# Thread: nothing can reach c. not even light.

1. Lately analyzing few things i came up with an idea.

When you accelerate something, its acceleration will decrease in time due to relativity mass increase. Its length also will shrink.

Imagine subatomic particles, they have very tiny mass. And if you apply even very small energy into it, it might accelerate to 0.99999999c.

Now is there a diffrence between light and hyper accelerated particle?

If you start chasing emitted light, according to Einstein you will never cach up.
If you start chasing emitted particje with speed of 0.9999999999999c, you might think you also never cach it. It will be exactly same situation.
Accelerated particle will decelerate very slowly as you start pumping energy into your engine. After a while, you wil observe that particle is losing more and more speed, and soon it will start accelerating your direction.

According to Einstein, if you start chasing light, nothing will happen. It will still escape with speed of c. But what if it will behave like a accelerated particle?
It will start gaining length, losing speed, and finally reverse direction.

c is a unreachable speed. propable has something to do with space expansion, doesnt matter now. but nothing can reach it.

This would also explain few paradoxes.

Is it possible?

2.

3. I think the primary challenge to your idea is that light does not accelerate. Light travels at c, by definition. There is no acceleration. There is no slowing down. There is no stopping. There is no rest frame. If it's light, it moves at c. If you're a photon, that's the only speed there is.

4. Originally Posted by phy_11
Accelerated particle will decelerate very slowly as you start pumping energy into your engine. After a while, you wil observe that particle is losing more and more speed, and soon it will start accelerating your direction.
Wrong

Acceleration may decrease, but velocity would continue to increase, and certainly not reverse.

How old are you ?

5. Acceleration may decrease, but velocity would continue to increase, and certainly not reverse.
Im chasing particle, so as i increase my speed it must slow down. After our speeds match (relative v = 0) the distance will start to decrease.

I think the primary challenge to your idea is that light does not accelerate.
Id say it does accelerate before leaving atom*. It also can accelerate/decelerate later but it would be really hard to observe. And its affected by gravity field as any other super fast particle. BH can pull light into orbit, i call reversing speed vector by 180 degrees an acceleration. And at some point if energy created in the rotating disk is far enough it can escape wich can be observed as random particles here and there.
In my theory even incoming light can do that, but perhaps BHs force is stronger than that accelerating light in ordinary atom.

When light hits something (atom), atoms density is high enough to interact with light, at least for a moment before ejecting it back. I dont know how acceleration is generated, i have a theory about that also but its another topic.

*some more basic structure i dont have na of, lets call it atom.

Also i wonder what would be the result of such experiment:
put a detector near super massive bh, emmit light away from it, and wait for it to return. Would the light return to the detector, or leave doppler shifted. Its all done in perfect 180 angle, so orbit isnt possible (bh isnt rotating, and nothing like that).

Maybe its not 100% right, perhaps universe has a structure that i havent taken into account, but i havent encountered that theory anywere. Why would be completly wrong? Any argument why i can forget about it?

6. This post has two parts.

The speed of light varies according to the medium, depending on the medium's refractive index. For example, water slows light to about 0.75c. Particles can move through water faster than 0.75c and, in doing so, produce Cherenkov radiation. I have actually seen water glowing with this light blue radiation.

I have read that the perfect vacuum does not exist and that, for example, outer space has a density of roughly one molecule per cubic meter. So, light does not travel through space at the true value of c in a perfect vacuum (let's call it "absolute c"), but instead at some speed (what we call "c"), which is an infinitesimally small amount less than absolute c.

So, we can ask ourselves if a "perfect vacuum" exists or could it ever exist (either naturally or artificially). and I'm thinking that the answer is no. This means that light never travels at "absolute c".

7. Its painfully obvious i mean perfect vaccum. Otherwise i would have stated that light is passing through matter.

So, we can ask ourselves if a "perfect vacuum" exists or could it ever exist
Even if you even have 1 something per cubic meter so what, it wont change nature of light. We ca assume that space exist without matter.

Another question is whats the diffrence between matter and space and how they are related, but its again another issue.

8. Originally Posted by jrmonroe
So, we can ask ourselves if a "perfect vacuum" exists or could it ever exist (either naturally or artificially). and I'm thinking that the answer is no. This means that light never travels at "absolute c".
Photobs always travel at c, even when moving through a medium. The perceived slower speed is due to repeated absorptions and re-emissions as it interacts with electrons in a medium.

9. Originally Posted by phy_11
Acceleration may decrease, but velocity would continue to increase, and certainly not reverse.
Im chasing particle, so as i increase my speed it must slow down. After our speeds match (relative v = 0) the distance will start to decrease.
Which has nothing to do with either light or your initial statement.

I notice that you did not answer my question regarding your age. I was rather hoping that your lack of understanding and logic might be attributed to youth -- your statements ae what I might expect of someone who is not yet 10 years old.

However, it seems that youth is not the problem at alll. I fear that your problem is innate and incurable.

10. Which has nothing to do with either light or your initial statement.
Now is there a diffrence between light and hyper accelerated particle?

11. The answer to the original question has been given. Yes. Light does not accelerate. It simply exists at c. The particle will never reach c.

12. Light does not accelerate.
how do you know that?

13. How do you know it does?

To actually answer the question, I don't know with certainty. No scientist knows anything with absolute certainty. But our best, most accurate models of the universe say that's how it is. I have no reason to doubt those models. (Also, nothing you can say would make me doubt those models. Only actual evidence would.)

14. How do you know it does?
I dont. I just made a theory based on my observation and analogy.

I also do not know what will happen when i throw bottle from the roof. I know that rock will fall, but bottle? Why would it? Why wouldnt it? From what i know it might just start floating in the air or even climb as a baloon.
And i cant test it because i am incapable of throwing bottle down as im incapable of applying force to light to slow it down.

15. You didn't make a theory. You offered an unsubstantiated, poorly considered, weakly argued, inconsequential, logically flawed, wild-assed speculation.

That's OK. You are allowed to do that. Just don't insult science by calling it a theory.

16. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
You didn't make a theory. You offered an unsubstantiated, poorly considered, weakly argued, inconsequential, logically flawed, wild-assed speculation.

That's OK. You are allowed to do that. Just don't insult science by calling it a theory.
You gave this nut way too much credit.

It was an unsubstantiated, poorly considered, weakly argued, inconsequential, logically flawed, wild-assed fantasy.

A speculation should have some potential to be correct.

17. Originally Posted by phy_11
How do you know it does?
I dont. I just made a theory based on my observation and analogy.

I also do not know what will happen when i throw bottle from the roof. I know that rock will fall, but bottle? Why would it? Why wouldnt it? From what i know it might just start floating in the air or even climb as a baloon.
And i cant test it because i am incapable of throwing bottle down as im incapable of applying force to light to slow it down.
There is (at least) one important part of the scientific process you skipped. You should first do everything in your power to poke holes in your own theory and be ready to accept it when others do the same.

18. Originally Posted by DrRocket
You gave this nut way too much credit.
That's because I'm a cuddly teddy bear.

 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