't so, and is infact what was found in the Michelson-Morely experiment. No matter what speed you're traveling towards or away from light always measures C.

Originally Posted by wallaby
since one of the postulates of special reletivity are that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of referance. this will lead us to the second postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is invarient.
All measurement has shown that to be absolutely correct.
Originally Posted by wallaby
time can therefor be defined in terms of the light second. the amount of time taken for light to travel 3.00x10<sup>8</sup>m.

if light slows down reletive to the observer then based on its measure of velocity at one point in time (i know, no need to point it out) the time taken for light to travel this same distance will have increased. however since we know that light always travels at C in vacuum we can infer that it is not the light that is slowing down but rather time that is slowing down, reletive to the two bodies in motion.
But light never slows down relative to an observer, please refer to Michelson-Morley.

Originally Posted by Wallaby
now since light has a rest mass of 0 it propagates at C and when travelling through vacuum undergoes no acceleration, its going as fast as it can, and no decelleration, what is there in vacuum that will cause a massless object to slow down. but only massless particles can travel at C because of this 0 rest mass as described in the equation . as any body with a rest mass > 0 will require an infinite energy to accelerate it to C.
Quite correct.
Originally Posted by Wallaby
the point behind all this is that if an observer were capable of travelling at C it would observe the ray of light as being stationary in spacetime, hence they arrive at there destination without experiencing time, reletive to each other. however since only bodies of rest mass 0 can move at this velocity all other bodies of rest mass > 0 will move slower than C and will take a measureable finite amount of time to reach there destination.
Yes!!!!!!!! So therefor you agree that there is no eqivelence in space-time, as I said?

Originally Posted by Wallaby
this has taken me the best part of an hour to post so don't say i didn't think about this.
Very good for a non accedemic, lol (sorry) The only premise that seems to have been communicated to you erroneously is that light always travels a C no matter if your travelling head on towards it at 0.9999c or directly away from it at the same.

22. Originally Posted by wallaby
this has taken me the best part of an hour to post so don't say i didn't think about this. (hermes looking in your direction) am i close?
I will not say that you did not think about it. I like what you wrote. I do have a couple of comments.

reletive to a stationary observer light travels at 3.00x108ms-1. as the observer conducting the measurements on the velocity of light moves closer to C the reletive velocity between the ray of light and the observer will become less hence as the observer accelerates light moves slower when measured by the moving observer.

since one of the postulates of special reletivity are that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of referance. this will lead us to the second postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is invarient.
Re-read this last sentence about the speed of light being invariant. Now, re-read your previous paragraph, where you say that light moves slower. I think that your second paraagraph preempts your first, and that the perceived speed of light is not affected at all by the motion of the observer.

time can therefor be defined in terms of the light second. the amount of time taken for light to travel 3.00x10<sup>8</sup>m.
I do not see how this follows. Anyway, what is the meaning of the word time, and what concept does it entail? Time fulfills 2 dictinct roles in our understanding. One is that time is a fundamental and integral part of our universe, and all of it is currently bound up with space, as space-time. The second, and still more prevalent, notion of time is as a measure of motion through space. This Newtonian concept of time is what you are considering. It is useful to discuss time as a measure of motion through space, as you are doing. However, this is highly limiting, as time is much more than this. You definition of time ignores the implications of space-time, and considers time as a distinct entity from space, the primary use of which is to serve as a mechanism to measure motion through space. See Newtonian physics.

if light slows down reletive to the observer then based on its measure of velocity at one point in time (i know, no need to point it out) the time taken for light to travel this same distance will have increased. however since we know that light always travels at C in vacuum we can infer that it is not the light that is slowing down but rather time that is slowing down, reletive to the two bodies in motion.
What are the 2 bodies that you are refering to? I agree that if light were to move slower through space, then it would move more quickly through time. (Note that light cannot slow down, once emitted.) I think that I am missing your point. You seem to be suggesting that since the speed of light is constant, then any change in C is really a change in time. Where would this change in time take place? In the light or in the observer?

now since light has a rest mass of 0 it propagates at C and when travelling through vacuum undergoes no acceleration, its going as fast as it can, and no decelleration, what is there in vacuum that will cause a massless object to slow down. but only massless particles can travel at C because of this 0 rest mass as described in the equation . as any body with a rest mass > 0 will require an infinite energy to accelerate it to C.
In Newtonian physics, the speed of light is constant in space, and only light can travel at the speed of light. In modern physics, the speed of light is not constant in space, but is costant in space-time, and everything travels at the speed of light. The speed of light is constant in space-time, and the spatial and temporal components are in a symmetrical relationship. This is the implication of the twin paradox.

the point behind all this is that if an observer were capable of travelling at C it would observe the ray of light as being stationary in spacetime,
See your second paragraph above, where you state that the speed of light is invariant. You now use the term space-time, yet you continue to use time as nothing more than a measure of motion through space. In such thinking, space-time is not necessary. You are still thinking of time in a classical manner.

hence they arrive at there destination without experiencing time, reletive to each other. however since only bodies of rest mass 0 can move at this velocity all other bodies of rest mass > 0 will move slower than C and will take a measureable finite amount of time to reach there destination.
What is the difference, do you think, between space and time versus space-time?

23. Originally Posted by Hermes
I will not say that you did not think about it. I like what you wrote. I do have a couple of comments.

Originally Posted by Hermes
Re-read this last sentence about the speed of light being invariant. Now, re-read your previous paragraph, where you say that light moves slower. I think that your second paraagraph preempts your first, and that the perceived speed of light is not affected at all by the motion of the observer.
apparently i was incorrect.
speed of light is simply invarient.
i thought otherwise.

Originally Posted by Hermes
I do not see how this follows. Anyway, what is the meaning of the word time, and what concept does it entail? Time fulfills 2 dictinct roles in our understanding. One is that time is a fundamental and integral part of our universe, and all of it is currently bound up with space, as space-time. The second, and still more prevalent, notion of time is as a measure of motion through space. This Newtonian concept of time is what you are considering. It is useful to discuss time as a measure of motion through space, as you are doing. However, this is highly limiting, as time is much more than this. You definition of time ignores the implications of space-time, and considers time as a distinct entity from space, the primary use of which is to serve as a mechanism to measure motion through space. See Newtonian physics.
the second roll that you have put forth leads us to the first.
einstein put forth the notion of a 4 dimensional universe unifying space and time into spacetime we know. lets think of the implications of this to motion.
in the 3 dimesions od space alone, discounting time a vector will have 3 components, x, y and z. if time is integrated into the fabric of spacetime then the resultant vector of a bodies motion will have 4 vectors, x, y, z and t.
basically the second concept of time that you provided leads us to the first.

Originally Posted by Hermes
In Newtonian physics, the speed of light is constant in space, and only light can travel at the speed of light. In modern physics, the speed of light is not constant in space, but is costant in space-time, and everything travels at the speed of light. The speed of light is constant in space-time, and the spatial and temporal components are in a symmetrical relationship. This is the implication of the twin paradox.
exactly.

Originally Posted by Hermes
See your second paragraph above, where you state that the speed of light is invariant. You now use the term space-time, yet you continue to use time as nothing more than a measure of motion through space. In such thinking, space-time is not necessary. You are still thinking of time in a classical manner.
no i am thinking in terms of spacetime, as i have said every vector in our 4 dimensional universe can be broken into 4 components, x y z and t.
a resultant vector will be equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of each of these components.

24. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Sorry that isn't so, and is infact what was found in the Michelson-Morely experiment. No matter what speed you're traveling towards or away from light always measures C.
ok so is that factoring for reletive velocity or is that direct measurement
say an observer is moving at 0.7 C would they make a direct measurement and observe light as traveling at C or would they see light as travelling at 0.3 C reletive to them. to which point they add there velocity to this measurement to obtain a measurement of C.
logically if an observer was moving at 0.7 C and light were recorded as travelling at C reletive to there observation then to a stationary observer light would be measured as travelling at 1.7 C?
but thats not right?

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Yes!!!!!!!! So therefor you agree that there is no eqivelence in space-time, as I said?
i do.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Very good for a non accedemic, lol (sorry) The only premise that seems to have been communicated to you erroneously is that light always travels a C no matter if your travelling head on towards it at 0.9999c or directly away from it at the same.
thank you, in fact it is this matter that has not been comunicated to me and was actually more of a application of what i have read in a text on reletive velocity. which ofcourse would be why the error has occured.

25. Originally Posted by wallaby
the second roll that you have put forth leads us to the first.
True, in the sense that classical physics led us to modern physics.

einstein put forth the notion of a 4 dimensional universe unifying space and time into spacetime we know. lets think of the implications of this to motion.
in the 3 dimesions od space alone, discounting time a vector
But the whole point of modern physics is that this is not meaningful. In the universe as it exists today, there is no such thing as space outside of the context of time, is there?

will have 3 components, x, y and z. if time is integrated into the fabric of spacetime then the resultant vector of a bodies motion will have 4 vectors, x, y, z and t.
basically the second concept of time that you provided leads us to the first.
I like your words, but I am not sure what they actually mean to you? Do you think that there exists space in the universe outside of the context of time? For example, can you give me an example of something in space where we can claim that time can be ignored completely and factored out completely?

26. Originally Posted by wallaby
Sorry that isn't so, and is infact what was found in the Michelson-Morely experiment. No matter what speed you're traveling towards or away from light always measures C

ok so is that factoring for reletive velocity or is that direct measurement
say an observer is moving at 0.7 C would they make a direct measurement and observe light as traveling at C or would they see light as travelling at 0.3 C reletive to them. to which point they add there velocity to this measurement to obtain a measurement of C.
logically if an observer was moving at 0.7 C and light were recorded as travelling at C reletive to there observation then to a stationary observer light would be measured as travelling at 1.7 C?
but thats not right?
.
You see going by the Lorentz factor:

No matter what value v is c is always 299 792 458 m / s
In other words no matter what your velocity is relative to light , you will always measure that light at C. Say if you're heading directly towards a star 7.1 LYs away and you are travelling a 0.9c. the space between you and the light sorce will be contracted by a factor 7.1, so that star will become just 1 light year away because of the contraction given by gamma. Therefor you will still measure the light hurtly towards you as velocity C as the contraction is proportional to any slow down of the light(as it were).
Originally Posted by wallaby
i do.
Then you understand space-time for what it is, not what myth will have it be.
Originally Posted by wallaby
thank you, in fact it is this matter that has not been comunicated to me and was actually more of a application of what i have read in a text on reletive velocity. which ofcourse would be why the error has occured.
Yes maybe you are aplying V=v1+v2 from classic physics which is fine for every day velocities.

27. Originally Posted by Hermes
But the whole point of modern physics is that this is not meaningful. In the universe as it exists today, there is no such thing as space outside of the context of time, is there?
precisely, to every motion in the universe is 4 vector.

Originally Posted by Hermes
I like your words, but I am not sure what they actually mean to you? Do you think that there exists space in the universe outside of the context of time? For example, can you give me an example of something in space where we can claim that time can be ignored completely and factored out completely?
no spacetime is exactly that.
all motion within it is 4 vector, however that doesn't stop one of these vectors having a magnitude of 0.

however due to a lack of an absolute referance frame while the magnitude of one of the vectors x, y, z or t may be 0 to one observer another will record diferent values for the vectors x, y, z and t based upon their frame of referance.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
You see going by the Lorentz factor:

No matter what value v is c is always 299 792 458 m / s
In other words no matter what your velocity is relative to light , you will always measure that light at C. Say if you're heading directly towards a star 7.1 LYs away and you are travelling a 0.9c. the space between you and the light sorce will be contracted by a factor 7.1, so that star will become just 1 light year away because of the contraction given by gamma. Therefor you will still measure the light hurtly towards you as velocity C as the contraction is proportional to any slow down of the light(as it were).
wow, this is actually sinking in.

thank you.

28. Originally Posted by wallaby
precisely, to every motion in the universe is 4 vector.

no spacetime is exactly that.
all motion within it is 4 vector, however that doesn't stop one of these vectors having a magnitude of 0.

however due to a lack of an absolute referance frame while the magnitude of one of the vectors x, y, z or t may be 0 to one observer another will record diferent values for the vectors x, y, z and t based upon their frame of referance.
.
Yes indeed.

Originally Posted by wallaby
wow, this is actually sinking in.
.
thank you.[/quote]

29. and all this had me thinking today.

the lorrentz factor becomes undefined for objects travelling at C.
so what, the spacial contraction becomes undefined?

30. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by Hermes
I like your words, but I am not sure what they actually mean to you? Do you think that there exists space in the universe outside of the context of time? For example, can you give me an example of something in space where we can claim that time can be ignored completely and factored out completely?
no spacetime is exactly that.
all motion within it is 4 vector, however that doesn't stop one of these vectors having a magnitude of 0.
I think that you are talking about theoretical mathematicatics, are you not? Can you tell me of something that exists in the real world where the magnitude in any of the 3 dimensions of space can ever be 0, or where the magnitude of time can ever be 0? I do not think so.

Can you provide an example of something in the real world that can be considered by you as being in is a state that is completely devoid of motion, which would be necessary if there were no time involved?

31. Originally Posted by Hermes
I think that you are talking about theoretical mathematicatics, are you not? Can you tell me of something that exists in the real world where the magnitude in any of the 3 dimensions of space can ever be 0, or where the magnitude of time can ever be 0? I do not think so.

Can you provide an example of something in the real world that can be considered by you as being in is a state that is completely devoid of motion, which would be necessary if there were no time involved?
spacetime is a mathematical concept used to describe motion and position in our universe, therefor maths is damm near the only way to talk about it.

and if a body moves in a straight line one observer may record this motion as being entirely along the x axis of movement. therefor no motion along the y axis and no motion along the z axis.

from the observers point the motion can be resolved into two vectors, one along the x axis and another consisting of the time axis.
we end up with the equation that describes this bodies motion.

to another observer this motion may occur entirely along the z axis but we will still get the same magnitude for a vector in spacetime.

the point being that all motion can be resolved into 4 vectors even if SOME of those vectors are of magnitude zero. the magnitude and direction of these vectors is dependant upon your frame of referance, seeing as there is no absolute frame of referance and all.

32. Originally Posted by wallaby
spacetime is a mathematical concept used to describe motion and position in our universe, therefor maths is damm near the only way to talk about it.
Oh, I see. We are talking about completely different concepts. You consider space-time to be nothing more than a mathematical concept, whereas I consider space-time to be what the universe is acutually composed of. You do not think that space-time really exists, and you are not concerned with existence, only theoretical relaitionships of position and motion. Is that right? This is quite a difference in thinking with me. I will try to keep your distinction in mind when responding to your posts in the future.

33. Originally Posted by Hermes
Oh, I see. We are talking about completely different concepts. You consider space-time to be nothing more than a mathematical concept, whereas I consider space-time to be what the universe is acutually composed of. You do not think that space-time really exists, and you are not concerned with existence, only theoretical relaitionships of position and motion. Is that right? This is quite a difference in thinking with me. I will try to keep your distinction in mind when responding to your posts in the future.
thats pretty much it.
to me spacetime is about as real as the number system.

34. Originally Posted by wallaby
to me spacetime is about as real as the number system.
Do you consider that space and time are also only theoretical constructs?

35. Originally Posted by wallaby
and all this had me thinking today.

the lorrentz factor becomes undefined for objects travelling at C.
so what, the spacial contraction becomes undefined?
Well not so much undefined as infinate.
Gamma(The lorentz factor) becomes infinate at C, so the spatial
contraction also becomes infinate therefor from the frame of reference of light it never travels any distance although from our frame of ref it travelled a billion light years say.

36. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by wallaby
to me spacetime is about as real as the number system.
Do you consider that space and time are also only theoretical constructs?
i think that space and time are components of spacetime and are basically the same thing.

.................................................. .........

Thank you for clearing that up Imaplanck.

37. Originally Posted by wallaby
i think that space and time are components of spacetime and are basically the same thing.
The same thing as each other? Or, the same thing as space-time, which means theoretical constructs with no actual existence?

38. Originally Posted by Hermes
The same thing as each other? Or, the same thing as space-time, which means theoretical constructs with no actual existence?
both are vectors.
they are the same as each other and the same thing as spacetime which is a theoretical construct with no existance beyond describing motion or other changes.

39. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by wallaby
to me spacetime is about as real as the number system.
Do you consider that space and time are also only theoretical constructs?
i think that space and time are components of spacetime and are basically the same thing.
And, do you think that time has a speed?

40. Excuse me butting in here chaps, but isn't speed a function of time?
ergo you cannot define 'time' in terms of 'speed'...

41. Originally Posted by Megabrain
Excuse me butting in here chaps, but isn't speed a function of time?
ergo you cannot define 'time' in terms of 'speed'...
What about a lightyear then? That's a distance in time..

2 lightseconds stands for 600.000km.

42. Read it again Rudeman (no offence intended).

43. Where is time at the speed of light?

44. I said speed is a function of time. I said nothing about light.

45. A lightyear is not a time... any more than a run-minute (the distance a man runs in a minute) is. A light year is a fixed distance. An arbitary length. Like 2cm is.

To say a light year is a function of time, is like saying an inch (or centremetre if you wish) as related to a second.

A mouse is 12 centremetres from head to tail. Express that length in minutes?

How fast is Blue?

Can you count to Apple?

One plus One equals concious

Of course there is the confusing factor that to cover an arbitary distance while travelling a certain speed, requires a certain amount of time. if you are moving at 3cm per second and want to travel 100 cm, it will cost something on the order of thirty-something seconds (VFR pilot math, near enough is good enough ) to cover that distance. However a light year is the measurement of Distance, not speed or time.

46. Originally Posted by musicalaviator
A lightyear is not a time... any more than a run-minute (the distance a man runs in a minute). It is a fixed distance. An arbitary length.

To say a light year is a function of time, is like saying an inch (or centremetre if you wish) as related to a second.

A mouse is 12 centremetres from head to tail. Express that length in time?
Could you tell me exactly where I said a light year is a function of time?
or where I am supposed to have said a lightyear is time?

I think you misunderstood me, speed is calculated as a function of time. The speed of light is measured as that distance it travels in a given period of time. To measure the speed of a car one measures the distance it travels in a given time. Speed is a function of time.

Originally Posted by wiki
Instantaneous speed defined as a function of time on interval [t0,t1] gives average speed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed

47. I had this hunch too and just googled it. I think you have something. I've always had a problem with defining the "speed" of light. What's to say that all matter isn't moving at -1 x the speed of light. How can you measure the speed of anything when everything is in motion? Where is your reference point? The center of the universe? Every scientist in history that started with "us" being the center of the universe ... The absolute starting point ... was eventually proven wrong. I think we will soon discover that we have the speed of light wrong.

A lot of people are going to say you have a dumb idea, but it's mostly because you might prove them wrong . Go with your instinct on this one... You're not the only person that had the idea, but you might be the first to prove it!

48. Oh good.
You resurrect a seven year old thread just to speculate wildly and ignorantly.
We really needed that.

49. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Oh good.You resurrect a seven year old thread just to speculate wildly and ignorantly.We really needed that.
Congratulations! I guess you have finally resolved the differences of the standard model and the theory of relativity. It was under our nose this whole time...The age of an Internet thread! The only thing you've proven is that you can read time on a web page .

50. Where is your reference point?
The reference point is always the observer performing the measurement, so if we are saying that light propagates at c, then we mean it propagates at c relative to the measurement apparatus ( = observer ). What is special about the speed of light is that it propagates at c relative to any observer, regardless of his own state of motion. That is immediately obvious when you consider that massless particles like the photon trace out null geodesics in space-time; they thus cannot do anything else but propagate at exactly c in all frames of reference.

What's to say that all matter isn't moving at -1 x the speed of light
Only massless particles can move at the speed of light relative to some observer. The above therefore does not make sense.

The center of the universe?
The universe does not have a center.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement