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.

# Here is why you CANNOT travel faster than light!

page: 4
8
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
You could just keep both of them at the mouths of the wormhole or preferably at the throat of the wormhole because that is where it will tend to collapse.
So it will tend to collapse at the throat. and you're suggesting the way to prevent this collapse is by putting mirrors there at the throat that are attracted to each other? Won't the attractive force between the mirrors simply accelerate the collapse? You're trying to keep it open, not pull it shut.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

There is an attractive force but a negative energy density between the 2 mirrors.

The negative energy density keeps it from collapsing.

It has been theorized, by Kip Thorne I believe, that you would need exotic matter with a negative energy density to keep a wormhole open. But it would only need to be lined in the throat of the wormhole.

That is why I typed the statement you were referring too.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
There is an attractive force but a negative energy density between the 2 mirrors.

The negative energy density keeps it from collapsing.

It has been theorized, by Kip Thorne I believe, that you would need exotic matter with a negative energy density to keep a wormhole open. But it would only need to be lined in the throat of the wormhole.

That is why I typed the statement you were referring too.
I think the reference to exotic matter as a possible means of keeping the wormhole open is valid (given the premise of the theoretical nature of exotic matter).

I think the reference to the Casimir effect as something which might provide a substitute for the exotic matter is flawed. There is an interesting discussion on this topic on the physicsforums site in this thread:

www.physicsforums.com...

The author of that thread is challenging the "common wisdom" posted on several internet sites about claims related to the Casimir effect, some of which appear dated and flawed.

Part of the reason for that is the amount our knowledge increased in 10 years, but then again, who's to say that in another 10 years our understanding won't change again, it probably will.

But in summary I think all your arguments are valid with the exception of the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect is perfectly valid, but I think the argument it might somehow keep a wormhole from collapsing is flawed, though I know you can quote sources for your claim. I don't think the sources are correct however, and some of the discrepancies are pointed out in that physicsforums thread.

Don't take my comments about the Casimir effect the wrong way, the rest of the OP is very good!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

It has been theorized, by Kip Thorne I believe, that you would need exotic matter with a negative energy density to keep a wormhole open. But it would only need to be lined in the throat of the wormhole.

Ahhh Kip Thorn... That guy is one of only a handfull of people that can suggest great things without being shunned by the establishment.

Also one of only a few people I have total respect for when approaching theoretical physics.

I think talking about the Casimir effect as a way to hold open a worm hole is an intelligent one as it is the only known way to produce a negative energy index directly from the aether.

The issue with the casimir effect is the relatively low levels of the energy produced. You could maybe create gigantic plates?!? But to overcome the crushing energy a wormhole large enough for a person to fit through would create, you would have to make those plates many Jupiter’s in size.

The big leap for holding open a worm hole would be if we could locate or produce and manipulate a sufficiently large enough monopole.

Just my 2 pennies.

Korg.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

What I meant is that either light is simply not the constant, or our WHOLE understanding is wrong. Light not being a constant can be possible without our whole understanding being fundamentally wrong. Though it is possible that our whole understanding is wrong, I think it is more plausible that just part of it (speed of light) is wrong.

I think that is more plausible because too many working discoveries have come from these sciences. I can't believe we could come this far in technology to have no understanding of the fundamental sciences governing the universe. I don't think we have it perfected by a long shot, but we have some grasp on it.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Well to "travel faster" is a matter of the velocity of an object, and velocity is a matter of time, distance, and direction. The reason light is used as basis for this argument is because it has no mass, and as a result it can move faster than any object with mass.

But let's take a look at what velocity really is. Velocity is made up by two things.
1. The position in space of the object you are trying to measure.
2. The time it takes to get to it's next point in space.

Already we have a problem. Time. The speed of light is dependent on time. The velocity of any object is dependent on time. Is time as we experience it a constant? No. It is far from a constant because our only current measurement of time is based on our experience of it.

If we were to travel half the speed of light, what we would consider a light year would be much longer, because our experience of time would slow down significantly. But light doesn't slow down at all. Perspective doesn't change the speed of an object, it changes our perspective of speed.

Velocity is distance / time in a certain direction.

I can see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. Though one second is not the same everywhere it doesn't mean that for that certain place one second will not be known as a single second.

You have to remember that as time slows down so does the observer, so one second will still be noted to him as 1 second while it can be much much longer from our point of view.

Actually what we would consider a light year as in the distance light travels in a year would be constant. It is just the time it takes for a year to happen slows down.(Depending on which observer you are.)

It has to be noted that a light year is actually a certain distance. It is like saying 1 foot isn't equal to 1 foot just because you are going faster than I am.

So it isn't accurate to say that what we consider a light year is actually much longer as it is implying that light is moving more distance than a single light year when it really means is that a year for you is longer than a year for me. While a light year is still a light year.

So the velocity of light is a constant.

Do you get it?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
Sounds suspiciously like this ridiculous paradox:

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise’s starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead.

Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise. Of course, simple experience tells us that Achilles will be able to overtake the tortoise, which is why this is a paradox.

[JFrater: I will point out the problem with this paradox to give you all an idea of how the others might be wrong: in physical reality it is impossible to transverse the infinite - how can you get from one point in infinity to another without crossing an infinity of points? You can't - thus it is impossible. But in mathematics it is not. This paradox shows us how mathematics may appear to prove something - but in reality, it fails. So the problem with this paradox is that it is applying mathematical rules to a non-mathematical situation. This makes it invalid.]

Mathematics gets all jumbled up in itself when you don't input all the data

[edit on 19-8-2010 by dirtysamflint]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I don't think you understand.

When determining the speed of light, we must understand what speed is. Speed is the magnitude of velocity, or the rate of change. The rate of change is important. Distance over time is the rate of change. Meters (distance) over time (change), and we get the speed. Speed is a rate of change.

So the speed of light is measured in meters per second, from our perspective that rate of change is 299,792,458 meters per second.

Now, as the rate of change through space (speed) increases, the rate of change in an object (aging, or time) decreases. Speed increases, time decreases. At the speed of light, time has decreased to 0. The object ceases to experience aging or time, and the object is traveling at the speed of light.

The rate of change through space, from your perspective, is 299,792,458 m/s. The rate of change through space for the object traveling at the speed of light, is infinite. No matter how far that object travels at the speed of light, it will always experience no time difference or aging. That object can travel 97,761,600,000 miles, or 100,000,000,000 miles, it will still experience no difference in time.

For them, the speed of light is infinite, since the object traveling at the speed of light never experiences a rate of change, no matter how far the distance. It is only because we travel slower than the speed of light that we experience a rate of change slower than infinity. If we stopped moving at 20,000 mph through our solar system and came to a grinding halt of 5 mph, the speed of light would no longer travel at 299,792,458 m/s but slower. It would travel slower because the rate of change that would be measurable would occur slower to us.

Now if we slowed down even further, and further still, would we reach the slowest point of movement, and finally a constant in time? No. In order to reach a constant in time, the object measuring it must stop. It must stop because any movement distorts it's perspective of time.

Why does movement distort the perspective of time?

I suggest movement through space distorts the measurement/perspective of time, because movement through space IS time itself. It is not a dimension that interacts with the 3 dimensions we live in, but a measurement for the rate of change in the 3 dimensions we live in.

Movement distorts perspective of time because any object that exists moves. If it didn't experience movement, it wouldn't exist. All matter moves, even sub-atomic particles. There is no object that lacks movement.

Moving at the sub-atomic level is still moving, and all things move, vibrate, what have you.

Now, if that is the case, and time is just a measurement for the rate of change in the universe, then it opens the door to many theories that could explain certain things that haven't yet been explained in science.

Oh, just to add, I don't think time travel into the past is possible, just throwing that out there.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by dirtysamflint

That paradox isn't really a paradox. If the speed of Achilles is 50 feet per second and the tortoise is 5 feet per second. Achilles will pass the tortoise by the third second.

Now, if the equation was Tortoise is A*B=C
Where A= 5 feet. B= the amount of times the equation is run. C will = the total distance the tortoise travels.
First time it is run. 5*1= 5
5*21= 105 feet

If Achilles equation looks like this: 100+(C/B-2.5)=D
where D= the total distance Achilles travels.

you get 100+(105/21 - 2.5)= 102.5
If Achilles starts after the tortoise is 100 feet ahead of him, he will never catch up based on that equation.

That isn't want is going on though.

Achilles is traveling at a constant speed, as is the tortoise. The equation looks like this.

Tortoise equation: (A*B)+100= C
A= the tortoise constant speed (5 feet per second)
B= the number of times the equation is run.
C= total distance tortoise travels.

Achilles equation: X*Y= Z
X= Achilles constant speed (20 feet per second, the faster constant as stated in the paradox)
Y= the number of times the equation is run
Z= distance Achilles travels.

The number of times the equation is run is a representation of feet per second, or feet per minute. if the equation is run once, one unit of time is passed. If it is run 10 times, 10 units of time have passed by.

On the 7th equation, or the 7th unit of time that has passed by, the results will look like this:
Tortoise equation: (5*7)+100= 135 feet total
Achilles equation: 20*7= 140 feet total.

Achilles will pass the tortoise by the 7th unit of time measured if they both run a constant speed with Achilles speed being 4 times as fast.

As long as Achilles runs even fractionally faster than the tortoise, at a constant rate, eventually in time, Achilles will pass the tortoise.

Math doesn't lie, but a trick on words does. That is what the wording in the paradox does. It is a play on words to twist the logic in your brain to believe that if something consistently and constantly travels faster than another object, it will still never pass it. In both reality, and mathematically, that is incorrect.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by dirtysamflint

In short for the people who don't want to read that little bit above.

The paradox you listed is a play on words that makes you forget Achilles is running a CONSTANT speed. The way they describe it though, he is running at an increasingly slower speed.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:44 PM
Going faster than the speed of light for a positive mass is impossible by the special relativity because of energy.

the mathematical expression 1/ [sq rt of(1-'v squared/c squared)]= f(v) (Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform also relativistic transform relating reference frames where one reference frame is going a lot faster than the other)

lim f(v) = infinity as v goes to zero

When relativistic transform is applied to relativistic energy equation this implies it would take more energy than what is in the whole universe to accelorate a mass to the speed of light.

Einstein is probably the most over-rated man in all of history. Lots of people around his time had similar ideas. Lots of people think Albert was a plaigarist. There were certainly more accomplished mathematicians. Special Relativity is a guess and may not be true. General relativity is probably a bunch of BS, too. In any case either of those theories has any practical application. Black holes? Worm holes!!?? give me a break! We could be just as accurate if we had a priest cut out the guts of a chicken and read the entrails.

But, I understand a working theory is needed.

Einstein got his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect which was a corollary to the theory that was first espoused by (how does one spell Planck??)

an interesting article: users.isp.com...

Einstein was called "Man of the Century" by big deal Time Magazine. It should have been Elvis.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:46 PM
As usual, I'm stepping into a thread that is sure to die out before I get a response. But I'll give you my perspective, anyway.

I have my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, in which all particles consist of pairs or groups of ethereal shear waves orbiting one another. The speed of light is the speed of shear waves, whether they are moving in a straight line or orbiting in tiny circles. Obviously, the center of the orbit can't move as fast as the shear waves that orbit around it, because the path of the center is shorter than the pathes of the orbits.

All forces, including the one that makes shear waves orbit one another, result from exchange of momentum between ethereal shear waves (regular energy) and ethereal pressure waves (dark energy).

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I don't think you understand.

When determining the speed of light, we must understand what speed is. Speed is the magnitude of velocity, or the rate of change. The rate of change is important. Distance over time is the rate of change. Meters (distance) over time (change), and we get the speed. Speed is a rate of change.

So the speed of light is measured in meters per second, from our perspective that rate of change is 299,792,458 meters per second.

Now, as the rate of change through space (speed) increases, the rate of change in an object (aging, or time) decreases. Speed increases, time decreases. At the speed of light, time has decreased to 0. The object ceases to experience aging or time, and the object is traveling at the speed of light.

The rate of change through space, from your perspective, is 299,792,458 m/s. The rate of change through space for the object traveling at the speed of light, is infinite. No matter how far that object travels at the speed of light, it will always experience no time difference or aging. That object can travel 97,761,600,000 miles, or 100,000,000,000 miles, it will still experience no difference in time.

For them, the speed of light is infinite, since the object traveling at the speed of light never experiences a rate of change, no matter how far the distance. It is only because we travel slower than the speed of light that we experience a rate of change slower than infinity. If we stopped moving at 20,000 mph through our solar system and came to a grinding halt of 5 mph, the speed of light would no longer travel at 299,792,458 m/s but slower. It would travel slower because the rate of change that would be measurable would occur slower to us.

I think you are forgetting the basis of time dilation.

It is BECAUSE THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT THAT TIME DILATES WHEN MOVING CLOSER TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. In English at 50 % of the speed of light the light you see in front of you will always be moving at 299,792, 458 meters per second because time causes you to go slower.

For a photon it's light cone is always shown as a 45 degree angle on the sides of the cone. I.e. extending from past to future with a 45 degree angle and no curve. This means that no time has passed for the photon and the trip seems instantaneous.(Which I believe you were trying to express through your last post.If you can correct me if I am wrong on the sentence previous to this one.)

Here is a picture....

But I guess it matters more to what theories you subscribe to that define what you think.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I'm not sure what you aren't getting about this. We don't know the rate of change of light through the universe because we are bound by the same laws of relativity that everything else is. The speed of light doesn't revolve around earth.

299,792,458 m/s is based off of our relative velocity and gravitational dilation of time.

Light may very well be traveling at X units of space per rate of change in the universe, but 299,792,458 m/s isn't it. I know it isn't it, because we can't observe what it is.

To something traveling 50% the speed of light since the formation of it's existence, our measurement of the speed of light is wrong.

Say there is a planet like our, just like our sun, our solar system, etc. etc. but this planet orbits the sun at 1000 times faster than earth. Then we compare it to our planet to that planet.

Light traveling from the sun to the planet would not slow down or speed up at either planet. But in our eyes, the other planets measurement of the speed of light would be inaccurate. If light is traveling the same amount of distance per rate of change in the universe, but they experience their own rate of change at 1000 times slower than US, their measurements would be different then ours.

Time is relative, which means it's based on locality. Light traveling is not based on locality. Light traveling ISN'T based on THEIR rate of change, which is why their measurement of it is wrong. It is based on a rate of change that the local object is unaware of and can't measure due to relativity.

What I was trying to say is not that light travels at different speeds, but that the measurement of speed itself is subjective and wrong.

If I asked you right now how fast planet earth was moving, many people would say something like 20,000 miles per hour. And the key to that answer is "relative to what?" the sun. We move roughly 20,000 miles per hour around the sun. But the sun isn't stationary, how fast does the sun move through space? We could get X speed, but again relative to what? The black hole that is at the center of our galaxy possibly? But that isn't stationary either, how fast is our galaxy moving through space?

Do you see where I am heading with this? Measurement of light, our planet, everything, is subjective to relativity. As a result, time starts to break down to an inaccurate tool of measurement, since we can never stop moving.

As things move faster, time is not consistent. All things move. Logically, that means that time is never consistent. It is never constant. You are arguing whether the speed of light is constant, I'm saying that time itself is not constant or consistent. You can't measure or know the speed of light unless you can accurately consistently measure it, which you can't do. You can only measure the perception of the speed of light based on relativity to your locality in space.

What is time?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Light and Radio waves can only go as fast as the 'medium' will
let it.

Massive coils with enough voltage also sends out waves at the
speed of light and will even exhibit mechanical pressure.
Perhaps even force at a distance.

Still because they are waves in a medium that lets nothing passes
faster than light .

However a buildup of pressure or force is possible as a voltage
and might be enough voltage or force to propel a mass or object
faster than light.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
What is time?
In the SI system of units, a second is defined as the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10E9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Say there is a planet like our, just like our sun, our solar system, etc. etc. but this planet orbits the sun at 1000 times faster than earth. Then we compare it to our planet to that planet.
Light traveling from the sun to the planet would not slow down or speed up at either planet. But in our eyes, the other planets measurement of the speed of light would be inaccurate. If light is traveling the same amount of distance per rate of change in the universe, but they experience their own rate of change at 1000 times slower than US, their measurements would be different then ours.
Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.

Apparently your confusion may be that you are thinking that they would use our cesium atom rate or we would use their cesium atom rate, but if we use the cesium 133 atoms in our frame of reference to define our second, and they use the cesium 133 atoms in their frame of reference to define their one second, then light travels the same distance in one second, in either frame of reference as we define one second.

So while the relative passage of time does change between the inertial frames of reference, the distance traveled by light in one second of the inertial reference frame making the measurement does not change, the way we define one second.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
What I was trying to say is not that light travels at different speeds, but that the measurement of speed itself is subjective and wrong.
It seems to me like you get the same answer wherever you go no matter how fast your local clock is running, so why is that wrong? The fact that the measurement of the speed of light is always the same seems to suggest it's right.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by grimreaper797

But in relativity the speed of light is constant for all frames of reference.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur]In the SI system of units, a second is defined as the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10E9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Right, no disagreement. Cesium clocks are about as accurate as we have right now. This measurement is bound by locality though.

Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.

Apparently your confusion may be that you are thinking that they would use our cesium atom rate or we would use their cesium atom rate, but if we use the cesium 133 atoms in our frame of reference to define our second, and they use the cesium 133 atoms in their frame of reference to define their one second, then light travels the same distance in one second, in either frame of reference as we define one second.

That shouldn't be right. If we are traveling faster, even if my clock and I both experience the same time dilation thus defining one second the same, that doesn't account for light that isn't being acted upon by my locality.

If light is traveling at 300,000,000 m/s roughly, and I'm traveling at 50% of the speed of light, even though I define 1 second the same, experience 1 second the same, and measure one second the same, that light should still reach my locality sooner in the measurement means. It will travel the same distance at the same time, but the time it takes those cesium atoms to do their thing has slowed down considerably in reference to the cesium atoms here on earth. Although the observer would not be aware of this, it would be none the less true that given the increased velocity, and the increased gravity as a result of the increase in mass due to the increase in velocity, that the cesium atoms rate of change would be considerably slower in respect to the cesium atoms here. The slower rate of change would in turn result in a measurement of light being faster than it really is.

Think about it, if the experience of time for both the observer and the clock slows down because the increase in gravity and velocity, but light continues to travel at the same distance through space, then the speed of light can't measurably be the same at both locations.

If earth records it at 300,000,000 m/s roughly, then the planet traveling exponentially faster can't possibly measure it at 300,000,000 m/s. The cesium clock is experiencing a rate of change much slower than the one on earth. Light isn't moving faster or slower, the cesium clock is varying it's rate of change. The observer would never realize this in their own locality, since the same forces are acting on them. The still experience 1 second as 1 second, the same as us, but that is because they, and their measuring device, exist in their own locality only. In reality, both are not receiving an accurate measurement of time. Both objects of measurement are not receiving the accurate measurement of the speed of light, since both objects are in motion.

Lets say that for every 2 seconds that pass on earth, 1 second passes on planet X. Light travels at 300,000,000 m/s on earth. Now on planet X, only half a second has passed by. The reason only half a second has passed by is because the results of the added velocity and added gravitation on the cesium clock on planet X has caused the cesium atoms to experience a rate of change only half of the speed that it occurs on earth. As velocity and gravity increase, the cesium atoms decrease in their rate of change. We are going to go with half the rate of change, because it makes the example easy on the mind.

But light is still traveling at 300,000,000 m/s roughly according to physics right? We'll then by the time we hit 1 second on planet X light has traveled 600,000,000 m/s roughly. The speed of light represents infinity because change ceases to occur at that speed. At the speed of light no cesium atoms have a rate of change, no matter how "long" you travel at that speed for.

Cesium atoms can't accurately measure time because they are exerted upon by external forces that alter time. The definition of 1 second remains the same for both parties, and the experience to each individual party will remain the same in their own locality, but things that exist outside their locality will be measured differently by the two parties.

If a planet were to be moving incredibly faster than ours, the rate of change on their world would remain the same as our world is to us. But when they look outward to space, it changes much more quickly than when we look out into space.

This is because for every 2 seconds planet earth looks out at space, planet X looks out and sees the same thing in 1 second.

So while the relative passage of time does change between the inertial frames of reference, the distance traveled by light in one second of the inertial reference frame making the measurement does not change, the way we define one second.

The distance traveled is consistent, time isn't. A photon will travel X amount of distance in space consistently, time and time again. That is what matter does. Whatever distance it travels, it will travel it consistently unless acted upon by another force. That isn't up for debate.

Let's introduce planet Y. Planet Y is a third planet traveling at the lowest speed that any planet can travel. It has a cesium clock, and it is going to measure how fast light travels from the sun to earth, and from Planet X's sun to planet X. It takes it's measurement, and it gets the exact same results for both. It measured it at 100,000,000 meters per second, and they both arrived at the planets at the same time.

We did the same measurement at the same time here at earth. We measured it at 300,000,000 meters per second and it arrived here at earth the same time as it did at planet X.

Planet X also did the measurement. They measured it at 900,000,000 meters per second, and it arrived at planet x the same time as it did earth.

All three planets agree, that planet earth and planet x both had light start at the same time and arrive at the same time while traveling the same distance. But none of the planets can agree on how long the time length was. Planet Y says that earth calculations are off, and that earth's measurements calculate the light as traveling 3 times as fast. Planet X says that planet Y measurements were 9 times too slow. Planet X says that light travels much faster than planet Y or planet earth are suggesting.

Do you see what is happening? Outside of their own planets, objects are not obeying the same rate of change. They all agree 1 year is 365 days, that 24 hours is a day, and that 1 minute is 60 seconds. They all agree on the rate of change that makes up 1 second. What is happening is that rate of change is occurring at faster or slower rates.

It seems to me like you get the same answer wherever you go no matter how fast your local clock is running, so why is that wrong? The fact that the measurement of the speed of light is always the same seems to suggest it's right.

It isn't the same. The measurement is the same no matter where you go.

If we sent a space ship out to the outer rim of our solar system and then pushed it as fast as it could go for 10 years, what do you think the cesium clock would read?

Much less time would have passed on that space ship then here on earth. Now if you took a measurement of the speed of light at the lowest speed before acceleration, then took a second measurement at the highest speed, I am confident you would get two separate numbers. The reasons you would get two separate numbers is the same reason you would get to separate numbers in the difference in time. Speed is dependent on time. If time is variable at different speeds, so is the speed of light, because the speed of light is dependent on time. Meters per SECOND. If second is a variable at different speeds, the measurement of the speed of light is a variable too.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by grimreaper797]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by LightFantastic

The speed of light is possibly constant, what I am saying is that the speed of light is not quantifiable.

Also, relativity is not a complete model of physics. Although I think it definitely had some strong points when it came to objects are relative to one another, I think it ultimately fails miserably in many regards.

Relativity leaves too many unexplained phenomena to be acceptable to me.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:24 AM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The speed of light is possibly constant, what I am saying is that the speed of light is not quantifiable.

Also, relativity is not a complete model of physics. Although I think it definitely had some strong points when it came to objects are relative to one another, I think it ultimately fails miserably in many regards.

Relativity leaves too many unexplained phenomena to be acceptable to me.

Relativity says that whatever your motion you will always measure the speed of light to be the same. It only deals with relative motion because there is no known fixed background reference frame, which has been tested for experimentally many times.

I have thought myself that if space is expanding, reducing the frequency of light passing through it, then to conserve momentum the light must speed up. If that is true, is space expanding isotropically?

What failures are you talking about?

PS We have better than caesium clocks now.

PPS I get what you are talking about now - as I explained in my first post on this thread, travellers on a ship travelling at 99.99% the speed of light would think they are travelling much faster if they measured their own speed but would still measure C to be the same. So I think yes I agree partially with what you are saying, but not on the same terms.

[edit on 20/8/2010 by LightFantastic]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:03 AM

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by Arbitrageur]
Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.

Apparently your confusion may be that you are thinking that they would use our cesium atom rate or we would use their cesium atom rate, but if we use the cesium 133 atoms in our frame of reference to define our second, and they use the cesium 133 atoms in their frame of reference to define their one second, then light travels the same distance in one second, in either frame of reference as we define one second.

That shouldn't be right.
Well before Einstein many probably considered it wasn't right. Einstein's theory is non-intuitive so maybe that's why you're struggling with it, and if you can prove him wrong you'll be the next Einstein, but so far, nobody has proven Einstein wrong about this who has been able to convince others about that. When I have more time I'll try to understand where your logic is slipping up but your example is so long and then you added more that it will take some time to absorb your logic and find out where you are going wrong. In the meantime, here is my statement in different verbiage from a university source (University of Virginia site):

galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...

This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 3×10E8 meters per second.

Usually when people don't understand this concept they don't understand the part about the cesium atom slowing down in the other reference frame, but you seem to understand that (I think, though I'm not sure you grasp all the implications that observation entails).

If earth records it at 300,000,000 m/s roughly, then the planet traveling exponentially faster can't possibly measure it at 300,000,000 m/s.
according to Einstein's theory, they will

The cesium clock is experiencing a rate of change much slower than the one on earth. Light isn't moving faster or slower, the cesium clock is varying it's rate of change.
You're right about the cesium clock, and so I'm not sure why you're not getting the velocity would be the same according to the slower clock as it would be according to the faster clock, except that it's not intuitive. Maybe disable your "intuition chip"?

Here's a counter-intuitive example for you from that link that uses the time differentials of two different reference frames:

let us consider a simple measurement of the speed of light carried out at the same time in two inertial frames (one observer on the ground) and another observer, passing overhead in a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light...The observer on the spaceship will measure the blip of light to be traveling at c relative to the spaceship, the observer on the ground will measure the same blip to be traveling at c relative to the ground.
If you apply intuition to that you might think if you measure a light beam on the ground and find it traveling 300,000,000 m/s then you pass overhead in a spaceship traveling 150,000,000m/s, that you wouldn't get the same measurement relative to the spaceship, but you do! For exactly the reason you stated, of the clock slowing down on the ship, plus the Fitzgerald contraction which you may not be considering. If you go to that link and keep reading it explains the space distortion effects too which may be the piece you're missing. There are some good examples in there and if you can grasp them maybe you can understand why you will ALWAYS measure 300,000,000m/s no matter how fast or slow your cesium clock is running relative to someone else's cesium clock in a different reference frame. It's strange, but true.

Maybe Fitzgerald contraction is the part you're missing? galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...

everything looks somewhat squashed in the direction of motion!
When you factor in the Fitzgerald contraction, does it solve the apparent paradoxes in your examples?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

top topics

8