lightspeed...?=mathmatics=physics(human)

R

ripleofdeath

Registered Senior Member
just a thought from a un tutored terran... :)
i thought, that we can mesure a concept of light speed in the reahlms of energy/wave speed...?
so... if we can why do we (some physasists)
say that time (a mesurement) stops when we exceed our sensory ability...(light reflecting off something to our eye)
just because we cant see it, it doesnt mean it isnt there...?
more precisely i mean -
if i was traveling at light speed for ONE HOUR and then turned around and traveld back for ONE HOUR at light speed ... i would be traveling for 2 HOURS-
hence the person watching me from the "launch pad"
would surly have to wait for 2 HOURS for my return.
just because they could not see me move, why would some suggest i would arrive before i left?
THIS CONCEPT COMPLETLY ELLUDES ME.... :)
any comments welcome
 
Mathematics, Physics, and You

You left one important point out of your question... the ship travels for two hours based on *who's* viewpoint? That of the Ground-Based observer, or that of the travelling ship.

This is the key point in Relativity. If you are travelling at the speed of light relative to your point of departure, then the passage of time you perceive relative to that point is effectively stopped. (Why is it your time, not the departure point's time? Well, [1] as far as you are concerned, it *is* their time passage that has stopped... If you look at them as you zoom away, they look stationary, and [2] you are the one who accellerated. This change in motion defines which viewpoint is the one that is affected by the time dialation effect when the two observers come together again).

So, if you are an observer on the ground, and two hours have elapsed, then no time has elapsed for the observer on the ship. If an observer on the ship, an infinite amount of time has passed on the ground by the time you try and return there.

Of course, since it took an infinite amount of energy to accellerate your ship to lightspeed, this is a moot point...
 
thanks for the reply vancouvorite
(i'l know if i spelt that rite when i post this :/ )
well...
surely then... if we say time (as a mesurement...?)
changes as we know it how can we calculate light as a speed if it is referd to as a relative to time as we know it now... on earth (if you are on earth :D i dont know for sure/philosophy/assumption ... :) )
because time , like distance is a mesurement...?
Seriously though... if we all took speed (aside from the nasty side effects) would we all change our concept of time to suit or would we do more or do less...?
do you understand my query?
and so ... if energy is a frequency can we only register its ignition opposed to messuring its speed...?
light is a frequencey...? is it...?
- if i traveld at the same speed as light would light still surround me? would my eyes still work?
IF I WAS TRAVELLING TOWARDS THE SUN AT A SPEED SLIGHTLY FASTER THAN LIGHT SURLY I WOULD STILL HAVE LIGHT HITTING MY EYES/(VISUAL REALITY).
HOW INFACT DO WE KNOW WHAT LIGHT SPEED IS...?
would it be fare to say that if we could speed -up a satalite/probe to light speed it would serve no purpose to us anyway...?
why ... if in space (extreemly low risistance/friction could we not apply thrust to a eleptical orbit using the magnetic feild of ( some one elses sun... :D )
to accelerate some thing so its own mommentum
created accelerating thrust? does gravity = a frequency speed...?/hurdle...?/wall..? :)
wheew
i realy hope you or some one else understands this/these questions
and thanks again for the reply
groove on all
:D to all
 
One question at a time...

if i traveld at the same speed as light would light still surround me? would my eyes still work?
Click to expand...

Indeed, would your eyes work... Your eyes are made up of chemicals, which are made up of atoms held together by electromagnetic bonds. Any change in the state of any single atom must propagate to the other atoms via those bonds -- i.e. at speed of light. It can't go faster than light, because it is a wave traveling through the electromagnetic field -- which is what light is as well.

Now think of the observer on the ground: you are moving away from him/her at lightspeed. A photon hits your retina and excites an atom. The atom has to propagate the excitation to surrounding atoms, but most of them do not lie along your trajectory; i.e. the disturbance would have to propagate in directions with a component orthogonal to your general movement. This makes a right triangle: with respect to the right angle, the adjacent side represents lightspeed, the opposite side represents a nonzero speed, and the hypotenuse then represents a speed greater than light -- which is impossible for electromagnetic disturbances.

That means from the viewpoint of the stationary observer, your time has completely stopped because pretty much all physical processes involve the electromagnetic field, and you are already travelling through that field with maximum velocity, so all processes internal to you are completely suspended in time.

[By the way, at least in theory, it turns out that the speed of light is not confined only to the electromagnetic field, but to all fields.]

Of course, you can't travel at lightspeed anyway, as has been already pointed out -- as you approach lightspeed your inertia grows exponentially and without bound, which means that not even all the energy in the universe can make a chunk of matter travel at light speed. According to modern theory, that is.

A "solution" might be to somehow make the electromagnetic field travel along with you while you move -- somewhat reminiscent of the Star Trek warp bubble. This doesn't appear possible. Again, according to modern theory. Another "solution" might be to somehow "speed up" the electromagnetic field in your vicinity, effectively raising the speed of light in a limited volume of the universe -- although that would tend to throw all the other physical constants out of balance and probably destroy everything.
 
Last edited:
Wait. Now, my understanding is that light speed is constant, independent of the speed of the observer. So, wouldn't that suggest that the observer who is traveling at the speed of light would measure light traveling the same speed as if he were standing still? Also, since we have no absolute from which to measure our motion, who's to say we are not moving at the speed of light now?
 
If we were moving at speed of light right now, we would be suspended in time. Since we are not, then we are not. Plus, actually reaching the speed of light is in itself impossible.

A person on a fast-moving spaceship would have their time dilated from the point of view of a "stationary" observer. So if the spaceship shines a light in front of it, the stationary observer will see that the light front is moving away from the spaceship at a speed less than speed of light. However, this is consistent with what the person on the spaceship observes: for that person, time is dilated, and so the "slower" lightspeed is cancelled out by "slower" passage of time -- so that the person on the spaceship still measures the same speed of light.
 
thanks for the input boris and browser. :)
i have only a small portion of high school education
in physics and find it hard to get my head around.
i am starting to understand the concept though with your help :)
so...
can we say that wave generation is not able to be generated in a faster manner?
eg if one vehicle is traveling at ... say 0
and is projecting a wave signal(say... light)
and another is traveling at 100 kmph and is also
projecting a wave of light are both waves traveling at the same speed? and ... so... does the wave generation
create an opesite and (...?) equal reaction ...
or is that law(?) not valid in this physical ...... activity?
just a thought that just came to my now...
if light is able to hold its speed and we can reflect and refract it...bugger ive forgotten the true meaning of refraction :/
then could we somehow use it as a drive / propulsion system?
is that already on the drawing boards?
heres one for you i came to this thought when i was playing with a necklace of mine :)
if time is a bubble effect ....? if we stretch it sideways it covers lots...hence visual interactions of humans...
then if we were to compress it like adding a weight to the bottom it would decrease the peramiters so we may
reach another time through stretching a subject out of our current time rather than some cannon effect.?
i hope i dont sound too much like a loony :)
groove on all
 
tIME TRAVEL? That is a popular idea around here. I still can't connect the passage of time with speed of an object. It seems that it should also serve as a universal constant. It's not a thing which can be manipulated, or so it seems.
 
time thingey

i have been reading one book so far that has
suggested that all time co-exists as a flow of all life
which is accesable through certain technology
imagine if you could...
*just came to me now as a thought
bombard a thing with a atomic reaction that used its
own instability to escalate the vibration level until the "thing"(raw element would be more safe i gues)
got invisible and then slowwed it down and then mesured the atomic mass?
does that sound too weird?
to see if its all still there

call me crazzy
call me mad
if you call me normal
ill be forever sad
:D
 
I just got this crazy idea...


Since all points in space feel the gravitational effects of say... me dropping a pencil or something, doesnt that mean that all points in space have to be somehow connected?
 
hey tetra :0
if time and space feel the vibrasions of that type of thing then i wonder if we need to travel to a different place to go back in time in that reality?
:)
hhhhhhmmmmmmmm
so many questions
 
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
so...
can we say that wave generation is not able to be generated in a faster manner?
Click to expand...

Indeed we can.

What happens instead is that the wavelength of the resulting wave changes. If you are moving in this direction:
--->
And shine a light the same direction, the wavelength of the light shortens. If you shine the light behind you, the wavelength lengthens. This is the effect that causes "Red-Shift" of light in the cosmos.


As for the equal and opposite reaction - there is a reaction when light is projected or reflected ('light-sail' propulsion is based on this effect).
 
i hope i can learn

i have only a small portion of high school education
in physics and find it hard to get my head around

Do not feel bad, ripple...i am in the same situation as
you....at least you can ask questions...i do not even
know enough or understand enough to ask a simple
question.....i never had any exposure to physics at
all..yet i am facinated by something which i do not
comprehend.....

and boris your statement:

If we were moving at speed of light right now, we would be suspended in time. Since we are not, then we are not. Plus, actually reaching the speed of light is in itself impossible.

This is about as much as i understand....this makes
sense...the rest does not, at this point....the YGEM
is beyond me....

i am going to keep reading, and i hope i can learn to
at least have some concept about it all.....
 
piece by piece i solve a puzzle to help myself
start pondering what the image could repressent....
rip-ism 2001

:D
had to type it before i forgot it
any who
thanks Vancouverite for the info and thnks Cybergypsy
for the compliment
i am a bit lucky in that my father is an electrician and my older brother has an interest in science :D
one day my brother and i got to the theory of a quarke repulsion drive motor.... just for laughs anywho
:)
all i know about quarks is that they are supposed to be reeeeealy small...man :D
SO... it now seems somewhat apparent that the speed of light is not!
it is the range of light speeds!......?
ya ?
literal perdantisisms maybe but a progresional thought for me :D
ive heard the attomic clock thingeys of how "they" [:D]
send one up in an airoplane and keep one on the ground and the one in the plane looses time{goes slower....?}
SERIOUSE THOUGHT all life as we know it is affected by
electromagnetic radiation/gravity....?
so has this experiment been done in both dirrections and from the equator and other points on the "globe"......??????????????????????/
groove on all
"my the light of youre own eyes colour with trueth all you may look-upon"ripple-atement" 2001
 
Physics

It seems the trouble with understanding the physical universe is that we humans must explain it in terms that we can relate to our senses and perceptions. Traditionally we describe physical phenomena in terms of a coordinate system that we can relate to what works for us. When defining a physical body we relate points, surfaces and lines in a three dimensional coordinate system using X, Y and Z as axes. Einstein used the speed of light as a time constant to allow us to define our universe in terms of a finite function which is repeatable and allows explanation of what we perceive. However, much like we had defined the universe with less sophisticated coordinate systems which left room for errors, a coordinate system can be defined which will allow for greater gravitational understanding. Despite Einstein's definition of a constant speed for light, light travels at differing speeds through different media like water, air or vacuum. The constant speed of light definition is merely a convenient constant used to normalize calculations. The physicist who defines a coordinate system using a real constant such as zero energy base, gravity wave frequency normalized by mass or a fluctuating axes system will lead the way to the new anti gravitation devices and a more accurate picture of the physical state of the universe. An extension of this thought would be that our earth could be defined as a flat body with gravitation warping space time to the point that we perceive it as a spheroid object. One last point on perception, the speed of light and how we explain our world. Astronomers often explain to the layman that as you look out into space you are actually looking back into time. They construe the phenomena in this manner to make it easier for people to understand the time it takes light to reach us from distant stars. In reality, your eyes perceive photons that have traveled a great distance and were generated in the past however, you are percieving those photons as they are at the moment they touch your senses. However little they have changed during the trip, they are still photons of the current time and not of the past. They do give a close representation of what that star would have appeared like several billion years before only because they change so little.

What do you think?
 
hey splatt
cheers for the help. :)
it makes me think of a.... thingey i thoiught of a few months back...
one of my sociological observations(opinions... :D)
is that...
people lack the ability to accept and thus percieve
something that is intangable....
eg. something they cant touch,see or read about in the bible.
this thought led me further down the track of the interference that religon has on the population.
because god is the answer for all things not understood.
...rather than the person thinking-"it could well be possible so i will keep an open mind and look for things that concern this concept"
hence ... the heathen devil worshipping scientists.
SO...
unfortunatly i have come accros a disterbing condition
seemingly widespread in society..that is
that you need to corner someone and provide material
compensation for them to attempt to ponder these concepts...lets not get into educational perversion for now cos im supposed to be looking for a flat... :D
SO...
LIGHT SPEED AND MATHMATICS ARE MEARLY FACILITATIVE TO THE HUMAN CONDITION/STATE...?
ISNT IT AMAZING THAT SOME PEOPLE ... if they were climbing a stair case and came to a wall... would not look for another door or different types of stairs!
:)
groove on all
peace ... love ... and openmindedness to all physacists
ps Q= is there anything that travels faster than photons?...thnx for the help...

'more please...' "MORE"!?! (from OLIVER..book/musical)
 
Lightspeed

Hey Riple,

That was good. It's amazing where our thoughts can take us. Maybe these ideas will break some new consciousness barriers for the readers. If you have not already read it, pick up a copy of "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking and turn to the last chapter. There is reference in there to one scientific principal attempting to reconcile science with religion. A few thoughts plague me as I ponder this question.

All human societies embrace a spiritual aspect to life in order to explain that which they have not proved in the physical world. It is as innate to human sociology as hunting in packs is to wolves and flying in formation is to birds. However detrimental it may be to the pursuit of knowledge in those individuals, there are some very positive aspects that religions provide. Faith in something you cannot see or prove is a common thread in religion. This actually supports the possibility that there are things out there that we don't understand as human beings. This allows us to take steps in directions that fear of the unknown would normally stop us from treading. The question we might ask ourselves could be, Does the physicality of a human brain provide specific limitations on understanding much like the capability limitations imposed on this computer we are typing on. We have certainly not reached the capacity or ability limitations of our human condition however, there may be a limit out there that we cannot exceed. Beyond that limit we may need spirituality to placate the human egotistical need for dominance of his environment. Dominance of our environment may sound like a negative statement but, it has been and always will be our survival and adaptation technique. So, that's a good thing.

I guess like special relativity and the twins paradox, my little theory has it's own paradox. If you hold with the explanation I just gave it is difficult to maintain the level of belief required to make religion an effective psychological survival technique. If you do maintain the belief and faith levels required of most religions my explanation is a bunch of useless garbage which contradicts all their teachings. It's a choice that each person must make based on their need level in the sociological spectrum.

Ouch, it hurts to think that hard!

Have a great one!!!

Splatt
 
My turn for a question

If relativity defines speed in terms of an observation point, then it would seem to follow that if from our observation point we observe light, traveling at the speed of light. Transversely from the point of view of the light, we are traveling at the speed of light. So in effect, we are a massive body traveling at the speed of light without infinite energy and mass. Does the fact that we have mass mean that time slows down for us allowiing our speed relative to the moving light to slow down to zero?
 
wow splatt... what a great question !
my innitial response was a yes to your question although as i read it for the 8 or 9th time i thought of this- {ps now 12-15 times :D ]
perception... = reality=mass*comparitive-mass=fact of percieved light/world/enviroment

i think your term 'observation point' in a literal definition(not nessecarily your definition)
dictates a form of limit-which leads to standing still, on the bassis that, nothing is still, but more in a state of shared enviroment or proximity, relative to a potential frequency.
hence my opinion we must learn to travel without using
the 'limited ability' of the human eye...
long range sensors that give us a snap shot on an updating bassis.

i think in respnse to the perception of lights perception, draws a question of initial...release/generation/firing and duration-of perceptive frequency(light).
hence broadly YES because we will rely on machines to tell us what else is there...
the limitations of the physical body-conciouse...
however! physical manifestation of my experience of driving a car...
sometimes i think im not going fast when im actualy travely considerably above the speed limit.
the brain i think is the key to the perception with the body following in the 'trailer" :D... on a bugy cord that can be trained to move closer to (tighten) the mind.
another EXAMPLE the learning curve of an infint i.e
language, motor function, social rules and doctrines.
i belive one of the keys in our human development is to maintain the learning curve of an infant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and i think then... we will be able to comunicate faster than normal speach and concentrate more on the principals of what we cant see.
:)

groove on dude... and all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top