Jump to content

New theory of the speed of light


Recommended Posts

Theory of the Speed of Light

By Francisco Gómez Paulet

For many years, there has been a mystery in physics which has not yet been solved.  The speed of light never varies, we always get the same result.

For example, if a light-emitting spotlight is moving towards a device which measures the speed of light at a rate of 1000m/s, the logical conclusion would be to think that the result would be the speed of light plus the speed of the spotlight, or 301,000 m/s, but this is not the case. The result remains the same with no change seen: 300,000 m/s.

The explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. Movement as we know it does not actually exist in the universe. Matter is always fixed. When we believe that an object is in motion, what is actually happening is that the object disappears and reappears in another position at such a high frequency that we are not aware of it.

This works much like the frames of a film, where still images create the sensation of moving pictures, only in three dimensions.

That is why the photons always leave the emitter at the same speed, even though the emitter is in motion. It is actually in a fixed position at the time the photon is emitted.

Matter, like light, travels through dark matter, only at a variable speed between 0 to 300,000m/s depending on its linear momentum, that is, on the matter's capacity for linear reappearance.

My respects to Albert Einstein

11/28/2020

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alusistem said:

what is actually happening is that the object disappears and reappears in another position

So while the object is in the "disappear" state, how does it actually get to the position it reappears in?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, alusistem said:

The speed of light never varies, we always get the same result.

Yes, because the geometry of spacetime is such that the interval between any two nearby events is an invariant. There is no mystery in this, and it has been known for well over 100 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's anything to understand that hasn't been understood very long ago.

8 hours ago, alusistem said:

Matter, like light, travels through dark matter, only at a variable speed between 0 to 300,000m/s depending on its linear momentum, that is, on the matter's capacity for linear reappearance.

You seem to relate linear momentum (which is proportional to mass) with this "capacity for linear reappearance" (linear?), which should be a purely kinematic factor, independent of mass. How come?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, because the geometry of spacetime is such that the interval between any two nearby events is an invariant. There is no mystery in this, and it has been known for well over 100 years. 

And if you answer the question, " why is the geometry of our space-time like this?" Because not only do we not have an absolute reference system (Newton's ether) , but we also do not have absolute standards of time and distance. These standards change so that the speed of light remains constant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, alusistem said:

 

The explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. Movement as we know it does not actually exist in the universe. Matter is always fixed. When we believe that an object is in motion, what is actually happening is that the object disappears and reappears in another position at such a high frequency that we are not aware of it.

 

How would you test this, and/or what evidence shows this exclusive of mainstream physics?

How is disappearing and reappearing in a different place being “fixed” and not motion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

but we also do not have absolute standards of time and distance. These standards change so that the speed of light remains constant.

Time remains constant in the speed of light...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is irrelevant to your proposal, isn’t it?

You can try it if you want, does anyone work at CERN? Maybe it will confirm if the particles disappear 
when they reach the speed of light, because in that case they would enter a phase of phase, leaving the collider as ghosts
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alusistem said:

You can try it if you want, does anyone work at CERN?

How can particles collide in the accelerator if they are stationary and disappearing and reappearing as per your idea? AFAIK the current understanding of particles and collisions invalidates what you propose.

 

7 minutes ago, alusistem said:

when they reach the speed of light

Particles with invariant mass > 0 does not reach speed of light

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alusistem said:

That is why the photons always leave the emitter at the same speed, even though the emitter is in motion. It is actually in a fixed position at the time the photon is emitted.

But the frequency of the light changes depending on the motion of the emitter. Why is the frequency different if it's not actually in motion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, alusistem said:

You can try it if you want, does anyone work at CERN? Maybe it will confirm if the particles disappear 
when they reach the speed of light, because in that case they would enter a phase of phase, leaving the collider as ghosts

Massive particles can’t reach c, and disappearing would violate conservation of both energy and momentum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 1:44 AM, alusistem said:

The result remains the same with no change seen: 300,000 m/s.

Three times you made the same mistake.. It is 300,000,000 m/s or 300,000 km/s or more correctly 299792458 m/s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you rephrase this? “in the speed of light” doesn’t mean anything.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what I was thinking, one to many JD and coke's... 😔

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 9:22 PM, zapatos said:

Or it may be God or pink fairies. Throwing out random ideas is weak.

Matter vibrates between two three-dimensional planes, when
disappears from this plane in which we find ourselves appears
on the other plane and so on, the universe has 3
dimensions on this plane and 3 others on the other, along with
the time dimension makes a total of 7 dimensions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alusistem said:

Matter vibrates between two three-dimensional planes, when
disappears from this plane in which we find ourselves appears
on the other plane and so on
, the universe has 3
dimensions on this plane and 3 others on the other, along with
the time dimension makes a total of 7 dimensions.

 

How? By what mechanism? Where was it when it was invisible? 

My dog was in my office but when I looked again she was in the kitchen. I can describe how she got from one place to the other via her moving through 3d space. How in your view did she get from 'this plane' to 'the other plane'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 8:56 PM, md65536 said:

But the frequency of the light changes depending on the motion of the emitter. Why is the frequency different if it's not actually in motion?

Light travels between the two three-dimensional planes
1 minute ago, zapatos said:

How? By what mechanism? Where was it when it was invisible? 

My dog was in my office but when I looked again she was in the kitchen. I can describe how she got from one place to the other via her moving through 3d space. How in your view did she get from 'this plane' to 'the other plane'?

 
string theory
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alusistem said:

Matter vibrates between two three-dimensional planes, when
disappears from this plane in which we find ourselves appears
on the other plane and so on, the universe has 3
dimensions on this plane and 3 others on the other, along with
the time dimension makes a total of 7 dimensions.

Planes are two-dimensional 

!

Moderator Note

If you don’t address questions/objections it’s considered soapboxing, which will get this locked. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alusistem said:

branas

You mean branäs?

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/branaes-laundry-basket-with-lining-rattan-20214731/

1 minute ago, alusistem said:
 

It's not string theory, it's my theory of the speed of light

You have not come close to posting a theory.

How would you test your idea, and/or what evidence confirms it exclusive of mainstream physics?

How is disappearing and reappearing in a different place being “fixed” and not motion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.