manderson Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 what is the speed of light? is it 186mi/sec? i do not believe so. this is only so if we are stationary inside our universe. the 186mi/sec i believe is simply a constant ratio of spacetime, thus if we imaginatively rode a photon, then from our view on the photon there is no motion (ie zero speed, and space disappears!). 186mi/sec only APPEAR to be the speed on light because we are on the surface of our universe. in addition by travelling on a second photon in the opposite direction, we double the RELATIVE speed of light which causes time itself to disappear! what is even more remarkable is NONE of this violates SR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 ! Moderator Note moved to speculations. please take a moment to read the specific rules of that forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 this is only so if we are stationary inside our universe. Stationary? Relative to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 what is even more remarkable is NONE of this violates SR. Oh yes it does. "by travelling on a second photon..." implies getting to the speed of light which violates SR. On the other hand, you are quite right not to believe that the speed of light is 186 mi/s what is the speed of light? is it 186mi/sec? i do not believe so. Try adding another few zeros. Anyway, the answer to the question is that you can calculate c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderson Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Oh yes it does. "by travelling on a second photon..." implies getting to the speed of light which violates SR. On the other hand, you are quite right not to believe that the speed of light is 186 mi/s Try adding another few zeros. Anyway, the answer to the question is that you can calculate c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light thanks John for your respectful reply. travelling on photon is just a thought experiment - technically we could say it violates SR but complies with GR. I bring you to a quote from Einstein on SR & GR: In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" Einstein wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity... CANNOT claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light VARIES WITH POSITION". In other words, einstein himself believed that the speed of light CAN vary and does NOT have unlimited validity. where it loses validity is with "curvature of photon rays", which is exactly what i am implying. Speed of light is SAID to be constant in an inertial frame when their is no variation in position. vary position and constancy disappears! another variable to consider is the accuracy of the instruments (atomic clock) we are using to measure light's speed - as we develop more accurate instruments we will be reporting that a DIFFERENT speed of light. i believe we should imagine, not just propogate current theory as dogma because the fact is our knowledge and understanding improves over time. it use to be so called fact that the earth was flat, then it was a fact that earth was centre of the universe, copenicus was fact, galileo was fact, newton was all fact....Einstein himself was no where near as dogmatic or arrogant as his unthinking disciples today. Stationary? Relative to what? thought experiment: photon A has a relative speed of ZERO in comparison to photon B moving parallel in the same direction...hence each photon has no speed relative to each other (now relative to a 3rd observer in an inertial frame, speed would of course be "c" (which is approximately 186mi/s based on the best atomic clocks we now have - when we get better clocks, this 186mi/sec will be reported as a different more accurate number). by stationary i mean "stationed" on the surface of our universe (as opposed to a different universe). you can subsitute the word "located". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) 186000 mi/sec or 300000 km/sec Edited January 17, 2013 by Jacques Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) by stationary i mean "stationed" on the surface of our universe (as opposed to a different universe). you can subsitute the word "located". Stationary and located are two different words with different meanings. And I'm unsure what you mean by 'stationed on the surface of our universe'. 'Stationary inside our universe' means the same thing as 'stationed on the surface of our universe? in addition by travelling on a second photon in the opposite direction, we double the RELATIVE speed of light which causes time itself to disappear! what is even more remarkable is NONE of this violates SR. First of all, the photon is not a frame of reference, so your thought experiment of riding the photon is meaningless. Second, you don't double the relative speed. Relativistic velocities don't add like classical velocity. If you have two ships leaving a common point at .99c, heading directly away from each other, when ship 1 measures the velocity of ship 2, they do not find it to be 1.98c, they measure it to be 0.99994949750012625624968435937579c. Edited January 17, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderson Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Stationary and located are two different words with different meanings. And I'm unsure what you mean by 'stationed on the surface of our universe'. 'Stationary inside our universe' means the same thing as 'stationed on the surface of our universe? First of all, the photon is not a frame of reference, so your thought experiment of riding the photon is meaningless. Second, you don't double the relative speed. Relativistic velocities don't add like classical velocity. If you have two ships leaving a common point at .99c, heading directly away from each other, when ship 1 measures the velocity of ship 2, they do not find it to be 1.98c, they measure it to be 0.99994949750012625624968435937579c. i know ur specialization is to stalk, deliberately misconstrue & insult to make yourself feel smart. please ignore my post if that is what u are about. thanks 186000 mi/sec or 300000 km/sec thanks. i was just being lazy typing 186k (i presume others would no what is meant and i am pleased that u do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 know ur specialization is to stalk, deliberately misconstrue & insult to make yourself feel smart. I haven't insulted you. Believe me, I would know if I insulted you. If questioning what you post is insulting you, then perhaps you should not post such ignorant garbage uninformed speculation. Because if you do, you will be called on it. So far, it's all been bad math and word salad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 speed would of course be "c" (which is approximately 186mi/s based on the best atomic clocks we now have - when we get better clocks, this 186mi/sec will be reported as a different more accurate number). No, it won't. c is a defined number (299,792,458 m/s), as is the duration of the second (9192631770 oscillations of the hyperfine transition in Cs-133). Better instrumentation will result in more accurate and precise realizations of the meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 i know ur specialization is to stalk, deliberately misconstrue & insult to make yourself feel smart. please ignore my post if that is what u are about. thanks thanks. i was just being lazy typing 186k (i presume others would no what is meant and i am pleased that u do) Nobody misconstrued anything, you got the value of c wrong, you got the physics wrong, and you got the maths wrong. You also seem to struggle with writing decent English. BTW, there's no meaningful sense in which the universe has a surface. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 i was just being lazy typing 186k (i presume others would no what is meant and i am pleased that u do) The objections are because you were so lazy you left out the "k". Five times. Two of them after you'd been corrected. When analyzing why someone is questioning something as well documented as the speed of light, it's important to weed out any mistakes they might have made due to lack of rigor. On the other hand, you may want to check under the K on your keyboard to see if something is blocking it. I had to do that yesterday with my S key. Moving on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now