Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I'm gonna say this one time, so listen closely. The ONLY entity in this entire infinite volume of what we refer to as "space" is distance. DATS IT!
Are you saying space is already physically infinite in distance... or... is it possible that space is bounded (expanding) but is potentially able to expand an infinitely long time?I'm gonna say this one time, so listen closely. The ONLY entity in this entire infinite volume of what we refer to as "space" is distance. DATS IT!
Are you saying space is already physically infinite in distance... or... is it possible that space is bounded (expanding) but is potentially able to expand an infinitely long time?
I'm saying that there is infinite distance in every direction from a point. I'm saying that point has a rotational velocity.
To summarise the above:
The speed of light in an extended space is not necessarily constant as measured by all observers.
And I say:
On the other hand, the speed of light locally (in a vacuum) is constant.
For example, in explaining the Shapiro delay, mentioned above, we note that if we assume a flat spacetime then the speed of light seems to slow as the light passes near the Sun. However, if we take the general relativistic description seriously, then the explanation for the apparent slowing of the speed of light is that there is actually more space near the Sun than there would be if the spacetime there was flat, because in fact the spacetime is curved. The light therefore has further to travel, which takes longer, even though its speed through the vacuum remains constant.
That goes against the grain of what people say about relativity. People say things like "Einstein showed us that the speed of light is constant". He did in 1905, when he was doing special relativity. But check this out:
What makes it accepted as fact is the fact that when theories are constructed utilizing the current understanding of time, they work.What I find curious is the fact that the "existence of time" as an independent dimension is fact. As far as I know there is not a shred of proof of that claim.
We use the term "time" only in relation to an action in a geometric "field" or "space". But like the claim of a god, no one has actually proven that time does exist independent of space and without measurable action time cannot emerge as a property of measurement.
The length of the path of light, FROM THAT POINT, in a rotational direction moving away from that point as the point is spinning, is c. When you increase the distance from the center point of the earth you are increasing the path length of that object in space. That is an acceleration, just like when you stomp on the gas pedal and accelerate to pass a slower car. An acceleration is an increase or decrease in velocity. When you increase the distance from the point the radius is greater than zero, and a requirement to travel at the speed of light has arisen.
Does that establish an infinite universal time frame? Expanding Quantum Foam?
A long time ago I read an amusing story of Einstein's "man in the box" experiment.
man in a box accelerates upwards at near SOL.
Did he not know the difference between speed and acceleration?
box has a hole drilled on one side.
box passes a light which goes through hole (in a straight line)
to the man in the box the lightbeam seems to bend down and travel a longer curved path than a straight line.
(even as it strikes the other side at the same time as if it were in a straight line, which of course it was)
did gravity bend the line to the observer in the box?
I believe he told this during a meeting on gravity.
What is amusing about that?A long time ago I read an amusing story of Einstein's "man in the box" experiment.
man in a box accelerates upwards at near SOL.
box has a hole drilled on one side.
box passes a light which goes through hole (in a straight line)
to the man in the box the lightbeam seems to bend down and travel a longer curved path than a straight line.
(even as it strikes the other side at the same time as if it were in a straight line, which of course it was)
did gravity bend the line (and made it longer) to the observer in the box?
I believe he told this during a meeting on gravity.
The reason we exist is because math is perfect and nature isn't! LOL
If the math matches reality, then it's perfect. If an earth sized object doesn't fit in a perfect cube, tough crap, the math is correct and nature is forced.I know! You should redefine pi as 3.2, as the Indiana legislature once tried to do. That way the math would be perfect. Won't quite match nature, but who cares, right? As long as the math is clean.
If the math matches reality, then it's perfect.
Then you've just defined relativity as perfect, as evinced by everything from particle accelerator experiments to the GPS in your phone. Are you feeling OK? Are you having a sudden burst of clarity?
Einstein was clueless.
If you accelerated a box directly away from the center of the earth, the line could not be horizontal to the box observer, it was curved and at an angle, and as the distance between the box and the center of the earth increased the line became flatter, because the acceleration decreased..