Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

@dragonridr

Totally lost me on the sun im not sure you made any sense here i suspect it sounded better in you head.

Yes, I'm sorry, now as I read it, it makes no sense, let me reconfigure my questions.

Gravity is an acting force, for any force to do the work, energy must be transformed, energy must flow into the system to keep the force "alive".
Gravity is an acceleration force, a constant force here on Earth.
Where is the energy for gravity coming from ?
It surely comes not from the mass itself. There is no change from mass to energy to supply the gravity.
If it was the case, the mass of the Sun would decrease as the Sun "produces" gravitational force.

Space curvature is some cool idea, but the analogy with the bend trampoline and the marble is quite same misleading as the EM waves and the water waves. This is very good for visualisation what is going on, but it does not explain where the energy for the gravity comes from.
In the trampoline analogy the marble moves toward the bigger mass that has bend the surface, sure, gravity does that.
Not the bend surface accelerate the marble but gravity.
The bend surface defines the trajectory for the marble but is not an acting force on it.

Even if you transfer this bending into 3D, you still need force to bend the space to define the shape.
If you now say, the mass itself bends the space, I ask again, bending space requires energy, where does it come from ?

I think we both agree that energy systems always try to go into the lowest possible energy state.
If matter bends space, acts as force to bend the space, there is also an equal and opposite force to it, but somehow matter does not disappear.
Therefore there must be some constant energy supply to it.

Nikola Tesla
" Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature.
All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more then a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

---------------------------------------------------

negative energy.

what is energy anyway... well, depends what we are looking for
Electrical energy = power * time
Potential energy = mgh
Kinetic energy = ½ mv²
Mechanical energy = force * distance
Pump energy = flow * pressure * time

looks like energy is not just one thing, energy is not a real physical appearance, it's mathematical equation.
For negative energy to really exist there must be either negative time, negative force or negative distance.
mathematically no problem, ever measured in real ?? NO

You say they have discovered it on CERN. Sure not just calculated ??

there is no negative energy may be the wrong expression if I think about it now.
As energy is force times time in its simplest form, and time like distance is always positive,
I should say,
there is no negative density in the potential of any force field.
It can be 0 but not negative.

very simplified example:
electron (1 negative charge of energy=1) and proton (1 positive charge of energy=1) = 0 charge and 2 energy.
I have left the mass energy relation out of it to make it easer to explain what I mean.
Sure this is more complex but I think you get what I mean

to complete lets have a look at electron - positron annihilation.
Positron is the opposite of electron in charge, but not in energy that gets released if they two occupy the same space.
The charges cancel each other but the energy has doubled

GargIndia
This thread is becoming very complex.

Can we do it this way - one experiment (or scenario) is discussed at one time. Once a consensus is established, then the discussion moves to the next.

Yes, I'm sorry, I should make a new thread for this gravity thing

reply to post by KrzYma


I think you are right.

Gravity is a big subject and deserves a separate thread.

Since the thread is about speed of light, I think cesium vapour experiment which achieved some 230x c is worth discussing more.

I have been reading a lot on this today and honestly I am disappointed by contradictory statements.

Light is a carrier of information. Information carried by light will travel at the same speed as light. Please note that the radio waves and visible light both are part of the same EM waves spectrum and have same properties except wavelength difference. Both radio waves and visible light are used in innumerable devices to carry information, so that should be the objective of the experiment if information can be carried at a speed greater than c.

A blip at the other end of the chamber cannot be taken as the pulse getting through if information is not carried. This means that the blip recorded is not actually the pulse that was sent but some other effect due to plasma state of the medium.

I am unable to get enough detail on the experiment, but is seems the properties of light need to be analyzed and compared (like wavelength) for input and output.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"This actually already has been explained to the OP's satisfaction, and is a result of space-time distortion due to relativistic effects. The photon is "blue-shifted" if it's traveling toward you. Since most photons in the universe come from sources traveling away from us, that's why they're all red-shifted, and many of them suggest the objects (galaxies) would now have a recessional velocity away from us greater than the speed of light."

It is possible (theoretically) for two galaxies to have relative velocity greater than c, though one must be very careful with such observations.

Calculating the distance when object is very far is a serious challenge. However bigger challenge is what lies in between. We assume the space is completely empty and transparent, but unfortunately this is an assumption.

The light passes gas clouds (rarefied gas clouds are almost transparent) that can absorb some parts of light's spectrum better than others. In addition there are energy fields which can affect properties of light.

So there is a reason for red-shift other than relative movement.

The problem is the space is such an unknown as so little of it is explored. I am sure your science will get better as it explores more.

Speed of Light

GargIndia
A blip at the other end of the chamber cannot be taken as the pulse getting through if information is not carried. This means that the blip recorded is not actually the pulse that was sent but some other effect due to plasma state of the medium.

Correct, they make no claim that information travels faster than light in the cesium vapor experiment, which makes the claim that light traveled faster than the speed of light dubious.

GargIndia
No, the experiment will fail even if built. You can place multiple sensors in a straight line (in the path of moving laser). Once you do that, you will find it does not work according to your theory.

Why do you say this; on what basis?

Gravity

KrzYma
Gravity is an acting force, for any force to do the work, energy must be transformed, energy must flow into the system to keep the force "alive".
Gravity is an acceleration force, a constant force here on Earth.
Where is the energy for gravity coming from ?

We understand from observation that gravitational force is maintained without energy feeding it. For you to say "energy must flow into the system to keep the force "alive"" is to contradict observation, and when people make statements which contradict observation, we generally say those statements are wrong. But we don't have the complete right answer. Come up with that and you may win a Nobel prize.

GargIndia
Gravity is a big subject and deserves a separate thread.

Yes it does but just to reiterate, my earlier reply,we don't have all the answers on that, but if we had all the answers, why would we need scientists? Scientists need mysteries to solve, and if they find the answers it will probably result in a Nobel prize.

GargIndia
Would you ever understand gravity with your methods? I have my doubts.
However you can benefit from God's bounty, as you already are. Humans can use the natural world for their advantage, if they learn and live in harmony.

There is a concept called "God of the gaps" meaning if science can't explain it, we can attribute the unexplainable to some deity. The problem with this is, as science has advanced, the "god of the gaps" has become diminished as the understanding of scientists has increased.

On the other hand, there are questions science can't answer, like:
"Why are we here?" and
"Is cannibalism good or bad?"

Science has no clue about the first one and about the second can only tell you things like the nutritional value of eating the person in the next village. To get answers that science can give us in these areas requires things like philosophy and theology, and we've used those to convince some tribal people that maybe eating each other isn't such a great idea and that we should try to live in harmony as you suggest.

So theology and philosophy can definitely fill a gap that science can't fill and can be productive in answering questions science can't. But religion can be and in some cases has been counterproductive when attempting to explain things that should fall in the realm of natural sciences, and I'd say gravity is such a thing. Some people think we'd be hundreds of years more advanced in our scientific understanding if there wasn't such a lull in scientific advances due to a dominance of religious interference in science, where not only was the answer just that "god did it" but if you had scientific ideas that contradicted religious ideas you could get charged with blasphemy like Galileo did.

This unfortunately is not all ancient history. One of the scientists on the youtube channel "Sixty Symbols" tells us that when his church leaders explained some things about God which could be scientifically tested, he got excited because he wanted to test those statements scientifically. He was told that his science was not welcome, probably because the church leaders had full knowledge that the claim would fail an unbiased scientific test. Understandably the man is no longer as religious as he once was.

This topic has been discussed lately here after the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate where Ken Ham's religious position is seen as somewhat anti-science. The message from Bill Nye was to please, please keep religion out of schools, unless you're going to allow us to apply the scientific method, which you don't want us to do because it utterly destroys Ham's religion-based claims that the Earth is 6000 years old, etc.

Bottom line is there doesn't have to be a conflict between science and religion. It's only when one tries to address issues that only the other can address well that we have problems, and we do have some problems in my country, not so much with science meddling in religion, because when the scientist was told to not to meddle with religion, he stopped. When religious leaders are told to stop meddling with science, they don't always stop.

KrzYma

Nikola Tesla
" Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature.
All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more then a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

It's OK to hate the Yankees, but don't ever bet against Einstein.

As far as #1, the gravitational redshift and pulsar decay and gravitational lensing make it clear Einstein was right.

As far as #2, some Japanese pensioners have an educated contrary opinion.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"No, the experiment will fail even if built. You can place multiple sensors in a straight line (in the path of moving laser). Once you do that, you will find it does not work according to your theory.
Why do you say this; on what basis? "

There are several reasons - that includes properties of light, properties of medium, as well as mechanical limits of construction of experiment.

"There is a concept called "God of the gaps" meaning if science can't explain it, we can attribute the unexplainable to some deity. The problem with this is, as science has advanced, the "god of the gaps" has become diminished as the understanding of scientists has increased. "

I do not think the gaps have diminished. I can list a lot of "basic" parameters that are not understood properly or not understood at all by your science. However this is a topic which cannot be discussed by a single post or a single thread. I think we can focus on the current subject and see how it goes.

"Is cannibalism good or bad?"

Very bad. And eating animals is very similar to cannibalism as animals have very similar flesh to humans. Eating meat will kill your civilization through DNA drift.

"So theology and philosophy can definitely fill a gap that science can't fill and can be productive in answering questions science can't."

I do not discuss theology and Philosophy. "God" is just a name given to a power that is the "intelligence" behind the creation. You can call this power any other name, and it is fine. What is in a name? We have several names in Sanskrit to denote this power. When I say "God", it is just a translation (which is actually a bad translation as your connotation of God is very different from the one in Veda).

"please keep religion out of schools"

That seems like a reasonable thing to do at this time. However a system of "morality" is still needed. Kids need to be told what is right and wrong. And as you understand - science is not good in this department.

mbkennel

KrzYma

Nikola Tesla
" Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature.
All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more then a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

It's OK to hate the Yankees, but don't ever bet against Einstein.

As far as #1, the gravitational redshift and pulsar decay and gravitational lensing make it clear Einstein was right.

As far as #2, some Japanese pensioners have an educated contrary opinion.

edit on 7-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

A seer said - "The sky is like an imperfect mirror. You believe it is telling the truth but it isn't."

Why Vedic teacher uses "maya" or illusion to describe the reality that we live in? Because our physical senses do not see the reality as it actually is. We see the reality as dictated by physical limitations of human body. It is true that humans have built instruments and machines that has broadened these senses. However these instruments are limited to your understanding of natural world and the material from which they are built.

I would say the greatest scientist in your world is Newton. This is the person who gave you so much progress.

You have broken the atom but atomic knowledge is a double-edged sword. You do not have social stability and structure to handle this kind of knowledge.

I think there are conditions that can alter the speed of light(or time). Temperature could be one variable. Temperature because of absolute zero, at absolute zero time and the speed of light stops, on the other side of absolute zero, Negative Temperature or iK time flows the other direction. As temperature increases the speed of light increases(our observation of time increases). This principle can account for dark matter that we cannot observe. Temperature and time(or speed of light) have little affect on each other until the temperature approaches absolute zero or an object approaches the speed of light.

jrod
I think there are conditions that can alter the speed of light(or time). Temperature could be one variable. Temperature because of absolute zero, at absolute zero time and the speed of light stops, on the other side of absolute zero, Negative Temperature or iK time flows the other direction.

Not in the context of the OP's scenario, where the speed of light in a vacuum is assumed. The constant we call the speed of light is the speed of light in a vacuum. There's not really a temperature in a true vacuum because a vacuum is an absence of atoms or molecules, and temperature is a measure of the speed of those atoms or molecules, so if there aren't any, how can you measure their speed? See the problem? No atoms, no speed measurement of atoms, no temperature.

We have the 2.75k "temperature" of the cosmic microwave background (which is not strictly a temperature; it's a form of energy that reflects radiation from a certain temperature), and some areas of deep space may have one or two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter but regardless of their "temperature" their density is so low that they don't seem to have much effect on photons coming from great distances.

In other words, light really does seem to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. If there's any significant amount of matter in the region that light is traveling through, then it's no longer a vacuum, and it won't travel at the speed of light regardless of temperature. For example in the Earth's atmosphere, light travels at just below the speed of light.

jrod
I think there are conditions that can alter the speed of light(or time). Temperature could be one variable. Temperature because of absolute zero, at absolute zero time and the speed of light stops, on the other side of absolute zero, Negative Temperature or iK time flows the other direction. As temperature increases the speed of light increases(our observation of time increases). This principle can account for dark matter that we cannot observe. Temperature and time(or speed of light) have little affect on each other until the temperature approaches absolute zero or an object approaches the speed of light.

Oddly your right and wrong it appears indeed temperature can affect light but not in a vacuum of course because there is no temperature in a vacuum. Now interesting theory you have there the only problem is absolute zero is the lowest temperature possible you can't get any colder than that. So id say that illiminates time travel now the part your right about it does appear we can freeze light.But not in the way your thinking. We found that xenon gas near absolute zero will store the energy from light.The key to the procedure is that very very low temperature was used where kinetic energy and even for photons energy goes to near zero. Then they can restart it by applying energy back into the cloud.The interesting part of this is it allows us to store light i could see this being useful for computers for example.

www.news.harvard.edu...

reply to post by dragonridr


Break a uranium atom which is at zero temperature and see what happens? Will any energy be released in atomic reaction?

The fundamental particles have several motions - spin, vibration, rotation - does this all stop at absolute zero?

Does hydrogen gas transitions into something else (except freezing solid) at absolute zero?

Maybe the concept of absolute zero itself is not so great as it seems.

In the context of "light", there is background noise in space (or energy that is passing through space due to a composite effect of radiation passing, and electromagnetic energy from celestial objects) that is bound to have some effect of light. This effect may be very very minute, but if light is coming from very far, it adds up.

dragonridr

Oddly your right and wrong it appears indeed temperature can affect light but not in a vacuum of course because there is no temperature in a vacuum. Now interesting theory you have there the only problem is absolute zero is the lowest temperature possible you can't get any colder than that.

Can we ever have a true vacuum or absolute vacuum?

Maybe we can never get to absolute, but I like the idea of another form of matter that is on the other side of absolute zero. Where electrons have mass and protons are essentially mass-less. If there is an absolute zero buffer zone between our temperature and imaginary(negative Kelvin [iK]) temperature then observing that part of the universe would be difficult if not impossible for us to observe if time and the speed of light stop at absolute zero.

Just ideas I'm throwing out there...

reply to post by jrod


Will it help if we could first comprehend the reality we live in, before we try to comprehend another reality which we can only imagine?

reply to post by GargIndia


A perfect vacuum would have a an air pressure of zero, 0. That zeroes out the equation PV=nRT...... So can an absolute vacuum really exist?

I think it is important to be ethical when scientific news is published or claims are made.

Are we going to teach our children scientific methods or feed them on news?

As the current topic touches the leading edge of science, it is appropriate to reflect on how we conduct experiments and how we publish the results.

edition.cnn.com...

This is the reason I emphasize science is about observation and measurement. The theories must be based on this fact. Science is not mathematical equations. Science is not an exercise in imagination.

reply to post by jrod


Can a vacuum be perfect? I do not think it is achievable by any practical means. Even if air is totally absent, there will be metal particles in the container.

Deep space IS NOT a perfect vacuum.

GargIndia
Science is not an exercise in imagination.

To observe what has never has been observed before one has to use the imagination.

GargIndia
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Break a uranium atom which is at zero temperature and see what happens? Will any energy be released in atomic reaction?

The fundamental particles have several motions - spin, vibration, rotation - does this all stop at absolute zero?

Does hydrogen gas transitions into something else (except freezing solid) at absolute zero?

Maybe the concept of absolute zero itself is not so great as it seems.

In the context of "light", there is background noise in space (or energy that is passing through space due to a composite effect of radiation passing, and electromagnetic energy from celestial objects) that is bound to have some effect of light. This effect may be very very minute, but if light is coming from very far, it adds up.

edit on 7-2-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)

Radioactive decay is not or cannot be controlled by temperature.Radioactive decay is determined by processes occurring within the atomic nuclei. Now we can stop certain chemical reactions that occur during nuclear decay for example the Szilard-Chalmers effect.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

GargIndia
reply to post by jrod

 

Can a vacuum be perfect? I do not think it is achievable by any practical means. Even if air is totally absent, there will be metal particles in the container.

Deep space IS NOT a perfect vacuum.

No you can never achieve a perfect vacuum at least not in our universe but the vacuum of space is very close.Although in quantum physics a vacuum means something entirely different and you can. In quantum physics an area reaches zero energy its considered a vacuum. So i guess it depends on what kind of vacuum your talking about. Look science isnt something we just make up its tested i know you think these vedic monks knew some secrets of the universe but i assure you they dont. They came up with some theories and at the time had no way to test them. Well we do now and we have learned alot about the world around us.Let me give you some advice faith is applied to your beliefs but dont let faith dictate what you choose to learn. You can believe in the vedic gods if you like. Just understand they didnt impart any big secrets to mankind other than protection of your soul.I personally love the hindu religion it looks to bring inner peace but its not going to tell you how the universe works.