Physman

you miss read me there, I am stating that when light travels out in EVERY direction for 1 sec. it will form a 'sphere' of volume that has past. I am only saying that that shape persae is only with in an apparently falt universe.

yes those dimensions are correct but the thing is, that that one second would not make up the universe it would only make up a sphere within the now 'flat' universe. (the universe still continued to expand after the first second or so).

Thanks Gokul, I know of these constant ratios, but what I was most wondering about was, if this could be the reason that we cant see the change in light velocity.

Oh yes, ok the michelson morely experiment did have simalarities although it was actuall to objects in motion traveling in a vertical and horizontal direction.

Imagine an airplane that will start at point A and travel to point B and return to point A. Also that a wind is traveling in the direction of A to B. Say the plane travels 100mph the whole way, and the wind is traveling at 50mph. On the first segment of its trip it will travel at 150mph (wind speed added to initial velocity), and on the way back it will travel 50mph (wind speed subtracted from initial velocity). So the speed of the wind will be inconsequential because it's speed will be increased and decreased by the same speed of the wind. Therefore it does not matter if there is wind or not the plane will always return to it's starting point in the same amount of time. Now imagine the same experimental situation although the airplane is replaced by light, and at point B is a mirror which will reflect it back to its starting point. So, if the same circumstances hold (as proven by the airplane) we should not be able to recognize if the light was effected or not by the wind. Thus, how can we be sure that light can not be effected by an external force?

Yes! although nature is the essence of us, we are not the essence of nature...

Klaynos has the right idea, the universe is not designed to fit our comrehensable limitations.

Perspective from one another not any perspective where you can view both.

I agree with swansont that it is always 'now'. It is true that two observers with relativistic speed will never agree on time, although the same now independently of there perspective on an event X that may happen at an arbitrary point in time.

Exactly Swansont although this single time fraim is what we call 'now', and it is always now regardless of how a relative velocity may affect two measuring devices, as asprung commented.

Although you must realize that, that single refference frame is what we call now. WHich indicates that it is impossible for there to be another time, regardless of measuring devices.

Exactly Klaynos, the two devices would need to have a relative velocity to sho a difference in time frames.

Ok Swansont, if the circumsatnces we have already discuse hold, where two devices measure time differently (from their perspective). Then we do not share the same time according to the clocks, although if I were to stand next to your clock (running slower) would I be in your past, no and vice versa. When you rely on machines to estimate time it is true that they might measure differently and there for indicate that we do not share time, you must then ask yourself; Are these two devices in the future orr past of one another? and the answer would be no.

First;

Swansonot, I agree with you that you can not be in the past or future, the only time tat exists is now, it is like saying there is no tommorow we can only live today. I think we are arguing for the same cause:D.

Second;

This is a very plausable situation you have proposed, but what you are trying to say is disproven by Simultaenity. Consider this; If to boats are a distance away from eachother (x), and they each have a clock onboard where one ticks at 2 per second, and the other at 1 per second, (and they both record the elapsed time). And then we use light as a measurement of the exact time we are speaking of, and one clock records 200 ticks and the other only one hundred, and we us light for the EXACT point for when the clocks read, it is still the same time for both of us our measuremnet devices just measured time at a faster or slower rate. So we share the same time although our devices do not. the same circumstances would hold just to differnet magnitudes if we had a relative velocity to oneanother.

because tell me this Swansanot if I stand next to clock A which ticks add a different (slower) rate than clock B, will I be in the past no. It will only appear to be going slower from the reference frame of clock B, in truth they may tick out of synch but there is only one time now. I can not go into one frame of the future or one frame of the past.

I must agree with asprung here, the universe ages at the same rate with different refference frames of perspective. two devices may not be synchronized but they measure the same time.

I am sorry I think we had a misunderstanding, when two devices seperatley synchronized 'tick', they might not tick as fast as eachother they are still meauring the same time. Also, not a position or view point so to speak, but a perspective based on a realtive velocity. Every device is measuring the SAME time Inconsequential of their refference of time measurement. I hope this clear things up.

thanks for the input though.

I think it is more reasonable to think that all time is constant. As in moves at the same rate at all times, although when viewed from differnet refference frames it can appear slower or faster. So what if all time was passing at a constant rate, but appeared different to another observer (as in faster or slower).I think it is similar to if I ride a bike past someone they appear to be accelerating in the opposite direction of me, but when looked at through a different perspective it is quite obvious that I am the only one accelerating.

Thoughts?

ok I will thanks Martin.

Yes Martin I believe you are correct it is more philisophical, although I still believe it would be possivel for light to be the so called medium for light to travel through. Because we havent been able to prove the existance of ether or time realisticly, and I think they might have a conection.

Because we cannot prove the exsistent of Ether by physical experimentation, and time is not a physical essence of the universe, although both must have an exsitance in some fashion (I believe). So what if Time was completely constant regardless of different time frames, and was used as a an Ether or medium for light to travel through. The question I am asking is what if Time was the constant Ether?

Nothing is everywhere in the universe it is everywhere and it is nowhere at the same time. if nothing is somewhere then it must act in an essential way to all that may use it as a medium (E; light). I think that Ether is a similar concept, what if ether is the absence of everything except, nothing?

I think that nothing has to be something to be comprehended, because as soon as you think of it it becomes something...

Just another of the incredible mystery's of our universe...

Well thank you for clearing the image up, I believe this maybe correct, but I believe the universe must have some kind of origin, and I know that the origin is everywhere after what we have disused, although this raises the question of the limits and beginnings of infinity...

the basis behind the big bang theory is that all the matter in the universe was compresed into one submicroscopic location, I am merely trying to imagine this location (hypotheticaly speaking).