Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The speed of light ?

  1. #1 The speed of light ? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    madrid
    Posts
    2
    The speed of light turns out to be a strange idea for many persons, it imposes to the transmission of physical information a very annoying limit.

    And the question is, if the speed of light to the square was not the result of multiplying (c) for (c) ?, but out the result of multiplying two lengths by two different frequencies to (c).
    Surely (c) would always be the result of (cˆ2) square root .

    The consequences would be very interesting, at least theoretically there would be opened a few new possibilities of being able to handle the Time.

    It seems that (c . c) = cˆ2
    but really it is ( x ). ( y ) = cˆ2

    Regards


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    We also know the speed actually varies relative to the proximity of mass body's, ie. curved space time, the highly odd thing is the present EM model doesnt take into account. So its quite funny, because it then it just gets ignored , speed of light = constant = mathmatical convieniance, when even the intial velocity test's where derived from an 'average'.


    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The speed of light ? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by orlandodelavega
    The speed of light turns out to be a strange idea for many persons, it imposes to the transmission of physical information a very annoying limit.

    And the question is, if the speed of light to the square was not the result of multiplying (c) for (c) ?, but out the result of multiplying two lengths by two different frequencies to (c).
    Surely (c) would always be the result of (cˆ2) square root .

    The consequences would be very interesting, at least theoretically there would be opened a few new possibilities of being able to handle the Time.

    It seems that (c . c) = cˆ2
    but really it is ( x ). ( y ) = cˆ2

    Regards
    I'm not sure what you mean here. We don't take the square root of c^2 to find the speed of light. We find it via the Maxwell equations, or by just measuring it (the two agree with each other).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 light, time and speed 
    Forum Freshman genep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    37
    But light has no time so how can it travel?
    And how can this timeless light have the time to not only travel but to travel so fast that it makes everything -- with time -- stationary.

    And if all things are stationary, compared to the light that has no time, then how can they have time/speed/distance?

    I love this physics and its only certainty, the Uncertainty Principle... this physics whose only sanity is its black-hole that makes the timeless-light do the impossible on top of the impossible: not only slow light down but go backwards so that the time it does not have can vanish with everything else physics needs for its only absolute: its Uncertainty Principle.

    And the Joke is that I needed a Degree in Physics/Physical Chemistry to figure out how light travels too fast for anything to catch it but only because everything else is standing still.



    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    time stands still from the perspective of an object travelling at the speed of light, reletive to its surroundings.

    this does not mean time is actually standing still.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 standing still means standing still 
    Forum Freshman genep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    time stands still from the perspective of an object travelling at the speed of light, reletive to its surroundings.

    this does not mean time is actually standing still.

    Relativity is based on the fact that "relative to light" -- that has no time -- nothing can move.
    This means that the faster you try and chase light the more obvious it gets that you are IN FACT standing still.

    If you have doubts then ask someone who knows the basics of Relativity.

    But then, such a someone can make no difference because it is all in the mind, and as physics keeps trying to tell us: the observer determines the observation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i know the basics of reletivity as anyone can and it refers to time dilation reletive to the observers.

    the person traveling at the speed of light, which is impossible for a person anyway but just for the sake of argument, will observe a slowing in the passage of time.
    however from the outside observers point of view time runs as normal.

    if your are incapable of accepting that outside observers can and do see things differently reletive to you then you have a problem that is beyond help.
    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
  •