[TimeContinuum]

Alright, so I got the same beef with Einstein as Tesla did. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think relativity should be thrown out the window, it's great theory from a relativistic viewpoint. But I think once we begin to consider deep space travel, with near zero relativistic drag, I don't see why it can't be realized relative to Earth. Kind of like warp speed (PS That's a graph from a test where light goes faster than light). I believe the Pioneer Anomaly is better explained by breaking conservatively accepted science, and allowing the speed of light to be a variable!

Similar to how you can solve E=mc² to be "c = sqrt( E / m )" when in deep space, where we are void of energy, solar winds, solar gravity, celestial bodies, the deep void that is outer space simply becomes a sort of light vacuum if you will and 3 degrees Kelvin becomes becomes nothing for any sort of advanced ion propulsion system. Even if you take the results from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment:


you'll notice that photon response varied from near instantly! To around 2c. The average, mean and median equal'd c. Which is why it's such a great constant when viewed from our position in this solar system. And as far as I've investigated, no light speed experiments have been conducted on any deep space probes.

I believe I have a solve for all of this, but rather than get into a debate about my "crack-pottery science" I'd like an honest debate about light-speed, constant or variable and is it a limit?

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 8 January 2012 - 06:08 AM

[Sorcerer]

Ok RE: the lunar laser ranger experiment - the assumption is that light speed is constant and the objective was to find the distance between the earth and the moon. Speed = distance/time , time is measured, speed is assumed (the speed of light) and distance is calculated.

As for the graph, I don't know where you got it from so I cannot read the methods. But I would assume if your saying it varied from near instantaneous, I'd account this to be an artifact, where some photons are stragglers from a previous pulse (or another source) arriving so late they seem to be arriving just after a new pulse. And the 2c photons are similar, those which have been refracted by the earth's atmosphere slowing them down.

Actually I'd be interested how accurate the LLRE was considering photons travel slower than the speed of light through the atmostphere and/or how they adjusted for it.

Otherwise I'm afraid your post doesn't make much sense to me, I'm even have trouble relating the topic title to the contents.

PS. solution is the noun while solve is the verb.

Oh pinoneer anomaly can be explained by dark matter and dark energy, and that also explains that our current model is wrong. GL variable speed of light is an answer, but I doubt you'll have much support here without a testable hypothesis, it's probably easier for you to just go to university and work your way to it from the bottom up.

wtf conservapedia rotflmao

This post has been edited by Sorcerer: 8 January 2012 - 07:07 AM

[TimeContinuum]

Lolol Ya I thought it was better than wikipedia for that one specifically because it proposed more questions. Haha, just googling around while formulating my argument for my supporting facts.

I cannot accept the dark matter / dark energy theory, as that sounds far more crackpot to me.

The graph on the LLRE was released by NASA, and it was taken from the wikipedia entry on the topic. And I suppose you could argue atmospheric reflection for the fast photons. But that seems like a rather bad argument when you consider the volume of of photons captured at the <c< . If you want to argue accuracy, well it's NASA... I suppose they're not perfect. But whatever. I don't even care that much about the LLRE experiment.

What I'm more concerned about, is in deep space, with something say like a relative rocket, can we exceed the speed of light relative to earth? I believe light speed travel would happen a little more like the Alcubierre Metric.

[swansont]

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

Alright, so I got the same beef with Einstein as Tesla did. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think relativity should be thrown out the window, it's great theory from a relativistic viewpoint. But I think once we begin to consider deep space travel, with near zero relativistic drag, I don't see why it can't be realized relative to Earth. Kind of like warp speed (PS That's a graph from a test where light goes faster than light). I believe the Pioneer Anomaly is better explained by breaking conservatively accepted science, and allowing the speed of light to be a variable!

The Pioneer anomaly has been explained, or at least mostly explained, as a result of thermal radiation pressure effects. (and Conservapedia? Really? This is a science site.)

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

you'll notice that photon response varied from near instantly! To around 2c. The average, mean and median equal'd c. Which is why it's such a great constant when viewed from our position in this solar system. And as far as I've investigated, no light speed experiments have been conducted on any deep space probes.

I don't see where you're getting this. The return signal looks flat, and the scale is ns, meaning it's flat to better than a part in 10^9.

[TimeContinuum]

Sorcerer, on 8 January 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Oh pinoneer anomaly can be explained by dark matter and dark energy, and that also explains that our current model is wrong. GL variable speed of light is an answer, but I doubt you'll have much support here without a testable hypothesis, it's probably easier for you to just go to university and work your way to it from the bottom up.

I do have a pretty decent idea for how to unify the whole EM / Light / Matter / Gravity / Radiation equation. And I'd like to go to university to write a mathematical model for it... and I could propose tests to prove my general ideas. But I feel like my time and resources would be better spent inventing and engineering. So I'm gonna do that I think

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

The Pioneer anomaly has been explained, or at least mostly explained, as a result of thermal radiation pressure effects. (and Conservapedia? Really? This is a science site.)

I covered that already, it was mainly an accident through fast googling.

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

I don't see where you're getting this. The return signal looks flat, and the scale is ns, meaning it's flat to better than a part in 10^9.

Nevermind. This isn't what I'm trying to discuss. As far as I care, if you sat in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light relative to earth, you would still measure the speed of light as 300,000 km/s away from you in every direction.

[swansont]

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

This isn't what I'm trying to discuss.

What is what you are trying to discuss?

[TimeContinuum]

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

What is what you are trying to discuss?

I dunno, maybe the final question I proposed at the end of my original post and the name of the topic. Is the speed of light breakable relative to Earth.

And I'd like for any postulation for or against to be backed by evidence via test results. So if you want to suggest Einstein's relativity states that it will take infinite energy to obtain speed of light, then you can cite tests which prove atomic clock differences and lorrentz transformations and all that. But I have a several counter arguments for that, so let's get to it, who has an intelligent debate that doesn't clutch on the unobservable theoretical?

[michel123456]

@timecontinuum
This is not mainstream, but yes I understand C as an observational limit. If you imagine 2 galaxies getting away from each other at velocity near to C, I see no reason why an inhabitant of a random planet in one of these galaxies would not be able to build a rocket accelerating at any speed in any direction, just because someone very far away is observing him. But I can understand that he, or we, would be restricted to observe the other moving at velocity always less than C.
Any other explanation baffles my mind.
I know that is not a strong argument...

[TimeContinuum]

michel123456, on 8 January 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

@timecontinuum
This is not mainstream, but yes I understand C as an observational limit. If you imagine 2 galaxies getting away from each other at velocity near to C, I see no reason why an inhabitant of a random planet in one of these galaxies would not be able to build a rocket accelerating at any speed in any direction, just because someone very far away is observing him. But I can understand that he, or we, would be restricted to observe the other moving at velocity always less than C.
Any other explanation baffles my mind.
I know that is not a strong argument...

Well, we agree in theory

I think the debate clutches on whether time is a constant, or a quasi-constant. And by quasi-constant, I mean, if we were to shoot a rocket around the sun at half light speed and back to Earth: would it's time be significantly dilated? OR would it's onboard clock be near identical upon return? I have found a plethora of evidence to prove the latter IMO, I just haven't found a way to express it through equation yet.

And the amount of bad science that is postulated from theory depresses me. As scientists don't we need to see evidence from repeatable tests before we can accept results? How can anybody accept a dark matter / dark energy solution to the universe?? If you think it's the best theory, fine. Detail to me exactly how it explains it. But don't go preaching it as fact, because that's as bad as religion (speaking of conservapedia).

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 8 January 2012 - 05:59 PM

[swansont]

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I dunno, maybe the final question I proposed at the end of my original post and the name of the topic. Is the speed of light breakable relative to Earth.

And I'd like for any postulation for or against to be backed by evidence via test results. So if you want to suggest Einstein's relativity states that it will take infinite energy to obtain speed of light, then you can cite tests which prove atomic clock differences and lorrentz transformations and all that. But I have a several counter arguments for that, so let's get to it, who has an intelligent debate that doesn't clutch on the unobservable theoretical?

The invariance of the speed of light is based on Maxwell's equations. My radio works when it's moving.

Clock experiments are numerous. There's the Hafele-Keating experiment and the followups done that were similar in nature. There's the Vessot rocket experiment, and the Pound-Rebka experiments (see http://blogs.science...t/archives/1426). Mass-energy equivalence has the iron isomer measurement in addition to all of the mass measurements of isotopes involved in nuclear reactions.

[TimeContinuum]

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

The invariance of the speed of light is based on Maxwell's equations. My radio works when it's moving.

You'd have to go much faster than the speed of mach for the drift in frequency to matter in FM or AM radio. And if you could go fast enough, it would actually shift your 93.3 to 93.1 via redshift dopler effect.

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Clock experiments are numerous. There's the Hafele-Keating experiment and the followups done that were similar in nature. There's the Vessot rocket experiment, and the Pound-Rebka experiments (see http://blogs.science...t/archives/1426). Mass-energy equivalence has the iron isomer measurement in addition to all of the mass measurements of isotopes involved in nuclear reactions.

I don't disagree with any of these clock experiments. But I feel I can explain them with difference in energy potential if you change your thinking, consider c could be a variable (not necessarily from a relativistic sense) c = sqrt( E / m ). Then calculate gravity as an energy through mass gravity conversion inserted into this formula. Relativistically, as the patient observer, sure c is constant... but it's all relative

Furthermore, this general ideology would neatly explain not only the Pioneer anomalies, but all of NASA's clock anomalies when shooting towards the sun, and from the sun without resorting to non-sensical dark-matter dark-energy theories.

It's extremely simple (in my mind), I just wish I had the educational background the properly explain it and develop equations for it. It's not like I'm a simpleton, I'm a career waveform/lightwave engineer, but I've accomplished it through work experience rather than schooling, as my family couldn't afford to get me into university. My ideologies are not that far off of string theory and quantum entanglement - I don't think I'm reinventing the wheel, I just feel like I REALLY understand it, and I want to find a way to explain it to everyone.

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 8 January 2012 - 10:34 PM

[Janus]

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

You'd have to go much faster than the speed of mach for the drift in frequency to matter in FM or AM radio. And if you could go fast enough, it would actually shift your 93.3 to 93.1 via redshift dopler effect.

That's not what he meant. What he meant was that the invariance of the speed of light is required for your radio to work at all if you are moving relative to the radio station. Put another way, without the invariance of the speed of light, the radio waves from the station simply cease to exist for you if you are moving relative to the transmitter; as far as your radio is concerned, there would be no radio waves of any frequency to even detect.

[TimeContinuum]

Janus, on 8 January 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

That's not what he meant. What he meant was that the invariance of the speed of light is required for your radio to work at all if you are moving relative to the radio station. Put another way, without the invariance of the speed of light, the radio waves from the station simply cease to exist for you if you are moving relative to the transmitter; as far as your radio is concerned, there would be no radio waves of any frequency to even detect.

I don't understand what the argument is then? Light exists as light? mmmmhm...

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 9 January 2012 - 12:02 AM

[swansont]

TimeContinuum, on 8 January 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I don't understand what the argument is then? Light exists as light? mmmmhm...

Light exists as a wave. The wave equation doesn't work if c isn't a constant.

[TimeContinuum]

swansont, on 9 January 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Light exists as a wave. The wave equation doesn't work if c isn't a constant.

It's a difficult to explain because it's kind of like time / distance / speed of light all warp in 1 homogenous equation relative to the stars. Making time seem constant, making speed of light seem constant, and making distance seem constant. Where a little bending is allowed, but nothing ever breaks. I really feel like I need to sit down, write some equations and a thesis to properly explain this. You're not wrong. Just... I don't think my point is clear.

I think of deep space as kind of like this hallway with a bunch of doors. Very quick and easy to walk around, knock on all the doors... and if you want to go for a visit, each of the doors contains a big lavish room to get lost in for days, weeks, years, or a millennia

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

Think about this. Say you're in earth's orbit, you're experiencing zero gravity, no big deal. There's still that MASSIVE body "The Sun" which is inflicting a lot of energy and force upon you, I like to consider this my time variable, but this might convolute my argument... regardless, you are stuck to the sun like a cheerio swimming around in a bowl of milk. The cheerio absorbs the milk, the cheerio is limited by milk's friction and eventually, if you leave your bowl of cheerios for a long enough time, it becomes 1 giant blob of disgusting cheerio-milk where you can't distinguish what was once a cheerio and what was once milk.

Now what if that cheerio was able to escape the bowl of milk into weightless space? The same energy that moved the cheerio a single inch in your bowl of milk, will now fling a cheerio easily across the table into another bowl. Why? Well not only has the friction of the milk (time) reduced, it also isn't disintegrating your cheerio quite as rapidly in free-space (or so you'd think), in any case, the end result is exponentially less energy is required to move it.

Now think of the planets as cheerios... Still with me?

Now consider, c is constant, t is constant, and d is constant... but only to the relative traveler. Now think of the bowls of cheerios as like these bubbles of time, and deep space as kind of like a void where time stops (or speeds up, depending on where you're viewing it from). Fun eh?

Now if we were to observe the clocks on something idling in deep space, we'd notice it's clock moving at a tremendous pace. Why? Because if it wanted to, it could basically be in any of the bubbles with an minute iota of energy. And really, everything is all relative to where you're measuring it from, which makes it either a case of, you understand, or you don't.

I really need to turn this into a formula. It really does fully explain everything from Lorrentz transformations to the pioneer anomaly, to unifying electromagnetism and light in 1 single piece of work. guhhhhhhhhhh Sorry for wasting your time guys. Thanks for humouring me

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 9 January 2012 - 03:29 AM

[Klaynos]

michel123456, on 8 January 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

@timecontinuum
This is not mainstream, but yes I understand C as an observational limit. If you imagine 2 galaxies getting away from each other at velocity near to C, I see no reason why an inhabitant of a random planet in one of these galaxies would not be able to build a rocket accelerating at any speed in any direction, just because someone very far away is observing him. But I can understand that he, or we, would be restricted to observe the other moving at velocity always less than C.
Any other explanation baffles my mind.
I know that is not a strong argument...

None of your mentions of speed are relative to anything. That's the important bit of relativity speed is relative... Even galalean relativity speed is always relative. Because of this your discussion doesn't really make any sense. This is an inherently important concept for this discussion.

[TimeContinuum]

Klaynos, on 9 January 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

None of your mentions of speed are relative to anything. That's the important bit of relativity speed is relative... Even galalean relativity speed is always relative. Because of this your discussion doesn't really make any sense. This is an inherently important concept for this discussion.

Einstein himself stated his biggest blunder was the "cosmological constant". Nowadays science-fiction seems to be ruling physics theory, anti-matter, negative energy, the unobservable making up 70% of our universe... what kind of bullshit is this? If I understand the theory of dark matter properly, Voyager 1 should have been annihilated by now! But no, it continues to tick on in the void of space.

All of these theories are being conceived to fit inside the obsolete theory that an infinite amount of energy would be required to move a mass to light speed relative to earth, as if some "cosmological constant" actually exists!

I got news for you! The "cosmological constant" is our sun. Our star which provides earth with 99% of it's energy. Escape it, and no more cosmological constant, more like a cosmic variable. The difference in energy between the stars is how you can determine the amount of energy required to obtain a newton of force! As you enter deep space with 2-3 degrees Kelvin of energy available to be absorbed, light-ion engines like the Variable Specific Impulse Magneto Plasm engine which may only provide 5N of force at 200kW, all of a sudden can provide say, 500N of force and beyond! That's how deep space works.

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 9 January 2012 - 08:04 PM

[swansont]

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Einstein himself stated his biggest blunder was the "cosmological constant". Nowadays science-fiction seems to be ruling physics theory, anti-matter, negative energy, the unobservable making up 70% of our universe... what kind of bullshit is this? If I understand the theory of dark matter properly, Voyager 1 should have been annihilated by now! But no, it continues to tick on in the void of space.

I'd venture to conclude this means you don't understand dark matter properly. Ranting about physics doesn't pass for substantive criticism.

[TimeContinuum]

I'm telling you guys, this is the solve to time / gravity / light / electromagnetism / cosmology / astrology etc. It explains Lorrentz transformations, it explains all of the NASA clock anomalies. ALL OF THEM. It's so simple, I don't understand why I can't find someone intelligent to help give me more constructive input. Rather I'm met with sceptics who take century old theory for the bible, even though general relativity has been broken ages ago, we continually try to adapt it to continue to make it work. We need a fix, and this is it. I'm done on these boards, I work with some really smart guys, I think I can explain it to them in terms that they'll be able to understand now. Thanks for making me aware of my couple minor incidental errors in the first post.

swansont, on 9 January 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I'd venture to conclude this means you don't understand dark matter properly. Ranting about physics doesn't pass for substantive criticism.

I stopped reading about dark-matter when the first sentence was written "Dark-matter was postulated..." & "Dark matter is widely believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of sub-atomic particle."

Meaning it's a theory with no more weight than mine.

Give me a break, this is FICTION FICTION FICTION. Your gullibility for everything coming from the blinks Stephen Hawking is astounding. Einstein would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what has become of physics.

In fact, I find it HILARIOUS that you discard this theory and throw it into the "speculation forums" when the entire grounding from it is built off of E=mc² solved to c = sqrt( E / m ), and just kind of reinventing how you maybe think of time and space when dealing on an astronomical scale. Rather than try to be constructive you cling to your fiction and claim it to be science. Real science is tested and proven, the space probes prove my theory.

You continue to postulate about unsubstantiated science-fiction, I'm going to do real science Mmmmkay? If you wanna be ahead of the curve, start looking into how you can apply this theory to formulae. Protips, bye! I'm out.

This post has been edited by TimeContinuum: 9 January 2012 - 08:57 PM

[Klaynos]

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'm telling you guys, this is the solve to time / gravity / light / electromagnetism / cosmology / astrology etc. It explains Lorrentz transformations, it explains all of the NASA clock anomalies. ALL OF THEM. It's so simple, I don't understand why I can't find someone intelligent to help give me more constructive input. Rather I'm met with sceptics who take century old theory for the bible,

I wonder if you are familiar with the scientific process? Physicists haven't spent the last 100 years sat around going "well it's all sorted then, should we just go to the pub? Oh all right then."

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

even though general relativity has been broken ages ago,

Oh? It has? How? It doesn't work in certain specific circumstances, but that is because it is not a complete theory. Don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested it was.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

we continually try to adapt it to continue to make it work. We need a fix, and this is it. I'm done on these boards, I work with some really smart guys, I think I can explain it to them in terms that they'll be able to understand now. Thanks for making me aware of my couple minor incidental errors in the first post.

Good luck with that.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I stopped reading about dark-matter when the first sentence was written "Dark-matter was postulated..."

That was probably a mistake. If you had continued to read you might have actually understood enough about it to criticise it.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

& "Dark matter is widely believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of sub-atomic particle."

Meaning it's a theory with no more weight than mine.

No, it's not a theory, it's a placeholder for an observed effect because we need a name for it. The effect is widely measured and areas of dark matter have been mapped accurately. We know it's there and we know it doesn't interact electromagnetically but it does interact gravitationally.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Give me a break, this is FICTION FICTION FICTION.

No, it's observable evidence.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Your gullibility for everything coming from the blinks Stephen Hawking is astounding.

I'm not actually a fan of Stephen Hawking. As with anyone in science his word is in no way gospel.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Einstein would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what has become of physics.

Please see above.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

In fact, I find it HILARIOUS that you discard this theory and throw it into the "speculation forums" when the entire grounding from it is built off of [/font

You have nothing more than speculation.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

]E=mc² solved to c = sqrt( E / m ), and just kind of reinventing how you maybe think of time and space when dealing on an astronomical scale.

I think you should read my comment in your new thread, I feel you need to do some further reading on the equation you are trying to use.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Rather than try to be constructive you cling to your fiction and claim it to be science. Real science is tested and proven, the space probes prove my theory.

You don't have a theory, you appear to have vague ideas. The current observable evidence agrees with modern theories, any new idea will also have to agree with those experiments and therefore those theories, stating they are all wrong shows a scary lack of knowledge on the scientific method for someone claiming to have all the answers.

TimeContinuum, on 9 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

[font="sans-serif"]
You continue to postulate about unsubstantiated science-fiction, I'm going to do real science Mmmmkay? If you wanna be ahead of the curve, start looking into how you can apply this theory to formulae. Protips, bye! I'm out.

I don't think you understand the scientific method. Sorry.