I like your definitions and they really make me start to ponder again. (which I LOVE to do) 
And I’m sure that it was this kind of thought experiment that Einstein did as he was coming up with the basics of relativity.
So here’s what I’m thinking with regards to “speed limit”…
The whole idea of not being able to go faster than the speed of light only applies to a “stationary” observer when referring to an object in motion. But to the object in motion there is no actual velocity. Only rate of acceleration. And if it is not accelerating, then it is at rest. (ignoring other points of reference which are irrelevant to it’s own motion) And a flashlight beam is always going to leave the flashlight at c with respect to the bulb which is apparently at rest relative to it’s own mass. No matter if it is already at c or not. (relative to an observer)
Because the terms, “at rest” and the idea of a velocity are only derived from two points of reference. And since no two actual objects in the universe can say with any accuracy what their velocity is, neither can they say with any accuracy what the (actual) velocity of another object is. (which would need to have a universal reference point like the center of the universe)
Therefore… a spaceship will be able to go as fast as it wants to with no speed limit. (i.e. c+)
To the observer it would appear to take longer and longer to achieve c. (and of course the spaceship would start to look really strange to them) It may appear to take years to travel any distance at all. And this extra time would equal the time that it would take for the spaceship to travel light years and return to the earth in what to the spaceship would be the future. Which explains the time dilation that occurs with the GPS satellites. If I was a mathematician this is where I would spew out a long equation…
And this would also explain why traveling faster than c won’t make you travel into the past. Because the earth is not traveling with you and therefore time on earth tics by at a normal speed but time for any velocity faster than earth tics by slower according to the observer, but normal for the object in motion. So traveling anywhere near or past c will always have you return to earth in it’s future.
Does that sound logical? (and maybe even right?)
The interesting part would be watching a ship go slower and slower and suddenly realize that it was no longer going away but returning. And exactly where would that “vanishing point” be? (wish I could copy write that term)
Now I’m going to go ponder the difference between gravity and acceleration. (one of my favorite bedtime stories)
The point is whether light has a linear speed?
We talk about the speed of light in terms we all understand, but does the light actually have a linear speed?
If it does it has to move through space like a very fast train or bus.
Why would photons be capable of linear motion?
Bullets and cars travel at linear rates of motion, but why light?
Some of you are treating time in terms of static durations and space in terms of static distances and applying this to determine the speed of light on the basis of a very important assumption…you assume the light is itself to be in motion in the manner of a train or bus.
If the light is not in linear motion the speed associated with light speed is not the speed of the light itself but the linear relationship of time and space in relation to the localized condition of time and space.
This concept of linear light speed traps your mind in a box and prevents you from going any further, like hitting a brick wall.
Einstein said that time was different for every system in motion and in this respect he is not referring to linear durations of time, as no such durations exist as physical aspects of universe, which is why both past and future conditions exist simultaneously.
Honestly? None of it is right. If you understood relativity or even did the simple math involved in calculating relativistic speeds you’d see that not a word of it makes sense.
Wrong. No reference frame exists in which any object can exceed the speed of light, stationary or otherwise.
Of course there is. Why wouldn’t there be? The earth is in motion and we can calculate our velocity very easily even if it feels as if we’re standing still.
Moving at a set speed and direction, usually called uniform motion, can be treated mathematically the same as being at rest, but it is not the same thing.
This is meaningless. At rest relative to it’s own mass?
Relativity by definition states that any reference frame can be substituted for any other reference frame, so velocities can be said from any reference frame.
Wrong. See above.
If you were a mathematician you’d see that this is gibberish. Time dilation does not resemble anything you said here. It is mathematically perfectly well understood and proven by real-life events, none of which happen as you’ve just described.
Actually, relativity theory says exactly that traveling faster than c is equivalent to traveling into the past. As usual, it is the exact opposite of what you say.
Times ticks at one second per second for any observer in any reference point moving at any acceleration. It’s only outside observers who see any difference. And any travel at any speed will always return you to the future. Again, that’s the whole point of relativity.
This is again opposite to any reality we understand or relativity predicts.
Sorry. No logic here. No understanding of physics. Nothing right. Nothing.
Because bullets are classical objects and people are used to thinking of them in classical terms, whereas light is a goofy thing that is inherently hard to understand even without relativity. So let’s back up and use a simple classical model, a vehicle and a bullet. The model is easier to conceptualize.
Sort of. You are correct that to measure a velocity requires a reference point. A non-accelerating object not being compared to anything else can be considered at rest. If you start comparing to any other object or reference frame, then you will measure some velocity with respect to that reference frame.
You are correct that light travels at the speed of light in whatever medium through which it is traveling. When it leaves the light bulb, it will be traveling at c with respect to that bulb, regardless of the velocity of that bulb with respect to some other reference point or frame.
It would be clearer to say that neither object can state an objective absolute velocity for itself or the other object, they can only state the relative velocity between them that they see from their own reference frame.
No. Because in order to determine how fast that spaceship is going, you need a reference point. But as soon as you make that reference point, then relativity tells you that from that reference point, the spaceship can never reach c. It will get closer and closer to c, but require more and more energy in order to get smaller and smaller gains. Of course, from the spaceships point of view, it is at rest and everything else is getting faster and faster at traveling past it, but it takes more and more energy to speed up the rest of the universe.
This does not make any sense. You are saying that the space ship spends years traveling lots of different places while the observer sees it sitting still? No.
No, this is a confused mess.
This appears to be a figment of your confusion.
Two hands clap together to make a sharp noise. What is the sound of one hand?
I think he means there is no objective absolute velocity. In order to measure the Earth’s velocity, we have to pick an object of reference. Since that object is arbitrary, there is no objective reference, then there is no objective velocity.
But you have to define the reference point.
The problem lies in “I think he means.” The more I read, the harder rather than easier it becomes to say what I think Natural1 means. He certainly doesn’t appear to understand the equivalency of reference frames and that throws off every other comment made.
Gibberish is hard to correct because people try to read correct meaning into it in order to frame a coherent rejoinder. Our corrections are relativistic in that each of us assumes a different outside correctness from which to approach.
What would be best would be to sit him down with a good popular science book that starts before the beginning and provides all the context chapter by chapter until all is revealed. You need 500 pages to get at all the wrongness. Line by line corrections are useful in that outside readers can be reassured that it’s wrong but they don’t really instruct.
David Barclay, OTOH, is beyond even that. Once you base your whole world view around “linear motion” then no learning is possible.
Would you agree that light is not in linear motion then?
Or are you trying to imply that linear and non-linear motion are the same thing?
Or are you suggesting non-linear motion can be defined through the application of linear terms?
Should there be no questioning of accepted standards?
I, for one, am suggesting that “non-linear motion” can be defined only through the application of mystic woo-woo.
I suggest questioning anybody who uses terms without defining them and proffers “physics” without equations. I’m big on that kind of questioning.
I’m sorry if I was thinking a little above your head.
Your problem with my theories is that you assume that I am trying to explain your understanding of relativity. I’m not.
I’m trying to theorize about the way the physical universe is. Not how relativity is.
I’m using the term “relativity” because that is the nomenclature that the physics community uses to describe the spacial and time anomalies that seem counter intuitive to common sense. I’ve read several theories that can explain things like gravity, dark matter and energy and what physicist call curved space that can be totally explained without relativity and are mathematically and experimentally sound. Of course you would never see those theories preached in a physics classroom but that doesn’t make them incorrect. New theories have always been scoffed at by the current educational establishment but given enough time theories thought to be “the way” can be proved wrong. (or at least misguided)
Many of the standard physics ideas are theoretically meaningless. (relativistically)
I’ll try to simplify it for you.
I stand by the following statements because they are simple and correct and also because I know that you are unable to prove them incorrect. (no matter how much you say “no” and “wrong”)
Velocity is meaningless without two points of reference.
(Without two points of reference there is only one reference frame and therefore no actual velocity.)
Without two points of reference an object can be said to be at rest.
Unless an object comes in contact with another object at a different velocity it’s mass will seem to remain constant (as it was before it achieved velocity) no matter what it’s velocity compared to another reference point.
Acceleration is converting energy to motion, (mass) which is only potential. But without resistance potential is meaningless.
Once energy is converted to motion, no more energy is required to maintain that same motion. (or inertia if you like)
An object traveling at the speed of light needs no energy to maintain it’s velocity.
If energy is applied to an object in motion, in the same direction as the previous motion, that object will accelerate. But the added mass can only be considered potential, and can only be considered increased if that object ever comes in contact with another object.
What I’m talking about here is the misconception that at the speed of light mass would become infinite. But since mass is only potential if not applied then the idea of infinite mass is meaningless. (not to mention the whole idea of infinites being meaningless and impossible)
Physicist love to throw around the term “infinite” without actually understanding the scope of it.
If an object is at rest and energy is applied toward momentum it will accelerate from it’s state of rest to a different state. But that state can only be said to be increased mass if there are two points of reference and another object to compare it too.
Therefore if an object is at .9999~ the speed of light to an observer, but at rest to itself and energy is applied it will increase it’s momentum by the same amount of energy that was applied. Since it was not at the speed of light in it’s reference frame but was at rest. And since it’s matter would remain unchanged, and it’s state would remain unchanged, it’s mass could be considered to remain unchanged. The only difference would be considered by an observer.
I’m sorry you couldn’t get into the spaceship idea. That was just for fun and was more scifi than fact. But the only way to prove it would be to do it.
But the idea was to explore the difference between what the observer saw and what was actually happening.
This is probably where we should consider your perception of space. You probably consider space to be an object that can be manipulated (and bent) by forces. (like gravity) But you can not specify exactly what part of space is acted upon by forces, (as if space had units) or exactly what gravity is and exactly how it works. Or if time and space are connected and what exactly time is.
But that doesn’t seem to stop physicist from telling people that they know what they are.
But that’s a lesson for another occasion.
My head hurts from reading a good chunk of this… But I cannot possibly read it all.
Forgive me if I’m reposting a question that was already asked, but what of a flashlight instead of a bullet?
Considering the speed comparison of light compared to the bullet… Would the accordian effect be far worse? Or would something else happen altogether?
My problem with your theories is that you aren’t defining any theories. You’re just playing “what if?”. A theory needs an “if X is true then Y will happen”. You then design experiments to prove Y when X. If you say X is always true then if someone demonstrates a scenario when X is not true then the theory is wrong. Nothing personal.
Don’t use defined terms to mean something other than their definition.
Don’t try to simplify. Use rigorously defined terms and see where it goes.
Without two points of reference, the thing you are talking about is in a universe all by itself. Since we don’t have that type of universe, what you are talking about isn’t real for us. It’s okay for a scifi novel, but not for the demonstrable world.
“What if” is the beginning of any theory. The X’s and Y’s come when you write them down on paper. But when you’re discussing something the values are generalized by using nouns. Like “spaceship” or “flashlight”. And all questions generally start this way. And a “if, then” scenario is generally considered a very basic equation. But many “proofs” are only vaguely representative of the equation. And many could be proven wrong by another set of experiments and equations if they used different basics.
Consider the scientific interpretation of gravity. Most textbooks talk about it as if it is a closed question and throughly proven. But none of them can tell you exactly what a graviton is, where it comes from, or how exactly it interacts with matter. And yet is considered to be the basis for many other “proven” theories.
The word “relativity” is a branch of the root word “relative” which means “in relation too or connection with” which is how Einstein was using it also. It’s not an actual noun.
Simplification is the whole point of science. You break things down into their constituent parts and examine them separately. And it is much easier to communicate a point when you simplify it.
As I eluded to previously. Separating things is how science examines and defines everything. You can’t look at a human body and define what makes up an atom. You have to look at the atom separately and define it’s properties as if it was not interacting with any other atom.
So for spacial relationships you must look at each object as if forces weren’t acting upon it to define it’s properties. Then you can look at the way other things would react to it according to their “relative” positions.
That is the whole point of the concept of relativity. To have separate objects acting together but still considered separate. Then you can consider their reactions to each other.
I think that in most cases breakthroughs in physics are not going to come from following the hard and fast rules of physics but from straying from them to say “what if”. Einstein did this when he challenged the rules of Newton. If a theory doesn’t challenge the common beliefs then it is just restating known facts.
No, I think “Hmmm” is the beginning of any theory. But truly, you’re thinking “what if?” equals hypothesis equals theory. It doesn’t. If you can’t test it, it isn’t anything. But you could probably make a movie out of it.
Then it’s not a proof. Accept something as a proof only if it results in the equation being proved.
I don’t know of anything that uses it as an axiom. And if your textbook describes it as real, then just start with the Wikipedia definition.
Einstein was referring to his Special Theory of Relativity and nothing else.
No it isn’t. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
No that’s science fiction. Breakthroughs come from creating a testable theory.
If you have some equations or observations - something we can test or measure against - we’re all ears.
You’ll not find a single textbook that talks about gravity in this way. Not even one.
It always strikes me as funny when lay people accuse the scientific community of failing to know what it doesn’t know and not being open to alter theory based on observation. The scientists cornered the market on this kind of thing decades ago–centuries even. This kind of thing is what scientists do, qua scientist.
-Kris
You are really good at avoiding the issue, which questions the validity of light being in linear motion.
After all it is the cornerstone of our modern physics and if the idea is valid there should be some way to demonstrate its validity, but so far no response.
It is claimed that light has been slowed, even to a full stop and made to vanish and reappear, but was it the light itself which was affected or the field condition in which the light was situated?
The frozen light experiment is said to have an application in the area of non-linear optics, which does sound a bit weird when you consider our perception of light being defined by linear proportions.
So there is nothing mystic woo-woo involved here, it’s simply a question of principle in that science is insisting that light is capable of linear motion which can be determined on the basis of those terms determining the motion of a train, plane or bus.
While at the same time existing in a dynamic state corresponding to the condition of universe, which does make it sound like a bit of mystic woo-woo might have slipped into the works.
The static terms defining light speed can only remain valid if the universe exists in a static state, which was the idea in 1905, but it is not the idea today.
So the question is; does light itself even have a speed?
There was a “What If?” once that there was an aether in space. A test was created and it became a theory. The test was performed and it failed. The theory then turned back into a “What If?”. We don’t discuss it because there is nothing to discuss. There is nothing to test. There is nothing to match reality.
If you think light does not have a speed then that’s a “What If?” or an idea. Create a definition and make a test. Then its a theory. Test it and see if it’s true. You can’t go beyond the “What If?” unless you start putting some meat into the idea.
It’s not for the audience to prove your “What If?” wrong, it’s for you to prove yourself right. You think that because you can put together some words into a noun-verb-object order that you’ve discovered some great truth, like “Have you stopped making stuff up?” Create a describable, testable theory and then we can have something to talk about.
Corner Case said:
**Natural1 ** said:
You’ve just misstated what Corner Case was saying. The X’s and Y’s he mentions are words used in the example description he provided. The “what if” may be the idea that is the starting point, but it is meaningless until you examine the consequences of your supposition, and determine a way to distinguish the results of your “what if” being true and being false. Without a way to falsify your proposition (i.e. distinguish if it is not true), you don’t have science. At best, you have alternative concepts for consideration.
Confirmation is a difficult proposal in science. Sometimes it is straightforward. If I mix salt into water, I will get salty water. Easy to demonstrate. But many science proposals are more complicated. “Proving” something in science typically works by disproof - that is, you determine some test that will give results one way if the idea is true and a different way if it is false, then look at the results. Seeing positive results is supportive of the idea, negative results undermine the idea. Assuming the methodology is sound and all known causes of error are eliminated, then repetition of the results leads to confidence in the answer.
Sometimes the results from any particular test could be due to a different set of conditions. That is exemplified by the syllogism.
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B.
(completely meaningless and frivolous)* Example:
If monkeys, then Canada.
Canada exists.
Therefore, monkeys.
Oops, that is an erroneous use of the syllogism. The proper use would to observe monkeys and then conclude that Canada must exist. Observing Canada exists tells us that monkeys may be possible. But there may be other conditions that could provide Canada without monkeys. In that case, the results are suggestive but not conclusive.
Alternative proposals to monkeys must be considered, and then some other means of distinguishing between those proposals must be developed.
How does any of this relate to what you were saying? Yes, sometimes the way we evaluate a scientific proposal is backwards from the proper syllogism. That is when multiple lines of investigation are pursued. Suppose monkeys result in Canada, but also in the moon being made of green cheese. Suppose a lack of monkeys but the presence of juggling also results in Canada, but instead the moon would be made of chewing gum. Now you have an alternative test. You go check the moon for its composition. Repeat with other alternatives, and if you get several different conditions that all result from monkeys but not from alternative causes for Canada, then you can reasonably conclude that monkeys are around.
The behavior of gravity is well documented and well understood. The underlying cause is theoretical and does not have solid evidence. Gravitons are a proposed underlying cause, quite independent of the fact that gravity does exist. The search for gravitons involves figuring out what would cause the results we document, and trying to find ways to search for said gravitons. But do not equate the proposed idea of gravitons with the documented behavior of gravity.
Now you’re just being difficult.
A theory isn’t science until it can be formulated with ways to disprove it and tests are run that support it.
*Because I can’t come up with good real examples on the spot, and because it’s funny.
The issue is that “light being in linear motion” is undefined, meaningless verbiage. You can stand here and shout, “The gostak distims the doshes!” from now until Fox News turns honest, but you’ll not convince anyone of anything until you start making a minimal quantum of sense; you’ll succeed only in sounding like a bad episode of Doctor Who.
Look, if any of this meant anything than David Barclay would convince Natural1 and Natural1 would convince David Barclay. And yet they don’t.
QED
Very nice. It’s nice to know that there is an actual intelligent person posting here. And someone that actually read my post (and understood the words) before commenting. (without just spouting an emotional outburst)
You show that a post can be thoughtful and intelligent while still allowing someone else to have questions that need an answer. I felt like I actually learned something.
I don’t claim to know the answers to my posted questions. That is the point of a question. And if science is to ever advance (which it does) people must always ask more questions about new and existing “facts”. And not just “shut up and believe what we tell you… we’ve got an equation”. I could probably come up with a equation that says that a dragon breathed the universe into existence that would be impossible to disprove. And the universe would still exist. The problem would be that many of the values would be unknown and yet un-dis-provable. My whole point of questioning “proven” facts of physics is to get people thinking outside of the box. (which is where the rest of the universe is)
Also about the gravity question… one of the things that I was referring to was ideas like the Le Sage theories of gravity being totally opposite in physical action but not general function of gravity. With the behavior of gravity being the same.
You should read the book, “Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage’s Theory of Gravitation”. Very interesting and thought provoking.
(and generally quite well proven mathematically)