We live hundred of years of life like it is One of the hundred centisecond of the second time of Death, in the π megameters travel of the Light speed.
The light stay constant forever as speed so when it hit something it is massless it is not the way like we think in mechanics i mean it does not stop then it will be reflected as speed.It has been suggested that light (and other em) is a form of perpetual motion. Once emitted it goes on forever, at undiminished speed, or until it hits something. Otherwise, how do we see objects from billions of lightyears away?
In space if there is an object alone floating in emptiness of space you don't know exactly where it is if you don't take relative (relativity landmark) as an approach.Nothing defies the idea of absolute speed, absolute space, absolute time, and absolute distance (such as light seconds to light years) like quantum entanglement, microcosmic and/or macrocosmic. Both ends measure a local constant speed of light to be 'c', yet information (state) exchange between the two states is instantaneous rather than at the speed of light.
Can time be entangled as well as space in "spooky action at a distance"? Latitudinal and longitudinal coordinate points of space and time (and space-time). Infinities of varying, and variable, coordinate points. Coordinates instantaneously updated at all points at all times for all time. A Universe (U) coordinating itself, everything in and to it, instantaneously, simultaneously, at all times and for all time. A Universe effectively knowing itself and governing itself (able to govern itself) at all times and for all time. A Universe that can and does manage chaos at all points . . . everywhere at all times (at once), for all time, timelessly and spacelessly (sic).
I'm not really pressing any point here. Well maybe I'm coming at one from a different approach. Since all travelers at whatever speed through space and time they travel will measure the local-relative speed of light 'c', they will be speeding through a coordinate space and time! Whichever star Centauri a traveler travels to from Sol, the traveler travels 4.0 light years to 0. Continuously powered (when the means is found), that accelerated trip accelerating into a future (+) ahead could make for a faster trip than ever previously believed. Sol, on the other hand, recoils time for time in the coordinate system, traveling 0 to 4.0 light years from the traveler. The accelerated trip accelerating into a past (-) behind could make for a faster trip than ever previously believed. The direct exchange, a past (-) > future (+) ahead for a future (+) > past (-) behind, under continuous power, possibly making for a shorter trip than anyone might believe.
Ahead would be trip slower than the speed of light, no matter how fast time apparently speeds up, and space apparently contracts, for the traveler. Behind, a trip once said to be faster than the speed of light, as it is an accelerating expansion of universe sending all in it including Sol into background universe. Now what causes this twin but opposite effect like two quantum entangled particles that will have precisely opposite spins? 1.) The speed of light being constant. 2.) There being in existence a space and time coordinate system as a constant of pre-existing ground floor: everywhere and forever in instantaneous predestined update. Like the old saying "All roads lead to Rome," all the futures lead to foreground Now t=0 (0-point) and all the background pasts point toward merger with ultimate background origin / infinity ('1').
Not quite how I intended to tell it, but it'll do. I now know well how a writer feels when the well-known characters and story lines of a story take off on their own and the writer is left simply following where they lead instead of leading them. I have a picture and model, it works very well for me, and I am left mostly just moving around in it, looking deeper into it, finding more spokes, occasionally different independently confirming and reinforcing spokes not seen before, into the same hub picture and model. Less and less now am I having to tweak it.
It's a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe.
It has been suggested that light (and other em) is a form of perpetual motion. Once emitted it goes on forever, at undiminished speed, or until it hits something. Otherwise, how do we see objects from billions of lightyears away?
Absolutely correct and true for the active energetic photon that last its cycle enough to last more into dark matter. The more you have energy the more the light will go far. The less you have energy the inverse situation tend to deactivate dark photon that become in the end the invisible emptiness (no spin no charge no mass no cycle.. nothigness at all).This is really a great, great subject to think about. Firstly, perpetual motion in what sense? Everything in space that is not gravitationally anchored, if given an initial impetus will travel forever. Yet, when speaking of light or other EM radiation this cannot be true because as has been observed from countless observations, light follows the inverse square law. So, the next question might be; does a wave travel forever in space in the same way that a particle is said to do? Obviously not! Because something or some property of space is causing that wave to disperse according to the inverse square law. Does this mean that light or EM radiation is interacting with space in some way that causes it to spread out in a manner identical to the way in which a sound wave spreads out in air or a wave in water spreads out. This is the first interesting aspect of the subject that has been raised. The second has to do with what makes light travel further. This question can again be answered from innumerable observations that the distance that light travels is dependent on the power that goes into creating and more important maintaining the light. This conclusion leads to yet another interesting idea. When viewed from space a light source might be seen as a ball of light surrounded by dark space. How can this be? If light follows the inverse square law and if from position A the light can be clearly seen as a ball of light surrounded by darkness, surely the rest of space should also be lit up to a similar extent? To this question the answer might be that there is not enough matter present in space for the light to interact with, and it therefore stays invisible. Fine! But, a captain on a ship, might experience the same situation, seeing a far-off light as a ball of illumination surrounded by darkness.
What if the power being supplied to the light source is only enough to sustain that particular volume or area and no further? As the source of the light continues to be powered, it doesn’t go out and on, instead it sticks to the area that it CAN power. This in turn gives the answer as to how light from billions of light years distant can be viewed in the present.
In order to see how this works, read my paper on “The Electromagnetic Universe.” A link to which is given below:
Re: my post #31, note that I did not state my opinion, but reported a suggestion relevant to light speed. It may be considered relevant to make comparisons with sound speed (through gaseous media, or, indeed through liquid media. Are there important relevant conclusions to be made?
It would be probably be more profitable if your post were looked at in greater detail than just to consider the broad statements that have been made. Firstly, your statement that all charged particles have electric field lines that extend out into space at the speed of light and that the charged particle possessed this property from the time of its creation is perfectly right. The fact that is missing from this scenario is that most charged particles are neutralised by equal and opposite charges. In order for lines of force to exist there must first be a difference of potential. When a difference of potential exists, the lines of force are clearly present. Looked at objectively, why have two fields that are so closely united that the one can never be found without the other? In fact, no experiment exists that can distinguish between a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field, they are identical. What is the connection. Isn’t it possible that two different fields, the electric and the magnetic don’t exist and that both phenomena are manifestations of a single phenomenon? Maxwell lived at the advent of the first Industrial revolution during the steam age. Is it a coincidence that his theory of oscillating self-perpetuating electric and magnetic fields is so similar to the working of a steam engine or an internal combustion engine. The fact that his model actually worked is not so strange, approximate models do work and work quite well. But returning to the problem of fields, what if there were only a single di-polar field. A field that exists throughout the Universe. It would explain everything. An electric field would then merely be the polarisation of the di-polar field and the magnetic (electromagnetic field) would be the energised field. No need for two disparate fields. At present the observation is that moving charges produce a magnetic field, which could equally be stated as an electric field is static while a magnetic field is dynamic. Same facts different interpretation.All EM radiation is produced by moving charged particles. All charged particles have electric field lines that have extended out into the universe at the speed of light ever since that particle was created. When the particle is moved a kink develops in those field lines that travels outward at the speed of light. No ether is needed.
Does this suggest that dark matter provides a uniform and contiguous presence across the billions of light years over which light is presumed to travel?