# Light speed

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Jzz

E = m x c^2 (c^2 = c . . . squaring)
F = m x a

Einstein wasn't the first. He was just the first to see some things in a different light (pardon the pun).

Yes, of course and also: K.E = 1/2 mv^2

#### Starcrow

, ... so it turns out that there's this nice concatenation of equations that leads to the one everybody is acquainted with, & all Albert E. did was take one last step. He got a free ride all the way over to the inevitable outcome. Since there's no free lunch, according to the economists, we must make him pay for his deceit.

Let's start by quoting Tesla, the Master of Practicality: "Today's scientists have replaced experiments with mathematics, & they wander off through equation after equation & eventually build a structure that has no relation to reality. " (Modern Mechanics & Inventions, 1934)

Numbers can go only so far when trying to describe reality. They're a dead-end street. Beyond that lies Ultimate Reality, unknowable in our present state of development.

Now, quoting Jzz: "The equation E = mc^2 normally refers to rest mass (...)." The word "normally" there means there's a version of the equation that most people have never & will never see. It has a factor represented by the letter lambda added on the right side in order to deal with movement.

Blame lazy, ignorant journalists for a benighted public. They're merely scribblers who dislike reading & learning to go beyond their high school physics.

This comment already starts to look like a treatise. There's no going back to the speed of this or that.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Yes, of course and also: K.E = 1/2 mv^2
You need to first lock it into a rest frame for that one, right? General universe-wise, the velocity is always relative, thus variable, unless 'v' = 'c'. Otherwise 'v' = '0', general universe-wise. The two I state need no environmental, no specified, rest frame, right? Unless I miss my guess, the one you state fits nicely only as long as you (rest) frame it.

Last edited:

#### Jzz

My observation. ASC opens the door that immense starlight-travel-times to Earth are not a fact. My telescope observations of M31 in Andromeda, the starlight does not need to take millions of years to reach my telescopes today Other groups are researching ASC and its implications in astronomy too.

The present speed of the Voyager 1 space craft as it zooms through interstellar space is a staggering 62000 kmh approx. Yet at this speed it would still take 16.6 million years to travel the distance of just a single light year!

Off-Topic content removed

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Helio

The present speed of the Voyager 1 space craft as it zooms through interstellar space is a staggering 62000 kmh approx. Yet at this speed it would still take 16.6 million years to travel the distance of just a single light year!
Did you mean 16.6 thousand years?

#### Jzz

Did you mean 16.6 thousand years?
One light year is approx. 9.4 x 10^12 km or 9.4 x 10^15 m . Speed of Voyager 1 space craft is 60000 kmh or 16600s not 16.6 m. So everything decreased by a thousand so 16 600 years is closer to the mark. It is still a long time. I should add my thanks to helio for setting me right.

Last edited:
Helio

#### Helio

One light year is approx. 9.4 x 10^12 km or 9.4 x 10^15 m . Speed of Voyager 1 space craft is 60000 kmh or 16600s not 16.6 m. So everything decreased by a thousand so 16 600 years is closer to the mark. It is still a long time.
9.4E12/62000kph = 151,613,000 hours.

151,613,000/24= 6,310,000 days

6,310,000/365 = ~ 17,000 years

Jzz

#### billslugg

I've been off by a factor of 1,000 at least a million times.

Last edited:
Pogo

#### Helio

I've been off by a factor of 1,000 at least a million times.

I may be the record, according to one physicist. I thought the 10^120 difference from quantum physicists was attributable to expansion, but that factor is opposite that, so I said how much I hate being off by by 10^240!! (Yes, this last no. was meant as math hyperbole. )

Pogo and billslugg

#### Jzz

I've been off by a factor of 1,000 at least a million times.

What is really exasperating is that I knew that the answer was that it would take around 60,000 years for Voyager 1 to reach the nearest star, yet I still went ahead and posted the ridiculous figure of 16,666,000 million years to cover a distance of one light year. Leaving this gaffe aside this means that, even after travelling a distance of one light year Voyager will still have to cover a further 3 light years making a total of 4 light years, which will take 17,000 x 4 = 68,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri!

Mod Edit - Off topic content removed

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Jzz

I may be the record, according to one physicist. I thought the 10^120 difference from quantum physicists was attributable to expansion, but that factor is opposite that, so I said how much I hate being off by by 10^240!! (Yes, this last no. was meant as math hyperbole. )
Impressive!

#### Helio

The times to stars isn’t too hard to calculate somewhat accurately even though they are moving about the speed of our current rockets. Too often I see erroneous estimates for travel time because, say for Alpha Cen, their use of 4.3 lyrs as the distance is held constant, failing to note that Alpha Cen will get to a little over only 3 lyrs in about 15,000 years, IIRC.

Get the dec. and ra velocity vector sum, then get the stated radial velocity and you now have the object‘s motion (vector) relative to Earth.

But the trick, IMO, is to recognize that the y-components of both the star and the intersecting ship must match, else no intersection. I stumbled into a shooter’s video game article on their use of this trick.

Once the y-vector component is known then the ship’s x-component is found, and hence the net ship velocity for any desired intersection point. For minimum distance, make the intersection to be at 90 deg, giving us a right triangle, and easy math.

#### Jzz

The times to stars isn’t too hard to calculate somewhat accurately even though they are moving about the speed of our current rockets. Too often I see erroneous estimates for travel time because, say for Alpha Cen, their use of 4.3 lyrs as the distance is held constant, failing to note that Alpha Cen will get to a little over only 3 lyrs in about 15,000 years, IIRC.
The only problem is the 67,000 odd years it will take to get there. It is a difficult number to get around. After all how many people live to be a hundred? Not many. In any case I doubt if a hundred year old will be of any use in space or anywhere else. They are more less figureheads or totem pole like figures, their contribution must necessarily be minimal. Roughly 5000 years since the great pyramids of Egypt were built , yet that 5000 years encompasses almost the whole of civilised humanity.

Helio

#### Helio

Yes, but it’s remarkable that we have the technology today to build probes capable of arriving our neighbor in only ~21 years by reaching a 0.2c speed. SR grants fun science fiction, but sometimes fiction slips out of the bonds of fantasy, and into reality.

#### Jzz

Yes, but it’s remarkable that we have the technology today to build probes capable of arriving our neighbor in only ~21 years by reaching a 0.2c speed. SR grants fun science fiction, but sometimes fiction slips out of the bonds of fantasy, and into reality.

Probes yes, but manned vehicles? It is a pretty sure thing that in the not too far future the realisation will arise that it is probes that will lead the way. In fact your estimate of 0.2 c might be conservative, if enough thought were given to the subject. A continuous thrust of 1g should result, over the course of two or three months, in a significant percentage of the speed of light. With no need to worry about life support systems, and the resultant weight reduction, such a scenario might become possible with unmanned probes.

#### Jzz

Yes, most electric fields are cancelled out by closely lying particles of the opposite charge but EM waves are created by unbalanced moving charges. And you are correct there is not actually two fields, electric and magnetic they are the same thing. Magnetism is simply the consequence of Lorentz contraction applied to a moving charge. The fact a moving charge creates a magnetic field was stated by Maxwell. Einstein saw this and knew that motion was relative. It was one of the things that caused him to write his theories. The Michelson-Morely experiment showed conclusively there was no aether and the speed of light was invariant in inertial frames of reference.
Looked at in a disinterested way, which is what science says should happen, doesn’t this whole theory of fields sound over the top? Firstly, and leaving aside the other (twenty? Thirty? Forty? ), types of fields that must exist if these two fields exist. How likely is it that these two fields the electric field and the magnetic fields exist? How did they come to permeate the entire Universe? How is it that they only manifest in the electron: one field, being present when the electron is stationary and both fields being present when the electron is moving? Further if moving electrons are responsible for a magnetic field, how are permanent magnets formed? Do magnets also exhibit an electric field? Yes, this takes place in the opposite way to which magnetic fields are formed, i.e., a moving magnet produces an electric field. But how true is this statement? Does it mean that no electric fields are present around a permanent magnet? How can the two fields around a permanent magnet be differentiated?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to consider both magnetic and electric fields to be different aspects of the same phenomenon? Therefore, an electric field exists when a difference of potential exists between two objects. That is to say an electric field is a polarised field. A magnetic field exists when an actual transfer of energy between two objects takes place. Energy is flowing, because an electromotive force exists between two objects. A natural corollary to this idea is that it means that energy ( an electric current) must be flowing in every permanent magnet. However, this electric current is flowing in closed loops that are essentially neutral. Therefore no electricity can be drawn from magnets except by these closed loops of electric current inducing currents in moving conductors brought into their vicinity. Therefore magnets represent frozen electricity, it is impossible to distinguish a field around a permanent magnet and the field that exists around a current carrying wire. To say that this field is due to the natural spin of electrons when the electrons are aligned in a particular manner falls far short of an adequate explanation.

What is another explanation? One very pertinent explanation is that a real tangible electric dipole field exists that p-ermeates every part of the Universe. Using the same technique that quantum mechanics uses, one can say that it just is! But, there is no need to do that. Today everyone has a smart phone that is processing information at Gigabits per second. Processing means collecting information, assessing it and assigning storage. Yet, an electron which is only 10^-15m across. (Classical diameter of the electron) is supposed not to be able to oscillate in a manner that gives meaning to the word photon frequency. Yes, it is true, quantum mechanics holds that only waves have frequency, photons do not possess frequency. Yet proof of this frequency is clearly available in atomic clocks. Given that there is a huge disparity of one to a hundred trillion per second, (1: 100,000,000,000,000) in every interaction. While matter was being formed after the Big Bang, over thousands or even millions of years, photons were being produced in unimaginable numbers. What happened to all these photons, they could not cross the edge of the Universe, since there is nothing there. Instead, they expanded out with the Universe forming a linked network of infinitesimal electric dipoles of extremely low energy (photons) that permeate every part of the Universe and that we know of as Dark Matter.
Light is born out of light, light travels through light and then returns into light.

Last edited:

#### Alain Serhal

All Scientist said that at the edge of the universe dwell the dark matters because Light didn't go there and there is Dark Energy all around the Universe which is approx. true B U T

For Me it is also Absolutely TRUE that Light is there after that expansion and it is here and everywhere, so they will discover it one day before I die. I should tell all people on earth that Darkness "Emptiness" is in Light and not Light is in Emptiness.

Light is eternal as it is and without edge. But we as human consider it like that but remember it has no edge but it is a function vector of particle and wave at the same time that make itself metamorphoses as a shape to create matter. It is untouchable but you feel its ENERGY, COLORS & SHAPES. It is the Volumetric Aura of the constructive mass that have no edge "Freezing SpaceTime-Light Mechanism".

It is a fusion and fission at the same time once all Photons collapsed together and captivated in the core of a spherical mirror medium for the QUANTA NUCLEAR REACTION "DIVISION & MULTIPLICATION in the same manner of TIME to create a Black Hole from Fusion/Fission of Dark Photons"
YOU CAN FEEL IT in my NEXT THREAD "CREATING BLACK HOLE"

BLOGS

The Light is more powerful than Gravity and then anything else because it carries ENERGY to construct the Dark matter "Mass" and to form that Gravity from its ENERGY to Log and ENTER in it.

Those make some comprehension slow and lead some people into confusion to create NEW Technologies.
Remember we are still in MARS & VENUS and the Universe is Full of stars and constellation and they are not only for decoration and for equilibrium, we as human Being one day we should explore deep the space to go live there like starwars, interstellar, matrix movies. and Remember that the Atomic/ hydrogen Bomb is too small on earth in front of the UNIVERSE.

WHAT THEY DID IN SPACE TILL NOW? EXPLORATION?!!!

The emptiness exists after All but it is inside Light itself. If you remove things in life you see space and if you remove that space you see emptiness and if you remove that emptiness you see Light again. Light is also there even if the Light expansion of the universe still expanding from the Core Source of the Bubble/or # worlds.

The Multiverse is Full of Light that are some of them Active and some other Darkness "Deactivate" "Dark Photons".

Light is everywhere, Here in the middle, on the edge and in the multiverse and after that darkness there is Light.

The Light is a shell of emptiness itself and everything else, that are the deactivated Photons called "Dark Photons" and the original standard activation one which are called "Photons".

The Light Photon particle have a tiny epsilon black hole inside where if you go more inside you will come back from behind and see your self again. it is an incarnation Loop of the n Dimension and Black Hole "torus Hole" in the n-1 D. the same when all photon light collapse together they form the gravity behind to penetrate inside to create matter from emptiness.

"The Light from where it goes it returns, and if it goes to somewhere in space-time like it didn't go to anywhere and goes to everywhere at the same time, by its irrational constant speed C=π it makes ENERGY. It is untouchable and entangled as the same photon could be in two or more places at the same time"

The Light is made from Particle and Wave at the same time it could be here and it could be there and it could be emptiness itself which is Darkness with DARK ENERGY coming from All the source of those Quanta Light Particles Photons. Those Quanta Photons "Light" have no edge but infinity as an entity of existence and create those emptiness "Dark Matter" rings or spherical or any forms. When the Light didn't touch yet the matter, it stay dark so we called them Dark Matter but in the end those are masses but Light is massless, visible and invisible at the same time and they could be found here, in our dreams and in eternity, same aspects functionality mechanism.

When Light "Photons" moves and propagate by virtue it makes the Gravity "The Gravitons" to penetrate into itself "DARK PHOTON" to create the MASS "Dark Matter". Once the "Dark Photons" collapsed together it make a sort of emptiness to absorb all its dark energy formation to open the Gate of Black Hole to create the dark matter that popped up the Darkness, from itself.

DARK PHOTONS - BLACK HOLE CREATION - PROJECT

Last edited:

#### billslugg

"How is it that they only manifest in the electron: one field, being present when the electron is stationary and both fields being present when the electron is moving?" - Jzz

This is the exact question led Einstein to develop relativity. He observed, by looking at Maxwell's equations, that a stationary electron had only an electric field, while a moving electron added a magnetic field. This led to the observation that a magnetic field could be measured by an observer sitting on a roadside bench as the electron passed by, but an observer riding on the electron would see no magnetic field. Einstein said the magnetic field was relative, thus relativity.

Consider two parallel wires with current moving in opposite directions. When an electron moves down a wire, it looks at its fellow electrons and sees no movement but when it looks at the oncoming electrons it sees movement thus Lorentz contraction. It sees more electrons in the other wire thus it repels, thus we get rail guns.

But, we note the electrons are moving very slowly, how can Lorentz contraction kick in so soon? In a #10 wire, at 100 amps, the bulk velocity of the electrons is about 3 mm per second. Lorentz contraction at such a low velocity is around 10^-23. However, the force of the charge is 10^32 times more powerful than what we are used to, gravity. The result is a measurable force.

Magnetism is simply the electric force accounting for relativity. Magnetism does not exist as an "entity". It is a mathematical construct used to easily determine the effects of relativity.

"Further if moving electrons are responsible for a magnetic field, how are permanent magnets formed?" - Jzz

Permanent magnets have atoms with a magnetic moment. That is, they have a bulge on one side with a positive charge and a bulge on the other side with a negative charge. Any such charge imbalance is a tiny magnet. Add them together and you get a big magnet. Why do unbalanced charges on an atom make it a magnet? Because the charge is moving around as it fills the orbital. Such movement invokes relativity.

#### Helio

This is the exact question led Einstein to develop relativity. He observed, by looking at Maxwell's equations, that a stationary electron had only an electric field, while a moving electron added a magnetic field. This led to the observation that a magnetic field could be measured by an observer sitting on a roadside bench as the electron passed by, but an observer riding on the electron would see no magnetic field. Einstein said the magnetic field was relative, thus relativity.
If you have some references that this is what led Einstein to relativity, I'd enjoy seeing them.

Regardless, your explanation is really intriguing. It makes great sense that an either would be superfluous if an electron's own view of itself (w/o a mag field) would be independent of the space it's travelling. I never considered that. This seems like a great way to help explain relativity.

My limited understanding is that Einstein, and a few others, were recognizing that the laws of physics would not be the same for other inertial (moving) frames. The fixed universe was suddenly becoming dynamic thanks to the recent findings from astronomers, which may have got the ball rolling for relativity. Einstein imagined what it would be like to catch a photon, and was convinced this would be impossible, hence it would always be observed to travel at the speed of c, regardless of other's motions. This, somehow, allowed the laws of physics to suddenly work fine for any inertial frame. He wanted to call it his "Invariant theory", but the media simply called it what they wanted - Relativity.

But I don't recall seeing a nice explanation of why the speed of light being constant would "fix" all these frames. I suspect there's a simple reason for it, but my brain is hinting to me that it might have to rearrange both marbles to address this.

Catastrophe

#### Classical Motion

An EM field of a charge, spends half it's time, half it's rotation...external to the charge. During this time the EM field is electric. The other half of the time, the EM field is internal to the charge. During this time....that electric field has been twisted, torqued......and that twist makes it a magnetic field. The EM field of a charge alternates between E and M with rotation. BUT.....this is not the rotation that you think it is. To understand those fields, you need to understand the structure of the particle. And that's why I usually don't mention this and keep the E and the M as separate fields.

Every charge comes with a basic amount of E charge and M charge. 50-50. But only the M flux can be exchanged. Added M flux will contract the charge and give it more energy. Rarefy-ing M flux will relax and expand the charge.

Accelerating charge(current) does NOT manufacture a magnetic field. All it does is align an existing non-aligned M field. When that current is cut, all those aligned M fields become non-aligned. BUT....there are still there.

In order to emit.....one needs to understand the structure. With certain conditions, a charge can emit under acceleration. BUT, almost all emission does not come from acceleration. It comes from an instant stop.....of acceleration. This physical jerk, this quick stoppage is what separates the EM field from the charge. For the field to leave the source, the field must be cut from it.

The EM field is in rotation with and around the charge. The E and the M have angular momentum. When cut, the fields instantly change from angular to linear, but keep their momentum. Because these fields have no mass and no inertia.......this change from angular the linear happens in an instant.....and the cut field is emitted as a chunk.......NOT a stream.......which would take duration.

Light has a duty cycle and is space width modulated with emitter motion. But our modern science uses spacetime to explain this simple dynamic.

#### Alain Serhal

"How is it that they only manifest in the electron: one field, being present when the electron is stationary and both fields being present when the electron is moving?" - Jzz

This is the exact question led Einstein to develop relativity. He observed, by looking at Maxwell's equations, that a stationary electron had only an electric field, while a moving electron added a magnetic field. This led to the observation that a magnetic field could be measured by an observer sitting on a roadside bench as the electron passed by, but an observer riding on the electron would see no magnetic field. Einstein said the magnetic field was relative, thus relativity.

Consider two parallel wires with current moving in opposite directions. When an electron moves down a wire, it looks at its fellow electrons and sees no movement but when it looks at the oncoming electrons it sees movement thus Lorentz contraction. It sees more electrons in the other wire thus it repels, thus we get rail guns.

But, we note the electrons are moving very slowly, how can Lorentz contraction kick in so soon? In a #10 wire, at 100 amps, the bulk velocity of the electrons is about 3 mm per second. Lorentz contraction at such a low velocity is around 10^-23. However, the force of the charge is 10^32 times more powerful than what we are used to, gravity. The result is a measurable force.

Magnetism is simply the electric force accounting for relativity. Magnetism does not exist as an "entity". It is a mathematical construct used to easily determine the effects of relativity.

"Further if moving electrons are responsible for a magnetic field, how are permanent magnets formed?" - Jzz

Permanent magnets have atoms with a magnetic moment. That is, they have a bulge on one side with a positive charge and a bulge on the other side with a negative charge. Any such charge imbalance is a tiny magnet. Add them together and you get a big magnet. Why do unbalanced charges on an atom make it a magnet? Because the charge is moving around as it fills the orbital. Such movement invokes relativity.
Photons are not like Electrons. Photons have constant Speed C=π Mm/Cs as a shell for every particles and everything is relative "Visibility" to that speed or to its own regular speed beginning from zeros to other levels; Furthermore, Everything "Dark Matter + Matter"is build on Light (Dark Photons "Dark Energy" + Photons "Energy") because light is always in movement and it has its own speed to make spaces from its particles photonics spiral spins. Photons could be found inside protons and neutron, inside darkness "Black holes" and outside the universe. The zeros goes for the deactivated DARK Photons and for the absolute emptiness where the speed is taken into consideration to build space and construct matter. If there is no speed there is no movement and there is no space dimension. "Emptiness is in Light and not Light is in emptiness".

Light in the nD could metamorphoses into Emptiness and darkness itself in its shell in some parts like black hole inside singularity in the n-1 D "Cosmos Topology". The Light is invisible Quarks and colorful at the same time and once it touch the matter by its energy that it forms we see the color Gluons of Light the RGB. Besides, we consider the dark photons as absolute emptiness when photons are deactivated. The Light once it moves it creates the Gravity in extreme condensed condition like while it forms the black hole in its extreme gravity to penetrate inside to the other world to generate matter from the quasar to forms the stars and planets of the galaxy.

Electrons could have different aspects of speed. It is another subject matter because they have mass and polarity in their particles. They spin half 1/2 while Photons spin 1 Full Cycle.

#### billslugg

Need to make change.

Hz per second is a rate of change of a frequency.

Hz is a unit of frequency. One cycle per second equals 1 Hz.

At a 1 Hz/s rate of increase, a 1 Hz signal will be 2 Hz at the end of the first second.

#### Jzz

Need to make change.
I did in fact note that instance, but I thought "a 60 Hz signal has a wave length of 5,000,000 m was accurate enough.

Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K