The Logic challenge - light speed is instantaneous

In relativity we seem to always concentrate on the value and nature of 'c' only in terms of velocity and we often forget the nature of 'c' in regards to time ( future and past).

As relativity states that 'c' is the speed limit and to exceed this speed limit time would reverse.
Also that the photon always travels at 'c' and is invariant to all observers.

Both these aspects say that the photon is our time or timing artifact.

The light cones clearly indicate a study of time dimensions future and past and how the photon is pivotal to these dimensions.

Clearly, it states that the universe is changing at the same rate of the photon.
If the universe changed faster it would reverse time, the past would become the present and effectively the future.

If the universe changed slower than the photon the photon would arrive before it left. the photon would be travelling into the future and would cease to exist.

So simply Einstein whether intended to or not has clearly shown by this how central time is to his theory. thus relativity ws born but in the mean tme we forget the main premise for this theory. what do the postulates actually mean in full......all the implications and not just a selctive few.

Now my arguement is that whilst the speed of 'c' still remains as valid it is what we are actually measuring that is debatable, are we measuring universal change or the velocity of a photon.

if we are measuring both then we have a problem. if we are measuring the photons velocity in isolation we still have a problem, because the universe still has to change to reflect the photon.

So logically relativeity states that the photons impact on the universe takes 'c' to change so as to reflect that change and in fact the photon does not travel at all.

The time is takes for the mittor to reflect the photons energy is at the rate of 'c'.
you can't have both 'c' to travel and 'c' to reflect that would show 'c' to be 150000ks per sec instead of 300000ks persec.

so may be I should simply ask the question just to clarify the point:

According to relativity how long does it take for the mirror to reflect the energy generated by the photon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ, I can't understand what you're getting at.

Let's say I'm standing 300km from a mirror (measured in the shared reference frame of myself and the mirror). I aim a pulse of light at the mirror. I receive a return pulse 2 milliseconds later. What should I conclude about the speed of the pulse?

Don't make things more complicated than they need to be...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok lets see....

let's simplify the math......

make the distance 150,000kms, the ambience a vacuum, and the emmition 1 second in duration.

the mirror and the source and you are changing at the rate of 'c' regardless of the piulse of light. the whole reference frame is changing at the rate of 'c'.

You alter the lasers emmitions for a sudden period of 1 second.

The mirror at 150,000kms is still changing at the rate of 'c' but now it has to change to reflect the 1 second pulse of laser light. at a distance of 150000kms it takes the mirror 0.5 seconds to start to reflect the pulse ( changed surface charge) and maintains that reflection for one second of change.

The reflected pulse also creates a need in your eyes for them to reflect the change that the reflected light requires and it to is maintained for 1 second the time it takes for your eyes to change to reflect the pulse is also 0.5 seconds ( at the rate of 'c' ) this means that the toal elapsed time is 1 second over 300,000 kms......the elapsed time of change at the rate of 'c' is 1 second for the distance total of 300000 kms.

the mirror takes 0.5 to change and reflect
your eyes take 0.5 to change and reflect.
total elapsed time is 1 second......

Ok you may argue that this could easilly be as per normal interpretation as the traveling time of light.....but this can not be.

Because both the mirror and your eyes need to take time to change and as change happens at a rate of 'c' the net result would mean that the light is travelling at 2*'c' and not 'c'

the question is how long does it take for a surface to change enough to reflect the light?

the answer is 'c' so if light travels as well then we have an error in the speed of 'c' which is clearly not the case.

So either the universe changes instantaneously and light travels or the unverse changes at 'c' and light is instantaneous.

It can't be both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and the light cones state quite clearly that a photons change is at the rate of 'c' so we have a syntax error in the theory that can only be fixed if light is instantaneous.

 

distance effects the amount of energy transfer but not the rate of that transfer the rate is always 'c' , the quantity of energy is determined by distance.
edit : this aspect i am still trying to clear up

 

If the reflection is achieved instanteously then change in the universe is instantanous and if this is the case we have no past and future......because time takes time the universe needs time to change and this rate can only be 'c'. If there is no time needed to change the universe there would be no universe.

 

the following is a simple and common diagram that shows the mirrors as the change and not the velocity of the photon. The red arrows indicate instantaneousness and not time. The mirror and the receptor show time of change at the rate of 'c' only.

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/lightc.jpg>

 

time dilation occurs because mass already moving at 'c' now has a velocity greater than 'c'.......say velocity of an object is 1000kmh then total velocity is 'c' + 1000kmh thus time dilates.

 

I think what 1100F means by:

Is that non-light particles are allowed to travel inside the future and past light cones, light is allowed to travel on the light cones, and to have an effect on the event or be affected by the event things outside the light cones would have to travel faster than the speed of light.

If the photon arrived before it left, wouldn't it be travelling into the <i>past</i>?


Ok, as my tag says, I'm just a high school student, trying to understand this theory.

The universe changes at 'c', but light moves instantaneously. When light affects something, it takes 'c' for the effect to occur, even though the light travels instantaneously.
*looks at "what are we actually measuring" thread"*
As the universe changes with 'c', if an observer accelerates to approach 'c', then they change at almost the same rate as the universe, so the apparent passage of time slows down? (If I've understood this part correctly, then I like this explanation of time dilation)

Ok, I have some questions:
1) If, starting at 150,000km away it takes the mirror 0.5 seconds to reflect the pulse, then why starting 300,000km away would it take the mirror 1 second to reflect the pulse? I see you're "still trying to clear up" that.
2) Why does light need to travel at 2*c in your example? I thought that light was travelling instantaneously. If the reflector takes 'c' to change, and light travels instantaneously, wouldn't that make the apparent speed of light 'c'?
3)Rate of change of the universe with respect to what? Or the maximum rate at which the universe can change?
4) If light travels instantaneously, why can we measure the speed of light to be 'c', even when we are moving at great speed? If light travels instantaneously, but the universe changes at 'c', and our change approaches the rate of change of the universe, shouldn't we observe the change in the universe slowing down and therefore the apparent speed of light slowing down?
Gad, that wasn't very eloquently expressed. Hope you can work out what I was trying to say.

Please start off with correcting me, then educate me with relatively simple stuff and work your way up. I might have something useful in me noggin' somewhere. Maybe. I hope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

cck,

firstly thank you for taking my thoughts seriously. secondly it may be worth saying that this hypothesis has only crystalised in my thinking over the last 3 days. There will be many more opportunities in the future to clear up any misconceptions or errors on my part or that of others.

I feel I have found a syntax error in the application of relativity. I still hold that relativity is valid and complete in fact my hypothesis demands that relativity be fundamentally correct and valid. The error I think that is being made is in the interpretation of what we are measuring. This error does not change relativity but the interpretation of it. If my approach proves to be founded our view of the universe in physics especially regards time and distance may change rather radically. I accept that this will cause problems but I am also rather enthuisiastic about what I think I have discovered, not because of it's ramifications to others but it's ramifications to me personally.

I have spent the last 3 years or so looking at this error and not seeing it and I am now able to rest on this facination.


From what I have come to understand the light cones describe light and time. They refer not only to the passage of time but most imortantly howthe future becomes the past.
What makes this so special is that this applies to the only object that is constant and invariant in that in a vacuum light always behaves the same, never differently.
Relativity is founded on the basis that light is central to time or positioned central to time ( future and past)

The light cones state this clearly.

But what else is stated that seems to have been missed is that light being central to time and changes it's position at the rate of 'c' means that the centre of time also changes at the rate of 'c'.....future becomes the past at the rate of 'c'......inadvertantly it has been missed that the centre of time is also valid for everything else... the universe as a whole moves if you like with the photon.

Now if this is the case we come up against an error in syntax.....the universe is changing at the same rate there-for the reflection of light can not be instantaneous and takes time to occur.

So we have two things changing at the rate of 'c'. the photon and the universe. This means that for 'c to remain valid one has to go.

Now there is plenty of evidence to show that 'c' is valid but if we allow the universe ( the reflector) this measurement and not the photon the whole thing makes sense. For example why can't the photon be seen in transit? Why doesn't lorenze contraction apply to the photon? v='c' d= zero.

More later.....

 

My immediate answer is that the energy of light is dispersed as per distance, which I believe is the current thinking. The further away the less energy the light has ( the weaker it gets ) this relationship is similar in symetry or proportion as that which we know for gravity. except that gravity is governed by the inverse square function.

The time it takes for the mirrors energy state to change is 1 second in your example. ( change at the rate of 'c')

I am dealing with the two concepts, one that light travels and if it does it's v would have to be twice as quick to compensate or allow for the need for the universe to change. ( factoring in the error)

And if light was instantaneous then there is no need to compensate for the error. only one aspect can be 'c' and if it's the photon the universe is in error. If it's the universe then it's the photon in error.

Because the photon is at the centre of time the universe has to be changing at 'c'.

My immediate response is the rate of change in respect to itself, but I think the easier way to explain is if we look at the universe from an absolutely stationary frame of reference.

we aren't moving at 'c' the Now is considered as static, change occurs at 'c'.

For the sake of explaining consider two time dimensions happening.....our measurements of time passing ( in the "Now") and the rate that the future becomes the past which is 'c'. or say the pressure of time measured in the "now" is 'c'.
If you refer to the diagram in an earier post

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/Now.jpg>

you can see the different effects......the bottom arrow is the rate of change and in the "Now " we measure this rate in seconds. Two aspects at work.

If we travel at any velocity we are in fact traveling at 'c'+ (that velocity) thus we have change slowing down for that object relative to the universe.

( this will have to be verified in math.......with this new approach but I am confident it will make sense.)

 

Another better way of helping to describe this is the use of this diagram I just now put together.

(don't bother counting the red lines as it is only the concept of the universe changing at the rate of 'c' but "on the spot" so to speak.)

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/particleC.jpg>

Whilst the passage of time shown is 1 second the particle (universe) has changed at the rate of 'c' by osillating or vibrating on the spot. Now even if this was rotation at 'c' the point is fairly clear yes?

It also bring E=mc^2 into the picture I think......anyone?

 

mmm......not a physicist here but,

how does the universe "change" at the rate v = 'c' (METERS/second)?

so...the distance between the past and the future is......length?

mm confused

 

my previous post shows this as length........or distance.....verticle reciprocating distance 300,000 kms per second or if you like rotation at 300000 kms per second or a mixture of both.....( don't know which)

 

Pete, if you are reading, does it seem clearer now?

 

QQ,

I agree there may be unanswered questions about reflection response time and receptor time but your illustration doesn't support your conclusion.

Now make the distance of your example 300,000 m instead of 150,000 m. Your reflection delay 0.5 seconds and recepitor delay of 0.5 seconds will yield the velocity of light to be 2c because it took the same amount of time over twice the distance if the true speed of light were instantaneous.

This idea also suggests that we are witnessing cosmological events in real time even from 13.5 Billion light years distance with only a 0.5 second delay at our receptors.

 

MacM thanks for your response...

If the distance is 300000 kms to the mirror and 300000kms back again the mirror the delay in change of the mirror would be 1 second and the change in your eye would be 1 second the total elapsed time = 2 seconds over 600000lms.

Because the amount of energy is lessened by distance ( nothng new here) the reflector surface takes the appropriate amount of time more or longer to change to a state that reflects the light.

yep you got it.......the stars look better by the moment.

and whats more their aint no worry about relative observers any more either......because simultaneity is now provable. All observers see the same thing regardless of velocity.

The whole mess of a universe all jumbled up in different time zones and stuff just dissappears.

 

actually I really haven't thought through the ramifications all that much so what I said about observers was a bit rash......

 

how ever if we look at e=mc^2 formula and explain it in light of this approach what happens?

 

I totally agree with you, late hour, bad choice of words