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.

 

the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s???????

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Originally posted by Bedlam

Now, something to consider.

The interaction with the plasmon clouds of matter appears to increase the relative permeability and permittivity of space - which represent, (sort of - not trying for a physics defn here) the amount of difficulty with which electric and magnetic fields push through space. However, when all matter is removed and only vacuum remains, the relative permeability and permittivity of space is not zero - it still has a value (1). That value is also what gives you the value for "c" - as these two values set the speed for c in a medium.

If matter increases these values, and no matter doesn't decrease it to zero, what's going on? What's interacting? Why aren't the values for them zero in empty space? If you have an engineered plasmon cloud with relative permittivity less than 1, does light go faster? What about a metamaterial with negative permeability? Can you arrange for free space to have different values for these constants?



This sounds somewhat like Hal Puthoff's "Polarizable-Vacuum model of General Relativity" arxiv.org...

Also, I'm assuming this has something to do with the significant development in Physics at the end of WW2 that you've obliquely referred to in the past...
edit on 27-6-2012 by Tajlakz because: forgot to add




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Well.... according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid, including rotating ones.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Personally, I think the speed of light should be considered as relative to the gravitational field it's in. Under certain cases, gravity is able to lens light. In other words it must speed up and slow down in order for this phenomena to occur.

Here's the catch though, no matter what gravitational field you're measuring the speed of light in, you'll still get the same value for c. But if you consider that speed is distance per unit of time, then gravity is messing with the passage of time such that c as observed in that gravity field will give the same value.

It really seems to get odd when you go around black holes and such. In that case, the gradient of a gravitational field may become more discernable and it might be possible to observe clocks and other light based signals speeding up and slowing down so that you know c isn't exactly constant although it will still have the same c value when it enters your frame of reference. Such effects could also compress and stretch the light signal such that its energy density varies, but we'd percieve it as doppler shift.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 


In other words it must speed up and slow down in order for this phenomena to occur.

Incorrect. Light follows the curvature of space which is caused by mass. It does not slow down or speed up.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 

I'm not a genius nor a scientist, but something about what you say is profoundly wrong.

I need to watch that train ride video again.

Even in space to propel something there's an equal and opposite reaction. So things do not have zero mass. Some theoreticians once thought (back before the space age) that it would be impossible to propel a spacecraft in a vacuum because there was nothing for the propellant to push against. That same kind of pseudo-theorizing is what you're doing. I've done it myself, so I'm guilty too. The answer is to learn. I suggest to read more physics books and watch some videos. Educate your mind.

But I'll admit that I don't UNDERSTAND most of this. If Einstein was trying to lie then I'd eat it up because I can't even grasp what's supposed to be the lie. In order for Einstein and others to create a lie of this scale they would have to be amazingly intelligent, beyond 99.9999999999% of humans or better. That's in the billions I think. I think it would really only work if Einstein was an alien.

So I get what random is saying, but I don't think Einstein was THAT smart. Others would get it. And I don't think they could all keep the secret. Not for long. Nothing stays secret for long.

For an example of somethign that confuses me... is.... if you're traveling near the speed of light and emit a beam of light ahead of you, it will appear to travel at the speed of light. This boggles my mind. The only thing I can think is it has something to do with time changing and creating the illusion. Otherwise, I'd be led to believe that it's traveling faster than the speed of light because my speed and its speed are added. Which is not the case. They're not added, yet the illusion remains.

Another thing that confuses me is how do we know our true absolute speed when traveling through space? We calculate our speed in relative terms. For example, relative to our sun, our orbital speed is X. If our sun is rotating around a cluster of neighboring stars then the orbital speed of our sun is X. Ultimately, we're rotating around the center of our galaxy and this speed can be calculated. However, our galaxy is rotating around something else, perhaps a cluster of galaxies. And these galaxies, in turn, are rotating around something else. And this goes on and on. My question is where does it end? From my understanding, we don't know the true size of the universe. We only have guesses. If we don't know the size of the universe then how can we calculate our absolute speed traveling through space? We need to compare ourselves to something else to find the speed, but if the size of the universe is unknown is signficantly larger than us then how will we find our absolute orbital speed? Locally, the sun is our orbital speed. But what is our absolute orbital speed? It's somewhere...

For all I know, we're traveling around the largest mass at 1mph but traveling around a galaxy cluster at 500000000mph. Does everything in the universe orbit a single center of mass? Seeing how we orbit the sun and it ultimately orbits hte galaxy and hte galaxy ultimately orbits the largest mass outside our region of space (wherever that's)... it would seem that the universe would have a largest center of mass just like a galaxy would. Take the whole universe and put it in an image and zoome out until you see the largest center of mass and then imagine all of it orbiting that.
edit on 2-7-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


This boggles my mind. The only thing I can think is it has something to do with time changing and creating the illusion.

It's not an illusion. There lies the bogglement. For someone observing you, your "clock" would be ticking slower and for you theirs would be faster. But for you, your clock would be keeping perfect time and for them, their clock is keeping perfect time. For both the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s. Everything (time, distance, speed) except the speed of light, is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. It's just the way our Universe is arranged. But it's not just speed that does it. Acceleration does it. Gravity does it.

Weird, huh?

edit on 7/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


"For someone observing you, your "clock" would be ticking slower and for you theirs would be faster."

if that occurs,,


"But for you, your clock would be keeping perfect time and for them, their clock is keeping perfect time."

how can this be true,,,, what would the "perfect" time keeping be compared to?

and wouldnt both these events be taking place in the same amount of linear universal time?

is this all because motion/movement through space is what time is?

so to experience more movement then usually possible in the same amount of time as another who is still,,, the one who moved much more experienced more in time,,,,, there for each second was packed with more information.... making each second longer?

i understand those questions can seem dumb and scientific blasphemy but im just trying to think about this,,,



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


and wouldnt both these events be taking place in the same amount of linear universal time?

There's the problem.
There is no such animal as universal time. The speed of light is the constant (demonstrated). Therefore it is everything (time, distance) else which must be relative to a given frame of reference.
edit on 7/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


cool i see,,,,,,, I guess I was assuming the universe linear time from beginning to now,,, in that all events took place at the same now moment through the progression of the universe,,,,,

Does the speedy rotation of stars have an effect on how light is distributed? meaning like like it let off as the star is spinning uber fast,,, light not having mass is what allows it to travel in a straight line away from its star?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join