It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is light relative to time?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Light is particles of energy, constantly moving through space and time. It travels at a speed of 150,000+ miles per hour, from our perspective anyway. Our perspective is supposedly 8 minutes behind, by the time the light from the sun hits our eyes and we process it. So when we look at the light from the sun, were are technically processing energy from the universal past. That means that it would only take 8minutes to get to the sun at the speed of light.

The further out in space the light is, the further back in universal time you are precieving. Because it takes longer to reach you, because its further away.

So theoreticaly if you face one way in space, go the speed of light, say, 150k MPH. At the same time light is coming at you 150k MPH. If it takes the light from the sun 8 light minutes to reach you at 150k MPH, then you going 150k MPH toward the light of the sun would take you half the time?. Because you are going against the light at the same speed.

So subjectively, a 4 light minute trip to the sun. But once you get there you are subjectively experiancing now what people on earth will experience 8 minutes later.

In other words, If someone looked at a telescope they see you 8 minutes ago, the universal past.

But what if you look back at them? By this logic, to them you are 8minutes ago. But to you, they are 8minutes ago? Or are they 8 minutes into the future?

What would you see?




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The speed of light is not relative to anything. It is always the speed of light.
It is time which is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.


edit on 1/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So from the perspective of the person on earth, he would see you near the sun, 8minutes in your past.

What would they see relative to them? If they looked back at you?



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat
1) Yes.
2) You would see them 8 minutes in their past.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

Time dosen't exist. It is a mental construct that humans use to make sense of their environment.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
Of course it exists.
If it didn't, everything would happen at once.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Time only exists when you use it as a measurement to try to figure out how something works relative to your perspective.
edit on 24-1-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
In my opinion, light is static but time is movement of energy. I believe that light is a result of said movement of energy,; a byproduct if you will.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

Velocities near light speed are not additive like in Newtonian physics.

The difference between the oncoming light and your forward motion is still exactly the speed of light. This is due to changes in the passage of time from the observers frame of reference (no matter where you may choose for that frame of reference to be).

From the frame of reference of the one traveling at the speed of light, they are static compared to their frame of reference and the light is approaching them at light speed.

From the frame of reference of the wave-front of the light beam, the oncoming person is approaching at the speed of light.

From the frame of reference of an external observer of both objects, the speed of approach of wave-front of the beam of light and the person traveling into that wave-front, is exactly the speed of light.

There is mathematics that fully describes this process and allows us to determine the actual amount of changes to time-flow that allows for such a counter-intuitive concept. Observed phenomena confirm that this apparently bizarre mathematics explains nature.


edit on 25/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Time is constantly progressing forward... whether we decide to keep track of it or not.
Human perception of time doesn't affect the movement of time itself

In a way, it makes me feel like a tiny speck, just like trying to picture my size relative to the universe.
...have you SEEN the size of Betelgeuse!?!? jeebuz we're tiny -_-
edit on 24-1-2016 by RubiNet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: olaru12
Of course it exists.
If it didn't, everything would happen at once.


Following some Quantum Theories , it did.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Let's say it short:

First) There are no time for light (or any particle without mass).
Second) From any point of view, aka. referencial frame, speed of lighr is the same.
Third) You cannot go to the speed of light, you have a mass.
Fourth) To respect the second rule, the time in your fast referencial, relative to the "still" one, will "slow down". At 99% of the speed of light, time is 7.09x slower.

and Yes thing can get really weird. One of the weirdest for me is that the synchronicity is not garanteed between referencial. Two events going exactly at the same time in a referencial, can append at different time in another.

It's seem strange at start, but you'll get used.
edit on 24-1-2016 by PersonneX because: Corrected a lots of mistakes!



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second not 150,000 miles per hour. Einstein theory states that the speed of light is relative to the observer but me thinks Lorentz was correct in saying speed of light is relative to the ether or time-space itself.




But what if you look back at them? By this logic, to them you are 8minutes ago. But to you, they are 8minutes ago? Or are they 8 minutes into the future?


If you were stationary at the half way point between earth and the sun, you'd see the earth 4 minutes in past because that's how long light from earth would take to reach your space craft.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If you could view life through a plant consciousness, Maybe it would go a lot slower. Minutes take days.

What if flies etc viewed time a lot quicker? The fly has such quick reactions you cannot usually catch it. It is quite possible that time would appear faster to these guys. Flying combined with fast reaction is their best defence and it is well evolved since they don't have an alternative. You can however outsmart it with relatively new technology (windows, fly spray) because it has not adapted to these.

edit on 25-1-2016 by killerworm51 because: Fix embed



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

Yours and many others assumption is fasely based on man's concept of time. It is all cyclical movement wrapped in a continuum. The light is constant as is the movement of cycles. Humans place a quantity of time as to divide observations, primaly based on the inherent need to plan their next activity to only find that in the continuum it is of little value across the expanse of observed "Time".
edit on 25/1/16 by SpecOpPres1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The speed of light is not relative to anything. It is always the speed of light.
It is time which is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.



Not so fast....

www.sciencenews.org...


Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late. Though the effect is not recognizable in everyday life and in most technological applications, the new research highlights a fundamental and previously unappreciated subtlety in the behavior of light.

The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted c, is a fundamental constant central to much of physics, particularly Einstein’s theory of relativity. While measuring c was once considered an important experimental problem, it is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second, as the meter itself is defined in terms of light’s vacuum speed. Generally if light is not traveling at c it is because it is moving through a material. For example, light slows down when passing through glass or water.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes. The speed of light in water is the speed of light in water. The speed of light in a vacuum is the speed of light in a vacuum.

In neither case is the speed of light relative to the the frame of reference of the observer, which is what I said.
edit on 1/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Time may not exist at all.
discovermagazine.com...

If so, this gives weight (no pun) to my own theory that the speed of light is just the next barrier in our understanding of the universe... we cannot travel faster than a horse, we cannot travel faster than sound, we cannot travel faster than light etc
edit on 25-1-2016 by uktorah because: Added info

edit on 25-1-2016 by uktorah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadCat
Light is particles of energy, constantly moving through space and time. It travels at a speed of 150,000+ miles per hour, from our perspective anyway.


Am I missing something ?

As far as I know, light travels at 186,000 miles per second (not per hour)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: DeadCat
Light is particles of energy, constantly moving through space and time. It travels at a speed of 150,000+ miles per hour, from our perspective anyway.


Am I missing something ?

As far as I know, light travels at 186,000 miles per second (not per hour)




Well, the + they put in there makes them technically correct, still.

edit on 25-1-2016 by jeramie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join