posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:56 AM
I'd say the universe is a little goofy. There's no such thing as a universal clock. Velocity, acceleration, and gravity all affect time. Two atomic
clocks traveling at different speeds from a given start point are actually going to have different measurements. Ditto with clocks accelerating at
different rates, and also for clocks that start at the same time but with measurement occurring in different gravity fields. Since they're atomic
clocks, it's not like mass or anything like friction is affecting the periodicity of a pendulum. Stuff like temperature, radiation exposure, and
magnetic fields should also be controlled to some degree. So unless there's something else we don't really understand, under these circumstances
time itself is progressing at different rates.
So why bring this up on a speed-of-light discussion? Speed is distance divided by time. If you can't have a universal constant for measurement of
time, therefore logic would dictate that speed measurements are non-universal as well. Thus the speed of light itself is relative. In other words, the
speed of light as measured is only relevant to where it's being observed. Observations in two different parts of the universe would give the same
values for c, but since the t in d/t isn't the same, the c there isn't the same as c here.
Interestingly enough, large enough gravity fields cause refraction. Thus the speed of light has been observed as being variable in a vacuum. At least
when it travels near large enough objects such as stars. Even Einstein himself predicted this one. But this is because time is changing.
What's funny is no matter how fast you go, you'll never be able to approach the speed of light. Because it's speed is only relative to where it's
being observed. You could keep going faster and faster while doing an experiment to measure c and find that it doesn't change. However to another
observer, it may be possible for you to exceed the speed of light. In which case you'll no longer be able to be observed since in that instance
you'd be leaving their frame of reference. (At least until somebody discovers a way to detect any particles which may be faster than photons. But
until then photons are all we have for such observations.)
The thing is that since only so much information can exist in the universe, time also comes into play in this too. From a given frame of reference
nothing can't exceed the speed of light, so time itself condenses. This is what seems weird. From what I'd get, if you changed the math around to
allow for variable time progression (which means a second isn't necessarily a second) - you could rework the energy equations for a constant mass and
changing duration when the speed of light is approached in regards to a starting frame of reference. Reworked relativity in this regard may seem even
more paradoxical than it is now (may allow even more loopholes), but might make explaining some things easier.
I don't think Einstein was too far in being wrong on what he came up with. I think he just had some oversights or questions about this, and pushed
such problems to the back burner.
I think some people (or perhaps a lot) wouldn't like this though. Given the presence of any significant gravitational gradient, some measurements
such as light-years are about as relevant as using the reflection of a yard stick in a funhouse mirror as a measuring tool. Sure they use
gravitational lenses to make out distant objects, but there's likely more to it than that. It means a lot more corrections would have to be done
which aren't currently accounted for. Variable time progression also makes dating objects harder too. Are we looking back further in time because of
a strong gravitational gradient, or is that thing newly formed in a cosmic sense?
Things like black holes also become real-life tesseracts. (Some areas of space would exhibit negative refraction and other peculiarities due to
gravitational lensing.) Approach the event horizon of a black hole, and instead of a pinprick singularity, it becomes vast. If the gravitational field
is diffuse enough, time also slows down and the system of a black hole also becomes less energetic. Perhaps survivable even. Fall in and watch the
"big bang" all over again as a universe within a universe unfolds. Stuff like that would make some other assumptions about the nature of space even
more difficult to explain.
Fix that, and maybe we could get a real bona fide "theory of everything".
Such ideas could also reveal that things like the GPS constellation has some other peculiar uses if data is applied in the right way. What does it do?
In order to calibrate correctly it has to measure time, distance, and correct for gravitational fields. With a large enough data set, it could likely
take on Gravity Probes A&B like a champ. If able to can pick up small enough anomalies fast enough, it could detect the presence of non-conventional
propulsion like a warp drive or perhaps even the entry point of a time-traveler. Would the gov't have a use for that? Likely. (If they can get data
at that resolution, large objects like submarines would also be easy to localize.) Can they use it this way? They wouldn't tell us if they did.
However, it is fun to speculate whether they have that capability.
Maybe I'm crazy for thinking of stuff like this. But I guess that's a special kind of madness that not everyone has. Then again, I'm not alone when
it comes to this forum. (Unfortunately I'm too lazy or not in the right mental shape to do the math. I burn out too fast and easily get lost with
lots of equations and numbers. Somebody better qualified would have to get the gist of such ideas, and pick up the ball from there.)