Speed of light not constant?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by sculptor, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yet time continues to go on in the rest frame relative to that velocity c, is perfectly well defined, and does not require division by zero in order to make perfect sense and ordering of events including the position of the wavefront while this occurs. That's because nothing is actually 'moving'. When you knock down a row of dominoes, does any single domino move ahead as fast as the wave? No. Each one simply ROTATES a bit as it falls. THAT IS WHAT CARRIES THE ENERGY OF GRAVITY. This even works in the non rotating, otherwise empty quantum 'Higgs' field. The direction of the force depends only on which direction the Higgs mechanism imparted linear inertia to mass from its own zero spin quantum field. Mass = Energy = rotational / linear inertia = disturbance of a quantum field.

    Time and quantum entanglement and the temporal permanence of the form of energy we refer to as matter derives of quantum spin (faster than c), not from c.

    Time dilation is not 'constant', even if the speed of light, or that of the rest frame, is. Time and events related to energy = inertia = 'disturbance of a lossless quantum field'', is all that exists in this universe.

    The totality of physics derives of this, and unifies perfectly without reference to anything involving what we commonly refer to as 'space' = 'light travel time'.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    605
    A clock on stationary reference frame must tick faster than a clock on moving reference frame. An observer of stationary reference frame can calculate the time of the clock on moving reference frame like this...

    t= T(sqrt (1-(v^2/c^2))

    Here value of t is given by the clock on moving reference frame and value of T is given by the clock on stationary reference frame.

    An imaginable observer can not define time on moving reference frame when v=c, because the observer can define nothing in 0 second.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Arbitrarily close to c (0.99999999999999 c), an observer has no idea they are moving with whatever velocity, relative to anything else, AND it does not affect anything other than RELATIVE time dilation because quantum spin and the basis of time itself which comprises matter is faster than c. Moving in a given direction will add energy (mass, inertia) to the moving observer in one direction out of an infinitude of possible directions. It will not undo either spin or entanglement, even with something moving at much slower relative (linear) speed. Now do you see why this is the case? It's the basis for quantum identity. An electron is still an electron, no matter how fast or how slow it goes relative to another electron. In order for that to occur, its component quantum spins (+/- 1/2 in the case of a pair of entangled electrons) must be based on something spinning or propagating in a composite rotational mode faster than c. Time dilation at their geometric centers proceeds at the same rate it does in the external ('inertialess' in the absence of other mass / energy) spin zero quantum field, but differently from other particles of mass or propagating energy that is in relative motion with respect to their geometric centers.

    Relativity explained linear motion of bound energy limited by c. Quantum mechanics explained bound modes of the rotational propagation of energy, not quite realizing it had different limitations hinted at by entanglement. In the 21st century, we already know how the two descriptions of the universe and time itself are integrated.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Science needs self-consistency as much as or more than the math that supports it, not a dozen little self-consistent theories about how different parts of the universe operate at different scales with different models, but an overarching vision of what it means to dwell and operate in this universe, in this reality, at all scales, explaining all of the forces that shape experience within them. Math and symbolic language in general has too many gaps to allow this, and those who use it tend to concentrate on the self-consistency of the symbols much more than their deeper physical meaning.

    Everyone must have me on their 'ignore' list, at last. Good.
     
    ajanta likes this.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Not me Dan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    ajanta and danshawen like this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    On the OP, There are many cosmological papers every day, hypothesising this and discussing that hypothetical.....papers alternate modes of gravity, papers on the probability of an ether.
    Mostly they are entirely theoretical, and probably thought about some, discussed amongst academics and then mostly forgotten about.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What may have been, or what could have been, takes second place to what observational evidence tells us is the situation.
     
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Just keep it a secret, otherwise they'll think you're a lunatic like me.

    Bits and pieces of this keep coming back to me, like it's something I once knew briefly as a young physics student, but forgot as soon as the dozens of other approaches to the same problems filtered in and began confusing the whole issue of extending relativistic mechanics into the quantum realm.

    Composite quantum rotation is the latest bit. It probably goes all the way down to the Planck length -- er-- light travel time. The quantum field doesn't rotate, and there is no way to determine if the field moves or propagates linearly relative to anything else or not, but if it rotates or changes rate of rotation in one direction or another, that has consequences in terms of energy, inertia, and mass, and couplings to linear motion of matter, not to mention time dilation.

    Each time I start to think in terms of lengths, I have to stop and reconsider what that means, exactly. The universe is not a Euclidean solid, and nothing but relativistic geometry works, time dilation and all that goes with it. Simultaneous energy events don't have meaning if they are separated by light travel time, according to Minkowski, yet the instant of 'now' in the quantum field is simultaneous and entangled everywhere. Both accounts cannot be right, and they're not, because they operate in different domains. One is for translation and speed limited by c, the other is for quantum rotation and entanglement without the limitations affecting linear modes of bulk energy transfer.

    So, getting back to the OP, no, the speed of light is not a constant in all situations and all possible modes of energy transfer events. It depends on whether the energy is propagating in a straight line, or if it is bound as matter in some mode of composite quantum spin or rotation. In the latter case, the speed of light is decidedly not the hard limit imposed for the linear propagation mode.

    And there is a much wider range of time dilation ranges contained in the energy bound in a typical chunk of quantum entangled matter inside or outside of a gravitational field, in any state of relative motion, than is generally supposed. That being the case, Minkowski's "light cones" really were something of a bad joke in terms of actual consistent science. There is no single "world line" moving through uniform time even for atomic structure. There are dozens of different world lines moving at different temporal dilation rates for each part of it. The speed of light is the only thing that is uniform, but for a completely different reason unrelated to the nature of time itself.

    The quantum field itself marks time by zero spin that is a composite of equal and opposite quantum spins >c in the equivalent of clockwise, counterclockwise directions at a radius of a characteristic amount of light travel time at a scale that has yet to be determined. The field is entangled everywhere, which simply means the field has zero spin everywhere and the speed of entanglement >c everywhere.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Are the laws of physics including the constant speed of light, like the ones passed by congress, or even the U.S. Constitution, ultimately contractual?

    Tom Toles (Washington Post, Dec 5 2016) evidently thinks so:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Didn't actually mean to help out with that, but so be it!

    Newt Gingrich will no doubt be very happy about that. He evidently is a strong believer in unilateral contracts (his "Contract with America" idea from the Reagan era). The laws of physics are like that as well. I never agreed to their terms. Did you? Who did, exactly?

    All interested stake holders should be negotiating such things, not just one side. The first thing I would want to tweet would be evolution. I want Newton and Einstein much sooner (before the Greeks if possible), and Donald Trump either much later or not at all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    No. He's saying that Trump's campaign platform include denial of global warming and other delusional claims which fly in the face of the predictable behavior of well-understood phenomena. The cartoon's point is that Trump has delusions of grandeur and with no experience with government may attempt to fall back on his reality-show caricature of an executive decision maker, quoting the words "you're fired" to inanimate objects portraying abstract knowledge.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Not to worry. When enough homo sapiens die off because of global warming climate change, the warming will eventually be reduced and the deserts will bloom and the rain forests will grow again. It's a self-regulating system, in that respect. Another one of those iron clad contracts none of us negotiated.

    We're all fired if we don't act to maintain our end of the contract. Off topic again though. Sorry about the digression.
     

Share This Page