# Thread: Why is light limited to 186,000 mps?

1. Why is there a limit? Why is the speed of light not 286,000 mps or infinite? There must be something that keeps light from moving faster.

2.

3. I don't know why there is a limit, but it is certainly much more than 186,000 mph. Get your units right.

4. MPS

I am at work and was in a hurry. Sorry

5. Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
I don't know why there is a limit, but it is certainly much more than 186,000 mph. Get your units right.
Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 kilometres per second. That's about 670 million miles per hour or a billion kilometres an hour. The distance to the light horizon of the universe is not 13.7 billion years (corresponding to the estimated age of the universe), but about 42 billion light years. The combination of the finite age of the universe and the finite speed of light means that the volume of space from which we can receive light is therefore 84 billion light years across. In other words the universe is about this number of light years across. This is because, according to inflation theory, in the first split second of the universe it underwent a faster than light expansion. What would happen to the speed of light if the universe started to contract towards a big crunch, I don't know.

6. if we are moving in one direction at speed x, we would not be able to see 42 billion light years "behind" us, as some would still be catching up to us.

7. Originally Posted by ledopmi
Why is there a limit? Why is the speed of light not 286,000 mps or infinite? There must be something that keeps light from moving faster.
Speed of light is not derived from any formula. It is a set vlue of a measurment. The measurment method is arbitrary (we can chose other lenght definition instead of meter) but the absolute value remains constant. Why? I suspect, because it measures the propagation of it's particle, the photon's speed in vacuum. Since a photon in motion has mass, the speed involving matter has to have a limit. Think about it this way: If the speed of light was instant we wouldn't be able to see or rather, what we would see, wouldn't make sense. Time would have no meaning, neither is distance. Present, past, future would be a haze, same with the distances between the moon, sun, galaxies etc. The actual speed limit is not finite, the fraction part after the decimal point goes to infinity like in the number pi and absolute zero. We can't reach these values ever for a reason. As I always say, nature is simple but elegant.

8. Originally Posted by ledopmi
Why is there a limit? Why is the speed of light not 286,000 mps or infinite? There must be something that keeps light from moving faster.
The speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations.

9. ox
This is because, according to inflation theory, in the first split second of the universe it underwent a faster than light expansion. What would happen to the speed of light if the universe started to contract towards a big crunch, I don't know.
Same thing in reverse, except, it would require the speed of light in the final faze to be instant to counteract gravity, otherwise the whole collapse would turn into explossion. That is one of the problem of the BB. Born in an instant, die in an instant with real time between the two event, with no information or energy conserved.

10. firstly a facepalm
Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
I don't know why there is a limit, but it is certainly much more than 186,000 mph. Get your units right.
Yes you're right, it does travel faster than 186k Mph.

check the title, he said 186k mpSECONDS, which is aproximately right

It's another of those unanswerable questions, ask often enough and a religious smuck will tell you it's gods doing

but yes there does seem to be a limitation of some kind put upon light, it could be a barrier of sorts, sound travels at a set speed because it cannot push through the air any harder. It's possible there's an undiscovered particle that is putting the same kind of limit on light. which begs the question, is it really impossible to travel faster than light

11. Originally Posted by Booms
firstly a facepalm
Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
I don't know why there is a limit, but it is certainly much more than 186,000 mph. Get your units right.
Yes you're right, it does travel faster than 186k Mph.

check the title, he said 186k mpSECONDS, which is aproximately right
If you look at the OP it has been edited once. Suggestive?

12. "a religious smuck will tell you it's gods doing "

Most religious smucks consider God to be a proper noun. Some of them even, are capable of discerning plurality and possession.

13. Originally Posted by Booms
It's another of those unanswerable questions, ask often enough and a religious smuck will tell you it's gods doing
The non-religious schmuck is no better off answering this type of question. Science can only go so far, then there will always be another "why."
sound travels at a set speed because it cannot push through the air any harder.
This explanation is completely wrong. In fact, the stiffer the medium, the faster the speed of sound.

14. If some people just don't have an idea of why the light's speed is constant, involving God as good of a guess as any although is more sarcastic then no guess at all.
As I said in the above posts; light speed has a limit because its particle has mass. The other reason could be the light's duality as a particle and wave. Wave can not have infinite frequency either. That would make a wave a straight line as frequency goes to infinity. That is not the case. I don't think you can argue with that. Now, if the question is: why is it approx. 186,000 mps.? It would be a lot harder to answer. Keep in mind that smaller particles then photons such, some neutrinos all obey this rule. It makes perfect sense that if graviton exist as a particle could not be detected with our conventional methods because that requires a higher speed limit. But it would make perfect sense.On the other hand, I don't believe gravity has a particle because then we are making more problems then we intend to solve. Graviton acting instantly would be logical but then again how we determine its mass or wave properties if they exist? We are not able to directly measure the speed of quarks but we are pretty sure that is not exceeding the speed of light.
If "The speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations." as DrRocket said then we have some idea of why the value is as such. I can't verify that assumption right now.

15. The photon has no rest mass. It has energy, which means it still has relativistic mass, aka mass-energy, but that's not what sets its speed limit. As Harold said, there's always one more why, and right now, this is one of those AFAIK.

As I said in the above posts; light speed has a limit because its particle has mass.
There is a bit of a problem here. The photon is one of only a few particles that has zero rest mass.

The other reason could be the light's duality as a particle and wave. Wave can not have infinite frequency either. That would make a wave a straight line as frequency goes to infinity. That is not the case. I don't think you can argue with that. Now, if the question is: why is it approx. 186,000 mps.? It would be a lot harder to answer. Keep in mind that smaller particles then photons such, some neutrinos all obey this rule. It makes perfect sense that if graviton exist as a particle could not be detected with our conventional methods because that requires a higher speed limit. But it would make perfect sense.On the other hand, I don't believe gravity has a particle because then we are making more problems then we intend to solve. Graviton acting instantly would be logical but then again how we determine its mass or wave properties if they exist? We are not able to directly measure the speed of quarks but we are pretty sure that is not exceeding the speed of light.
This is gibberish. Anything that represents a complete thought is just plain wrong. You need to learn some physics. A little mathematics wouldn't hurt either.

A photon of infinite frequency would have infinite energy. A "wave" that is a straight line is generally considered to have infinite wavelenght, and therefore zero frequency.

We are very sure that quarks are not exceeding the speed of light because they have positive rest mass. However, some of the gluons that carry the strong force have zero rest mass. We also know that if the graviton exists it will have zero rest mass an propagate at c.

Originally Posted by varidinum"
If "The speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations." as DrRocket said then we have some idea of why the value is as such. I can't verify that assumption right now.
It is not an assumption. It is a well known fact of classical electrodynamics. Try reading any book on the subject. Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson will do nicely.

This is in fact quite well known. The constancy of the speed of light according to Maxwell's electrodynamics was an early clue to special relativity and the reason that Maxwell's equations required no modification for compatibility with special relativity.

17. Originally Posted by Booms
It's possible there's an undiscovered particle that is putting the same kind of limit on light. which begs the question, is it really impossible to travel faster than light
The Michelson–Morley experiment showed that there is no aether more than a century ago.

The speed of light is approximately 186000 mps because a how a mile was originally coughed up and how it is defined now.

18. If aliens were to zap the sun, maybe because their starship was out of control and they were heading towards it, we wouldn't be plunged into darkness for 8 minutes, which is the length of time it takes for sunlight to reach earth. Now I assume that the same could be said for losing the sun's gravity. The earth wouldn't be sent spinning into the void for 8 minutes, as gravity waves also travel at light speed. Just as light speed falls out of Maxwell's equations, I assume that gravity speed falls out of Einstein's general relativity equation. Now for a thought experiment. What if we could pipeline energy from the sun to solve all the earth's nuclear energy needs. How soon could the energy arrive on earth?

19. Originally Posted by ox
If aliens were to zap the sun, maybe because their starship was out of control and they were heading towards it, we wouldn't be plunged into darkness for 8 minutes, which is the length of time it takes for sunlight to reach earth. Now I assume that the same could be said for losing the sun's gravity. The earth wouldn't be sent spinning into the void for 8 minutes, as gravity waves also travel at light speed. Just as light speed falls out of Maxwell's equations, I assume that gravity speed falls out of Einstein's general relativity equation. Now for a thought experiment. What if we could pipeline energy from the sun to solve all the earth's nuclear energy needs. How soon could the energy arrive on earth?
We already get most of our energy from the sun. It comes at light speed. It is light.

20. Originally Posted by DrRocket
We already get most of our energy from the sun. It comes at light speed. It is light.
I mean the energy to create electricity and replace all those potentially dangerous nuclear power stations on earth. I like the idea of a planet being able to vampirise its star. You could do this if you have access to a black hole, but we don't.

21. Originally Posted by ox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
We already get most of our energy from the sun. It comes at light speed. It is light.
I mean the energy to create electricity and replace all those potentially dangerous nuclear power stations on earth. I like the idea of a planet being able to vampirise its star. You could do this if you have access to a black hole, but we don't.
The energy that creates electricity, except for nuclear power is already directly traceable to the sun.

Nuclear power stations are not necessarily dangerous. They are in fact rather clean and efficient for large-scale power generation. We need more of them, not fewer.

Access to a black hole would be of little value. Whatever makes you think differently?

Your "liking" for "vampirising" a star is quite irrelevant. Planets get virtually all of their energy from their star anyway. The only exception is nuclear power which is the result of the action of some supernova in the distant past.

22. A new posting on this site( Physics) titled: "Matter’s Elementary Structure Theory" should give some answers. I find it very interesting and refreshing new point of view. It's long but well worth reading although it looks unfinished at this point.

A new posting on this site( Physics) titled: "Matter’s Elementary Structure Theory" should give some answers. I find it very interesting and refreshing new point of view. It's long but well worth reading although it looks unfinished at this point.
You can waste your time with that post if you want to. But it is simply gibberish.

It has been moved to "new hypotheses" and probably really belongs in the trash.

I suggest that others not waste their time one it.

24. Is that the work by the individual who has never heard of abstracts and executive summaries?

25. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Is that the work by the individual who has never heard of abstracts and executive summaries?
Those are two things with which he apparently has no acquaintence.

Physics seems to be a third.

26. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Access to a black hole would be of little value. Whatever makes you think differently?
Stephen Hawking and others have commented that if you harvest the energy from a black hole you would solve the energy crisis. Maybe, if we had the technology we could construct a small one in the solar system, and pipe its energy to the moon and finally to earth. Could be a task for the LHC.

27. That would be an off hand comment taken out of context. I believe the point was that black holes have lots of energy, not that it'd be practical to actually use it. The Sun has more than enough energy to make that a pointless pursuit for at least then next 1000 years.

28. Originally Posted by ox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Access to a black hole would be of little value. Whatever makes you think differently?
Stephen Hawking and others have commented that if you harvest the energy from a black hole you would solve the energy crisis. Maybe, if we had the technology we could construct a small one in the solar system, and pipe its energy to the moon and finally to earth. Could be a task for the LHC.
While you theoretically can extract energy from the rotation of a black hole, you have to start with a rotating balck hole. There is no benefit to creating a black hole and extracting energy from it because the only energy you coud extract would be the energy you had to pump into it to get it rotating in the first place.

29. Originally Posted by ledopmi
Why is there a limit? Why is the speed of light not 286,000 mps or infinite? There must be something that keeps light from moving faster.
The same laws that govern the speed of light govern the speed of clocks. The speed of light is measured using clocks, therefore if the speed of light increased or decreased, it would be impossible to measure because the speed of the clocks would increase or decrease as well.

30. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by ox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Access to a black hole would be of little value. Whatever makes you think differently?
Stephen Hawking and others have commented that if you harvest the energy from a black hole you would solve the energy crisis. Maybe, if we had the technology we could construct a small one in the solar system, and pipe its energy to the moon and finally to earth. Could be a task for the LHC.
While you theoretically can extract energy from the rotation of a black hole, you have to start with a rotating balck hole. There is no benefit to creating a black hole and extracting energy from it because the only energy you coud extract would be the energy you had to pump into it to get it rotating in the first place.
Black holes tend to divide MC squared releasing pure E, absorbing most of it but allowing a portion of it to break out following this conical pattern:

A black hole wouldn't literally provide energy, but what it would do is act as a mechanism for converting any matter into pure energy.

Romulans use it instead of antimatter. More efficient.

31. yeah, too bad trekies don't run for president

or energy council

32. The speed of light travels at 300,000,000 m/s in free space due to the mechanical properties of the Aether which it propagates through (even though Dr Rocket will probably beg to differ). It is a well known fact in classical physics that the speed of a wave in any homogenous medium is constant. This speed is directly due to that mediums properties such as density, elasticity, tension and so on. So, logically, the same rules apply to the aether which is the mechanical medium for light.

PS: Hooray im finally a Forum Sophomore!!

33.

34. That's a silly so-called experiment inow, I'm no phisicist, nor am I a proponent of aether theory, but oddly the flow of aether doesn't effect the light moving perpendicular to it; something slightly peculiar considering it's able to slow down light that moves against it, and speed up light that moves with it, yet it doesn't have any force on light moving across it... interesting

apon further inspection they clarify this peculiarity... nonetheless if there is an aether, must it have a flow?

35. Seriously, marcus? It's the Michelson-Morley experiment... One of the most famous ever. It might help to check out this page (which explains in greater detail the Flashlet I shared above):

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.vi...michelson.html

36. No, not seriously, rather cinically, actually. :P

That "experiment" is not "the" experiment you are refering to. It is a flawed program based on the experiment.

Also I asked you a question, because I don't know, and you seem to be expert enough to comment: if there is an aether, must it flow?

37. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
if there is an aether, must it flow?
The M-M experiment was trying to detect the motion of the earth through the ether as it rotates around the sun, which should produce an "ether wind." This should change through the year.

There is an "ether drag" hypothesis which attempted to explain the null result for the speed of earth through the ether. This hypothesis is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
The primary reason the aether drag hypothesis is considered invalid is because of the occurrence of stellar aberration.

38. Another way of looking at this is to say that all speeds are fractions of C. So, instead of asking "why is C set at 300 million meters per second?" (rounding to the nearest 100 million), we should be asking ourselves "Why did we decide to define a meter as being one 300 millionth of the distance light travels in a second?"

If C were any other arbitrary value, our notion of time would readjust to make it so the fractions always came out the same.

39. Originally Posted by Waveman28
The speed of light travels at 300,000,000 m/s in free space due to the mechanical properties of the Aether which it propagates through (even though Dr Rocket will probably beg to differ). It is a well known fact in classical physics that the speed of a wave in any homogenous medium is constant. This speed is directly due to that mediums properties such as density, elasticity, tension and so on. So, logically, the same rules apply to the aether which is the mechanical medium for light.

PS: Hooray im finally a Forum Sophomore!!
The problem with your hypothesis is that if there is an aether then one ought to be able to measure the speed of the Earth, or anything else, with respect to it and find a difference in the speed of light relative to Earth, which would depend on the speed of the Earth relative to the aether.

However, there have been some very accurate measurements made to find that effect, and they have all turned up null. The Michelson-Morely experiment is one of those. Those experiments support special relativity and the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. That is the death knell of the aether hypothesis. The only way to save the aether is to postulate the Lorentz transformation, but an aether with a postulated Lorentz transformation does nothing for predictions and simply results in a complicated mess with the same predictions as special relativity.

So, no one accepts the aether in that form. There are interpretations of the quantum vacuum as another type of "aether" but that is a rather different kettle of fish.

40. Originally Posted by DrRocket
The problem with your hypothesis is that if there is an aether then one ought to be able to measure the speed of the Earth, or anything else, with respect to it and find a difference in the speed of light relative to Earth, which would depend on the speed of the Earth relative to the aether.

However, there have been some very accurate measurements made to find that effect, and they have all turned up null. The Michelson-Morely experiment is one of those. Those experiments support special relativity and the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. That is the death knell of the aether hypothesis. The only way to save the aether is to postulate the Lorentz transformation, but an aether with a postulated Lorentz transformation does nothing for predictions and simply results in a complicated mess with the same predictions as special relativity.

So, no one accepts the aether in that form. There are interpretations of the quantum vacuum as another type of "aether" but that is a rather different kettle of fish.
I still dont know why people automatically think that if the aether is involved, it is incompatable with relativity, it certainly is not, in fact it gives a proper explaination for relativity. I admit that it is perfectly true that the speed of light appears to be the same in all inertial frames. But, here is a question for you which you will not be able to answer: why is the speed of light measured to be the same in all inertial frames? SR never states the cause or effect for any relativistic phenomena, it simply gives an equation to calculate values such as length, time and mass. It does not give us an understanding of what is really happening at all. The aether theory does. I know what im sticking with.

41. Tell me. If you make a wave in moving water, does the speed of the wave depend on how the water is moving relative to the source of the wave and the detector? So for example, will it be measured as moving faster if the water is flowing along with the wave towards the detector than if the water was flowing the opposite direction?

Do you agree that the same would be true of any medium and any waves in that medium?

42. Originally Posted by Waveman28
I still dont know why people automatically think that if the aether is involved, it is incompatable with relativity, it certainly is not, in fact it gives a proper explaination for relativity. I admit that it is perfectly true that the speed of light appears to be the same in all inertial frames. But, here is a question for you which you will not be able to answer: why is the speed of light measured to be the same in all inertial frames? SR never states the cause or effect for any relativistic phenomena, it simply gives an equation to calculate values such as length, time and mass. It does not give us an understanding of what is really happening at all. The aether theory does. I know what im sticking with.
Science does not even attempt to explain WHY things happen. It only explains HOW they happen.

If you want answers as to why the universe is as it is you need to talk to a theologian.

The aetheory not only fails to explain why light behaves at it does, it provides and incorrect explanation as to how it behaves.

You are sticking with ignorance.

43. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Tell me. If you make a wave in moving water, does the speed of the wave depend on how the water is moving relative to the source of the wave and the detector? So for example, will it be measured as moving faster if the water is flowing along with the wave towards the detector than if the water was flowing the opposite direction?

Do you agree that the same would be true of any medium and any waves in that medium?
Yes, the wave speed would be faster if it was traveling in the direction that the water is flowing. But, the aether is staionary, so this problem does not apply to it. If the Aether was moving, then yes it would be the same situation as the water, but Aether theory postulates aether to be at rest.

44. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Science does not even attempt to explain WHY things happen. It only explains HOW they happen.

If you want answers as to why the universe is as it is you need to talk to a theologian.

The aetheory not only fails to explain why light behaves at it does, it provides and incorrect explanation as to how it behaves.

You are sticking with ignorance.
Science can and does explain why things happen, but only to a certain extent. It is more focused towards how things happen, yes. Im not sticking with ignorance, in fact its the exact opposite, open mindedness. Im not a crackpot blabbing on about nonsense, im actually unearthing and discussing the nonsense that current scienctific theory holds. Ive seen both sides of the story, and I strongly affirm the aether theory. Scientists to this day still admit that things like Lorentz Aether Theory are still valid. Trust me, there will come a day in the not too distant future, perhaps 20-30 years or so, when the aether will finally be accepted by the general scientiffic community (sounds patriotic i know, but its true).

45. We already have an astonishingly successful quantum theory of electrodynamics which makes no reference to the ether. So why complicate things by adding a new ontological object that doesn't enhance the predictive powers of the theory as it stands? Quantum electrodynamics is, I believe, accurate to about 12 decimal places. So to justify complicating the theory, you'd need to show, first, an experiment that gave a different answer from the theory, and second, that the existence of some sort of "ether" accounted for the experimental anomaly.

Moreover, given that QED provides a simple model that accounts for the wave-like nature of photons, I don't even see a philosophical advantage to postulating the existence of ether.

46. Originally Posted by salsaonline
We already have an astonishingly successful quantum theory of electrodynamics which makes no reference to the ether. So why complicate things by adding a new ontological object that doesn't enhance the predictive powers of the theory as it stands?
Because the current theory has no ontological device at all, even a failed one.

Quantum electrodynamics is, I believe, accurate to about 12 decimal places. So to justify complicating the theory, you'd need to show, first, an experiment that gave a different answer from the theory, and second, that the existence of some sort of "ether" accounted for the experimental anomaly.
I think what you'd need is a version of the Aether that actually conforms to observation, without need of any ad hoc adjustments. That's quite a challenge for a theory to accomplish, but it might happen someday if we're lucky. There's no guarantee, though, so no reason for science to teach it.

47. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Yes, the wave speed would be faster if it was traveling in the direction that the water is flowing. But, the aether is staionary, so this problem does not apply to it. If the Aether was moving, then yes it would be the same situation as the water, but Aether theory postulates aether to be at rest.
If the aether would exist, Earth wouldn't be at rest with respect to it.
Originally Posted by Waveman28
Science can and does explain why things happen, but only to a certain extent. It is more focused towards how things happen, yes.
Nope, science can't and doesn't explain why things happen.

48. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Im not a crackpot blabbing on about nonsense, .
Actually, you are.

49. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Tell me. If you make a wave in moving water, does the speed of the wave depend on how the water is moving relative to the source of the wave and the detector? So for example, will it be measured as moving faster if the water is flowing along with the wave towards the detector than if the water was flowing the opposite direction?

Do you agree that the same would be true of any medium and any waves in that medium?
Yes, the wave speed would be faster if it was traveling in the direction that the water is flowing. But, the aether is staionary, so this problem does not apply to it. If the Aether was moving, then yes it would be the same situation as the water, but Aether theory postulates aether to be at rest.
What is the aether at rest relative to? The Earth is spinning on its axis and rotating around the Sun. The Sun is spinning around the center of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving relative to every other galaxy.

50. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Tell me. If you make a wave in moving water, does the speed of the wave depend on how the water is moving relative to the source of the wave and the detector? So for example, will it be measured as moving faster if the water is flowing along with the wave towards the detector than if the water was flowing the opposite direction?

Do you agree that the same would be true of any medium and any waves in that medium?
Yes, the wave speed would be faster if it was traveling in the direction that the water is flowing. But, the aether is staionary, so this problem does not apply to it. If the Aether was moving, then yes it would be the same situation as the water, but Aether theory postulates aether to be at rest.
What is the aether at rest relative to? The Earth is spinning on its axis and rotating around the Sun. The Sun is spinning around the center of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving relative to every other galaxy.
You dont seem to get it. The universe IS the Aether. Everything in this universe is made of the aether. The universe is a wave medium, and everything in it such as electrons, atoms etc. are waves in this medium. The aether is an absolute entity, but the waves in it are only measured relative to others. Therefore, detection of your absolute motion through the aether is impossible. Ill be very clear on this: the aether exists, but motion relative to it can never be detected, and the existence of the aether contradicts absolutely no laws of physics whatsoever.

In a few more months, i will have developed irrefutable evidence that the aether exists, which will also solve some current problems in physics.

51. Originally Posted by Waveman28
You dont seem to get it. The universe IS the Aether. Everything in this universe is made of the aether. The universe is a wave medium, and everything in it such as electrons, atoms etc. are waves in this medium. The aether is an absolute entity, but the waves in it are only measured relative to others. Therefore, detection of your absolute motion through the aether is impossible. Ill be very clear on this: the aether exists, but motion relative to it can never be detected, and the existence of the aether contradicts absolutely no laws of physics whatsoever.
This is impossible. It contradicts observed phenomena like length contraction. The distance between objects depends on their state of movement and the reference system from which they are observed. How can this be put in agreement with an absolute universal reference system?

52. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
This is impossible. It contradicts observed phenomena like length contraction. The distance between objects depends on their state of movement and the reference system from which they are observed. How can this be put in agreement with an absolute universal reference system?
This is not impossible. It does not contradict observed phenomena such as length contraction at all, in fact it actually explains it. SR does not give any physical explanation as to the cause of length contraction at all, and no one seems to care about this, which I find quite disturbing. Everyone just says "we know it happens, why worry about the cause?" I know that length contraction is totally true, the faster something moves through the aether, the shorter it becomes in the direction of its motion. This is due to the Doppler Effect. Because like i said, everything in the universe is a wave in the aether. You all must know that this theory does not contradict any scientific observations or laws, it simply gives a more logical, simple and universal explaination of them.

53. Originally Posted by Waveman28
In a few more months, i will have developed irrefutable evidence that the aether exists, which will also solve some current problems in physics.
That's not how science works. Supposing you are setting up an experiment to test predictions made by your aether theory that can't be explained by current theories, you can't know beforehand whether it will irrefutably prove anything, otherwise you would be wasting your time. You almost sound like you have personal stakes in a theory to be correct, which is a very odd position to take, unless you are trying to prove the Bible right or that dolphins are a superintelligent race from another dimension.

Originally Posted by Waveman28
This is not impossible. It does not contradict observed phenomena such as length contraction at all, in fact it actually explains it. SR does not give any physical explanation as to the cause of length contraction at all, and no one seems to care about this, which I find quite disturbing. Everyone just says "we know it happens, why worry about the cause?" I know that length contraction is totally true, the faster something moves through the aether, the shorter it becomes in the direction of its motion. This is due to the Doppler Effect. Because like i said, everything in the universe is a wave in the aether. You all must know that this theory does not contradict any scientific observations or laws, it simply gives a more logical, simple and universal explaination of them.
I'm sorry to destroy your illusion, but we can already explain length contraction with Maxwell's equations: the electron clouds simply shrink in the direction of motion, due to the some electromagnetic effects. It has little to do with the Doppler Effect.

54. Originally Posted by Bender
I'm sorry to destroy your illusion, but we can already explain length contraction with Maxwell's equations: the electron clouds simply shrink in the direction of motion, due to the some electromagnetic effects. It has little to do with the Doppler Effect.
It has everything to do with the doppler effect, which is a real, observed and physical phenomenom, so it can be the cause of contrtaction. Maxwell equations on the other hand, are just blotches of ink on paper, which really dont explain much at all, if anything, in terms of cause and effect of relativity. The purpose of this theory is to identify the actual physical cause for all phenomenom, not just use a bunch of cleverly spoken words to try and avoid the real issue, such as appears to be the trend today. Doesnt anyone here want a theory that gives them a true, simply and universal understanding of reality? And one which links cause and effect instead of just being an empirical, mathematical model?

55. Of course I want a theory of everything. But wishing for it doesn't make it happen. And neither does wishing for your theory to be true make it true.

Charged particles reacting on an electromagnetic field is also a real, observed physical phenomenon. The fact that this behaviour can be described accurately by Maxwell's equations doesn't change that.

56. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Science can and does explain why things happen, but only to a certain extent. It is more focused towards how things happen, yes. Im not sticking with ignorance, in fact its the exact opposite, open mindedness. Im not a crackpot blabbing on about nonsense, im actually unearthing and discussing the nonsense that current scienctific theory holds. Ive seen both sides of the story, and I strongly affirm the aether theory. Scientists to this day still admit that things like Lorentz Aether Theory are still valid. Trust me, there will come a day in the not too distant future, perhaps 20-30 years or so, when the aether will finally be accepted by the general scientiffic community (sounds patriotic i know, but its true).
Originally Posted by Waveman28
You dont seem to get it.

In a few more months, i will have developed irrefutable evidence that the aether exists, which will also solve some current problems in physics.
We seem to have a clear contradiction here.

 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