Light Speed = Fast Forward?

I have a question. If you travel at the speed of light (hypothetically) towards a planet light years away, as you travel does the planet, does the planet appear to be evolving faster? To what it is today.

An example: If we were 6 billion light years away from earth, what we would see of Earth actually occured 6 billion years ago. As we travel towards Earth (at the speed of light), would we see Earth's evolution faster than we would normally? (i.e. in fast forward)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I doubt it.

It is true the light we see emanating or reflecting from stars and planets has taken millions of years to make it to us. But that light doesn't really carry much of a historical record to it, except for fluctuations of energy output levels. Maybe you'd catch the first radio transmissions progressing towards the most recent as you moved closer to the planet. But if your travelling at light speed the information would be coming in too fast to make any sense out of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Assuming you had a really good means of viewing the planet, the answer would be 'yes and no'. If you were travelling at .99c, time for a static observer would pass about 600% faster; not enough to see anything on a macro scale. This goes up to nearly 7000% at .9999c, and will get higher with the gradual increases in speed. But it'd be damn hard to get that fast.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is still unproven according to James P. Hogan. Following is a very interesting experiment suggestion to NASA.

INTERFEROMETRY BEYOND THE TERRESTRIAL MAGNETOPAUSE

The Einstein Special Relativity Theory (SRT), we all "know," forms one of the cornerstones of modern physics. Its predictions are utilized on a routine basis, and it has withstood every experimental test.

These predictions boil down, essentially, to applications of the principles of (i) mass-energy equivalence (E=mc*2), (ii) mass dependence on velocity, and (iii) time dilation. Experiments verifying these relationships have been performed with increasing precision in the course of the past century. These are the proofs that the textbooks cite in support of SRT, and which its defenders point to when questions are raised concerning Relativity basics.

But it turns out that _all_ of them can be derived by purely classical procedures, independently of any Relativistic considerations. They don't say anything unique about SRT at all. (i) follows from the principle of conservation of momentum and Maxwell's equations. Carl Zapffe gives three derivations in his book "A Reminder on E+mc*2," with numerous references that show how it was implicit in the physics known at the end of the nineteenth century. Regarding (ii), Petr Beckmann, in his "Einstein Plus Two" (1987), shows how the increase of "mass" with velocity arises as a manifestation of the electrical inertia of charges moving through fields--analogous to aerodynamic drag.

Essentially, these are effects arising from the energy differences of relatively moving systems. The question they lead to is whether the results observed regarding (iii) (e.g. the extended lives of cosmic-ray muons) are in fact confirmation of "time" being dilated, as per SRT, or result from the physical slowing-down of clocklike processes in motion through a field. The only way to test this empirically would be to sit on an incoming muon and observe whether the laboratory clocks (at rest in the field) also slow down (as the observer-referred SRT holds) or speed up (as a field-referred theory would predict). This has never been done. (A whole literature exists on all this, but I don't think that here would be the place to elaborate further.)

So, the standard proofs turn out not to be proofs at all. All that's left, then, is the interpretation of the 1881 Michelson-Morley attempt to measure an "ether wind," and its many variations performed since.

The null results returned by these experiments have two possible interpretations: (1) There is no ether; (2) the ether local to the Earth is entrained in its orbit around the Sun. (1), of course, is the orthodox line. The constancy of the speed of light for all observers is a _postulate_ that follows from accepting this interpretation. Contrary to common belief, it has never been verified experimentally. (The claimed verifications all involve round-trip measurements that average out the c+/-v velocities that arise in field-referred theories.) Having thus conferred constancy on a velocity, it then becomes necessary to distort space and time in order to preserve it. This, in effect, is what the transformation equations of SRT do.

Treating the ether as a quasi-mechanical fluid was a natural consequence of the advances in materials sciences in the nineteenth century; the peculiar properties that followed from viewing it in this way make the readiness to go with interpretation (1), and abandon the ether altogether, understandable. The situation changes considerably, however, when reviewed in terms of today's ideas of fields (which isn't to say that the concept of fields was unknown then, of course). In particular, it has been shown (e.g. by Beckmann) that the results of all the experiments performed to date, normally taken as evidence supporting SRT, are equally consistent with an alternative interpretation in which the velocity of light is constant not with respect to the observer (as in SRT), but with respect to the field environment through which the light propagates. The difference is that the derivations follow more simply, without the distortions of space and time, and the accompanying mathematical complications of SRT; also, the field-referred theory has greater predictive power (e.g in enabling derivation of the spectral line spacings for the hydrogen atom). By the criteria normally claimed of science-- equally compatible with experimental results; simpler; more powerful predictively--this would become the preferred theory.

And, indeed, when thought of as the terrestrial electromagnetic field environment, the "ether" is indeed entrained and moves with the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. The plots from NASA's own space probes show nothing clearer than the sharply defined boundary of the terrestrial magnetosphere ("geosphere"), extending out to about ten Earth radii, elongated like a teardrop pointing away from the Sun, forming a huge shock front around which the solar wind streams like the slipstream outside the hull of an airplane. And here, in our laboratories solidly nailed to our planet deep inside this bubble, is where, for a century, we have been attempting to measure our orbital slipstream. But, if the field-referred proposal is correct, that slipstream exists not in the vicinity of the Earth at all, but at the boundary where the embedded geosphere meets the magnetic "heliosphere" of the Sun (and very likely moves with it through a greater "galactosphere"). We've been trying to measure our airspeed with our pitot tube inside the cabin instead of outside in the atmosphere.

(The geosphere travels with the Earth but does not appear to rotate with it. Accordingly, a suitable Michelson-Morely type of experiment performed on the Earth's surface ought to be capable of detecting a "rotational wind"--although it would need to be far more sensitive than the 1881 experiment. Such an experiment was performed in 1925 by Michelson and Gale. Not only was a fringe shift observed, but it was possible to calculate the Earth's rotational velocity quite accurately from the results. Michelson himself was never enthusiastic about the orthodox interpretation, and continued to favor the entrained-ether alternative until his death.)

I would propose, therefore, an interferometry experiment designed along the lines of the Michelson-Morely prototype, but taking advantage of today's technologies, to be performed from a spacecraft _outside_ the geosphere boundary--preferably trailing the craft itself, to eliminate possible shielding effects within the structure. On emerging from the geosphere, the craft would be moving through the heliosphere with its shared orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun, direct measurement of which should be easily accomplished if the field-centered hypothesis is valid. Thus, for the first time ever, an experiment would have been performed to distinguish between the observer-referred theory (SRT) and the alternative.

Should the results prove positive, such methods of "astro- interferometry" should be of particular interest to an organization like NASA because of the potential usefulness of the techniques that could follow, especially with regard to longer-range space missions in the future. For example, the fringe behavior might offer the basis for a spacegoing _odometer_ and _speedometer_ for measuring displacements and velocities relative to local (solar, planetary, or other) embedding fields. Also, the transitions between field domains could provide a means of _cosmographic mapping_ of a field-structured Solar System, and maybe of the interstellar environment beyond.

James P. Hogan

July 15, 1997

 

It seems to me that mister James P. Hogan doesn't know much about the early history and genesis of the special relativity theory.
First of all Einstein always said his theory was nothing new but merly a consequence of Maxwells theory of the electromagnetic field. The equation E= mc^2 was well known before his publication in 1905 and Lorentz made his transformation formula also before this date.
The only thing that Einstein showed was that Maxwell and Newton were not compatible and that it was Newton's theory that needed modification.

 

It would still be "nice" to know the outcome of such an experiment by NASA, wouldn't it?


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein

--UB--

 

But of course, the only reason any theory is worth considering is when it can be tested again and again. I would recommend to not just be content by doing an experiment just outside the earth's vicinity but even outside the sun's, the further away from large masses, the flatter space is. Special relativity works in a flat space only so any testing should make sure this is the case.

 

Of course, that means that any testing apparatus would have to be massless. Any mass at all would have an (extremely) local effect on the continuum.

 

I'll let Mr. James P. Hogan defend himself...


Truth Under Tyranny by James P. Hogan
Drifting in the Ether Did Relativity Take a Wrong Turn?


It's generally held that nothing could be on more solid ground than
Einsteinian relativity, which along with quantum mechanics is usually
cited as one of the twin pillars supporting modern physics. Questioning it
is a risky business, since it's a subject that attracts cranks in swarms.
Nevertheless, a sizable body of well-qualified, far-from-crankish opinion
exists that the edifice has serious cracks in its foundations.

In 1887, Michelson and Morley performed their famous experiment that
failed to detect Earth's motion through the hypothesized ether. This
negative result can be interpreted in two ways: (1) The ether doesn't
exist; or (2) The local ether is entrained and travels with the Earth in
its orbit around the sun. The conventional interpretation is (1), which
yields as a corollary the familiar postulate (never tested) that
light-speed is the same relative to all observers. Since speed is a
measure of distance traveled per unit of time, to keep the speed of light
constant, space and time are posited to shrink and stretch in peculiar
ways, producing the well known "relativistic" distortions and correction
factors.

The Michelson and Morley experiment, however, and a century's worth of
others confirming it, have all been conducted in laboratories at rest with
respect to the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields. Suppose, the
critics argue, that what's constant is not speed relative to the observer
as Einstein supposed, but relative to the field through which the light
propagates. Measurements from space probes and so forth show that this
field environment moves with the Earth in its orbit around the Sun a
teardrop-shaped bubble extending to about 10 Earth radii out, which the
solar wind streams around in a shockwave like air around a plane. If it is
indeed the velocity with respect to the field that matters, we're in the
situation of passengers in an airplane whose acoustic environment is
traveling with them, and we should no more expect to detect a "drift" than
they would expect to measure their airspeed with the pitot tube inside the
cabin instead of outside in the airstream. On reappraising relativity from
this viewpoint, the critics find that a field-referred theory:

is equally consistent with all experimental results obtained so far, which
are held as "proving" relativity.

involves simpler mathematics

enables quantities to be derived that relativity has to accept as given,
i.e., it shows greater predictive power.

Judged by the criteria as given in the textbooks, shouldn't this become
the preferred theory?

Not when you're dealing with what has become a body of ecclesiastical
doctrine, founded by a canonized saint. A test would be to perform a
Michelson and Morley type experiment in a spacecraft away from Earth, but
it doesn't carry any immediate defense or economic payoff, or involve big
machines requiring big management and budgets. Besides, who's interested
in reexamining basics these days?

The usual response from physicists is to cite energy-mass equivalence (the
famous E=mc2), the increase of mass with velocity, and observed
time-dilation (e.g. of muons in accelerators and cosmic rays) as verifying
relativity countless times in laboratories every day. The only snag is,
none of these does "prove" anything unique to relativity.

The energy equation derives from the classical physics of momentum
conservation and Maxwell's equations, without requiring any relativistic
treatment at all as Einstein acknowledged before he died. (Hence, "The
Bomb" doesn't prove anything either. Nuclear fission was an outcome of
quantum physics and related work in the 30s, which Einstein wasn't
involved in. This myth arose from his role in 1939 as deliverer of a
crucial letter from Teller, Szilard, and Wigner to President Roosevelt.)
The increase of mass with velocity also followed from physics known at the
end of the nineteenth century, and had been demonstrated by J.J.
Thompson's experiments with electron beams. Relativity was an elegant way
of interpreting such phenomena; but they weren't predictions unique to
Relativity.

And if something as fundamental as mass is velocity- dependent, nobody can
say whether extended muon lives are due to "time" being dilated
relativistically, or some mass-related factor that causes physical
processes in motion to run slower. An experiment to test between them
would be the equivalent of sitting on a speeding muon and observing if the
clocks in the laboratory run slower as relativity says they should, or
faster, as field-referred theory says. Nothing of the kind has ever been
done, and until it is, the jury is out.

Michelson himself always favored the entrainment interpretation and in
1925 performed an experiment in conjunction with Gale to detect the "wind"
due to the Earth's rotation (which the fields are not expected to share).
Not only did they detect it, but they were able to calculate the Earth's
rotation accurately from the result. This fact is simply ignored by the
reigning orthodoxy. Also ignored are results of stellar aberration
observations, which contradict relativity; the Hafele-Keating experiment
of flying cesium atomic clocks around the world, in which the west-bound
clock ran faster, not slower; GPS satellite transmissions, which routinely
correct for differences in signal propagation speed that relativity says
shouldn't happen; and laser-ring aircraft gyros, which seem to show light
going around faster in one direction than in the other.

If the critics are right, it's possible that the relativistic limit could
turn out to be just a restriction on the movement of charged bodies in
electromagnetic fields comparable to the aerodynamic limits on the
propagation of sound, which limit the speed of propeller-driven aircraft.
The whole theory derives from electromagnetic field equations, after all;
all the "proofs" are from accelerator experiments on charged particles.
Nobody knows how neutral matter might behave, say under the influence of a
future science involving the controlled generation and direction of
intense gravity fields.

And we're not likely to find out any time soon, while establishment
science continues with its attitude of refusing to consider that the
dissidents may have a point worth looking into.

[I have personally experienced the case of a leading gravitational
scientist, on being asked if he had gotten a chance to look at a book on a
field-referred alternative to Relativity by a Czech professor that had
been sent to him, reply: "I have not read the book. I have no intention of
opening the book. Einstein cannot be wrong, and that's the end of the
matter."]

 

Cool...

I, for one, welcome the "entrained field" alternative. It fits nicely with my own intuitions about the structure of the universe.

<b>Plato</b>,

Nice to see you're still around buddy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi ubaron,

From your quote of James P. Hogan's text:

A sad, but true fact: with most of the large science facilities being run by managers, it's no longer the quest for knowledge, but the available budget that determines what domains of science are interesting.

I think that any good scientist is a critical scientist, and I must agree that this sounds like an interesting outcome of an experiment indeed. I wouldn't immediatelly say it would render the theory of special relativity completely useless, but the discovery of this "ether" drag effect would be revolutionary for probably every fieldbased theory.

I actually wonder if the test would need a new satelite (with interferometers on board) to be launched. There surely must be a way to measure this effect, if any, in the communication signals (electric fields) from one of the probes we've sent out far beyond earth-orbit.

Personally, I'd hate to see this ether drag to be observed; it kinda contracts my personal intuition that everything in nature tends to smoothen itself out eventually (and not cluster together or drag along). But then again, my intuition has proven to fail me more than once already

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Bye!

Crisp.

 

Yes, very sad indeed. I think that the days of "pure" science are over. Funding and grants are rarely being given to any research that might be considered controversial.

NASA should conduct this experiment. If for nothing else, to prove once and for all that RL is the REAL way our universe "handles" itself.

About intuition; I am sure it failed each one of us at least once...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein

--UB--

 

Re: Cool...

Yes, me too. It opens so many new possibilities

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

--UB--

 

I would like to point out that neutrinos are a very good candidate fur just such an experiment since they only interact with the weak force and thus are truely neutral for the electromagnetic force.
Some experiments have proven that they seem to have a rest mass greater then zero, however there is no theoretical basis for the moment to predict this rest mass, only an upper limit. If theory could be refined to get a more accurate picture of their rest mass, and a measurement of their 'relativistic' mass is done, this could very well prove to be a conclusive argument that relativity has something to do with electromagnetism or not...

I hope this is not true for every one since it is only by keeping on questioning everything that any progress is possible...

Boris,

hello back, it has indeed been a long while, hasn't it ? How has life been treating you ?
I became a father in the mean time, I can tell you, it's a whole new world for me suddenly !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We may learn a little bit more in the next few years. The guys at The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory are working hard...

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/

Who could possibly disagree with your statement? ;-)

--UB--

 

just a quick thought before i go to bed
i must state i have only browsed the first few posts
BUT
what would you use for propulsion
cold chocolate fusion ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WHAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT SO IT MAY PROPELL AN OBJECT FASTER THAN LIGHT ITSELF?
just a thought
groove on all

 

fascinating! pure energy!

Very well. The following possibilities, as I comprehend:

a) You are either a Fu*kin nut, or

b) you are an even larger genious than me, with an even more twisted sense of humor than me.

Questro/////riptide: WHAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT SO IT MAY PROPELL AN OBJECT FASTER THAN LIGHT ITSELF?

Please explain////////

 

oooooooooooopppppppppsssssss

ooooooooopppppppppsssssssss
nothing as i am aware
which is the reason for the question
i would not state it bassed on my
infentissamilly small level of fissyicks ca-knoledge

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

wat the fuck is a k in front of a n for when its supposed to be silent i ask?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

all propulsion that i have heard about is bassed on
combustive concepts so there for the maximum escape/explosion is the maximumspeed in a frictionless enviroment and light is the fastest as we know it
....................?
is it?
im not sure
but yes i was being cheeky

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

sorry if i offend
ment to be funny at my expense if anyones
groove on

 

?headlights?

This is the voice of Backslash777. To reply to the query with the same shallow view of physics as it was written we will disregard the law of relativity.
If humans were going to earth (1 million light years away) at the speed of light they would see it evolve only twice as fast.
The reason for this is as follows.

When you first set off you are seeing the world as it was a million years ago. When you arrive you are seeing it as it is therefore one million years seems to have passed. Add on the one million years travelling time and you arrive to the conclusion that 2 million years have passed in a million.
If you went into the laws of relativity you would find that to go such a speed your spaceship would have to have infinite weight and therefore require infinite energy to get going. You would also need to compensate for heavy color shift as travelling at the speed of light would half the wavelength for everything in the electromagnetic spectrum ahead of you.
Now we have answered your question can you answer one of ours. When you get to go the speed of light tell me, what happens if you switch the headlights on?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hey all
yo backslash777
im not familiar with the principals of wave physics but would assume that if the platform from which the light is generated is traveling at light speed it would be propusion of light @ light speed.
my imediate thought is that in a frictionless enviroment you would have ultra light speed or light traveling at twice the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hang on!
a different colour!
of coarse - compounding waves ?
does light bounce off light?

im afraid i am way out of my depth now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

groove on........ thoughts?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!