It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# What is light relative to time?

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:54 PM

originally posted by: jeramie

originally posted by: crowdedskies

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.

That's pushing it , isn't it ?

186,000 miles per second and 150,000 miles per hour is not like trotting and walking.

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

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: crowdedskies
186,000 miles per second and 150,000 miles per hour is not like trotting and walking.

That's relative.

Snicker...snicker...sorry.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:18 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

So if two photons from opposite directions are heading to each other ,to the observer the sum total of their speed is twice the speed of light. But if you got on one and collided with the other one, the collision is at the speed of light. So each was travelling at half the speed of light. I wonder who dreamt this up.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:26 PM

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

So if two photons from opposite directions are heading to each other ,to the observer the sum total of their speed is twice the speed of light. But if you got on one and collided with the other one, the collision is at the speed of light. So each was travelling at half the speed of light. I wonder who dreamt this up.

The sum total of speeds, to ALL observers, in ALL reference frames, is the speed of light.

... and Einstein thought of that (Lorentz completed the math to really cement the theory).

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

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:29 PM

The problem in relation to the speed of light in relation to "frames of reference", is Temporal Dilation. This difference has been well established and I would site GPS Satellites in general. Of course the frame of reference near light relates to that frame of reference and at say 99.99999999 that of light the variance relates to life and death, due to aging on earth.

As opposed to the twin that is traveling at such a speed as near light.

The very fabric that proverbially is space/time....... Is affected by technology within the grasp of what is today within the limits of human capacity.

To travel at near that speed.

All things considered and in relation to what is known today, in relation to scope. With respect to the potential volume of the Universe, that is incredible.
edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:49 PM
In context.....

We have a 92 billion light year wide Universe that is 13.8 billion light years wide, where travel is effectively restricted to under 150,000 mph.

What are the ramifications structurally in relevance to should such a condition fail?

What happens if an object say the size of a golf ball; has access to say the power of a nuclear reactor designed to power a City (akin to Manhattan, NY.), allowing it to spin at relativistic speeds?

As close to that of light as is possible under such conditions and given our current technology.

What would happen???
edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added and editied content

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:12 PM

originally posted by: Phage

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.

Ok so pretend I was born yesterday and explain to me how the speed of light squared, pertains to mass????

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:48 PM

originally posted by: Kashai
In context.....

We have a 92 billion light year wide Universe that is 13.8 billion light years wide, where travel is effectively restricted to under 150,000 mph.

What are the ramifications structurally in relevance to should such a condition fail?

What happens if an object say the size of a golf ball; has access to say the power of a nuclear reactor designed to power a City (akin to Manhattan, NY.), allowing it to spin at relativistic speeds?

As close to that of light as is possible under such conditions and given our current technology.

What would happen???

Firstly, we really don't know the full extent of the universe. With an expanding universe there would be stars that are moving away from us at close to the speed of light and these stars are so far from us now that their light will never reach us. There is an spatial observational boundary to the universe, just as there is a temporal one.

In regard to the spinning golf ball sized object, the centrifugal force alone would be enormous. If the mass was low, like a golf ball's, the force would tear the object apart.

If the mass was high, like a super-collapsed star or black hole, then the gravitational attraction could hold the substance of the object together.

Theory holds that such a massive and fast spinning object would create a space-time whirlpool through "frame dragging" due to the Lense–Thirring effect. This effect would be extremely local and can be thought of as similar to (not the same as) electromagnetic induction, but for gravitation.

Some have hypothesized that such frame dragging around a sufficiently massive object may cause a wormhole in space-time but I have not yet seen any mathematical confirmation that would elevate such a conjecture to become theory.

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

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:56 PM

So what if the object in question (hypothetically) had the mass of a strange quark?

edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: Kashai

So what if the object in question (hypothetically) had the mass of a strange quark?

For such a tiny mass, I suspect that if we were to envision it as a particle, its diameter would be so small that the concept of rotating it close to the speed of light is a nonsense.

There are limitations as to how far you can divide reality. Quantum limits on distance, time and energy.

If you were able to spin quark at near to light speed, it would no longer be a quark. The energy applied to make it spin would add to the energy of the particle, which adds to its mass due to mass/energy equivalence. My suspicion is that you would actually create numerous particles in the process.

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:29 PM

Strange quarks have been determined at CERN due to the fact their imprints are separated.

You may chose to suspect there is something we cannot see but is that not, the standard cry of those inclined religiously?

edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:48 PM
What does this mean?

Quantum foam (also referred to as space-time foam) is a concept in quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposed to be conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the universe.[1] Additionally, quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic space-time turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, energy curves space-time. This suggests that—at sufficiently small scales—the energy of these fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth space-time seen at larger scales, giving space-time a "foamy" character.

Source
edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:56 PM
Not really part of the topic. But you left out an important part of the relationship. Energy is related to both mass and the square of velocity.

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

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 10:11 PM

You know you helped me out one day when I was actually feeling down. Actually the problem had nothing to do with what was going on in this forum, so I thank you for that,

What relationship exist between the speed of light squared and time dilation?

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 10:13 PM

What relationship exist between the speed of light squared and time dilation?

Not sure, I haven't really though about it. But perhaps there is a better place to ask since again, it's not really on topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 10:33 PM

Photons actually have some percentage of mass as it has energy which, is an equivalent to mass when multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Source

I do not understand why you are suggesting I am off topic?
edit on 25-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added and edited content

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:53 PM

originally posted by: Kashai

Photons actually have some percentage of mass as it has energy which, is an equivalent to mass when multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Source

I do not understand why you are suggesting I am off topic?

The tiny mass/energy of a photon is only in existence while traveling at light speed. It's rest mass is (and must be) zero.

At anything other than light speed, a photon ceases to be.

Einstein's famous equation is a reduction of a more descriptive equation: E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

In the full equation the 'p" value represents momentum and the "m" value represents the 'mass when at rest'. Photons have a zero rest mass but do have momentum (traveling, as they do, at the speed of light). This gives the photon energy.

We say that this reveals the "relativistic mass" of the photon, which is different from the "rest mass", it all has to do with momentum.

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:00 AM

Relativistic mass can be related to in respect to speed in one direction even if that direction implicates a spin.

In context an object brought to 99.99999 that of light in a spin would innately increase in density.

Given the right material....?? Take for example turning lead into so equivalent of lead 2.0 as a result of such a process.

In respect to matter differentiated there seems the argument that moving at relativistic scales seems apparent at the smallest scales.

In spin.
edit on 26-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added and edit to content

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:33 PM

originally posted by: Kashai

Relativistic mass can be related to in respect to speed in one direction even if that direction implicates a spin.

In context an object brought to 99.99999 that of light in a spin would innately increase in density.

Given the right material....?? Take for example turning lead into so equivalent of lead 2.0 as a result of such a process.

In respect to matter differentiated there seems the argument that moving at relativistic scales seems apparent at the smallest scales.

In spin.

An object spinning at relativistic speeds would most likely decrease in density because centrifugal force would induce it to fly apart.

Density is different than mass.

An object moving at relativistic speeds increases in mass compared to that same object at rest. This movement could be rotational and the same rule applies.

I am not sure what you are talking about in regard to Lead 2.0? Are you suggesting transmutation of elements by relativistic movement, if so, I don't think that would occur.

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:30 PM

Actually I am more interested in the Strange quark but thanks for that you are actually the first person to steer me in the right direction.

new topics

top topics

4